Speaker 1: Hey, what's up, guys? This is duh. Do us a
Speaker 1: favorite and check out our Patreon page. It's patreon dot
Speaker 1: com slash the Teamhouse. You get both Teamhouse episodes and
Speaker 1: As on Geopolitics episodes completely ad free. You get them
Speaker 1: early too. You can ask us questions. You can also
Speaker 1: watch the Team House episodes live as we shoot them.
Speaker 1: So uh, and you help support the show and support
Speaker 1: what we're doing here. It's patreon dot com Slash the Teamhouse.
Speaker 1: Those links are in the description or if you're listening,
Speaker 1: it's in the show notes down below, so you can
Speaker 1: click it real quick and easy, and it helps us
Speaker 1: keep the lights on. So we appreciate it, and we
Speaker 1: appreciate you guys listening. Thanks a bunch, everybody. Welcome to
Speaker 1: another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics. I'm here today with
Speaker 1: Andy Milburn, Mark Polilaroppos, and Mick Molroy. Some housekeeping. Mark
Speaker 1: is gonna be joining us regularly now. He's gonna be
Speaker 1: taking over my role as like host slash moderator because like,
Speaker 1: I never wanted to do it, and I just did
Speaker 1: it because the team needed it. So what I got, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm replacing myself in terms of hosts I'm still gonna
Speaker 1: be here and rule with an iron fist, don't get
Speaker 1: her twisted. But with another Greek, and thank god not
Speaker 1: another Marine.
Speaker 2: Mark.
Speaker 3: Well, I can see we got the Greeks and the
Speaker 3: left and the Marines and the right.
Speaker 4: Is that where we're going with at the bottom, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Greeks around Yeah, well it's it's another Yeah, be careful,
Speaker 1: be careful. Uh it's another CIA guy, which you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what I was my order from the
Speaker 1: agency to get another CIA guy on so we can
Speaker 1: continue the CIA propaganda. Hear, But uh no, no, no,
Speaker 1: it's a I don't know if Mark is exactly on
Speaker 1: the CIA Christmas card.
Speaker 2: List or anything like that anymore. Yeah, well he said
Speaker 2: that he's.
Speaker 4: Gonna be higher on the list than that guy you
Speaker 4: head on who is now in the Big House.
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, Dale Bendler, Yeah, yes, thank you, Andy.
Speaker 2: It's for reminding us always quiet.
Speaker 4: When I pointed that out, I named him.
Speaker 1: Listen, I can't be perfect. We've had four hundred episodes
Speaker 1: of the Team House. We're gonna have a couple.
Speaker 4: Of You've only had a handful of pedophiles and traders.
Speaker 1: We've had one pedo and one trader that we know
Speaker 1: of true, that we know of right, we can take
Speaker 1: a look at the Epstein list. All right, Mark, take
Speaker 1: it away.
Speaker 5: D thank you very much, Andy and Mick. It's an
Speaker 5: honor to be amongst both of you. You guys are,
Speaker 5: of course both my friends. Have known you both for
Speaker 5: a while. Andy, you and I were on a kind
Speaker 5: of little bit of a mini g hot on a
Speaker 5: separate issue in terms of Gaza war crimes, and I
Speaker 5: will I'm proud to have supported you on that. Did
Speaker 5: you ever do the War in the Rocks episode by
Speaker 5: the way.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I did a podcast it's coming out this week,
Speaker 4: Good look Ryan and written a follow up article that,
Speaker 4: by the way, totally defunks list ridiculous bs that those
Speaker 4: two particular guys for bringing up.
Speaker 5: And Uh and Mick always an honor to be with you.
Speaker 5: Of course, we have a long and assorted history together
Speaker 5: from the mountains of northern Iraq to the but with
Speaker 5: the plains of Paktika Province in eastern Afghanistan. And Uh,
Speaker 5: Mick your your claim to fame as you were one
Speaker 5: of the two former ground branch officers who gave me
Speaker 5: a really terrible nickname in Iraq. If you remember the
Speaker 5: fighting lambshop, which I will when I'd walk down the
Speaker 5: halls and c I A when i'd see one of you,
Speaker 5: all premier tribe, when they would scream that out, I
Speaker 5: would like duck into a corner and shame.
Speaker 3: Why it was about the dustache.
Speaker 5: It's a good I know, it's good. I had some good, good,
Speaker 5: good jobs going on. But let's let's just kick off
Speaker 5: on here and and just you know, first and foremost
Speaker 5: again to be with you guys. I think I've been
Speaker 5: down the team house about a million times, so it's
Speaker 5: fun to be back, and especially in Ason too. But
Speaker 5: I think the biggest kind of the story we should
Speaker 5: start with is the is the Munich Security Conference wrapping
Speaker 5: up today in fact, uh and you know, and and
Speaker 5: after last year is kind of debacle where Vice President
Speaker 5: Vance basically insulted everybody on the planet if you're in
Speaker 5: Europe or everyone in Europe. Certainly, I think Secretary of
Speaker 5: Rubio and his speech was certainly something that people were
Speaker 5: looking forward to to see if there was perhaps a
Speaker 5: softer tone. And I have my thoughts on this. I
Speaker 5: have a very good analogy I want to make, but
Speaker 5: I'm going to save that till after I get both
Speaker 5: andy and mixed views on that. So, Andy, what are
Speaker 5: your what are your thoughts on Munich a good place here?
Speaker 5: But and what what did Rubio accomplish or what did
Speaker 5: he not?
Speaker 4: Yes, so I I'm going to keep my comments brief,
Speaker 4: which will please much of the audience, so that I
Speaker 4: can defer to the to YouTube who you're going to
Speaker 4: be able to speak far more profoundly on this topic.
Speaker 4: But I would say this, Yes, you know Vance's comments
Speaker 4: last year. I think we're like nails on the chalkboard
Speaker 4: for most of us who have had anything to do
Speaker 4: even at the point end of the spare of foreign
Speaker 4: policy and understand a little bit of history. And I think,
Speaker 4: you know, I think this was honestly, I thought this
Speaker 4: was Rubio trying to draw, trying to walk the line
Speaker 4: between what in his heart of hearts, not inside Rubio's heart,
Speaker 4: but in his heart of hearts he realizes is important,
Speaker 4: you know, the fact that the United States depends on
Speaker 4: partnerships and alliances, and that we represent something in Europe,
Speaker 4: something that you know, as Rubio points out himself, he
Speaker 4: grew up with the security stability, all of these things.
Speaker 4: But at the same time, there was that pointed message
Speaker 4: right that Europe needs to step up to the plate
Speaker 4: to take charge of its own security, which I don't
Speaker 4: think anyone in this group would argue with right. So
Speaker 4: it was a balancing act. It didn't like most balancing acts.
Speaker 4: It didn't give any of the audience exactly what they
Speaker 4: wanted to hear, but at least there was a little
Speaker 4: more PLACATORI than Vance's speech last year and didn't leave
Speaker 4: the United States looking quite quite such an outlier.
Speaker 3: Your thoughts, Yeah, well, first of us are with a
Speaker 3: shameless plug. So we have We're starting the Whitefish Security
Speaker 3: Summit this year in April. Hopefully all you guys will
Speaker 3: be coming out eventually if not.
Speaker 6: Anyway, this is it.
Speaker 3: It's called the Monte it was called the Montana Intelligence Summit,
Speaker 3: and now LOBO is a partner to the group, so
Speaker 3: it's now the white Fish Security Summing. It's going to
Speaker 3: be we hope similar to or not want to be
Speaker 3: too cocky here, but similar to the Munich but really
Speaker 3: heavily intel and special operations. So like this year. General
Speaker 3: Stan McCrystal is one of the headliners, and a bunch
Speaker 3: of former senior CI folks but it's annual, right, so
Speaker 3: we hope to have eyes on and the whole crew
Speaker 3: out here open invitation obviously for that. But again it's
Speaker 3: gonna going to be broad foreign policy national security topics,
Speaker 3: but it's always going to keep its kind of core uniqueness,
Speaker 3: which is special operations and CIA type spin. So specific
Speaker 3: to the actual Munich conference, agree with Andy, the issue
Speaker 3: I think if I was Europeans is everything that Vice
Speaker 3: President Vance said that was controversial is codified inside the
Speaker 3: national security strategy. So even with Rubio's I think a
Speaker 3: moderated tone, which I do believe is more in line
Speaker 3: with his actual philosophy. I think he's more of a
Speaker 3: traditional Republican on the foreign policy stage. But even with that,
Speaker 3: even with his comments that were more conciliatory and more
Speaker 3: positive toward Europe and you know, our tied heritage and
Speaker 3: everything like that, if I was a European leader, I'd
Speaker 3: still look at the strategy, right. It didn't change the
Speaker 3: actual plan for the US going forward, just was a
Speaker 3: better way to present some of it. So, and we
Speaker 3: saw a lot of comments from you know, the Chancellor
Speaker 3: of Germany Mertz and that, you know, really question US
Speaker 3: leadership going forward. And I think we saw that from
Speaker 3: several countries. Obviously some europe Being countries like Denmark are
Speaker 3: super upset about the whole Greenland thing. Not to go
Speaker 3: down that road, but there's a lot of resentment in
Speaker 3: the Europe right now towards the US. It was probably
Speaker 3: and I'm not saying a lot of it isn't earned.
Speaker 3: I mean, I agree with Andy, they kind of didn't
Speaker 3: take their security serious. They thought, Okay, we have the
Speaker 3: big brother that is the United States, so we can
Speaker 3: spend on social programs.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 3: That's that shouldn't have been the case. But now I
Speaker 3: think primarily because Russia innovated Ukraine, Europe is taking its
Speaker 3: security serious. And my last points on that part, we
Speaker 3: need Europe. We are basing in Europe. It's actually super
Speaker 3: beneficial to the United States. If not, we have big
Speaker 3: problems projecting force around the world if you take out
Speaker 3: all the European basing and access and the fact that
Speaker 3: we have pre stage forces there. Also, Europe, even though
Speaker 3: it's you know, as I just said, not taking its
Speaker 3: security serious, is now it's going to be the partner
Speaker 3: that we always wanted, right It's in the future. So
Speaker 3: that's even more of a reason. In addition to long
Speaker 3: standing ties and being the pinnacle of our security structure
Speaker 3: since the end of World War Two, they're going to
Speaker 3: be even more on par with what we wanted soon.
Speaker 3: Right these countries are spending a lot more on their
Speaker 3: own security, and eventually they will be the partners that
Speaker 3: we always wanted, and we don't want to rupture the
Speaker 3: relationship at a time when that's going to happen. It
Speaker 3: would make no sense for the US. We'd actually have
Speaker 3: to spend way more on our national security, didn't have
Speaker 3: the strong partners and allies that I think we've always
Speaker 3: had in Europe. And yes, they might have neglected some
Speaker 3: of their own defense, but let's not forget that they
Speaker 3: did go to war with US for twenty years after
Speaker 3: Article five was triggered after September eleventh. So they are
Speaker 3: the partners I think philosophically, and they're going to be
Speaker 3: the partners that we want practically in the sense that
Speaker 3: I think they're taking their security very serious right now.
Speaker 3: And also remember Ukraine is still fighting Russia. Russia's only
Speaker 3: taken twenty percent of their territory and they've basically fought
Speaker 3: them to a draw. Right, that's one country in Europe,
Speaker 3: not NATO, but one country in Europe who's probably now
Speaker 3: the most effective fighting force in Europe right now. And
Speaker 3: I think the lessons learned need to be brought into
Speaker 3: the rest of NATO. We just heard about this NATO
Speaker 3: exercise where the Ukrainians essentially wiped the floor with NATO. Right,
Speaker 3: that needs to be in corporate rate, it into European NATO,
Speaker 3: and that needs to be a benefit to the United States.
Speaker 3: So anyway, I'm getting on a diatribe here, but these
Speaker 3: are all the things that I'm sure we're discussed on
Speaker 3: the sidelines of NATO, and hopefully the US delegation understands this.
Speaker 5: So you know, one of the things that that I
Speaker 5: think I always try to find kind of an interesting
Speaker 5: analogy that that kind of the lay person I can use.
Speaker 5: I'm gonna throw this out here. I'm gonna use it
Speaker 5: later on on some TV hits, and so Mick, I
Speaker 5: want to see if you do as well. We can
Speaker 5: kind of compare this. This to me is like and
Speaker 5: this is not reflective of my current relationship. I'm happily married.
Speaker 5: So let's go back to college. When you get a
Speaker 5: middle of the night drunk text from your ex girlfriend
Speaker 5: saying hey, I want to come over, and it's all
Speaker 5: giddy and you have a great time. But then you
Speaker 5: wake up the next morning and you realize, what the
Speaker 5: hell did I just do. The Europeans kind of embrace
Speaker 5: of this, the standing ovation, I thought was a little preposterous,
Speaker 5: because you know, they're they're, they're they're you know, this
Speaker 5: is the whole idea of signal versus noise. So so
Speaker 5: Rubio had a nicer speech, well, great, that's your that's
Speaker 5: your ex girlfriend calling you up and saying, hey, I
Speaker 5: want to get back together tonight.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 5: But then you know the next morning when you realize, well,
Speaker 5: wait a second, my ex girlfriend is really maybe not
Speaker 5: a nice person.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 5: And I think that's what's happening right now. I talked
Speaker 5: to some some European officials who were actually leaving uh
Speaker 5: Munich right now, and they said, look, we're trying to
Speaker 5: kind of understand what happened here. But I think that
Speaker 5: some of that initial oh my god, the big relief,
Speaker 5: I think at the head of the Munich security conference
Speaker 5: like said, this is a sigh of relief. I found
Speaker 5: that to be preposterous because you're not talking about actual
Speaker 5: facts on the ground. And if you take and so
Speaker 5: Rubio's tone was nicer, got it, vance was a total
Speaker 5: jerk last year, But if you look at actually what
Speaker 5: was said, the substance of it was not all that different.
Speaker 5: And there's a couple of pieces of this too, which
Speaker 5: I still think are a bit weird and insulting. I mean,
Speaker 5: you know, this whole idea that that Rubio talks about,
Speaker 5: and the State Department tweeted this out about let's let's
Speaker 5: you know, we have to celebrate our old heritage. I mean,
Speaker 5: you know, that's that's like a dog whistle for some
Speaker 5: weird ship in terms of kind of white nationalism, the
Speaker 5: notion of the US now supporting think tanks in Europe
Speaker 5: that kind of promote the far right. I mean, look
Speaker 5: where Rubio then jetted off to Slovakia and then he's
Speaker 5: going to Hungry the two European countries that actually are
Speaker 5: not for unity on Ukraine for example, And so, uh,
Speaker 5: you know, I'm looking at you guys. You didn't like
Speaker 5: my analogy about the girlfriend thing the middle of.
Speaker 6: The night text.
Speaker 7: I like that.
Speaker 2: I thought it was great.
Speaker 6: Okay, he likes it. Good.
Speaker 3: I've been I've been married for thirty two years. Man,
Speaker 3: I don't even know.
Speaker 5: I mean, don't you get anology by someone like middle
Speaker 5: of the night and you went back to them and
Speaker 5: you realized the next morning was stupid.
Speaker 6: It was yeah, I understand, indeed happened last night.
Speaker 3: They just said a concept no.
Speaker 6: Kind of abused spouse and okay, that was the other one.
Speaker 4: It was, uh, you know, thank god, we're not going
Speaker 4: to listen to another our beating session. And by the way,
Speaker 4: I absolutely agree with all you guys, and I think
Speaker 4: we should probably get someone who's really obtuse on their
Speaker 4: shows that we have more argument. You know, I'd like
Speaker 4: to point out too, because I'm hearing, you know, there's
Speaker 4: this undercurrent of yep, we told them, and now they're
Speaker 4: really fixing house. No, they started fixing house in twenty
Speaker 4: twenty two when the message came not from US, it
Speaker 4: came from the Russians. That is when Sweden and Finland,
Speaker 4: I mean, that is when Finland decided to join NATO.
Speaker 4: That is when Poland made the decision to up their
Speaker 4: their defense spending, you know, and it's already one of
Speaker 4: the you know, the leading countries in Europe as far
Speaker 4: as military strength and if you look at the rhetoric
Speaker 4: coming from France to and Germany, it all started there
Speaker 4: in early twenty twenty two. Yes, the US may have
Speaker 4: may have thrown cold water on on any any lingering
Speaker 4: belief that the United States was behind it all on
Speaker 4: the side of freedom and all of this. Uh, but
Speaker 4: but that wake up call was already under effect thanks
Speaker 4: to you, thanks to booting.
Speaker 5: Nick, let me ask you a quick question about our
Speaker 5: old world, the intel world, and then and then Andy too,
Speaker 5: we can well we'll get to get onto another topic
Speaker 5: right after this, but one last piece, because it has
Speaker 5: to do with European agency, and that's the notion of
Speaker 5: how much can Europe actually go it alone? I mean,
Speaker 5: one of the things that that that kind of struck
Speaker 5: me is that there's still this this notion of dependency.
Speaker 5: But the dependency, if you think about it, is probably
Speaker 5: in the intelligence sphere and things like like big items
Speaker 5: such as satellite you know, i R things, things in
Speaker 5: which you know, perhaps Europe can't uh, you know, deliver
Speaker 5: to Ukraine as much as we can. But how much
Speaker 5: of that is actually true? I don't know the answer
Speaker 5: to this, But with the amount that Europe is actually
Speaker 5: providing to Ukraine. Now, I mean, the fact that they're
Speaker 5: not at the negotiating table is preposterous, and why the
Speaker 5: US is even leading doesn't even make any sense since
Speaker 5: we're not giving them any We're selling weapons to NATO
Speaker 5: under the Pearl Program to get to Ukraine. We're not
Speaker 5: giving Ukraine as anything. But let Nick just start with
Speaker 5: you quickly on the Intel side. How much independence can
Speaker 5: Europe actually seek to get? Which would and because in
Speaker 5: some ways I think maybe the solution to all of
Speaker 5: this is actually the Trump gets bored, the US goes home,
Speaker 5: and then Europe actually does fully take over, because then
Speaker 5: you'd have a much more kind of equitable idea of uh,
Speaker 5: your support for Ukraine as being critical to Europe.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I mean Intel, like all the security our
Speaker 3: partners around the world, not just in Europe. Right, they
Speaker 3: rely up in somewhere as you and I did knows this,
Speaker 3: right because basically they teach a lot of their chiefs
Speaker 3: basically how to get an information from the CIA station chief.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 3: And it's not just human intelligence, it's you know, the
Speaker 3: functioning role D and I right, representative. So it's going
Speaker 3: to take a long time to replace that, but I
Speaker 3: believe from talking to several friends, both in Canada it's
Speaker 3: just forty minutes that way, and then in Europe and
Speaker 3: then even in the Far East they're planning to do so.
Speaker 3: They're planning to do so because we've already had a
Speaker 3: few circumstances with the US's threaten to cut off or
Speaker 3: have actually as cut off intelligence, and that shad a
Speaker 3: shot across the bow that you know. I mean, if
Speaker 3: you put yourself any of us in their shoes, would
Speaker 3: you ever want to be in that position again?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 3: So it's again I think it's going to create a
Speaker 3: more independent ally and partner group for the United States.
Speaker 3: But how we do it matters, and you know, we're
Speaker 3: going to have a lot less leverage in the future
Speaker 3: for what we would like to see, which sometimes it
Speaker 3: needs cajoling with our allies and partners to go along with.
Speaker 3: When they've become completely independent and they did it in
Speaker 3: this manner, you know what I mean by force by
Speaker 3: threatening to cut off intel, you know, a war for
Speaker 3: example on.
Speaker 6: Ukraine.
Speaker 3: So I think that's going to be a pretty substantial
Speaker 3: issue going forward. I do think all these countries are
Speaker 3: looking at it. But it's not just Intel. What else
Speaker 3: did the Europeans rely heavily on Well, Europe does have
Speaker 3: nuclear weapons, but they don't have anything near what the
Speaker 3: US have, for like five hundred compared to a couple
Speaker 3: thousands in the US. So there's already countries, especially in
Speaker 3: the Nordic countries, in the countries that don't have them,
Speaker 3: they're talking about acquiring nuclear weapons. And now that we've
Speaker 3: jumped out of the New Start treaty essentially didn't renew
Speaker 3: it or extend it, that sends a message, right. It
Speaker 3: doesn't mean that every European country can end up with
Speaker 3: a nuclear weapon, but it certainly says that we are not,
Speaker 3: you know, entirely interested in stemming the potential for a
Speaker 3: nuclear arms base, right. And I don't know that we're
Speaker 3: even negotiating on a new one, although that was the issue,
Speaker 3: you know, including China and such. So I know that
Speaker 3: I viewed these a lot together. So intel is an
Speaker 3: issue for the Europeans, all of their security is, and
Speaker 3: I think they're going to relook at it again. If
Speaker 3: we did this right, we come up with we come
Speaker 3: out with stronger partners, like we would be going to
Speaker 3: our you know, fellow chiefs of UH you know, the
Speaker 3: Intel services and getting inform more information from them, right.
Speaker 3: But you know, one of the big issues, of course
Speaker 3: you just said, and that is a lot of our
Speaker 3: intel is up there, right so, and that is expensive.
Speaker 3: So they have to be ready to, uh, you know,
Speaker 3: start spending a lot more on their national security and defense,
Speaker 3: which might mean less you know, available for their own
Speaker 3: social programs. But that's the decision they have to make.
Speaker 3: But it seems like they're being forced to make it
Speaker 3: right now.
Speaker 6: Andy.
Speaker 5: On the special operations side, one of the things that
Speaker 5: I was just in London for a couple of days
Speaker 5: and I you know, actually made it to the Venerable
Speaker 5: Special Forces there, which is kind of cool place.
Speaker 6: Uh.
Speaker 5: And and one of the things that you know, when
Speaker 5: you talk to European national security folks kind of on
Speaker 5: the you know, in the background, they're very hesitant, especially
Speaker 5: the bridge. The same thing as is the role for example,
Speaker 5: the British Special Operations community and SAS and others in Ukraine,
Speaker 5: who I think have done incredible work. I think they
Speaker 5: actually were probably more forward leaning than the Americans. I
Speaker 5: just based on the limits that the US placed on
Speaker 5: our folks. But talk a little bit about the Special
Speaker 5: operations capability of European governments, because I think that's that's
Speaker 5: something that we don't hear a lot about.
Speaker 6: No, but I guess no one writes books on it.
Speaker 5: Uh, but I think it's pretty pretty significant and could
Speaker 5: play a factor in the future as well. I mean,
Speaker 5: think about the polls, the Estonians. There's some badasses in
Speaker 5: these countries and done some really crazy ship everything I
Speaker 5: hear on this, I don't. I can't confirm any of this,
Speaker 5: but I think they're out there. So you know, what
Speaker 5: do you what do you? What's your what's your view
Speaker 5: on their their country's kind of capabilities now and then
Speaker 5: going forward? If the US is going to take a step.
Speaker 4: Back, Yeah, that's uh, I mean that's a great question.
Speaker 4: I think I will not not think. But you know,
Speaker 4: here here are the facts that that the UK definitely
Speaker 4: has been more involved in Ukraine than than the US
Speaker 4: and the operation side. They have deployed continuously a SAS
Speaker 4: squadron to Ukraine since late twenty twenty two. What exactly
Speaker 4: those guys are doing, of course isn't is an open
Speaker 4: source information, but you know, there's a good deal of training,
Speaker 4: but there's also assistance with tactical intelligence collection drones, you know,
Speaker 4: precisions strike at the tactical level, as well as a
Speaker 4: conduit of intelligence collection from ground up, which is intelligence dissemination,
Speaker 4: rapid dissemination. Collection dissemination has been a problem in Ukraine,
Speaker 4: and so the SAS are probably remember I'm speculating here
Speaker 4: enabling that to your wider question. You know, we always
Speaker 4: pride ourselves on having the most capable special operations forces
Speaker 4: in the world, and of course.
Speaker 6: We do blah blah blah.
Speaker 4: But it's a massive enterprise, right, you know, there's like
Speaker 4: seventy thousand people in SCOM. It's not it's not particularly
Speaker 4: cost effective. The Brits do this very well and and
Speaker 4: they do it by with the kind of different view
Speaker 4: of special operations. So what they cause special operations or
Speaker 4: rather special forces and let's not get into this whole
Speaker 4: greenberry bullshit about what special forces are, because they have
Speaker 4: a different In the UK special forces special operations are
Speaker 4: used interchangeably, and so you've got a very you know,
Speaker 4: you've got essentially you've got the what's it called the
Speaker 4: s R. It's going to get carved up for a
Speaker 4: forgetting the acronym here, but there are you know, they
Speaker 4: they're the unit that they turned one parent into.
Speaker 6: It's S S S R r G.
Speaker 4: It's it's.
Speaker 6: Group.
Speaker 4: You've got them, and then you've got the S A
Speaker 4: S and SBS and and that's essentially it, right and
Speaker 4: and so there you've got obviously an exquisite, very potent ability.
Speaker 4: Not this isn't all about door kicking anymore, as you
Speaker 4: guys know, it's it's mostly about special reconnaissance and that
Speaker 4: combination the S A S, SPS and and the SS
Speaker 4: S R r G, S S r G. Are they willed?
Speaker 4: You know, they punched away about their weight in doing that.
Speaker 4: But that's again that's quite a small force. But what
Speaker 4: the Brits do well as far as the conventional forces
Speaker 4: US are they they have institutionalized the ability to work
Speaker 4: by with and through other forces. So foreign internal defense
Speaker 4: is considered one of the mission of central tasks of
Speaker 4: any of any battalion. And the Brits also have formed
Speaker 4: a Ranger Regiment whose specific purpose is focusing on military assistance,
Speaker 4: which is training foreign militaries. So in their aggregate right,
Speaker 4: still fewer numbers than so Calm even when you add
Speaker 4: you know, all of these assets together, far fewer, but
Speaker 4: a significant capability. Uh and and they are heavily embedded
Speaker 4: in Ukraine. I would say the Brits are foremost, you know,
Speaker 4: I think that's that's indisputable in Europe as far as
Speaker 4: wielding that capability, and they understand they also have a
Speaker 4: couple of advantages on their side. They're not quite they're
Speaker 4: not they there was no Church Commission in the UK, right,
Speaker 4: so they don't always have to declare what the SAS
Speaker 4: is doing. And the chain of command goes very directly
Speaker 4: from the Director of Special Forces up to cabinet level.
Speaker 4: So you've you've got a a not just a really
Speaker 4: exquisite tool, but when that can be used without a
Speaker 4: lot of deliberation and frankly not a huge amount of accountability,
Speaker 4: which you know is the pros and.
Speaker 6: Ons right now.
Speaker 4: You mentioned the Poles, and we know thanks to Sean
Speaker 4: Nayler and and our own Jack, that the Poles have
Speaker 4: been up to good inside Russia itself, or at least
Speaker 4: that's you know what. The evidence indicates that the Poles
Speaker 4: are doing a lot of things that are pretty active
Speaker 4: against the Russians and have been doing that for years.
Speaker 4: Uh and so yeah, the Polish Polish Special forces. The
Speaker 4: gram at Our are not particularly big, but they have
Speaker 4: significant experience, regional experience. They know how to operate effectively
Speaker 4: in in Russian territory itself. They've proven that and and
Speaker 4: that's something that we in the US don't have either.
Speaker 4: So you know, round off, I answer to your question.
Speaker 4: And the French two are very capable. You know, it's
Speaker 4: all tier one, but they have very capable of special
Speaker 4: aberation force too. Their their use in border the Ukraine
Speaker 4: conflict unknown, but bottom line, yeah, your europe field say
Speaker 4: a really capable special operations capability.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 4: I just like to add to what you guys said
Speaker 4: to the you know, the what is why does Europe
Speaker 4: need the United States? And they have indeed been strength
Speaker 4: bolstering their capability since twenty twenty two. They probably you know,
Speaker 4: and I would say they rely on us still for ISR.
Speaker 4: Right at the strategic level, no one has the same
Speaker 4: long range strike and air superiorities as the US or
Speaker 4: the Europe's trying to get there with the eurofighter, you know,
Speaker 4: in the Grippin air defense and sad, although the Norwegians
Speaker 4: and Germans have pretty advanced system they still lean on
Speaker 4: US technologies and architectures in NATO. Now, whether whether they
Speaker 4: need to do that for much longer, I doubt. And
Speaker 4: then you have joint command and control, right if NATO
Speaker 4: goes to war. Europe has so many multiple collaboration communication frameworks,
Speaker 4: but lacks and fully integrated kind of battle management C
Speaker 4: two joint CE DO comparable to US. So that's that's
Speaker 4: where they're going to rely on us. The last thing
Speaker 4: I'll say though, in some areas like industrial defense capacity
Speaker 4: for things that are really required in the Ukraine war,
Speaker 4: Europe is ahead of us, you know, creating a manufacturing
Speaker 4: of drones, expendable drones one five to five munitions because
Speaker 4: they don't have such laborious acquisition process and because their
Speaker 4: industry is already tuned to turning out these these things.
Speaker 5: So let me let me just kind of close this
Speaker 5: UH segment on the on the Munich Security conference. I
Speaker 5: think with the notion I think everyone here would agree that,
Speaker 5: you know, national security is a team sport, and you know,
Speaker 5: we need our European allies, they need us. But I
Speaker 5: still think it remains to be seen at the level
Speaker 5: of US commitment to the alliance. And one one other
Speaker 5: kind of final point is you know, Rubio goes and
Speaker 5: he makes nice a softer tone. All of this can
Speaker 5: be blown up in one truth post X post whatever
Speaker 5: it is by Trump if he wants to, you know,
Speaker 5: invade Greenland or say something insulting to NATO partners. So
Speaker 5: the other part has to do with the reliability issues.
Speaker 5: So everyone's gonna kind of maybe be a little happier
Speaker 5: right now leaving Munich, but I'm certainly not sure if
Speaker 5: it's sustainable. Mick, let me just turn to you with
Speaker 5: the kind of this this second subject for today's podcast,
Speaker 5: which is the Tuesday talks in Geneva. Hey, by the way,
Speaker 5: maybe we can have some peace talks in Whitefish one day.
Speaker 5: If you crush this security conference you're gonna hold in
Speaker 5: the summer, we can have a Whitefish summit. But right
Speaker 5: now it's the Geneva summit. And so so it's a
Speaker 5: ron on the table Jared Kushner and Steve Whitcoff, the
Speaker 5: US envoys for everything under the sun, including when the
Speaker 5: next Super Bowl is going to be played. Are it's
Speaker 5: my own stupid quip are going to be there? And
Speaker 5: kind of the big question I think, and perhaps Mick,
Speaker 5: you're in a perfect position to ask is not in
Speaker 5: the sense of, you know, what is going to happen
Speaker 5: a month from now, We don't really know. But what
Speaker 5: do you think the Iranian negotiating position is going to be,
Speaker 5: because all eyes are really, you know, in my view,
Speaker 5: at least to see if the Iranians are going to
Speaker 5: give even just a little bit, just enough to have
Speaker 5: these negotiations continue. There's some indications that the US has
Speaker 5: kind of softened some of the positions on the zero
Speaker 5: enrichment of uranium. It's caused a bit of a stink
Speaker 5: in the national security world because you know, Trump at
Speaker 5: one point said no, no enrichment's allowed. But I think
Speaker 5: that might be on the table. Do you think the
Speaker 5: Iranians are going to come with anything that would be
Speaker 5: required to actually have negotiations continue? And then we'll get
Speaker 5: onto the last the next piece, which is actually critical
Speaker 5: in terms of the US military build up, but first
Speaker 5: and foremost the Iranian position in your view, Mick, I mean,
Speaker 5: this is what you did in the past at DD
Speaker 5: not only at the agency, but you know, Iran was
Speaker 5: front and center, and your portfolio is when you're kind
Speaker 5: of running the middle as shop, you're.
Speaker 3: Muted, all right, but I didn't do anything. But yes,
Speaker 3: you're right, Mark, so we would dected to pull out
Speaker 3: of the JCPOA when I was there, DoD By the way,
Speaker 3: was more inclined to stay in and then address issues
Speaker 3: like proxy force support and ballistic missile program separately. Maybe
Speaker 3: there is still an element in there talking about that,
Speaker 3: and maybe that's one of the reasons why it does
Speaker 3: appear the US has softened a bit. Remember Secretary Rubio
Speaker 3: was like, has to include no enrichment, nuclear, proxy for support,
Speaker 3: ballistic missile capacity, and human rights is where he started
Speaker 3: before the negotiation started. I think we're now at least
Speaker 3: pretty close on at least we're focusing more on nuclear
Speaker 3: and I think that's one of the issues why Prime
Speaker 3: Minister nand yeah, who gotten a plane and came early, right,
Speaker 3: came early and stood right next to the Oval Office
Speaker 3: door until you know he was let in. Israel of course,
Speaker 3: doesn't want to see an agreement between the United States
Speaker 3: and in Iran that that is anything less than very
Speaker 3: very stringent to the addresses. I think all of the above,
Speaker 3: I think the US is more inclined to compromise and
Speaker 3: to be frank, that's what negotiations are If you can't
Speaker 3: compromise in chances of a successful negotiation are very slim.
Speaker 3: So I think both the US and obviously Iran should
Speaker 3: be willing to do that and the and we'll get
Speaker 3: into the significant force build up. But all this is
Speaker 3: happening as you know, another aircraft carrier strike group, the
Speaker 3: USS gerald Ford is on route to the region, right,
Speaker 3: huge capacity added to another huge capacity. And then we'll
Speaker 3: get into the details of just how much they have
Speaker 3: looking down the barrel, so to speak, literally at them.
Speaker 3: When it comes to these negotiations, the I think politically
Speaker 3: the issue is going to be it has to be
Speaker 3: more stringent than the original JC. Right, if he gets
Speaker 3: back into the same agreement, he will he'd be in
Speaker 3: the president of the United States. We'll be like, well,
Speaker 3: what was that all about? Right, you know, and that's
Speaker 3: a fair criticism if that's the case. So he has
Speaker 3: to get it more stringent. I imagine there's going to
Speaker 3: be more of a you know, testing and validation program
Speaker 3: that we know exactly what they're doing and not doing.
Speaker 3: I think the US is still going to go in
Speaker 3: with a zero enrichment potentially throw on the table, bring
Speaker 3: in enriched uranium for civilian purposes done somewhere else. Right,
Speaker 3: If it's truly about, you know, using enriched uranium for
Speaker 3: medical purposes, then it's about the actual medical purpose, not
Speaker 3: necessarily your ability to produce it yourself. So there's I
Speaker 3: think there's a lot of room there. And of course
Speaker 3: they're going to want to see the uranium that's been
Speaker 3: enriched to sixty percent not needed at all for civilian purposes,
Speaker 3: removed from the country and maybe brought to Russia or Turkey.
Speaker 3: That's been on the table in the past. But I
Speaker 3: do think lots writing on it. I don't think we
Speaker 3: have a date yet, but it's this week in Geneva. Hopefully,
Speaker 3: you know, mister Widcoff and mister Kushner bring in some
Speaker 3: of these real experts, potentially going back to the original discussions.
Speaker 3: This is a incredibly complex, incredibly technically detailed set of negotiations,
Speaker 3: and if you don't have that expertise and listen to him,
Speaker 3: of course you might not end up with the agreement
Speaker 3: you think you're getting kidding, right, So being on Team USA,
Speaker 3: I think it's important that that happens and then we
Speaker 3: get the smartest people at least maybe not at the table,
Speaker 3: but behind the people at the table. Either way, it's
Speaker 3: good and see if we can't solve this diplomatically, because
Speaker 3: this is, in my opinion, headache toward a military confrontation
Speaker 3: if it's not decided that way. I just don't think
Speaker 3: the US would send this level of military power to
Speaker 3: the region, lose at the negotiations and the just turn
Speaker 3: them around and send them home. I don't see that happening.
Speaker 3: So this is either going to go the diplomatic path
Speaker 3: or probably the military path that we can get.
Speaker 6: Andy, let me let me.
Speaker 5: I'm gonna ask you in one second about the military
Speaker 5: build up and what it means and if we have
Speaker 5: enough forces there. But there's one thing I just want
Speaker 5: to kind of throw out there too, for both of you.
Speaker 5: All of us here have been involved in promises made
Speaker 5: and promises broken to our allies. You know, Mick, you
Speaker 5: and I were up with the Kurds. I remember having
Speaker 5: discussions with our Kurtish partners, and of course, at one
Speaker 5: point one of them, and you know who it is,
Speaker 5: I won't say his name, but he reminded me that,
Speaker 5: you know, the Kurds have been lied to and betrayed
Speaker 5: me just about everybody and they fully expected us to
Speaker 5: do it again, and we did same thing with the
Speaker 5: Syrian opposition with Obama's red line. You know, we can
Speaker 5: Afghan or Afghan partners in Afghanistan. We can go on
Speaker 5: and on. And I raised this because of President Trump's
Speaker 5: several weeks ago saying, quote, help was on the way,
Speaker 5: Iranian protesters stay out on the streets, and so one
Speaker 5: of the things, and this is not saying I advocate
Speaker 5: for a military option or operation, but if there was
Speaker 5: a diplomatic solution, which would include even if you could
Speaker 5: call it a good deal, the regime stays in place,
Speaker 5: and not understand that we've then betrayed the Iranian protesters
Speaker 5: who are out in the streets. That rubs me wrong.
Speaker 5: Is it enough to go to war with Iran? I
Speaker 5: don't know, but there's just a part of that. I
Speaker 5: just want to kind of throw that out there, and
Speaker 5: both of you in a second when I turned back
Speaker 5: to both you can comment on that kind of ethics
Speaker 5: and morality of it. But but Andy, do do kind
Speaker 5: of jump in in terms of the force structure, you know,
Speaker 5: because I think when Trump made those statements several weeks ago,
Speaker 5: we didn't have the right forces in place. But I
Speaker 5: guess the question is do we have the right forces
Speaker 5: in place now? And comment on the notion that was that,
Speaker 5: of course, an anonymous US official said the other day
Speaker 5: is that the military campaign might take weeks. You know,
Speaker 5: I guess is that sustainable? Do the American people support this?
Speaker 5: I mean it seems like, you know, we're so obsessed,
Speaker 5: but rightfully so with things like the Epstein files and
Speaker 5: Minnesota and I we're heading down to put potentially a
Speaker 5: major war in the Middle East like that we haven't
Speaker 5: seen for some time.
Speaker 6: Andy take it away.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So, you know, first of all, I just want
Speaker 4: to follow up on something Mixed said that these talks
Speaker 4: are in order for them to be successful, they have
Speaker 4: to be they have to go into a great deal
Speaker 4: of detail. I mean, even if they were just exclusively
Speaker 4: focused on Iran's nuclear capability, the monitoring of that and
Speaker 4: linked to sanctions relief, some kind of progressive plan for
Speaker 4: sanctions relief that lifts sanctions once uh, you know, actions
Speaker 4: are verified on the Ranian side. I mean, this is
Speaker 4: that itself is very complex. I think all of us here,
Speaker 4: if I can speak for you guys, would like to see,
Speaker 4: you know, the big problem with the juke poer. One
Speaker 4: of the problems was that it did not address proxies
Speaker 4: at all. And it looks as though maybe we're going
Speaker 4: down that path now, right, but all of us know
Speaker 4: that that as far as direct threat to US interests,
Speaker 4: it is Duran's use of proxies in the region that's
Speaker 4: even greater, arguably than possession in a nuclear weapon. I
Speaker 4: know will be challenged on that, but the proxies have
Speaker 4: given us a headache for you know, since the eighties,
Speaker 4: and so you know, most people would say, why would
Speaker 4: we walk away? We've got everything in the region, And
Speaker 4: to your point about are we ready to go to war,
Speaker 4: we are absolutely ready.
Speaker 2: To go to war.
Speaker 4: When you look at if you order a battle there
Speaker 4: in the Middle East, it's got everything to sustained air operations.
Speaker 4: I mean sustained air operations. We are talking about weeks,
Speaker 4: both land based and carrier based aircraft. We have a
Speaker 4: significant obviously non kinetic capability out there too, which you
Speaker 4: know e W in particular, which we would use regardless
Speaker 4: in any sort of campaign. And I'm sure that there
Speaker 4: are cyber options lined up too. And most importantly, we've
Speaker 4: sent air defense batteries and we've almost emptied when you
Speaker 4: look at our inventory and you look what our commitments
Speaker 4: are elsewhere, places like Korea, we have pretty much emptied
Speaker 4: our inventory of air defense batteries and sent them all
Speaker 4: to them, the least which has been a double ed sword.
Speaker 4: Because that, in particular, I think is what has caused
Speaker 4: the Israelis to change their mind. You remember in early
Speaker 4: January when the President was saying, hey, We're coming to
Speaker 4: your rescue. Remember Netania who actually said, hey, revolutions are
Speaker 4: best carried out internally, right, the Israelis were cautious, they
Speaker 4: were concerned about the prospect of regional war. Now when
Speaker 4: they've seen that, I'm only guessing that the number of
Speaker 4: assets that are stacked up in the region, especially air defense,
Speaker 4: which they care about very much, that tune has changed,
Speaker 4: you know. The so yes and answer your question, and
Speaker 4: we are absolutely prepared, and and there is ah, there
Speaker 4: is two. I mean, no one can no one can
Speaker 4: really answer you quit everyone's question about we are we
Speaker 4: going to go to war? But even our allies in
Speaker 4: the region to point it out that, yeah, there's kind
Speaker 4: of a credibility factor too. In other words, we need
Speaker 4: to raise the bar on these talks and and and
Speaker 4: include things other than nuclear agreement, if you know, aside
Speaker 4: from proxies, we need to talk about ballistic missile threats,
Speaker 4: right we always care about the most In fact, yeah, absolutely,
Speaker 4: and and so that needs to be on the table.
Speaker 4: We have the force to back it. I don't want
Speaker 4: to mean to sound like a hawk. I think you
Speaker 4: know there are many downsides to it to a regional conflict,
Speaker 4: but there is a point of hear about credibility rhetoric
Speaker 4: matching what we intend to do and what we intend
Speaker 4: to do can be quite rational and reasonable if we
Speaker 4: want it to be. But we do have to address
Speaker 4: those two additional threats other than nuclear. Potentially, you play
Speaker 4: a capability, you.
Speaker 5: Know, Mick, you were and I say this honestly, you're
Speaker 5: a better man than me in terms of your ethics
Speaker 5: and morals as a CIA officer. I mean, you are
Speaker 5: one of the most moral and ethical people I've ever
Speaker 5: met in our place.
Speaker 4: Clearly that's true. When now we've heard about your college
Speaker 4: he is Yes.
Speaker 5: I know, but but I do want to get you
Speaker 5: know that that notion of kind of betrayal and ethics
Speaker 5: and morality of making a promise like Trump did I
Speaker 5: mean you that promise was so front and center, and
Speaker 5: the Gian people responded, you know, what are your thoughts
Speaker 5: on that? You know, if there's a even if it's
Speaker 5: a really good deal, but the regime stays in power,
Speaker 5: you know, how does that sit with you?
Speaker 6: Because that bugs me.
Speaker 3: I can see why it bugs you. I mean, in
Speaker 3: order to be the leader of the free world, you
Speaker 3: have to promote freedom and democracy in part of the world.
Speaker 3: It's not free, right, It's not just it's not just
Speaker 3: criticizing Europe, right. You're actually supposed to promote democracy over autocracy.
Speaker 3: And that is what the president was essentially doing when
Speaker 3: he was talking about supporting the protests help us on
Speaker 3: the way. So the second part of you know, promoting
Speaker 3: being the leader of the free world is be careful
Speaker 3: what you say, right, so you know, walks offly and
Speaker 3: carry a big stick. We obviously have the stick, but
Speaker 3: people really pay attention to what the US says. And
Speaker 3: because we have the you know, the most dominant military
Speaker 3: in the world, and we have traditionally historically been the
Speaker 3: leader of you know, individual liberties and democracy, and which
Speaker 3: is what I believe the protests are primarily about. I mean,
Speaker 3: there's a lot of reasons for the protests and are on. Yes,
Speaker 3: I get it's economic, but there's a lot of groups
Speaker 3: that have been promoting you know, women's rights and the
Speaker 3: rights of you know, ethnic minorities and you know, go
Speaker 3: down the list. Will the US be portraying that potentially, yes,
Speaker 3: But if we would have taken out the you know
Speaker 3: those comments, I still think we should support the protests,
Speaker 3: but we're not going to go in militarily and do
Speaker 3: a regime change that US has learned our lesson or
Speaker 3: on would be I don't know, ten twenty times more
Speaker 3: difficult than a rock for example, therefore twenty times more
Speaker 3: costs of prohibitive, and we'd lose thousands of people. So
Speaker 3: I just don't think the US is willing to do that.
Speaker 3: And I just regime changed from the air is almost
Speaker 3: an impossibility.
Speaker 7: Right.
Speaker 3: And then of course the question is even if you said, well,
Speaker 3: I'll just drop a bomb on you know, the Iyatola, well,
Speaker 3: I mean doesn't mean that who replace them isn't just
Speaker 3: going to be worse, right, So I think there's a
Speaker 3: lot I think we should have a very practical view
Speaker 3: of it, but be careful what we say. And I
Speaker 3: do think we should support the protesters, just not why
Speaker 3: military action. So we've got two things. We've got the
Speaker 3: threat of military action trying to lead to a better
Speaker 3: agreement nuclear agreement, which to be fair, is in the
Speaker 3: regime's interests because it'll get the economic sanctions removed, which
Speaker 3: is the predominant purpose of the of the protests. Right.
Speaker 3: So in a way, although I think we should be negotiating,
Speaker 3: we should try to get to a better nuclear agreement,
Speaker 3: it's going to be going to run counter to the
Speaker 3: actual protests, who are going to have left over reasonable revolt,
Speaker 3: and the regime is going to be stronger, and they're
Speaker 3: going to be allowed to sell their oil if they don't.
Speaker 3: There's secondary sanctions that the administration is looking at to
Speaker 3: try to prevent China from buying. I mean, there's all
Speaker 3: sorts of things that will make the economic circumstances and
Speaker 3: are on even worse if these negotiations don't happen. But
Speaker 3: it's a fair point, you know, I think the United States,
Speaker 3: even if we get an agreement, should do everything we
Speaker 3: can to promote legally. Of course, freedom and democracy in Iran,
Speaker 3: but that's predominantly going to have to come from the Iranians.
Speaker 6: Let me let me do something.
Speaker 5: I actually I told myself in my notes today I
Speaker 5: would not deal, but I'm still going to do anyhow.
Speaker 5: What do you know, again, it's prediction, which is not
Speaker 5: a great idea to do. But what do you think, Andy,
Speaker 5: Let me let me start with you, military confrontation with
Speaker 5: Iran or no?
Speaker 6: Just given everything you know right now.
Speaker 4: I think there will eventually be military confrontation with Iran.
Speaker 4: It may not follow in the next dace or or
Speaker 4: even weeks, but I think they will.
Speaker 7: I I.
Speaker 4: Cannot imagine, frankly, and I know this sounds raight down,
Speaker 4: it's very pestimistic, but I can't imagine an agreement that's
Speaker 4: going to satisfy that we can monitor, the United States
Speaker 4: can monitor effectively, that's going to satisfy our concerns. And
Speaker 4: I can't imagine Iran agreeing to such an agreement. They
Speaker 4: may do so just for the sake of deliberate deliberation
Speaker 4: and sanctionous relief, but I don't think they're going to
Speaker 4: follow through. So that's why I think some kind of confrontation.
Speaker 4: Military confrontation is inevitable.
Speaker 6: Mick your thoughts.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so the Iranians never seemed to miss an opportunity
Speaker 3: to mission right. So they they they seem like they're
Speaker 3: heading in the right way. You can, you know, if
Speaker 3: you remove yourself as a partisan in it, you can
Speaker 3: see why it would be to their advantage to get
Speaker 3: a nuclear agreement, a new one because of these massive
Speaker 3: sanctions that are on it, and then what it's doing
Speaker 3: to their grip on power, if you will, even if
Speaker 3: you're just looking at it from their perspective, but they
Speaker 3: seem incapable of understanding that. They seem like they really
Speaker 3: believe that having a nuclear weapon will make the regime
Speaker 3: impervious to being overthrown without thinking that, like, there's no
Speaker 3: way that Israel alone, let alone the United States, is
Speaker 3: going to allow that to happen. They're just gonna and
Speaker 3: we've already seen that Israel has the capacity to go
Speaker 3: in there, eradicate their air missile defense, eradicate their air force,
Speaker 3: and basically own the skies. So if I was looking
Speaker 3: at it from their point of view, I'd say, well,
Speaker 3: we're only giving We're not even giving up something that
Speaker 3: we can actually acquire because they're not going to let
Speaker 3: us acquire, so why not give it up? So we
Speaker 3: can you know, bolster the economy, bolster our position here.
Speaker 3: If I'm in the regime, i'd want to stay there.
Speaker 3: But I don't think they'll do it. I think they'll
Speaker 3: come up with yet another reason to scuttle this thing.
Speaker 3: With this idea, they're staying almost half pregnant, right in
Speaker 3: the worst possible position. I don't have this good analogy,
Speaker 3: but they they don't have a new core weapon to use,
Speaker 3: but they look like they're trying to acquire one because
Speaker 3: it's way above the need for civilian use. So they're
Speaker 3: basically making themselves a target, and a legitimate target my opinion.
Speaker 3: Yet they're you know, there's really no path forward other
Speaker 3: than an agreement that would believe the sanctions and basically
Speaker 3: acknowledge that they're never gonna get to a new co weapon.
Speaker 3: So that's a long way saying that I think this
Speaker 3: probably will fail, unfortunately, certainly an opponing for it, and
Speaker 3: then the US either will get tired of negotiations dragging
Speaker 3: out and start using the actual force to be an influencer,
Speaker 3: or they'll just fall apart. And I do agree with that,
Speaker 3: and either setting up, I mean, we've got like eight destroyers,
Speaker 3: six cruisers, We're going to have two aircraft carriers strike
Speaker 3: multiple squadrons of fighter air jets. I imagine from what
Speaker 3: i'm aaron from media that you know, there's been a
Speaker 3: lot of pre patory warning orders given to our Strategic
Speaker 3: Bomber Command. I mean, this could be a very long, sustained,
Speaker 3: multi week campaign to not only degrade the nuclear programs,
Speaker 3: to target ballistic missiles, particularly the launchers. Of course, you
Speaker 3: can have a lot of missiles, no launchers don't make
Speaker 3: any difference, and maybe even a regime target. So maybe
Speaker 3: he'll address the point you just asked me about, Mark
Speaker 3: and say, Okay, I'm going to target some of the
Speaker 3: regime because of what they've done, killing thousands of protesters
Speaker 3: and chailing tens of thousands.
Speaker 5: I'm not so sure, so I'm gonna take a little
Speaker 5: bit of a different tack only in you know, if
Speaker 5: you know, we all kind of look at the prominology
Speaker 5: of the Trump administration. I think there's too many people
Speaker 5: in there who are not in favor of this from
Speaker 5: the MAGA world, but also Trump seems to like these
Speaker 5: kind of quick, easy, decisive wins. The Solomoni strike first
Speaker 5: administration Maduro couple hours the strike of the Runde nuclear
Speaker 5: program again, incredible strike, you know, one day at most,
Speaker 5: and I would imagine that, you know, the Chairman of
Speaker 5: the Joint Chiefs and others are telling Trump, Hey, this
Speaker 5: could be sustained over weeks. And I don't know if
Speaker 5: he has the appetite to do that, and certainly the
Speaker 5: I don't know if the American people do as well.
Speaker 5: I think there is some domestic politics involved in this,
Speaker 5: if we've been kind of sleeping sleep walking in here.
Speaker 5: So I'm not so sure he has the stomach for this,
Speaker 5: But we'll see. But d I gotta throw it to you,
Speaker 5: what do you think?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so listen, the goal of like doing this like
Speaker 1: a sustained week weeks long campaign bombing Iran outside of
Speaker 1: like totally trying to actually destroy their nuclear program, what's
Speaker 1: the fucking point again? Just to get them back to
Speaker 1: the negotiation table and like maybe fingers crossed, we maybe
Speaker 1: make the regime collapse. Like that's the reasoning. But like
Speaker 1: to me, that reasoning outside of the nuclear problem, uh,
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense as I can layman domestic you know,
Speaker 1: civilian here.
Speaker 5: I would throw into that too, that you know, and
Speaker 5: and and you know, maybe we can close on this
Speaker 5: on this, know, do you guys agree that there I mean,
Speaker 5: there should be a Trump addressed to the American people.
Speaker 5: I mean, good lord, we're going down the road of
Speaker 5: a major, major military campaign. Congress is sleeping. I would
Speaker 5: I would imagine going to see calls for war powers
Speaker 5: resolution stuff. But what about Trump at least explain to
Speaker 5: the American people what in the heck we're doing. And
Speaker 5: by the way, if it's going to be a sustained campaign,
Speaker 5: and this is the horrible part of this, we're gonna
Speaker 5: lose people the idea that this is going to be
Speaker 5: kind of pain free, which so many of these I
Speaker 5: think Trump's gotten lucky with a couple of these military
Speaker 5: operations because nothing, you know, really bad has happened to
Speaker 5: US forces. But you know, if you take the country
Speaker 5: to war over sustain you multi week campaign, we're going
Speaker 5: to lose some servicemen and women. So do you think
Speaker 5: that Trump has to then make this case to the
Speaker 5: American people?
Speaker 4: Andy, I think that would be absolutely leadership, Right, That's
Speaker 4: that's what presidents do. Do I think it's.
Speaker 6: Going to happen?
Speaker 4: And do I think ultimately it matters? That's a different question.
Speaker 4: I don't think his white. I don't think it matters.
Speaker 4: I don't think the American public gives a shit about
Speaker 4: what goes on about what the US military is doing overseas. Now,
Speaker 4: I may have overstated that. I think they would be
Speaker 4: upset if we got involved in an attritional ground wall,
Speaker 4: but strikes I don't think it means anything to them.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, and I frankly, I don't think
Speaker 4: it means that much to Congress either. I think the
Speaker 4: average representative does not understand his or her role in
Speaker 4: the process checks and balances. And I think, and you know,
Speaker 4: we saw this atrophy over twenty years Rock and Afghanistan.
Speaker 4: We've talked about this, the AUMF being continuously expanded without
Speaker 4: any real discussion or deliberation. I think we're at a
Speaker 4: point where no one has skin in the game. I mean, really,
Speaker 4: you know, the American public's focused on the economy and
Speaker 4: focus on what's happening domestically. The average representative, as far
Speaker 4: as having people who are in the military within their
Speaker 4: constituents or families of those within them militiate, they're always
Speaker 4: going to be a minority. Uh And and so there's
Speaker 4: no real incentive to challenge what the executive is doing,
Speaker 4: regardless of party. That's sadly where I am. And so
Speaker 4: to answer your question, I don't think that the administration
Speaker 4: will feel a compulsion to talk directly to the American people,
Speaker 4: and I don't think that by and large the American
Speaker 4: public cares either.
Speaker 6: Well, that's a heck of a place to end. That's
Speaker 6: a depressing note. I hope they would do it. But
Speaker 6: maybe you're right on.
Speaker 2: That, Andy. I don't know, man, because like you're right,
Speaker 2: you're probably you're right.
Speaker 1: Most people don't give a shit in terms of especially
Speaker 1: if like we don't have one hundred thousand troops there
Speaker 1: and hundreds of billions.
Speaker 2: Of dollars being wasted.
Speaker 1: But like it is a mid term election year, and
Speaker 1: I could totally if I'm a political strategist or ad maker,
Speaker 1: I'm making like whoever's not saying anything, there's ways to
Speaker 1: like nudge people along into like this. Trump was supposed
Speaker 1: to be the president to end all wars and do that,
Speaker 1: and he's bombing everybody he could find, you know, anybody
Speaker 1: like you pointed on a map, he helped do it.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, like there is like a wedge there
Speaker 1: there is like an angle there.
Speaker 2: I guess to like.
Speaker 1: To put pressure on congressmen, especially if I mean Congress
Speaker 1: has been feckless for the last.
Speaker 2: At last year and a half year or whatever.
Speaker 1: They have done nothing specifically when it comes to Venezuela,
Speaker 1: or they've punted it multiple times.
Speaker 2: So I don't know. Most people don't give a shit.
Speaker 1: Obviously they care about their Netflix and their TikTok and stuff.
Speaker 2: But I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think there are ways to move.
Speaker 4: The balance a little, yeah, And I know with rapping
Speaker 4: a hyphia, I agree with you, d but I think
Speaker 4: that that's not gonna be enough to move the needle
Speaker 4: at all. And I don't think what the American public
Speaker 4: wants so doesn't want to polling matters at all to
Speaker 4: the administration, you know, And it's not just this administration.
Speaker 4: I think we've got to wait for a determined effort
Speaker 4: from within the Senate. And of course that is where
Speaker 4: this effort should come from. When I say effort, I
Speaker 4: mean just simply to to do what the Senate's supposed
Speaker 4: to do constitutionally, which is act as a check and
Speaker 4: ask the right questions before we go to war.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 5: On that point, that then there. I think there's probably
Speaker 5: a limit to this because come November or really next January,
Speaker 5: there could be a flip in the United States in
Speaker 5: terms of balance of power, and so you know that
Speaker 5: would argue that this whole irun thing has got to
Speaker 5: be wrapped up before the midterms.
Speaker 6: D How'd I do?
Speaker 2: And hoping he.
Speaker 1: Did incredible, So like, let's let's just do wrap it
Speaker 1: up a little bit more. I want everyone to check
Speaker 1: out Andy Milburn's book When the Tempest Gathers. That link
Speaker 1: is in description. Mick mentioned the Montane Security conference. That
Speaker 1: link If you want to go there at those uh
Speaker 1: for tickets, that link is in the description as well.
Speaker 6: Is he sending you there? Is he gonna?
Speaker 4: Is?
Speaker 6: Are you going?
Speaker 1: We're talking about going? Yeah, like me go your way
Speaker 1: me and no, No, I'm not paying for anything. I'm
Speaker 1: not paying for if I'm going there, I'm not paying
Speaker 1: for anything. But Jackson Jackson Tokyo. Right now, when he
Speaker 1: comes back, we're going to figure it out if we're
Speaker 1: going or not. We're talking about possibly yes, so we'll
Speaker 1: do some teamhouse and some eyes on from there.
Speaker 2: If we do go.
Speaker 1: Mark, you got a book Clarity and Crisis check it out.
Speaker 1: That link is in the description. You know, I'll put
Speaker 1: all your links in the description as well, your Twitter,
Speaker 1: your I don't do all the stuff, all your stuff
Speaker 1: to find Mark and Andy and everybody else. That link
Speaker 1: is in description and Patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse
Speaker 1: if you want us help support the show, both eyes
Speaker 1: On and the Teamhouse, go there.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Thanks guys, that was great on here.
Speaker 8: Guys, I want to tell all of you today about
Speaker 8: a new newsletter that we're launching that encompasses both the
Speaker 8: Teamhouse podcast, the eyes On podcast, and the High Side
Speaker 8: news outlet, which I run with Sean Naylor.
Speaker 7: The newsletter is gonna be once a week.
Speaker 8: It's gonna come into your inbox and you're gonna get
Speaker 8: the most current podcasts on eyes On and the Teamhouse
Speaker 8: and whatever's topical or current on the High Side. So
Speaker 8: it's another way for us to get the information out
Speaker 8: to you as social media algorithms are pretty iffy and
Speaker 8: you never really know what.
Speaker 7: You're gonna get. So this is a once a week email.
Speaker 8: It'll slide into your inbox and it will have you
Speaker 8: know the greatest hits of that week.
Speaker 7: It's really good checking it out.
Speaker 8: The website for it is Teamhouse podcast dot kit dot com,
Speaker 8: slash Join, Teamhouse Podcast dot kit dot com slash Join.
Speaker 8: You go there and you enter into your email list
Speaker 8: or you enter your email into the little thing on
Speaker 8: the website and you're good to go.
Speaker 7: And that'll be it.
Speaker 8: So we really appreciate your support and hope you'll consider
Speaker 8: signing up.
Speaker 6: Where's the link.
Speaker 7: The link will also be down in the description if
Speaker 7: you're looking for it.
Speaker 8: There and that's Teamhouse Podcast dot kit, k I, t
Speaker 8: Kilo India, Tango dot com backslash Join