Speaker 1: A lot of people put off buying a new mattress
Speaker 1: because it feels like a hassle. Too many options, too
Speaker 1: many claims, and no real way to tell what's actually
Speaker 1: going to hold up. Goostbed makes that decision easier. Ghostbed
Speaker 1: is a family run company with more than twenty years
Speaker 1: of mattress making experience, backed by deep manufacturing expertise. Their
Speaker 1: approach is straightforward, focus on quality materials, small construction, and
Speaker 1: a consistency over time, not flashy features or complicated sales tactics.
Speaker 1: Every Ghostbed mattress is built for long term comfort, using
Speaker 1: durable foam and proven cooling technology to help regulate temperature
Speaker 1: while you sleep. It's designed to feel reliable night after night,
Speaker 1: not just when it's brand new. And if you're not
Speaker 1: sure which mattress is right for you, Ghostbed's online mattress
Speaker 1: quiz helps narrow it down quickly. Whether you're a side
Speaker 1: sleeper who needs a little plushness or someone who prefers
Speaker 1: a firmer feel, the quiz matches you with the right
Speaker 1: option based on how you actually sleep. They also keep
Speaker 1: pricing grounded Ghostbed mattresses costs up to fifty percent less
Speaker 1: than comparable brands you could rest easy knowing you're not.
Speaker 1: You're getting one of the best values at this quality level.
Speaker 1: Every mattress comes with a one hundred and one night
Speaker 1: sleep trial and industry leading warranty and fast free shipping.
Speaker 1: And as a Teamhouse listener, you can get an extra
Speaker 1: ten percent off your order. Just go to ghostped dot
Speaker 1: com slash house and use the promo code House at checkout.
Speaker 1: That's go sped dot com slash house code House for
Speaker 1: an additional ten percent off site wide upgrade your sleep
Speaker 1: with ghostbed, makers of the coolest beds in the world.
Speaker 1: Some exclusions apply. Seasite for details. Thank you gosped for
Speaker 1: sponsoring the show. Thank you guys for helping support the show. Bye, Hey, everybody,
Speaker 1: Welcome to another episode of Eyes on Jill Politics. I'm
Speaker 1: here with Mick Moulroy, Jonathan Hackett, and Mark poly Moreopolis.
Speaker 1: A lot happening as usual. Ceasefire quote unquote is still happening.
Speaker 1: A lot's been going on because I'm sure like a
Speaker 1: lot of like journalists for over the last week have
Speaker 1: just been twiddling their thumbs a little bit, right. So
Speaker 1: we saw that Atlantic piece came out where essentially, you know,
Speaker 1: my perspective of it is jd Vance leaking to the
Speaker 1: Atlantic that he's not about this, and in meetings he's
Speaker 1: brought up like, you know, questioning what's going on in
Speaker 1: Iran and stuff like that. I think it's political obviously,
Speaker 1: because I'm a cynical piece of shit, But that's me,
Speaker 1: you know. We also saw the Center for Strategic and
Speaker 1: International Studies come out say talking about how we really
Speaker 1: haven't depleted a lot of Iran's like air force and
Speaker 1: missiles and ballistic missiles and drones specifically. We also did
Speaker 1: see from CNN a couple of days ago to kind
Speaker 1: of like what happened to all of our bases in
Speaker 1: and around the area, Like they've gotten pretty smoked for
Speaker 1: the most part. Another thing I saw which was wild.
Speaker 1: I mean this was all because the Pentagon is in
Speaker 1: the administration as a whole, is keeping it as quiet
Speaker 1: as possible. We saw like an F five of Iran,
Speaker 1: like bomb the Kuwaiti air and things like that, like
Speaker 1: just things that it was like right the next day
Speaker 1: or the next two days after we started bombing, I
Speaker 1: ran so stuff that we didn't think would be possible, right,
Speaker 1: Like obviously we knew we'd lose equipment and stuff like that,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately we lost you know, servicemen and women. But
Speaker 1: it's not exactly going as swimmingly as those semi daily
Speaker 1: or semi weekly Pentagon press briefings are telling us it's going.
Speaker 1: So I guess let's start there and like, we'll just
Speaker 1: see where this combo goes. I mean, make you can
Speaker 1: go first. You worked at a d D. We're a
Speaker 1: big wig over there.
Speaker 2: I did work at the d D, start as a private,
Speaker 2: ended up, you know, with the policy job. So I'd
Speaker 2: start with this to say we can get into all that.
Speaker 2: I'd start with this. This idea that you can't question
Speaker 2: the policy decisions of an administration or you're somehow attacking
Speaker 2: the military and not being patriotic. It's not only completely untrue.
Speaker 2: In fact, say'd say it's the opposite, as long as
Speaker 2: your complaints are valid. The US military uniform military doesn't
Speaker 2: make policy, right, so it's not their decision to go
Speaker 2: to war. It's the it's the civilian policy makers that
Speaker 2: are either politically elected or politically appointed or making the decisions.
Speaker 3: And then.
Speaker 2: The other part to that is most of the people
Speaker 2: that are now deciding that it's unpatriotic to criticize the
Speaker 2: political decisions that brought people to war. Made their political
Speaker 2: mark criticizing the political decisions that brought us to war
Speaker 2: for the last twenty years. So not only is it
Speaker 2: not true, it's completely hypocritical, which is one of the
Speaker 2: things that just I would either just disagree with somebody
Speaker 2: or somebody just not you know, be a good person,
Speaker 2: but not be hypocritical. For some reason, that just drives
Speaker 2: me great. Like, So I think we should all acknowledge
Speaker 2: that you can disagree with your political leadership and still
Speaker 2: fully support the men and women in uniform, which I'm
Speaker 2: sure everybody on this podcast does. And I'm one, you know,
Speaker 2: I guess I'm on the right side of this podcast.
Speaker 2: I'm one that supported the you know, the nuclear bombings
Speaker 2: are the bombings of the nuclear facilities back and twelve
Speaker 2: Dy war. I support the military objectives of this war.
Speaker 2: I just think we're making a lot of mistakes when
Speaker 2: it comes to how we're presenting it. And I bring
Speaker 2: that up mostly because I want us to be successful.
Speaker 2: I want the US to be successful at then this.
Speaker 2: I want history to judge that this was strategic success
Speaker 2: by the United States. Because I think that's you know,
Speaker 2: that's where I am. So the criticism, if any, if
Speaker 2: it's taken that way, is to so that we don't
Speaker 2: come out as a strategic failure in this endeavor. And
Speaker 2: the first thing is to you know, even though your
Speaker 2: mom told you this, honestly, the best policy is to
Speaker 2: be upfront with what's happening and what's not happening. It's
Speaker 2: all going to come out. It's all going to come out.
Speaker 2: We all know it. Historians are going to read the
Speaker 2: declassified a description of what we did and what we
Speaker 2: didn't do, what the enemy did and what the enemy
Speaker 2: didn't do. It's all going to come out. So you
Speaker 2: can have your five minutes of your world, which is
Speaker 2: already being eroded, and you already mentioned all of the
Speaker 2: media that's coming out, and it's being eroded inside of
Speaker 2: the administration of the vice president level. So if we
Speaker 2: didn't reduce their politic missile and suicide drones as much
Speaker 2: as we're saying we need to fix it, we just
Speaker 2: need to say it. And if they did a lot
Speaker 2: of damage to our bases, we need to say it.
Speaker 2: It doesn't mean that we're losing necessarily, it doesn't mean
Speaker 2: we're going to lose whatever the definition of that is.
Speaker 2: But if once you start telling the truth, people are
Speaker 2: going to completely dismiss you and they're just going to
Speaker 2: assume anything you do say after that it's just you know,
Speaker 2: not accurate. So I would I would start with, let's
Speaker 2: let's just go with honesty is the best policy, and
Speaker 2: it's not really what politicians do. I think not only
Speaker 2: is that good just ethically, but ultimately it's going to
Speaker 2: be good politically, and you know, to the extent that
Speaker 2: we need to review how we're doing. That's important because
Speaker 2: it's not only important to capture what happened, but we're
Speaker 2: about to go into we think a new round of
Speaker 2: kinetic activity. We're about to start the air war again. Right,
Speaker 2: So if you want people to listen to Okay, now
Speaker 2: we've depleted this strategic asset to that you're gonna have
Speaker 2: to be totally earnest with your numbers. And now we're
Speaker 2: also hear in addition to what dsaid, that the Air
Speaker 2: Force wasn't completely destroyed, which I've been saying over and
Speaker 2: over again, but apparently that's not the case. Because I'm
Speaker 2: obviously don't have access to classified information. I'm just going
Speaker 2: with media reports, so I'd start with that. I know
Speaker 2: we're going to get into you know, what's going to
Speaker 2: happen next and all that, but I think since d
Speaker 2: you kicked it off talking about those really important issues,
Speaker 2: I'll stop there and throw it to them. My friends here.
Speaker 1: Who wants it? Who wants it mud wrestle, not me?
Speaker 1: Get the ky I'll get it right now.
Speaker 2: You have a different definition of mud wrestle than I do.
Speaker 4: All right, let me let me just take a quick
Speaker 4: That was gross.
Speaker 3: Some just flipped over compliant boarding.
Speaker 4: Although I think Jonathan is wearing kind of like this
Speaker 4: V neck V neck shirts that's kind of sexy there,
Speaker 4: but you know, n coffee. Uh, all right, I'm going
Speaker 4: to translate. So, first of all, I I really enjoyed
Speaker 4: what you said right there. I'm going to translate mick
Speaker 4: talk into angry Greek talk. Yeah, in honor of the
Speaker 4: and I's heritage and who we are, no on a
Speaker 4: serious I mean, so, so I agree with all that,
Speaker 4: and you can then translate that into our secretary of
Speaker 4: Defense is full of sh His testimony in front of
Speaker 4: the Hill was obnoxious, it was irritating. I think he
Speaker 4: was lying, and it was insulting because exactly what Nick said,
Speaker 4: questioning people's patriotism who are saying, hey, what's going on
Speaker 4: with the war is absolutely bullshit and that's un American,
Speaker 4: And Mick, you said it perfectly because the entire administration
Speaker 4: has been lamd basting the never ending wars of Iraq
Speaker 4: and Afghanistan, and so now we're not allowed as commentators
Speaker 4: just questioning what's happening, and so that's angry Greek translation.
Speaker 4: I cannot imagine a less capable, less competent, more irritating
Speaker 4: secretary of Defense I've ever seen in my lifetime. And
Speaker 4: I would imagine you guys don't have to agree or
Speaker 4: or publicly, but I would imagine the uniform military, especially
Speaker 4: at the senior levels, feels the same way. Maybe not
Speaker 4: the more junior folks, maybe not be enlisted. Who likes
Speaker 4: the idea of a leader being able to bench through fifteen?
Speaker 4: But come on, now, you know, and I do think
Speaker 4: there's a there's a notion of this. You know, as
Speaker 4: I was watching this, I've turned it off because I
Speaker 4: do find it insulting. And you guys are gonna laugh
Speaker 4: when I say this, But you know, so I'm a
Speaker 4: critic of the Trump administration, work for the agency for
Speaker 4: twenty six years and went to some really kind of
Speaker 4: funky places. Look, I'm a patriot. I fly the American
Speaker 4: flag outside my house. I drive a pickup truck, and
Speaker 4: I listen to country music and I have guns. Yet
Speaker 4: somehow like I'm the I'm not a patriot. I mean,
Speaker 4: I find that absolutely insulting. In particular, if you have
Speaker 4: a brain on your head and you realize that, you know, hey,
Speaker 4: maybe the United States overstretched over the g watt over
Speaker 4: a rock and Afghanistan, it's okay now to question if
Speaker 4: this is going to turn into some never ending commitment.
Speaker 4: So let me just throw that out there. Anyway, Mick,
Speaker 4: I thought what you said was great. I just wanted
Speaker 4: to give a little spice.
Speaker 3: One.
Speaker 4: But let me just raise a couple other points for discussion,
Speaker 4: because it does have to do with the notion of,
Speaker 4: you know, can we believe what the government says. I
Speaker 4: sound like a conspiracy theorist. But when CD is putting
Speaker 4: out things such as, you know, the price tag of
Speaker 4: this war and that's from the congressional testimonies twenty five billion,
Speaker 4: nobody believes that that was met with eye rolls. There's
Speaker 4: just no way it's that it's that low. Again, that's
Speaker 4: not necessary to do that. Just tell the truth when
Speaker 4: you have, you know, the administration coming out, and this
Speaker 4: is something that we definitely have to talk about, because
Speaker 4: both Mick and Jonathan are veritable legal wizards or legal beagles.
Speaker 4: Have talked about the sixty day UH time limit coming
Speaker 4: up on the War Powers Resolution. Well, it came up
Speaker 4: and we got some oh, concern from the Republican members
Speaker 4: of Congress. I'm concerned, this is, this is and by
Speaker 4: the way, and then we went on vacation for a week.
Speaker 4: So then they went home. They're not going to do anything.
Speaker 4: So we blew past that. And then literally Trump said, well,
Speaker 4: if there's a ceasefire, the clock stops ticking.
Speaker 1: I remember saying that that's what his fucking logic was
Speaker 1: going to be, because I come back from New York too. Yeah,
Speaker 1: my logic would be like, oh, we have a ce swire,
Speaker 1: the sixty days is paused.
Speaker 4: But as both Jonathan and Mick have pointed out, I
Speaker 4: didn't know this, but a blockade is an active war
Speaker 4: according to the United Nations. Plus we have fifty thousand
Speaker 4: troops in the region who probably are at a trigger's
Speaker 4: edge right now, especially as Mick said that it looks
Speaker 4: like we might resume military activity anyway. So there's that.
Speaker 4: And then the final piece just to raise is and
Speaker 4: this goes to a different conflict, is but the US
Speaker 4: Congress and the administration agreed to allocate four hundred million
Speaker 4: dollars to Ukraine for assistance, and they didn't do it.
Speaker 4: They literally broke the law until the Hill called them
Speaker 4: on it and then they just released it. And so
Speaker 4: I am at a point in which and I sound
Speaker 4: like some kind of you know, campus protester, even though
Speaker 4: I'm not. As I said, I'm a patriot and very centrist,
Speaker 4: but I don't trust anything that comes out of this government.
Speaker 4: And it's terrible to say. Now, d we're talking kind
Speaker 4: of the in the i's only team room or the
Speaker 4: green room. Sorry before that, Yeah, maybe we never should
Speaker 4: trust the government on anything, but I think this is
Speaker 4: pretty pretty significant, and that stuff that's coming out from DoD,
Speaker 4: you do you have to kind of meet with a
Speaker 4: raised eyebrown, and Nick noted that peace I don't know
Speaker 4: if it's Axios or New York Times or Washington Post
Speaker 4: or the Journal, saying that JD vance is not even
Speaker 4: trusting that's coming out of a d D two. That's
Speaker 4: the kind of ponder But you know, big picture, I'm
Speaker 4: a little distrustful of the administration right now what they're
Speaker 4: saying about the war.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and also with the War Powers Resolution is very
Speaker 3: interesting that some representatives and senators think that it's an
Speaker 3: unconstitutional act to begin with. They've been more and more
Speaker 3: vocal about that over the past few weeks. They've first
Speaker 3: of all, they've rejected a vote on it six times
Speaker 3: in sixty days, which is a lot. It's a sixty
Speaker 3: day resolution that has a ninety day extension, so if
Speaker 3: the administrator wanted to, they could actually ask Congress for
Speaker 3: an extension of thirty days asked May first, and instead
Speaker 3: of doing that, they use what we discussed last time,
Speaker 3: which is justification, just saying there are no hostilities anyway,
Speaker 3: so why would we even ask for an extension. And
Speaker 3: also it's actually been over for eighteen days. They claim
Speaker 3: that May first was eighteen days into the cessation of
Speaker 3: a hostility, so there was actually no need to report
Speaker 3: to Congress anyway. So it's kind of this concern that
Speaker 3: maybe there will be this button that they can just
Speaker 3: continue pressing in the future because there's precedent now that
Speaker 3: they can say, well, we already stopped fighting yesterday, so
Speaker 3: that give me twenty four more hours. Just kind of
Speaker 3: like what we used to do when we would have
Speaker 3: our passports and we had to go get a visa
Speaker 3: reset so we could be in and out of the
Speaker 3: country on a certain kind of visa. We'd fly to
Speaker 3: a third country, get our passport reset, get a new stamp,
Speaker 3: come back in the country. Very similar logic going on
Speaker 3: right now, where it's like, Okay, we just stopped the
Speaker 3: war today, we'll restart it tomorrow. Clock starts back to one.
Speaker 3: And it seems that Congress, first of all, not only
Speaker 3: would they not push back on that, second of all,
Speaker 3: they'd actually pretend there was no need for reporting in
Speaker 3: the first place, because of how they're beginning to justify
Speaker 3: not needing to vote on this resolution, which in the
Speaker 3: green room we were talking about, you know, when the
Speaker 3: founding fathers, who are all mostly in their twenties, actually
Speaker 3: sitting around coming up with these ideas, brilliant people thinking
Speaker 3: of ways to stop something exactly this from happening. And
Speaker 3: actually in Federal's paper number ten, it talks about the
Speaker 3: dangerous of political parties and how that leads to factionalism
Speaker 3: exactly like we're seeing right now. So even though they
Speaker 3: were they were super smart and came up with all
Speaker 3: these things, they knew that it wasn't perfect. And right
Speaker 3: now we're seeing kind of what happens when it's not
Speaker 3: perfect in a war type situation. So it's kind of
Speaker 3: scary to be living in that time.
Speaker 2: So, Jonathan, since you're in law school and talking about
Speaker 2: this right now, it seems like there's two parts of this.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: So the administration is arguing, you know it, sixty eight
Speaker 2: didn't run because of the cease far at the same
Speaker 2: time they're arguing with the whole thing sounds constitutional. Right,
Speaker 2: It's almost like you're you're you've got two lines of
Speaker 2: effort here as far as the administration goes. And then
Speaker 2: if if Congress doesn't actually enforce it, then it basically
Speaker 2: doesn't exist. They could always cut off funding, right, they
Speaker 2: could always do that. But where because I don't really know,
Speaker 2: like how has this Supreme Court avoided answering this question
Speaker 2: definitively all the way till today. I mean, this is
Speaker 2: the most important thing the government does, whether you, or
Speaker 2: for the war against the war, or for any of
Speaker 2: the wars against the war, like this should be clear,
Speaker 2: like where does Congress's authority start an end? And where
Speaker 2: does the President's commander chief start an end? And how
Speaker 2: come we haven't had a definitive statement by the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court saying this is the answer to the question of
Speaker 2: whether this, you know, nineteen seventy three War Powers Act
Speaker 2: is constitution.
Speaker 3: So what we're missing is an injured party or someone
Speaker 3: with an actual complaint, a human being with a complaint
Speaker 3: that can bring this up through the appeals process to
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court. Because the Supreme Court lacks original jurisdiction
Speaker 3: over a lot of things. In fact, they have almost
Speaker 3: no original jurisdiction over anything except a very tiny amount
Speaker 3: of very specific things. And this is not one of
Speaker 3: those things. So in order for this act, this law
Speaker 3: to actually be adjudicated under Marbury v. Madisone, which is
Speaker 3: judicial review, there needs to be a person or interested
Speaker 3: party that actually contests this at a lower level.
Speaker 1: There needs to be a lawsuit.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, it has to survive. It has to survive,
Speaker 3: because that's the other problem is maybe there's a good
Speaker 3: claim here, but that claim isn't something that would make
Speaker 3: it through the appeals process to get actually argued in
Speaker 3: front of the Supreme Court. And then worse, the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court actually is the only court that gets to pick
Speaker 3: what they actually deliberate on. So you could bring up
Speaker 3: ten issues in this case and it makes it all
Speaker 3: the way the Supreme Court. Everything's gone through the worst
Speaker 3: challenges and now it's there, and the Supreme Court's like,
Speaker 3: you know what, We're only going to argue one of
Speaker 3: those nine issues or one of those ten issues, and
Speaker 3: we're going to kick back the other nine to lower courts,
Speaker 3: or we're just going to say, like we're just going
Speaker 3: to ignore it in the opinion not even talk about it,
Speaker 3: which is actually what they've done a few emergency docket
Speaker 3: decisions recently where they've done some procedural stuff that was
Speaker 3: not actually the main question and then just basically gotten
Speaker 3: rid of the case. So I think thinking through the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court method is probably not the most effective way
Speaker 3: to actually get at this problem. Instead, it's through either
Speaker 3: new legislation or elections that force out the naysayers or
Speaker 3: bring in people with different ideas to create kind of
Speaker 3: a conflict of discussion there that's what we actually need
Speaker 3: in Congress is not one set of yet is in
Speaker 3: one set of naves. Instead, we need actual deliberation and
Speaker 3: discussion and synthesis out of these disagreements, which is something
Speaker 3: that we're i think missing, and that's the most effective
Speaker 3: way to actually get at the answer this question about
Speaker 3: the war powers resolution.
Speaker 1: So functioning Congress is what you're telling.
Speaker 4: But just to just to be fair though, I mean,
Speaker 4: if you look at Kosovo in ninety nine with Bill
Speaker 4: Clinton and Tripoli and Libya with Obama, Uh, when was
Speaker 4: that in my missing you know, neither of those uh
Speaker 4: you know, democratic presidents have ignored this as well. I
Speaker 4: just I just think that's the idea that that what
Speaker 4: what I find. I never expected Congress to step up here,
Speaker 4: but you know, it's it's actually more irritating when Republican
Speaker 4: members say, well, we're concerned, Well you know what does
Speaker 4: that mean there? And then they go off on break
Speaker 4: for a week They're going to do nothing. As the
Speaker 4: idea that that somehow Congress is going to buck the
Speaker 4: administration on this, I think, even from the Republican side,
Speaker 4: is fanciful unless maybe, and you know, if if it
Speaker 4: really does seem to be something drawn out, but at
Speaker 4: this point I'm not I'm not confident. But on that note,
Speaker 4: what about the notion of resumption of military activity. I mean,
Speaker 4: there was the you know, I thought Admiral Cooper's visit
Speaker 4: to the USS Tripoli, I think it was pretty significant.
Speaker 4: You know, we always think about separating signal from noise.
Speaker 4: You know, noise is a Trump presser on the tarmac,
Speaker 4: you know, before he jumps on Air Force one and
Speaker 4: he's just blurt shit out and no one has any idea.
Speaker 4: But I don't know, I thought that was pretty significant.
Speaker 4: I think also there's been some consultations with the Israelis
Speaker 4: as well that I've gone on, And so what do
Speaker 4: you guys think? And just let me just kind of
Speaker 4: caveat this for the last you know, a couple of
Speaker 4: weeks in the media, I've been saying, look, I really
Speaker 4: don't think either size wants to resume the military the fight.
Speaker 4: But I'm actually changing my mind on this now. I
Speaker 4: think Trump's getting frustrated and and while you can make
Speaker 4: a case that we can outlast the Iranians for kind
Speaker 4: of in the on the economic pain front, this is
Speaker 4: not his shtick. He likes things to be kind of
Speaker 4: tidy and neat, and so I think there is a
Speaker 4: chance that there's going to be some kind of strife.
Speaker 4: So if you guys agree with that, what would we
Speaker 4: what would it look like? What's the target set?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 4: And do you think you know, is it even going
Speaker 4: to be something like carg Island ground forces? You know,
Speaker 4: what's what are your thoughts?
Speaker 3: Well, first thing, it's important to frame up what's going
Speaker 3: on with the with the politics in the region, because
Speaker 3: where the alliances are today are different than where they
Speaker 3: were in February before they started. And for example, if
Speaker 3: you look at who is the foreign Minister of Iran
Speaker 3: calling and then publicizing those calls, those are different targets
Speaker 3: or bodies than they were before in February. For example, Turkey, Egypt, Katar,
Speaker 3: Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Azerbaijan were all called within the
Speaker 3: last twenty four hours by Iran's foreign minister. Saudi Arabia
Speaker 3: would not have been on that list in February. For example,
Speaker 3: Azerbaijan one hundred percent, not because Azerbaijan is seen as
Speaker 3: a puppet of Israel by the Iranian regime. There's there's
Speaker 3: no way they would have been calling them and publicizing
Speaker 3: these calls. So there's certainly something going on here on
Speaker 3: the Iran side trying to probably posture or like search
Speaker 3: around for some kind of support around their borders because
Speaker 3: they sense or perhaps are planning something same with the
Speaker 3: United States. With the Emirates withdrawing from OPEC. I mean,
Speaker 3: this is a massive change, and it's very important to
Speaker 3: highlight how significant that is because OPEK has since the
Speaker 3: nineteen seventies been an unlawful monopoly over oil. If OPEC
Speaker 3: countries were corporations, we actually have laws that would ban
Speaker 3: them from selling oil to US because of their non
Speaker 3: competitive behavior and colluding on prices. So the fact that
Speaker 3: the Emirates jumped out of that, they just lost access
Speaker 3: to this really favorable financial system that they belong to
Speaker 3: because they're part of the Abraham Accords and they're looking
Speaker 3: west right now, they're looking at Israel, they're looking at
Speaker 3: the United States, and they're understanding that their position no
Speaker 3: longer depends on other Gulf states. For what's happening inside
Speaker 3: the Emirates, I think this is kind of a time
Speaker 3: where the Emirates are seeing themselves kind of growing up
Speaker 3: in the region and starting to gain a little bit
Speaker 3: more independence than they have had, especially in the eighties
Speaker 3: and nineties period when it was dominated by other golf states,
Speaker 3: in particular Saudi Arabia. And I think that you see
Speaker 3: that starting to rise up now too.
Speaker 4: And this is definitely do you see the Emirates wanting
Speaker 4: pushing the Trump administration to resume military activity or.
Speaker 3: No, well for sure. And we just authorized a bunch
Speaker 3: of foreign military sales billions of dollars worth of equipment
Speaker 3: to the Emirates this week, which is a new development
Speaker 3: that we had not done to any other golf partner
Speaker 3: in the last sixty days. So the fact that the
Speaker 3: US is doing that right now very important significant And
Speaker 3: at the timing of it, that funding was released days
Speaker 3: after the Opek departure. Probably not a coincidence.
Speaker 1: John also, is it because also they're trying to angle
Speaker 1: for a little bit of like a bridge loan bailout
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 3: Right they're trying to do a dollar for dinar exchange
Speaker 3: basically to buoy their economy, which if you think about
Speaker 3: the sequence of these events, the dollar exchange was announced first,
Speaker 3: the Opek departure was announced second, and then the foreign
Speaker 3: military sales was announced right after that in succession. Right,
Speaker 3: So there's clearly some economic back and forth between the
Speaker 3: United States and the Emirates and Israel. The Israel Emirates
Speaker 3: part a little bit quieter or harder to see in
Speaker 3: the noise, but certainly.
Speaker 4: The way iron Dome and idea of soldiers on the
Speaker 4: ground in the Emirates, I mean.
Speaker 3: That's a huge that never has happened yet.
Speaker 2: It's going back to your question mark. So, from what
Speaker 2: I've heard, President Trump was briefed on multiple options, including
Speaker 2: carg Now that doesn't mean that that's it's likely to happen.
Speaker 2: I thought it was kind of like completely off the table,
Speaker 2: But at least from what I'm being told by journalists
Speaker 2: who are being told by officials, it is. It was briefed.
Speaker 2: So that doesn't mean it's going to happen. I think
Speaker 2: it's more likely that we're going to do resumption of
Speaker 2: air strikes, right. I'm told it's going to be mostly
Speaker 2: infrastructure targets, with the idea that they could cause more
Speaker 2: pain to the regime as a way to push them
Speaker 2: toward the US perspective on the ceasefire and potentially a
Speaker 2: nuclear agreement. But there's some jostling back and forth. I
Speaker 2: don't know if that's the right word, but the military
Speaker 2: obviously has to hit valid military targets. They can't just
Speaker 2: blow up civilian infrastructure just because it's painful. Fact, that's unlawful.
Speaker 2: So they're they're they're designing the target deck. I'm told
Speaker 2: that it has direct nexus is to military operations, so
Speaker 2: it might be power plants, but it's one that has
Speaker 2: a direct connection to UH military operations, so it's a
Speaker 2: valid military target, including bridges as well. And then there
Speaker 2: are at least talks about trying to hit the more
Speaker 2: hard line because they're all hardliners elements within the regime
Speaker 2: that are completely resistant to any ceasefire and new nuclear agreement.
Speaker 2: Ahiti I think is top of the list, and I'm
Speaker 2: sure he understand. He knows that right, so I wouldn't
Speaker 2: be standing around Bahidi that much. But you know, you know,
Speaker 2: we'll see I mean, who were to replace them, Jonathan
Speaker 2: might not. But it really hasn't helped us that much.
Speaker 2: I mean, some people would argue we just end up
Speaker 2: with more hardliners than the people will we replaced, But
Speaker 2: they're valid targets because they're part of the combative chain
Speaker 2: of command. So I'm not against it. I just don't
Speaker 2: know if it's going to change that much. But and
Speaker 2: then this is at least the way they're messaging, it's
Speaker 2: going to be very limited, like a very tight duration,
Speaker 2: a lot of strikes. They've transferred a lot of our
Speaker 2: precision strike mindissions out there to do it. But it's
Speaker 2: not just what the US does, right, because there's going
Speaker 2: to be a response by the Iranians, and the Iranians
Speaker 2: apparently have their target decks. They've been planning this, They've
Speaker 2: been digging out the you know, the missile cities that
Speaker 2: have you know, at least been damaged to their entry
Speaker 2: points to be able to respond likely against the UAE. Right,
Speaker 2: that's probably going to be prime target number one. And
Speaker 2: it's right there, it's literally right there for this.
Speaker 4: Here's the question fund them if you're sitting at THEA like. So,
Speaker 4: so the only thing that matters on this is is
Speaker 4: it going to work? So, you know, will is this
Speaker 4: going to be any kind of step that will move
Speaker 4: the Iranian negotiating position? And I think that's the big question.
Speaker 4: So it's great, We're going to do this again. Beat
Speaker 4: the shit out of the Iranians. Everyone loves this, but
Speaker 4: is it going to work? That's the fundamental question. And
Speaker 4: if you see, if you look at a lot of
Speaker 4: the Iran experts, and you know, Jonathan, you're one of them,
Speaker 4: please jump in. You know, the question is okay, you know,
Speaker 4: that's all we care about. And and so is this
Speaker 4: just kind of you know, not performed at theater. It's real?
Speaker 4: But will it have an effect on the negotiations? I
Speaker 4: think that's the big question. I don't know the answer.
Speaker 2: That's a good question, you know. They if you remember
Speaker 2: from the beginning, I was an advocate to say, we
Speaker 2: go after our military objectives, we decide when it's done,
Speaker 2: and then we just say it's over, right, because the
Speaker 2: only thing Iran has to do to win is not lose.
Speaker 2: So if there's still some regime there, they're going to
Speaker 2: claim they won. And you see what I mean, like
Speaker 2: it's it's it's almost an impossible task. But for the
Speaker 2: US military, they can keep degrading the all the strategic
Speaker 2: military assets, they can keep hitting leaders, but it's it's
Speaker 2: I don't see it. I don't see them ever going.
Speaker 2: You know, no, Moss, we agree to everything you say,
Speaker 2: and we quit and we're gonna all resign and go home.
Speaker 2: It's just never gonna happen. So and it's there's no
Speaker 2: it's nothing against obviously our efforts, because it just doesn't
Speaker 2: have I mean, we're not gonna put boots on the ground.
Speaker 2: That's insane. I mean it's four times size of rock
Speaker 2: and it's mountainous, and it's just never gonna happen. And
Speaker 2: it's already like as popular as a Vietnam war, right,
Speaker 2: So it's just not gonna happen. So we're trying to
Speaker 2: do all this from the air with the idea that
Speaker 2: there's gonna be some magic target that changes their perspective.
Speaker 2: I think we could still do it, like, hey, we've
Speaker 2: we've with honest numbers, we've done this, this this, We
Speaker 2: think that was what we wanted to do. If they
Speaker 2: start racing towards a nuclear weapon, we'll target them again.
Speaker 2: But we we see the cost of this going forward
Speaker 2: is not worth the squeeze. Now the issue is going
Speaker 2: to be the straits or lose and then you know,
Speaker 2: how do we make that mopen that back up? So
Speaker 2: that's the big issue.
Speaker 1: Do you think our renewed air campaign is are really
Speaker 1: going to help open up the straits to regular traffic
Speaker 1: that it did on February twenty seventh.
Speaker 2: I think if we could have done that, we'd have
Speaker 2: done it all right.
Speaker 4: Right, Johonaan, Is it's going to work as any kind
Speaker 4: of military activity. Is there any military option that's going
Speaker 4: to force the Iranians to capitulate?
Speaker 3: I think a military option is a necessary element of
Speaker 3: a larger strategy to be successful, but it's not going
Speaker 3: to be sufficient by itself to actually achieve the end
Speaker 3: state we're looking for. And if the US's end state
Speaker 3: is to create lost oil revenue that forces Iran to yield,
Speaker 3: that's not going to happen right now. Iran actually has
Speaker 3: so much oil produced that they're scrambling to find areas
Speaker 3: to store it because they're actually at overproduction levels right now,
Speaker 3: right and they have these vessels that are floating out
Speaker 3: in the ocean or in the sea that they're trying
Speaker 3: to scramble together to put more oil into it because
Speaker 3: they have so much production right now. China is absolutely
Speaker 3: purchasing oil currently. They had purchased it in advance because
Speaker 3: it's so oil is paid for through futures contracts that
Speaker 3: they expect at a future date the oil will cost
Speaker 3: this much and they pay for it. China gets it
Speaker 3: at a slight discount, but it's not that much. Right now,
Speaker 3: Iranian oil is something like ninety to one hundred ten
Speaker 3: dollars per barrel, which is a lot. I mean that
Speaker 3: money is going directly to fund the regime. So like
Speaker 3: that goal, if that's our goal is to make them
Speaker 3: yield to economic pressure, it's not working. At least it's neutral.
Speaker 3: Maybe it's not negative, it's neutral, right, So if we're
Speaker 3: looking at the blockade on its own as an active
Speaker 3: war and a military option, we've hit forty eight vessels
Speaker 3: in twenty days, and I have not seen us do
Speaker 3: any opposed or non compliant boardings in those forty eight vessels.
Speaker 3: Those have all been compliant or at least they have
Speaker 3: listened to what we've instructed them to do, either turn around,
Speaker 3: been escorted or something like this to stop going to
Speaker 3: where they're going. So we haven't actually had any combat
Speaker 3: operations on vessels yet. Forty eight of them in twenty days.
Speaker 3: That's around two per day, right, well slightly more than
Speaker 3: that too, per day. So that's not stopping anything because
Speaker 3: their oil is still flowing. It's still moving lots of
Speaker 3: ship transfers happening off in the seventh Fleet aar so
Speaker 3: like off the coast of Malaysia straight to Malacca, a
Speaker 3: lot of Iranian oil going on to other vessels that
Speaker 3: are then making their way to China and doing exactly
Speaker 3: what they were doing before the war. So that's all
Speaker 3: to say that the military instrument could work if it
Speaker 3: was layered with other instruments. And I always waved my
Speaker 3: hands about this, that Grant strategy has other components besides
Speaker 3: the military. It has a diplomatic component that's typically done
Speaker 3: in secret, not advertise what's happening on that diplomatic channel,
Speaker 3: because the success of diplomacy largely has to do with secrecy,
Speaker 3: because both sides are not embarrassed in the process of
Speaker 3: showing what they're willing to concede. It's showing to their
Speaker 3: own publics what they're willing to concede. This is the problem,
Speaker 3: and it seems the US is not interested in doing
Speaker 3: that right now. It seems Iran might be, especially with
Speaker 3: all these phone calls they're making but not saying what
Speaker 3: the phone calls are about. That's clearly them trying to
Speaker 3: use this old lever that other countries are traditionally aware of.
Speaker 3: But there's also the economic component, which we've always said,
Speaker 3: you know, sanctions aim to achieve certain behavioral changes inside
Speaker 3: of a country. They have not really done that in
Speaker 3: authoritarian systems like Iran, for example. They've they've had effects,
Speaker 3: but not the effects that we wished for at the
Speaker 3: very beginning, right, And so if you want to have
Speaker 3: that economic stick, you need also an economic carrot for
Speaker 3: other members of the economy to stop combining with the
Speaker 3: bad actors in the economy. That can look like a
Speaker 3: lot of different things. None of those things are being
Speaker 3: approached right now. So kind of a long answer to
Speaker 3: your question, I don't think the military alone is going
Speaker 3: to achieve a positive outcome for what the US is
Speaker 3: trying to do there.
Speaker 2: Soot Jonathan question, then, so how are they getting around
Speaker 2: the blockade? Are they just hugging their territorial waters or
Speaker 2: what is what is it that's preventing the US from
Speaker 2: stopping all of the ships. It's just big ocean. You know,
Speaker 2: we can't be everywhere. I mean, we're at war with them,
Speaker 2: so why wouldn't we just stop them in their own
Speaker 2: territorial waters if we could.
Speaker 5: Right, So, we have three carrier strike Yeah, we've got
Speaker 5: two carrier strike groups on the eastern part of fifth Fleet,
Speaker 5: then one carrier strike the six Fleet, which is the
Speaker 5: Mediterranean Sea, which so that means they can't connect their
Speaker 5: forces together easily.
Speaker 3: So that means really you've effectively got two carrier strike
Speaker 3: groups and about twelve naval ships that can actually do
Speaker 3: interceptions with opposed or non compliant boarding problems, which is
Speaker 3: what you have to always plan for, to always plan
Speaker 3: for the worst when you approach this unknown vessel. Right,
Speaker 3: So twelve ships is not a lot, especially when you're
Speaker 3: talking about hundreds of vessels, some of which were already
Speaker 3: outside the straits before the war started, so we actually
Speaker 3: don't know where they were. You remember the MH three
Speaker 3: six or whatever, the Malaysian Airlines crash that happened back
Speaker 3: in twenty fifteen. We never found where that aircraft went
Speaker 3: down in the Pacific Ocean, largely because the Pacific Ocean
Speaker 3: is gigantic, so they're taking advantage exactly as you mentioned.
Speaker 3: It's just this huge gapped space that if you have
Speaker 3: your transponder off, if you're using a little bit of
Speaker 3: operational security, you know, no iridium phone no transponder, no
Speaker 3: direct to sell stuff, none of that. You're just you
Speaker 3: have a compass, a physical compass, and you're just using
Speaker 3: that and the stars, which is what they have always
Speaker 3: been doing to gate east and northeast. You're going to
Speaker 3: make it to that rally point that you had planned
Speaker 3: in advance, with coordinates that you'd plan in advance. No electronics.
Speaker 3: You show up, basically, do a brush pass with your oil,
Speaker 3: transfer it off. One vessel, empties, one, fills up. Nobody
Speaker 3: knows where it happened, when it happened until that vessel
Speaker 3: shows up off the coast of Hong Kong and is
Speaker 3: ready to go onload, you know. And this is like
Speaker 3: happening every day many vessels. And again they were doing
Speaker 3: this way before February. This has been something they've been
Speaker 3: doing since two thousand and seven when we first sanctioned
Speaker 3: their oil system. So they've had a lot of time
Speaker 3: to develop with a lot of different pressures of different
Speaker 3: because each administration comes in with different packages of sanctions
Speaker 3: and they try different things, and the regime has been
Speaker 3: able to adapt to that. Almost like antibodies or white
Speaker 3: blood cells, they've been able to actually survive these white
Speaker 3: blood cells coming in. So now you have this kind
Speaker 3: of mutated regime that's super effective at avoiding any of
Speaker 3: these sanctioned related issues that we have to any of
Speaker 3: these tools we have to use because we have a
Speaker 3: kind of limited number of tools to use, and they
Speaker 3: know what they are. They say, we know that US
Speaker 3: sanctions by Treasury say company X LLC at this address.
Speaker 3: Well we'll just make company why LLC had a different address,
Speaker 3: and then it will take six months for the US
Speaker 3: government to catch up and make a new sanction against
Speaker 3: the exact same company that just change its name and address.
Speaker 3: You know, it's like they know these very simple tools
Speaker 3: to get around this stuff. Again, word democracy, they're not.
Speaker 3: It's faster for them to do this stuff than it
Speaker 3: is for us.
Speaker 4: Hey, guys, a question. There was a there was a
Speaker 4: press piece yesterday. They got some attention and lots of debate,
Speaker 4: and this is an issue this He's gonna love this
Speaker 4: because we started talking about Israel and Israeli influence. But
Speaker 4: there was a someone from UH I think his name
Speaker 4: is Nick Stewart from the Freedom of Defense Democracies is
Speaker 4: joining the Peace Talks as a as an aid as
Speaker 4: an advisor to U to the U S side. I
Speaker 4: think he served in the first Trump administration. Mick, I
Speaker 4: don't know if you know Nick Stuart, but it's an
Speaker 4: FDD guy. And so, you know, there's a lot of
Speaker 4: people who really think that that organization, that Think Tank
Speaker 4: has a lot of undue influence. Clearly they you know,
Speaker 4: they have the ear of the administration. But have you
Speaker 4: guys followed this at all? What are your what are
Speaker 4: your thoughts on that? You know, because one of the
Speaker 4: things that I thought was interesting is, you know, we've
Speaker 4: all criticized the administration for not listening to any Iran experts. Well,
Speaker 4: they're bringing in an iron expert. We might not like
Speaker 4: the Iran expert we're bringing. They're bringing the last They're
Speaker 4: actually bringing in someone who can help. You know, Kushner
Speaker 4: and wi Cough were completely the most clueless envoys in
Speaker 4: the history of the US diplomacy. So have you guys
Speaker 4: followed that at all?
Speaker 2: I mean to the extent that I mean Traditionally you
Speaker 2: see think tank, especially the ones in DC. When your
Speaker 2: parties has a White House, you know, they empty out
Speaker 2: those think tanks and they go work and they become
Speaker 2: the dazzies, and the dazz d's and all that, and
Speaker 2: then when your party is not, you go back to
Speaker 2: the think tanks, right, So, which is not bad, I
Speaker 2: mean because that means like the people that make policy
Speaker 2: kind of grow up in that system, right They start
Speaker 2: as a junior person and they move up and I
Speaker 2: also go to the Hill and aren't on the Foreign
Speaker 2: Relations Committee and stuff, So think tanks hillstaffers, and so
Speaker 2: it does create a pool of people who are very
Speaker 2: seasoned and smart on every issue. You might disagree with
Speaker 2: their stance on it, but that's how it generally works.
Speaker 2: And we haven't seen it, like we've even seen the Pentagon,
Speaker 2: at least the leadership of the Pentagon like not even
Speaker 2: allow fellows, you know, military fellows to go to these
Speaker 2: think tanks. And that's like, this has historically been part
Speaker 2: of our policy system for both sides. So the fact
Speaker 2: that they're using some and of course it's going to
Speaker 2: be you know, somebody from their political inkling that's common
Speaker 2: is a good thing. And I don't know Nick, but
Speaker 2: it's a good thing that they are. I would hope
Speaker 2: they would use more of these folks and think tanks.
Speaker 1: Once, Yeah, because is like the FDD. I'm just reading
Speaker 1: a little bit. As you guys are talking, it's like,
Speaker 1: come on, bro, come on, brothers. It's like, what are
Speaker 1: we doing. I mean, they're straight up fucking Israeli shills,
Speaker 1: like they looked at as part of the Israeli lobbying
Speaker 1: effort into America, which they do an incredible job of. Frankly,
Speaker 1: and kudos to them, I guess, extremely hard line in
Speaker 1: terms when it comes to our rand too. It's like
Speaker 1: getting another crazy uncle from the IRGC to come and
Speaker 1: come and join us at the negotiation table. It's gonna
Speaker 1: go great.
Speaker 4: We really again, I agree with you, and FDD is
Speaker 4: extremely pro Israel, and there's you know, and people are
Speaker 4: very exercised on social media about this development. But I
Speaker 4: think the reason why I wanted to raise it because
Speaker 4: I think, you know, someone like myself who's been really
Speaker 4: critical that these guys don't listen to anybody. Well, now
Speaker 4: they're bringing in an expert, so now we're gonna be
Speaker 4: critical again. It's kind of funny. So I think it's honest.
Speaker 4: I think it's good that I.
Speaker 1: Think they need to see the writing on the wall
Speaker 1: and see the reality of what's going on, and if
Speaker 1: you're really serious about making a deal. You're gonna have
Speaker 1: to give up some concessions because we fucking broke it
Speaker 1: and we're gonna have to buy it at some point
Speaker 1: that February twenty seven to straight the horror moves well
Speaker 1: is operating fine. Gas was cheap, spirit Ana Lines was
Speaker 1: still in business. Your summer travel this year is not
Speaker 1: gonna be as expensive. It wasn't gonna be as expensive
Speaker 1: as it is gonna be now. So, like there's real effects,
Speaker 1: and like we're barely feeling it in America frankly, you know,
Speaker 1: a West Coast maybe a little bit more in terms
Speaker 1: of gas prices, but you know, we're seeing the effects
Speaker 1: on it. And yeah, like the fake stock market can
Speaker 1: keep going up. At some point that bottom is gonna
Speaker 1: fall out as well if this keeps going. So I
Speaker 1: don't know if bringing in another hardliner who's not gonna
Speaker 1: listen to reason is exactly a smart move. I think
Speaker 1: we need to have grown ups in the room that
Speaker 1: are gonna make real deal. Uh, just look at what
Speaker 1: the writing is on the wall, Like, just look at
Speaker 1: what the reality of the situation is and how we
Speaker 1: fucked it up so badly.
Speaker 4: But that's never gonna happen.
Speaker 1: This is and it's never gonna happen. Then we're still
Speaker 1: gonna have this. They're gonna have this issue.
Speaker 4: But you can't. You're not gonna get bringing anyone with
Speaker 4: anything other than the same deal.
Speaker 1: So like our everything's gonna go up more money, inflation's
Speaker 1: gonna go up, and we're gonna feel it at home,
Speaker 1: our partners and the golf are going to feel it
Speaker 1: even more. I think Saudi Arabia's economy is going to
Speaker 1: retract by eight percent as well as like Ua too,
Speaker 1: Like all the golf countries are getting smoked right now,
Speaker 1: so wolf, you know, which means they're gonna stop buying
Speaker 1: our weapons. Like there's gonna be reverberations to this, and
Speaker 1: it ran frankly, I remember me and Mick were talking
Speaker 1: about it before it went popped off, where like Iran's
Speaker 1: was at its weak as it's ever been right now,
Speaker 1: as pretty as strong as they're ever going to get
Speaker 1: because they're squeezing the straight at hormoos and the money's stopped.
Speaker 1: It's the money has stopped flowing and that's just the
Speaker 1: reality of it. So unless we.
Speaker 3: Get charging up to two million dollars per transit per
Speaker 3: ship through the straits up to you as a ceiling.
Speaker 3: But the interesting thing on that is the way they're
Speaker 3: receiving that money is through things like default swaps, in
Speaker 3: kind payments, bartering like grain for grain for oil. They're
Speaker 3: using a lot of crypto and these like specialized payment
Speaker 3: offset structures are really fascinatingly complex, and they're get money
Speaker 3: with that.
Speaker 1: Now, Dels, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: So that's actually what caused the two thousand and seven
Speaker 3: crash in the United States. Yeah, basically for like insured
Speaker 3: transactions of transactions, if you want to think of it
Speaker 3: that way, right, So if they don't get their oil
Speaker 3: or they don't get their money, they actually get paid
Speaker 3: a secondary payment because of the way this thing is structured.
Speaker 3: So they're going to get their money no matter what,
Speaker 3: and they're getting it in bank accounts outside of Iran,
Speaker 3: so they're getting money. So even if the US stops
Speaker 3: Iran from exporting oil, Iran is still benefiting because, like
Speaker 3: you said, the straits have been closed since Feber twenty seventh,
Speaker 3: early the twenty eighth, So our closure of the straits
Speaker 3: is actually enriching Iran, which is I think very important
Speaker 3: for people to like connect these two dots together.
Speaker 4: Hey, can we I'm sorry, Ad, Just so.
Speaker 2: One quick point on your question mark, Like, even if
Speaker 2: you agree with the policy objectives of the administration, it's
Speaker 2: still important to have people who have that expertise because
Speaker 2: you need somebody in the room to say, hey, you
Speaker 2: know the heat he's probably the most hardline person we
Speaker 2: could have had, right, Like they might not even know that.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying, but there's like detailed stuff on run
Speaker 2: that you need somebody in the room to actually just
Speaker 2: answer the question, you know, like is this gonna matter?
Speaker 2: Like is the regime? Is financial economic hardship of the
Speaker 2: regime gonna turn them at all? Even if you want
Speaker 2: them to turn, even if you agree with the policy,
Speaker 2: you have to have somebody that actually has a knowledge
Speaker 2: base to go No, they're still going to be drinking
Speaker 2: Johnny Walker black, right, and while the other people are
Speaker 2: outside their you know, palace, are starving at at I mean,
Speaker 2: that's the way regimes work, right. I'm not saying that's truth,
Speaker 2: but you need somebody to be able to know that
Speaker 2: so that if you try to go down a policy
Speaker 2: route that you have at least somebody in the room
Speaker 2: that can tell you where it's going.
Speaker 4: To work, even if you know the first time around,
Speaker 4: this is a running or this is a running negotiating behavior,
Speaker 4: this is the history of how they do things, et cetera,
Speaker 4: et cetera. I mean, I just think Kushner and Wick
Speaker 4: offered just complete utter boobs and I can't even imagine
Speaker 4: that they're involved in this thing after they've fouled up
Speaker 4: Ukraine screwed up the whole Gaza thing as well. I mean,
Speaker 4: they got a cease fire deal, nothing else. And so
Speaker 4: I do think I agree with you it's it's probably
Speaker 4: a good thing. But let me one thing that.
Speaker 1: Had Palestinian citizens are just like getting smoked by the
Speaker 1: way nine year old girls and the like. Just if
Speaker 1: I want that for the record, thanks D No problem,
Speaker 1: my pleasure.
Speaker 4: So if we're under the assumption, and I think we
Speaker 4: probably agree that it's a it's a I don't know
Speaker 4: if it's a likelihood a strong possibility that there is
Speaker 4: going to be renewed military action, Let's talk about Iranian response,
Speaker 4: because one of the things that I think that that
Speaker 4: we have not seen is actually the true nature of
Speaker 4: Iranian and asymmetric warfare. Perhaps obviously we saw them using drones,
Speaker 4: perhaps there's been cyberactivity we don't know about, but I
Speaker 4: don't think they seem to have turned off up their
Speaker 4: terrorist apparatus as globally. So what is what are some
Speaker 4: of the things you all are looking for, uh if
Speaker 4: and and again if any, because if we do these
Speaker 4: kind of infrastructure strikes, I think that is an escalation
Speaker 4: on the US part. And so how do how do
Speaker 4: the Iranians uh reciprocate? Escalate? What do they do? What
Speaker 4: are some of the things that we haven't seen yet
Speaker 4: that are kind of in your that you're thinking about.
Speaker 3: So there's something new going on right now? Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: So in Lebanon this is the place to look. Is
Speaker 3: kind of their their test bed for stuff before they
Speaker 3: use it large scale or at least to attribute to
Speaker 3: the regime. So right now, I think it was yesterday
Speaker 3: Hezbola first used a fifteen kilometer fiber optic cable attached
Speaker 3: to a drone espe exactly. So that's a new development
Speaker 3: for Hebola, not a new development in warfare. They've been
Speaker 3: using that in Ukraine, but the fact that it's now
Speaker 3: happening in Lebanon indicates to me that someone's testing this
Speaker 3: out to see how does this work against a similar
Speaker 3: type of adversary that would be used against the United States.
Speaker 3: Because Israel and the US share intelligence, they share air
Speaker 3: defense information and a lot of other things, so they're
Speaker 3: probably testing it on the Israelis first to see what
Speaker 3: is the reaction to this, how do they counter it,
Speaker 3: what's what to expect. Then when the US comes closer
Speaker 3: to the regime's shoreline, the regime will probably begin using this.
Speaker 3: Fifteen kilometers is a long way, right, and it can
Speaker 3: probably make.
Speaker 4: A doctor that almost got hit. There was a there
Speaker 4: was a thing as an ex post of it was
Speaker 4: pretty scary, and I think some of really idea of
Speaker 4: soldiers have been killed recently with from the fp drone.
Speaker 4: That's scary right there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, a nineteen year old soldier was just killed with one,
Speaker 3: and Hesbola released a really sleek propaganda video of it
Speaker 3: showing how it happened. I mean that does put fear
Speaker 3: into the soldiers. I mean that's morale is a component
Speaker 3: of warfare. Information is a domain of warfare, and Hesbela
Speaker 3: and Iran are very good at using information as a
Speaker 3: domain of warfare. And I think, as you mentioned, even
Speaker 3: if we haven't seen cyber attacks happening publicly. First of all,
Speaker 3: they're already happening. Yes, they're happening without being publicized, because
Speaker 3: it doesn't look good if we publicize it's happening to us.
Speaker 3: Second of all, they have certain cyber tools that are
Speaker 3: extremely advanced. They are a state actor, a state adversary
Speaker 3: with a lot of very sophisticated things that zero day technology.
Speaker 3: The moment you use it, it's no longer as effective,
Speaker 3: but if you wait to the right moment to use it,
Speaker 3: it is extremely effective. And they've already shown since two
Speaker 3: thousand and nine that they've been able to hit targets
Speaker 3: inside the United States. They took down the entire financial
Speaker 3: system of the State of Georgia and states once they
Speaker 3: did that with two guys. They've done some other things
Speaker 3: that were very over the top, and as Mickey mentioned,
Speaker 3: I wrote a book about this. But they're very advanced
Speaker 3: in a way that we sometimes don't respect enough. You
Speaker 3: have to respect your enemy to be able to defeat
Speaker 3: them well, because you have to know exactly how are
Speaker 3: they willing to use this thing, how far are they
Speaker 3: willing to go? And we can't look at them and
Speaker 3: be like, oh, these guys running around with sticks and shouting,
Speaker 3: and like, maybe that's true. But if they're really good
Speaker 3: at using those sticks and really good at shouting, I
Speaker 3: need to respect that fact figure out a way to
Speaker 3: stop it from harming us, right, because it can harm us,
Speaker 3: especially in a democracy where people here affect what happens
Speaker 3: over there because of how they view things at home. Right,
Speaker 3: and on the military front, kinetically, we haven't seen them
Speaker 3: using artillery, direct fire weapons. We haven't seen them doing
Speaker 3: any kind of squad, battalion or division level operations yet.
Speaker 3: Any of these things that forty percent of their military
Speaker 3: forces are designed around those capabilities, we haven't seen them yet.
Speaker 3: The last time we saw those used was twenty sixteen
Speaker 3: in Syria when they fought against ISIS and defeated large,
Speaker 3: large pockets of ice as fighters in northern and northwestern
Speaker 3: Syria at using battalion sized elements partnered up with Syrian
Speaker 3: partner forces and the National Defense Forces, which was their
Speaker 3: surrogate force inside of Syria that was a non state force.
Speaker 3: So we've seen them do that about ten years ago.
Speaker 3: A lot of the veterans from that time are now
Speaker 3: mid level field great officers and the IRGC ground forces
Speaker 3: who are capable and possibly ready to use these tactics
Speaker 3: against the United States, especially against our partners. I feel
Speaker 3: looking at Iraq, you know, we have the Iraqi forces
Speaker 3: that we trained, counter terrorism forces and regular forces that
Speaker 3: look a lot like the way that fighters fight in Syria.
Speaker 3: So there's the PMF that has over two hundred thousand
Speaker 3: fighters that are on Iran side that have not really
Speaker 3: engaged very much in a meaningful way against US. They've
Speaker 3: done a couple of things, especially Kataid Hezbola, but most
Speaker 3: of them have not really awakened yet, so to say. So,
Speaker 3: there's a lot of forces at rest in the area
Speaker 3: that Iran has not pressed the go button on yet.
Speaker 3: And I'm sure the Pentagon planners are aware of this obviously,
Speaker 3: but this is just something for the public to be
Speaker 3: looking at. Iran has really actually held back a lot.
Speaker 3: They've been using mostly a standoff strategy, so is the US.
Speaker 3: But once one side shifts to a different strategy and
Speaker 3: more stand in strategy, you're going to see the other
Speaker 3: side respond to that.
Speaker 2: So, I mean, I know you don't know exactly, but
Speaker 2: if we're shifting from almost completely military targets to civilian
Speaker 2: infrastructure at least the ones that we can hit because
Speaker 2: they have some nexus. Do you think the regime would
Speaker 2: then take those previously unused options that you just described
Speaker 2: and do them, Like, could we see direct kind of
Speaker 2: terrorist attacks in the United States based on the fact
Speaker 2: that we destroyed a bunch of bridges and hit I
Speaker 2: think there's like three major power plants that would really
Speaker 2: put the country into darkness. And of course these power plants,
Speaker 2: I mean everybody understands, like that's also water purification, hospital respirators.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is when you take the power out
Speaker 2: of any modern country, you're killing a lot of people. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: a lot of civilians. Right, So again I don't expect
Speaker 2: you know, for sure, do you think that would be
Speaker 2: to the level what they're going to take some extraordinary
Speaker 2: steps knowing that it's going to escalate this, but they'll
Speaker 2: view this as we escalated it first, therefore they're going
Speaker 2: down there.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And actually they've done this before. They've demonstrated that
Speaker 3: this is the way that they kind of respond to escalations.
Speaker 3: For example, twenty twelve, when Israel started assassinating nuclear scientists
Speaker 3: inside and outside of Iran, there was a very measured
Speaker 3: escalation on the Iranian side attacking Israeli diplomats using the
Speaker 3: exact same weapon style that Israel used, almost to telegraph
Speaker 3: without saying that this is in response to what you did,
Speaker 3: rather than some new thing. They've also done to the
Speaker 3: United States in twenty twenty January when we killed Solmani,
Speaker 3: then Iran struck all the side airbase, and the way
Speaker 3: that they did these things was very telegraphed to kind
Speaker 3: of look, you know, tit for tat. The question is
Speaker 3: are they going to still operate with that because all
Speaker 3: the people that made those decisions to behave that way
Speaker 3: are dead now, so we're left with with new decision
Speaker 3: makers and new thinkers, and even the ones that have
Speaker 3: survived were not the ones that were in those positions previously.
Speaker 3: You know, Vahiti is a notorious hardliner who's very much
Speaker 3: against any kind of capitulation at all. He may see
Speaker 3: this as an opportunity to prove that they have some strength.
Speaker 3: There's actually an interesting statement by a field grade IRGC
Speaker 3: commander in the western part of the country, which is
Speaker 3: a very important Iraqi border area, mentioning that the US
Speaker 3: has not used ground forces yet and Iran invites them
Speaker 3: to use them because the Irunni forces have not shown
Speaker 3: what they're capable of yet. And I think that's true
Speaker 3: because as we were mentioning, like forty to sixty percent
Speaker 3: of their forces have not even been used yet because
Speaker 3: they're ground forces. So the way they use them in
Speaker 3: nineteen eighty to eighty eight was not in a way
Speaker 3: that we would like, and that is human waves, suicide missions,
Speaker 3: you know, basically taking the whole building down with them
Speaker 3: if they're going down. So I'd be very concerned about
Speaker 3: how they do escalate or if cooler heads will prevail
Speaker 3: at the Supreme National Security Council, which is where some
Speaker 3: of the quote unquote moderates are out. They're not really moderate,
Speaker 3: but relatively speaking to Bahiti, it depends on who's actually
Speaker 3: holding the levers right now in Iran, and I think
Speaker 3: the Iranian government doesn't even know who actually is making
Speaker 3: those decisions right now.
Speaker 4: But on this, on this discussion, now, you know, let's
Speaker 4: pretend that we were sitting around the National Security Council.
Speaker 4: I mean, I think the argument would be, well, okay,
Speaker 4: this doesn't seem like the right course of action in
Speaker 4: terms of the US escalating for infrastructure strikes. Everything we've
Speaker 4: just talked about. Does not suggest it's going to be effective.
Speaker 4: It could The response could be quite significant. Yeah, it
Speaker 4: seems like we're going to I mean, so you know,
Speaker 4: it still seems like we're going down this path. Does
Speaker 4: this say that there is no NSC process, which seems
Speaker 4: possibly to be the case, or who is who has
Speaker 4: the who is the influential member and the national security
Speaker 4: team who would argue for such a thing, and presumably
Speaker 4: that would be Pete hag Seth, the Secretary of Defense.
Speaker 4: But again I'm you know, I mean, there are going
Speaker 4: there is going to be a sit room meeting with
Speaker 4: the you know, at the Principals Committee level, with probably
Speaker 4: you know, Ratcliffe, Caine, heg Seth, and Rubio amongst just
Speaker 4: a couple others. Who's arguing for doing this because you know,
Speaker 4: again this is just four of us sitting around kind
Speaker 4: of you know, John about this. But you know, we're
Speaker 4: smart enough in the national security sphere to kind of
Speaker 4: put that those cautionary flags up. But I don't know
Speaker 4: if anyone's going to have this conversation with the president.
Speaker 2: Good question. I mean, this is I mean, what we're
Speaker 2: doing right now is very similar to what I experience
Speaker 2: when I was over the NSC. It's just conversations. We're
Speaker 2: all going towards a specific end when you want us
Speaker 2: policy to succeed, but we go down several routes, and
Speaker 2: oft the time it's the it's the intelligence community that
Speaker 2: everybody turns to you and says, well, is that going
Speaker 2: to work? Yeah, they're not supposed to be policy, but
Speaker 2: they're also supposed to go, nah, it's not going to work.
Speaker 2: Why And then they tell you, you know, and then you go, hey,
Speaker 2: let's go let's go this path instead of that path,
Speaker 2: because and then by the time it gets to the
Speaker 2: principals level, a lot of these issues have already been
Speaker 2: worked out because if if everything starts the top, they
Speaker 2: don't want to hear no, so they say, this is
Speaker 2: what I think is going to work. Do it, and
Speaker 2: so then they go down that road a long way
Speaker 2: before even the principle realizes, oh crap, that didn't work
Speaker 2: right if it's if it's staffed the right way. As
Speaker 2: soon as that's brought up, especially with a you know,
Speaker 2: a president that's okay with being told, you know, that's
Speaker 2: the great idea, it's our that they've already come up
Speaker 2: with the pasts that are most likely to work and
Speaker 2: the past that mostly an not going to work. And
Speaker 2: it's done. It's done at a senior level, but you know,
Speaker 2: compared to the president junior level, right, And that this
Speaker 2: is how the discussion general.
Speaker 4: Goes describing exactly how this is kind of fast backwards,
Speaker 4: that that this is a top down that's how.
Speaker 1: It normally works, right, like normally yeah, right, the lower
Speaker 1: levels it comes up got into the Iran thing not
Speaker 1: in a normal way. That because the NSC has been
Speaker 1: gutted and it was six guys in a room talking
Speaker 1: about like, yeah, let's do it. Why not?
Speaker 4: All of Trump's decision making seems to be along these.
Speaker 1: Lines, Asiel said, it's okay to do it, let's do it.
Speaker 1: You know they're going to do it anyway, and we're
Speaker 1: just protecting ourselves. I guess, let's let's fucking start this.
Speaker 1: Warn Yeah, ruin the fucking world? Why not? You know?
Speaker 2: I mean, the best leadership that I've seen, and obviously
Speaker 2: I didn't work for Secretary of Madus is one of
Speaker 2: the I think greatest leaders of our generation is the
Speaker 2: leader doesn't say anything usually other than good morning, right,
Speaker 2: and then they listen to everybody, right, because if the
Speaker 2: if the leader starts off going this is what I think. Well,
Speaker 2: even in the most functional administrations, they go, well, shit,
Speaker 2: I guess he already made his mind up, right, So
Speaker 2: you don't want or you don't want the leader to
Speaker 2: lead with this is what I think we're going to do,
Speaker 2: because then everybody goes, Okay, well, I guess as we're
Speaker 2: going to do. I'm not I don't know. I'm not
Speaker 2: obviously in the room for what's going on now. But
Speaker 2: the most functional at every level I've seen the leader
Speaker 2: be is the one that you know, you got two
Speaker 2: ears in one mouth, right, So that's a story thing.
Speaker 2: By the good way, it goes way back to say, now,
Speaker 2: just for those of you that are stoics out there,
Speaker 2: you got to listen and then and then people are
Speaker 2: more prone to give you their the straits gooop and
Speaker 2: then then based on what you hear, then you know,
Speaker 2: don't make the decision or what. But I don't know
Speaker 2: what's going on now, but they need that staffing. They
Speaker 2: need those professional diplomats, uniform military officers, not just the
Speaker 2: chairman and of course intelligence officers. Uh, they should all
Speaker 2: be at the NSC. They should be pushing obviously for
Speaker 2: the President's policies, but it has to be done in
Speaker 2: an educated, informed way.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 4: That's not good.
Speaker 2: We do need to talk before. I know we're getting
Speaker 2: closely at the time, but the withdrawal of US forces
Speaker 2: from Germany is I think, you know, there's so much
Speaker 2: to talk about, but that's important.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's do it. I mean, it's crazy, obviously, and
Speaker 1: I'm a dirty, you know, hippie commedy scumbag, and I
Speaker 1: think it's crazy, you know what I mean? The fact
Speaker 1: that I think how we let like Eastern Europe and
Speaker 1: like just Ukraine like flapping the fucking win the way
Speaker 1: we do is unacceptable and like insane to me. I
Speaker 1: don't understand this, how this government, this administration operates, And
Speaker 1: when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, what the fuck
Speaker 1: is five thousand troops out of your Ramstein or wherever
Speaker 1: gonna do? I don't know. I don't know what the
Speaker 1: strategic play is, like why it makes sense or it
Speaker 1: just makes for a good fucking headline. I don't know.
Speaker 1: That's right. We're gonna do it.
Speaker 3: Last time, last administration, they were getting ready to do it.
Speaker 3: And then it extended across presidencies, which was then stopped.
Speaker 3: But five thousand troops is about one brigade combat team. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it may it may be a combat team, or it
Speaker 3: may be other forces that are that equal that number.
Speaker 3: We don't know. But uh, there's thirty six thousand US
Speaker 3: troops in Germany and one hundred k in Europe. So
Speaker 3: five thousand is definitely like a political statement more than
Speaker 3: a military strategic statement. You know, at least that's how
Speaker 3: I view it.
Speaker 2: But what if that could be an indicator what's going
Speaker 2: to happen?
Speaker 4: Yeah, like our allies and you know, well Trump then
Speaker 4: said that there's going to be more. And the reason
Speaker 4: why this gets so stupid is and everyone on this
Speaker 4: program knows this. You know, Germany as a logistics is
Speaker 4: massively important. It doesn't matter what the German chancellor says,
Speaker 4: it is irrelevant. Every so many things flow through several
Speaker 4: locations in Germany quietly that anyone who then argues, because
Speaker 4: you now and so people are making the argument we
Speaker 4: don't need them, that's insane for sent Common Africa, It's
Speaker 4: I mean, it's preposterous. If you have half a fucking brain,
Speaker 4: everything goes through these places, including weird shit like fucking
Speaker 4: relays and satellites and all sorts of ISR stuff like
Speaker 4: it's crazy. So you can beat up the Germans all
Speaker 4: you want, but the idea of potentially pulling out and
Speaker 4: closing some of these locations makes no sense. That that
Speaker 4: means that we can't that's that's committing superpower suicide. Now,
Speaker 4: if you want to make a stupid political statement five thousand,
Speaker 4: if that's it, whatever, But the idea that because this
Speaker 4: is based on the notion that we don't need Germany,
Speaker 4: and that's nuts.
Speaker 2: It is nuts. Again, every uniform military person there's landstall.
Speaker 4: I mean, there's there's critical locations there that really matter.
Speaker 4: I mean everybody METAVACT goes to a certain location to
Speaker 4: get immediate traumacare.
Speaker 2: So I think you said it are exactly right, Mark,
Speaker 2: I mean, this is we're not there one, there's nothing
Speaker 2: wrong since we're our NATO members to be there to
Speaker 2: support NATO, that is our thing. But even if you
Speaker 2: don't agree with that, we're there because it's in our
Speaker 2: own interest.
Speaker 4: It's period period, right, big time selfish interests.
Speaker 2: Yes, and when and then if they if they do,
Speaker 2: if this is an indicator, And you're right, maybe this
Speaker 2: is because Mertz said that he was getting embarrassed by
Speaker 2: Iran or what have you. If this is just an
Speaker 2: indicator that we're gonna eventually withdraw from Europe, and if
Speaker 2: you look at the National Defense strategy, it kind of
Speaker 2: indicates we are right. So I don't think it's just
Speaker 2: a one off. The next president, Republican or Democrat, is
Speaker 2: going to spend their entire time trying.
Speaker 1: To get back right.
Speaker 2: They just are it's in our own interest. It is
Speaker 2: not about you know, we're just defending. It costs us money.
Speaker 2: It costs us money because it's in our It's how
Speaker 2: we project force because we do have the luxury of
Speaker 2: being you know, protected by oceans. But that also is
Speaker 2: a burden when it comes to projecting force because you
Speaker 2: have to go over the oceans. Right, So we're gonna
Speaker 2: there is a provision in the NDAA that requires like
Speaker 2: a certification. I was told it's not just the Secretary
Speaker 2: of Defense that has to although I hurt two different things,
Speaker 2: but it's going to have to be the commanding general.
Speaker 4: From uh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: So he is going to have to say that it
Speaker 2: won't impact readiness, which we all know is not true.
Speaker 2: I mean that has to if we start withdrawing a
Speaker 2: lot of forces. Uh, he's going to have to. He's
Speaker 2: going to literally say it's not going to have any
Speaker 2: impact on NATO. There's all these things that and this
Speaker 2: is put in by Congress because they knew this was
Speaker 2: likely to happen. I think, to Jonathan's point, it started
Speaker 2: in the first administration, then it went away because of Bidens,
Speaker 2: So they knew this was going to happen. And this
Speaker 2: was put in there by Republicans too.
Speaker 1: Right, So do you think do you think this administration
Speaker 1: is worried about being in contempt of Congress?
Speaker 4: Well, that's the thing, you know, So we keep coming
Speaker 4: back to conrectorical questions. I mean, you know, Congress was
Speaker 4: also a check on those four hundred million dollars that
Speaker 4: were supposed to be spent in Ukraine and they didn't
Speaker 4: do it, and.
Speaker 1: The Epstein files and they haven't done it. There's like,
Speaker 1: you want to go down the list.
Speaker 4: We can, but but I think I mean, just yea again,
Speaker 4: it's I mean, how many friends of ours been treated
Speaker 4: medical care in Germany on the way back from getting
Speaker 4: or I mean, or every support flight we've ever known
Speaker 4: about goes through Ramstein. I mean, come on, it's just
Speaker 4: it just it doesn't make any sense. But you know,
Speaker 4: hopefully you'll see pushed back from Congress. In this case,
Speaker 4: I would say there's probably going to be more pushback
Speaker 4: on this. As opposed to the War Powers Resolution. This
Speaker 4: is a bigger deal just because uh, the kind of
Speaker 4: the national security normies in the Republican Party and there
Speaker 4: are still that that was out there on the hill
Speaker 4: are are you know, certainly don't support this. But the
Speaker 4: great I mean yeah, I mean the amazing part about well,
Speaker 4: that's that's Rubio. I mean he also went, yeah, so
Speaker 4: Rubio is just this weird enigma. I mean I I
Speaker 4: you know, he's clearly so much of the things that
Speaker 4: he does now and says there's not part of his
Speaker 4: his career had enigma.
Speaker 1: Do you mean like just like a fucking pussy that
Speaker 1: flip flops because of what Trump says, Because that is
Speaker 1: that what enigma means. I'm just trying to clarify his trip.
Speaker 4: That's what it seems like his trip to Hungary was
Speaker 4: was very disturbing for a lot of us who have
Speaker 4: testified in front of him, who's seeing him know what
Speaker 4: he believes in. That's not who he is. But he
Speaker 4: wants to be president and he wants Cuba to go down,
Speaker 4: So it's.
Speaker 1: Not going to be president. He's going to have to
Speaker 1: realize that sooner before later.
Speaker 4: I mean I would I wouldn't go that far. I
Speaker 4: think he's he's got a very good shot.
Speaker 1: I want to make a bet right now, one thousand US.
Speaker 4: If Cuba goes down, if actually he if they pull
Speaker 4: off this Cuba soft coup thing. You know, there's there's
Speaker 4: gonna be a lot of people in Florida who're pushing
Speaker 4: for him.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Cool, Florida. That's a red state. I mean, if
Speaker 1: we're talking politically like that, nobody gives a ship about
Speaker 1: Cuba except if you're a Cuban in Florida. Frank, that's
Speaker 1: an that's an in America and a broad world, in
Speaker 1: the broad country. He's not He's gonna get six percent
Speaker 1: and he's gonna bow out and jump behind whoever gets
Speaker 1: the most, just like he did every other single time.
Speaker 1: And he's gonna keep flip flopping because that's all he is.
Speaker 1: He's a politician who's full of ship.
Speaker 2: But to Marks Boyd, there is still a Reagan side
Speaker 2: of the Republican Party and the Reagan side of the
Speaker 2: Republican Party views NATO as a key alliance that benefits
Speaker 2: the United States. Every president, including President Obama, was angry
Speaker 2: with NATO partners who weren't paying their fair share, and
Speaker 2: they were right. They were all right, including President Trump.
Speaker 2: But now kind of ironically, maybe mostly because of Russian
Speaker 2: invasion of Ukraine, they're all standing up, Like I just
Speaker 2: read something that Germany's gonna add four hundred and sixty
Speaker 2: six thousand soldiers, right, does anybody think that Germany can't
Speaker 2: raise an army? We should all know through history they can.
Speaker 2: So we're gonna The reason why I'm saying this is
Speaker 2: because we're going to end up with great allies like
Speaker 2: who are really strong. And we look at Poland right now.
Speaker 2: I think Poland could take on Russia and beat them personally,
Speaker 2: especially if they were with Ukraine. So what I'm saying
Speaker 2: is we might end up in a situation where the
Speaker 2: US is trying to pull out of an alliance that's
Speaker 2: now the most capable has ever been in its history,
Speaker 2: which is not good for us. That's why we have
Speaker 2: to spend one point five trillion dollars on our defense.
Speaker 1: We don't have to, so we don't.
Speaker 2: Have to, especially in our allies. It isn't just Germany,
Speaker 2: it isn't just I mean the year P and Alliser
Speaker 2: stepping up.
Speaker 4: And about that Greek spending on GDP.
Speaker 2: Let's go, what's up? Tell me? I don't know.
Speaker 1: We don't one of the top ones in NATO in
Speaker 1: terms of percentage.
Speaker 3: Good.
Speaker 1: We're doing it for Turkey. We don't give a ship
Speaker 1: about NATO. We want Turkey to go down.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: No, the Greeks have been very good. I mean, in fact,
Speaker 4: I mean even Breitbart is now celebrating the Greek national
Speaker 4: security strategy, which is causing me some anks.
Speaker 2: But we used to go to smokers in Greece because
Speaker 2: my son, you know it was a boxer. They every
Speaker 2: once in a while they have, like smokers are amateur
Speaker 2: boxing matches. They'd have like these Turks and the Greeks.
Speaker 2: Did you go to the Nades and the Turks they
Speaker 2: must have found like the worst boxers, Yeah, just smoked.
Speaker 1: You gotta stack it right there. You got to.
Speaker 2: Watch the Harlem gold crowders play there watching the generals
Speaker 2: right and we'd be like, is this real? Is just
Speaker 2: some kind of uf I'm not UFC, but uh.
Speaker 1: Yeah, w w yeah, because it was real.
Speaker 2: They just went and found really bad Turkish spots.
Speaker 1: They just grabbed homeless guys on the street and they're like,
Speaker 1: come on, let's go, let's beat the ship out of
Speaker 1: you for entertainment. And that's the most the Greeks could
Speaker 1: probably do to your Turkey for being honest. But yeah,
Speaker 1: a lot happening. We're obviously keep an eye on it.
Speaker 1: You guys want to any final thoughts.
Speaker 2: Well, this week could be significant, right, so that the
Speaker 2: president has been briefed, they's probably gonna choose one of
Speaker 2: the options unless there's a diplomatic breakthrough, so we should
Speaker 2: We could have a lot to talk about next week.
Speaker 1: Are guys do us a favor liking? Subscribe If you're
Speaker 1: listening to us on audio radio five Stars, subscribe there
Speaker 1: as well. Go and grab John Infan Hackett's books. They'ing
Speaker 1: very good. I started reading the first one, not the
Speaker 1: first one, the ran Shadow Weapons ones.
Speaker 3: Oh nice.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's incredible. Mick Molroy and the Whitefish. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: why I like it. I need pictures like our president
Speaker 1: McK molroy. Of course, white the Whitefish Security Summit happening
Speaker 1: at the end of February.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: That link is in the description. Mark polly Moreopolis His
Speaker 1: links are in the description. He's got a book called
Speaker 1: Clarity and Crisis and uh what else. Oh, help support
Speaker 1: the show Patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse. You get
Speaker 1: ad free episodes both for The Teamhouse and eyes On
Speaker 1: and thanks guys as usual a pleasure.
Speaker 6: Hey guys, I want to take a moment to tell
Speaker 6: you about the Team House podcast newsletter. If you go
Speaker 6: and subscribe, it's totally free, and what it will do
Speaker 6: is aggregate all of our data, all of our content
Speaker 6: that we put out, the things that are on The
Speaker 6: Team House, on our geopolitics podcast, eyes On, things that
Speaker 6: I write journalistically with Sean Naylor on the high Side,
Speaker 6: anything else that we have going on books, we recommend
Speaker 6: upcoming guests that we have coming on the show, and
Speaker 6: also you know, filtering in some fun stuff in there
Speaker 6: as well. If you go and check it out, we
Speaker 6: send it out just once a week. We don't want
Speaker 6: to spam you guys. It's just a kind of roll
Speaker 6: up of all of our content on a weekly basis.
Speaker 6: You can find our newsletter at teamhouse podcast dot kit
Speaker 6: dot com slash Join again. The website for that is
Speaker 6: Teamhouse Podcast, dot kit dot com slash Join, so we
Speaker 6: hope to see you there.
Speaker 1: The link will be down the description