Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Hey, everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes
Speaker 1: on Geopolitics. I'm here with Mick Molroy, Jason Lyons, and
Speaker 1: I'm Dmitic on Tacos. A lot happening as usual. The
Speaker 1: big stuff that popped off was Israel baumb Syria.
Speaker 2: Last week.
Speaker 1: The hit the Ministry of Defense, hit the Presidential Palace
Speaker 1: or in and around the Presidential Palace.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: Since then, Syria and Israel have come to a ceasefire
Speaker 1: that's been supported by Turkey, Jordan and the US. Obviously. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, a lot happening there. That was like a
Speaker 1: quick one second thing. But you know, obviously to go
Speaker 1: from bombing a country to ceasefire within three or four
Speaker 1: days is pretty pretty dramatic. So Mick, what are you
Speaker 1: what are you tracking with that?
Speaker 3: Well, first of all, it's a good thing. There's a
Speaker 3: The last thing the Syrian people need is another civil war.
Speaker 3: They've been through over a decade. They've lost over three
Speaker 3: hundred thousand people, displaced millions of people. It's a good
Speaker 3: thing that Turkey, Jordan, the US did broker to cease fars.
Speaker 3: Just to catch people up, there's a group, a minority
Speaker 3: religious group called the Drews. They are in Syria, predominantly
Speaker 3: in Soweyda Province, which is in the southern part of Syria.
Speaker 3: There's about seven hundred thousand of them. They're also in Lebanon.
Speaker 3: I think there's like three hundred thousand and Lebanon, and
Speaker 3: there's around one hundred and fifty thousand Drews in Israel.
Speaker 3: And they are, they are, many of them are in
Speaker 3: the Idea in senior positions. They are. And I'm a
Speaker 3: expert on Drews, and obviously I did know about him
Speaker 3: quite frank before this incident. But basically, they split from
Speaker 3: Shia Islam a long time ago, like ten, ten seventeen
Speaker 3: or something like that. They're very distinct. They have their
Speaker 3: own religion and it's not open to conversion, and it
Speaker 3: hasn't been for a long long time. It's very secretive,
Speaker 3: but it has like a mixture of a form of Islam,
Speaker 3: and it really does have a component of Greek philosophy,
Speaker 3: which obviously you know, as somebody who falls stoicism is
Speaker 3: kind of interesting to me. But they're very distinct. And
Speaker 3: I bring this up because there are groups that consider
Speaker 3: them heretics. You know, Muslim groups, particularly the group that
Speaker 3: supports or did support now is ostensibly part of the
Speaker 3: Syrih military, Islamic jihadists right HTS, former Al Qaeda in Syria,
Speaker 3: Al News for Front and the like, So there is
Speaker 3: a natural conflict there. Unfortunately, the DRUS do not support
Speaker 3: the government in Damascus of the transitional government led by
Speaker 3: the interim president akmedel Shara, So that's one component, and
Speaker 3: they were fighting with although they are Arabs, they were
Speaker 3: fighting with Bedouin Arabs in the southern part partly because
Speaker 3: of territory. Partly I think some would say because they
Speaker 3: compete for economic trade, even illicit drugs trade. I'm not
Speaker 3: saying they do or they don't, but that's one of
Speaker 3: the accusations. It gets at least a part of them.
Speaker 3: But they don't want the government forces of Achman el Shara,
Speaker 3: who they consider hostile to them. In Shaweda, Okay, after
Speaker 3: this started and people started dying, we saw a lot
Speaker 3: of the stuff posted. The government sent forces in there,
Speaker 3: they said to quell the violence. There's apparently a misconception
Speaker 3: by the part of the al Sharak government that that
Speaker 3: wouldn't be a red line for Israel. Obviously that was
Speaker 3: a misconception. I think it's kind of hard for me
Speaker 3: to believe they didn't know that, since Israel has made
Speaker 3: it very clear that they don't. They also don't trust
Speaker 3: al Shara's government, who they still refer to as Jalani
Speaker 3: his name to gur as a member of the news
Speaker 3: for Afront and formerly a member of al Qaeda in Iraq,
Speaker 3: and they don't want them on their border. That's why
Speaker 3: they struck all they could of the Syrian military capacity
Speaker 3: right when Asad fled and Shara took over. That said,
Speaker 3: I would point out that Israel, if you were just
Speaker 3: protecting the DRUS, there wouldn't really be a reason to
Speaker 3: strike and destroy, you know, the Ministure of Defense in Damascus,
Speaker 3: or strike around the presidential palace. So from Israel perspective, yes,
Speaker 3: they have a historical connection to the DRUS. They have
Speaker 3: a lot of DRUS with influence in Israel, but there's
Speaker 3: also a much broader strategic issue here with Israel not
Speaker 3: wanting any government forces near their border. So that's at
Speaker 3: least my summary of what's happening. This is very precarious.
Speaker 3: If this were to kick off again, if Israel and
Speaker 3: the government and Damascus were to go head to head one,
Speaker 3: it wouldn't be much of a fight, but this could
Speaker 3: kick off other conflicts.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: We obviously have the Kurds who have an agreement with
Speaker 3: the government, but that's not going that well. We could
Speaker 3: see essentially a breakdown. The international community is doing what
Speaker 3: they can. I think we have cut sanctions Europe. Also
Speaker 3: there's we're looking at investments in the infrastructure, development, humanitarian
Speaker 3: assistants that would support this government. That we need to
Speaker 3: stay until it has an opportunity for a full vote.
Speaker 3: It's supposed to be five years, so the Syrian people
Speaker 3: can choose who they want to represent them. Because even
Speaker 3: with the reformation talks of Sharra, he is not an
Speaker 3: elected leader. There will be parliamentmentary elections in August, so
Speaker 3: we're starting to take a step towards that. But I
Speaker 3: think it's important that people know that this is still
Speaker 3: a very tenuous situation and it's not only in the
Speaker 3: interest obviously the Syrian people, but the region not to
Speaker 3: have yet another complete breakdown of Syria, which destabilizes the
Speaker 3: region and could send another wave of you know, refugees
Speaker 3: into Europe, which is obviously not something the Europeans want
Speaker 3: to see kind of a long win.
Speaker 2: It's ow rate, but no, it's pretty good.
Speaker 4: It was a good one. Yeah, I'll be honest with you.
Speaker 4: I completely forgot that the Druis, other than in the IDF,
Speaker 4: were a major part of Israeli culture, except for when
Speaker 4: I did started hearing about this incident. It reminded me
Speaker 4: back when I was a kid teenager and correct me
Speaker 4: if I'm wrong. Wasn't there a big incident in Lebanon
Speaker 4: involving the drus, a massacre at a refugee camp or
Speaker 4: something like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that was the first.
Speaker 4: Time I remember hearing about them, right, So they are
Speaker 4: definitely a persecuted minority group.
Speaker 3: You know, I don't want to act like I'm some
Speaker 3: other religious scholar here, but they have different interpretations of
Speaker 3: the prophet Mohammed's status. I don't believe they think he
Speaker 3: is a prophet, but it's very difficult to learn about
Speaker 3: their religion because they they're pretty closed. But I bring
Speaker 3: that up again because there is a conflict between those
Speaker 3: who would view them as non believers and then you know,
Speaker 3: obviously the extremest elements of that would try to take
Speaker 3: violence against them for it. So they've been protecting themselves
Speaker 3: for a long time. They've existed. They fled from Egypt
Speaker 3: into the mountains of Syria Prime predominantly and they still
Speaker 3: they're still there, and I think Israel views them somewhat
Speaker 3: is a you know, a natural ally and also because
Speaker 3: they do have influence in Israel. I mean, I know
Speaker 3: several very senior IDF officers who are who are Drews, right,
Speaker 3: so they have and in Israel doesn't want to see
Speaker 3: you know, one hundred and fifty thousand drus flee into
Speaker 3: not flee, but go into southern Syria to defend themselves,
Speaker 3: which they will, and they started doing. It's started out, yes, yeah,
Speaker 3: it's right there, right, so it's not that far. And
Speaker 3: then then you've got Israeli. Israeli's in there, and it's
Speaker 3: the best thing is you know, I think not that
Speaker 3: they're asking me as a government to mask is focus
Speaker 3: on international development, getting food to the people, and moving
Speaker 3: toward a government that represents the people. And what I
Speaker 3: mean by represents they actually chose right, And if they're
Speaker 3: if they're good, and they do all these things right,
Speaker 3: then maybe they'll be the ones they choose. If they don't,
Speaker 3: if they if they focus all their efforts on uh,
Speaker 3: you know, military activities against the minority groups. Well, obviously
Speaker 3: those minority groups aren't going to vote for you. So
Speaker 3: that's something I think the US can assist with. We
Speaker 3: obviously want to see a stable Syria and it might
Speaker 3: just need some diplomatic coaching.
Speaker 1: Right now, I have a question about like the history
Speaker 1: of the Jews and in Israel, and correct me if
Speaker 1: I'm wrong. In nineteen sixty seven when that went down
Speaker 1: and Sirius took the Golan Heights, isn't that when like
Speaker 1: the majority of the Jews population was joined joined in Israel,
Speaker 1: when they like annexed the Golan Heights.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think they. I think they're predominantly for the
Speaker 3: Goat from the go On Heights. I don't want to
Speaker 3: like go pass my level of expertise on the Druis.
Speaker 3: I read a lot about him, my guess because I
Speaker 3: talked about it on ABC quite a bit this week,
Speaker 3: but I knew no several but I don't want to.
Speaker 3: I do believe they're predominantly in the Golan Heights.
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, absolutely, And there was some uh there's talk
Speaker 1: of not talk, it's happening. Israel's moving to two divisions
Speaker 1: up towards there. Uh, and they're looking like they are
Speaker 1: going to go into uh what's the area called Swaeheda.
Speaker 3: I don't want to Swa. It's yeah province, the southern province.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I mean, bro, I'm the cynical guy, right,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be honest.
Speaker 2: It's a languad. I'm gonna say what.
Speaker 1: I think it's the lang graand by Israel and they
Speaker 1: could they could, you know, because I had Jack Murphy
Speaker 1: on it. But the other day and he made a
Speaker 1: good point. It's like, how can you pick and choose
Speaker 1: what minority groups you give a ship about.
Speaker 3: M hmm, well we do, yeah, throwing it out there.
Speaker 1: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that either. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's fucked too.
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's a fair point. It's a fair point.
Speaker 3: You could in Israel has basically made it a no
Speaker 3: go for the for the uh, the government, the transitional government. Right,
Speaker 3: So in a way you could say that it's a
Speaker 3: land grab in the sense that they won't they just
Speaker 3: won't accept them down on their border. But the but
Speaker 3: the Yeah, it's more than just protecting a minority. It's
Speaker 3: also the strategic interests of Israel. Yeah, I don't think
Speaker 3: anybody think that's not true. Another factor that's complicated this
Speaker 3: is there's no one voice for the Druz in Sweita, right,
Speaker 3: so you get like three leaders to say okay, yes
Speaker 3: he's fire. And then you got this guy hick Mott
Speaker 3: that is head of the Syrian mil not the Syrian
Speaker 3: the Sueda military Council. Another factor, if you if to
Speaker 3: put in a little bit of the perspective of the
Speaker 3: government Damascus, is they think a lot of the Assad
Speaker 3: regime fled and is in Sueda, right they couldn't get
Speaker 3: out of the country, and they believe that this Sweda
Speaker 3: Military Council has many of the members or former regime
Speaker 3: members who they obviously strongly oppose. And then the government
Speaker 3: of Damascus would also point out that they believe that
Speaker 3: a lot of the illicit drug trade happens down there.
Speaker 3: But they of course want to on the flip side
Speaker 3: of that, they want to control all of Syria. But
Speaker 3: let's go back to the legitimacy history, right, so there
Speaker 3: needs to be a stable government in Damascus. They're it.
Speaker 3: I think that's why the US government is supporting them.
Speaker 3: I'm not opposed to that. But let's also point out
Speaker 3: that they didn't get elected to be in Damascus. They
Speaker 3: just took over by force, right, So the Jeffersonian democracy
Speaker 3: speak about them is a little overstated. I would say,
Speaker 3: to be fair on all sides, we have to see
Speaker 3: what they do. They're saying a lot of the right thing,
Speaker 3: but there's also a lot of jih hoists that are
Speaker 3: in that government, and that is I think the legitimate
Speaker 3: concern of Israel. Does it necessitate taking strikes inside Damascus?
Speaker 3: Probably not, But I mean, let's be fair at all
Speaker 3: sides and let the you know, let the listeners make
Speaker 3: their opinion.
Speaker 2: Andy Milburn, Hey, how are you, sir? That's a professor
Speaker 2: to see you guys?
Speaker 3: Now, I can't see it because I got the wrong layout.
Speaker 3: Oh shit, I don't even know you were there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Andy just joined us of course, Andy Milburn, Uh,
Speaker 1: what do you told? What are you tracking with the
Speaker 1: whole Syria Israel? You know now with the ceasefire.
Speaker 5: Well I came in on the on the tail end
Speaker 5: of mix mixed talk there, but I so a knowing Mick.
Speaker 5: I will say right up front that everything he said
Speaker 5: was right, and I agree with him. One hundred percent,
Speaker 5: and I don't want to add anything but be redundant. No,
Speaker 5: I but I will say a couple of things perhaps
Speaker 5: that are you know, not just for the sake of
Speaker 5: being controversial. Mike, I agreed that Algilani's the Algilani sponsored
Speaker 5: government or broken government or initiated government there in Damascus
Speaker 5: is not a democratic government. But you know, I sometimes
Speaker 5: wonder if we aren't too wedded to the concept of democracy.
Speaker 5: It hasn't worked well for us and hasn't worked well
Speaker 5: generally in the Middle East, you know, a leap to
Speaker 5: so called democracy. Think about Okay, I know a month
Speaker 5: and ice here, but I think I think, you know,
Speaker 5: I think we have to put I think we have
Speaker 5: to expect that there is going to be a sorry,
Speaker 5: I think we have to expect that there's going to
Speaker 5: be an interim period government that doesn't look democratic. And
Speaker 5: I think that may not be a bad thing. I mean,
Speaker 5: think about our own experiences in Iraq, you know, with
Speaker 5: a democratic government actually brought around Isis because it was
Speaker 5: democratic in the sense that it represented a sheer majority,
Speaker 5: but they they were heavily punitive on the Sunni minority
Speaker 5: and ultimately resulted in bad things. So, you know, in
Speaker 5: order to have a functioning I'm pausing here for a
Speaker 5: moment because I'm wondering about our own model. In order
Speaker 5: to have a functioning, effective democratic government, you need a
Speaker 5: broadly educated middle class, and that right now that middle
Speaker 5: class is no longer existent in Syria. Everyone who could
Speaker 5: escape has escaped, and so this may be, this may
Speaker 5: be the best that we can hope for.
Speaker 3: So I assume you mean like promoting democracies overseas, not
Speaker 3: our democracy, right Annie, Yes, you know, yeah, No, I
Speaker 3: get what you're saying. Man, it's it's totally I do
Speaker 3: concede that the idea that we can just go around
Speaker 3: the world make and everybody democracy is it's just not
Speaker 3: going to happen. I think we should promote it. I mean,
Speaker 3: that's what we are. Uh, But to your point, not
Speaker 3: every country is ready for it. All I'm saying is,
Speaker 3: if you don't want minorities to fight back, claiming your
Speaker 3: legitimate government in Damascus because you took it by force
Speaker 3: is not a good argument for why another group can't
Speaker 3: try to take your position by force, right, So there
Speaker 3: is no there's no there's no moral right there. So
Speaker 3: all I'm saying is they need to prove that they
Speaker 3: want to lead the country. Ultimately that should be the
Speaker 3: choice of the people or it's going to stay fractured
Speaker 3: the entire time. Because if they're going to try to
Speaker 3: dominate the minority, the minorities who is all armed. This
Speaker 3: is the Middle East, right, and the SDF is of
Speaker 3: course armed by us, They're they're going to say, Okay, well,
Speaker 3: I guess Mike. Mike's right, so I'm gonna I'm gonna
Speaker 3: take you on the battlefield. And I don't think that's
Speaker 3: in the uh in the interest of anybody in Saria.
Speaker 3: They have a lot they should focus on developing the country,
Speaker 3: building up any kind of economy, because you're right, I
Speaker 3: think eighty percent of the populations below the poverty limit.
Speaker 3: And then you know humanitarian assistance and that, and then
Speaker 3: hopefully they prove that they should be run the country.
Speaker 3: And then because there is elections coming up, so a
Speaker 3: form in August for the parliament. So they're trying to
Speaker 3: move that way, which I think is good. But that's
Speaker 3: what I think. What it does. In addition to promoting democracy,
Speaker 3: which has been part of a foreign policy, it also
Speaker 3: gives people buy into the government right long term. They
Speaker 3: had a vote win or lose, just like us. It's
Speaker 3: you know that it's buy into the government. If not
Speaker 3: the government says, hey, I'm the government because I took
Speaker 3: over from the last jackass that tried to tell you
Speaker 3: what to do by the tip of a gun, then
Speaker 3: they don't have any buying. It's just going to be fractured.
Speaker 5: And you know, yeah, I agree with that one hundred percent.
Speaker 5: And you know there is there's so many more things.
Speaker 5: I mean, so far, so good, though I have to
Speaker 5: say that there's so many things that could have gone
Speaker 5: cataclysmically wrong in Syria. I mean, you think about all
Speaker 5: the turn going on there. You've got the Alo Whites
Speaker 5: who now feel threatened. You've got a population the majority
Speaker 5: of whom are extremely angry at the Allo Whites and
Speaker 5: associate that sect with aside and the previous regime and
Speaker 5: all the horrific things that went on. And yes there
Speaker 5: have been there has been retribution that you know, there
Speaker 5: has been fighting between al Jilani's mob and the Alo Whites,
Speaker 5: but it's not as bad. It hasn't turned into a
Speaker 5: wholesale masco the way people thought about You think about
Speaker 5: the SDF the Kurds and the Turks. The fact that
Speaker 5: back to how Jelani, you'd think also another potential would
Speaker 5: be out and out civil war between the Turkish backed
Speaker 5: Arab groups and the Kurds, and that has been fighting,
Speaker 5: but it hasn't broken into a whole scale.
Speaker 3: War yet, you know.
Speaker 5: So there are goodness, Yeah, I mean there are a
Speaker 5: lot of a lot of really bad things that could
Speaker 5: have happened that that have not yet happened, and that
Speaker 5: do seem, I will say this, regardless of Jolani's background,
Speaker 5: that do seem to be some really mature, sensible voices
Speaker 5: in the administration, in the regime that has taken over
Speaker 5: now at least they're saying the right things. So all
Speaker 5: of these are positive indications.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And we've had you know, I've had direct contact
Speaker 3: with a lot of them, and I think they are,
Speaker 3: at least the ones I've talked to mostly about humanitarian stuff.
Speaker 3: Do you have the interest of the people throughout Syria
Speaker 3: and mind So I'd have to give them that, and
Speaker 3: I'd have to give the administration ours a credit, Secretary
Speaker 3: of Rubio for moving pretty quick on this and and
Speaker 3: getting this getting this stop. Like you said, this could
Speaker 3: have been far worse. It could have kept escalating and
Speaker 3: it could have turned. It could have turned even worse
Speaker 3: than it was, way worse.
Speaker 2: Than it was.
Speaker 4: I think we're so sorry, Mick. Let me ask you
Speaker 4: US aside and Israel aside, what role do you guys
Speaker 4: think that Turkey will play in Syria moving forward? Or
Speaker 4: do they only care about the north northwest? Is that it?
Speaker 4: Or will they get involved wholehearted?
Speaker 3: Well, they're involved whole art They're they they they supported
Speaker 3: uh the interim president, they supported his efforts throughout, and
Speaker 3: I think that's that's the other dan not danger? Why
Speaker 3: not danger?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 3: So you get a lot of tension between Turkey and
Speaker 3: Israel if I'm not saying that that could happen, but
Speaker 3: if it did happen, it would be dire consequence. If
Speaker 3: there was actually a conflict between a NATO ally and Turkey,
Speaker 3: who's obviously a very modern advanced military, and Israel, who's
Speaker 3: obviously a very modern and advanced military, that would be
Speaker 3: like a nightmare scenario. And I'm not saying it's likely
Speaker 3: to happen, but it's like the worst case scenario if
Speaker 3: because they support Jilani, I mean Elshirah in Israel does not.
Speaker 3: They do not buy into the reformist UH idea of
Speaker 3: what Joani and in the US does. So the US does.
Speaker 3: We've we've removed the sanctions part the sanctions that that
Speaker 3: can be removed by the president, so the executive action
Speaker 3: UH sanctions, not the congressionally passed ones. And it looks
Speaker 3: like we're really moving to normalized relations. So the United
Speaker 3: States is kind of right there in the middle. But
Speaker 3: to Andy's point, this could have been far worse. Let's
Speaker 3: make sure diplomatically it doesn't get far worse.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we had a Charles Lister on Middle East Institute
Speaker 1: before he wrote a couple of days ago that Israel's
Speaker 1: like essentially positioned was ever since Alsha took over was
Speaker 1: light regime change. And that's what they were like, which
Speaker 1: I don't know what that means, which is what they
Speaker 1: were lobbying the US government for.
Speaker 2: Sorry, Andy, I cut you off.
Speaker 5: Yeah, No, The only thing I was going to say
Speaker 5: is that both Turkey and Israel, you know, there are
Speaker 5: they are rational actors in the sense that they are
Speaker 5: not going to come to blows against one another. You know,
Speaker 5: they remember the I mean, they've they've gone through periods
Speaker 5: of having bad relations. Remember that the incident when was
Speaker 5: that back in two thousand and nine or to rather
Speaker 5: twenty and ten where that Turkish broke the Mamaris broke
Speaker 5: the blockade in Gaza and f Littel of thirteen intercepted
Speaker 5: it and they came to blows there but in the air.
Speaker 5: But you know, again Eron talked about then deterior ending situation,
Speaker 5: possible conflict, but it's it's just not going to happen
Speaker 5: between those two. They continue a dialogue, at least their
Speaker 5: militaries continue dialogues, actually their respective air forces. They know
Speaker 5: that that would be bad for both countries to you know,
Speaker 5: they're by no means friends, but they are both they
Speaker 5: understand the rational actors in the same way that Israel
Speaker 5: and Egypt are. But yes, there is definitely a divergence
Speaker 5: of interest there, and there's some divergence of interest frankly
Speaker 5: between the United States and Turkey and Syria. We just
Speaker 5: haven't got you know, we've seen that in the past
Speaker 5: and when we were back in the SDF, and I
Speaker 5: think we're likely to see it again going ahead. I mean,
Speaker 5: we're walking a fine line. I think it was a
Speaker 5: good decision by the administration to lift the sanctions and
Speaker 5: give this government a chance, because anything is better than
Speaker 5: what has been happening to Sirius since twenty eleven. But
Speaker 5: in the end, we've got to bear in mind that
Speaker 5: the Turks have an agenda in that part of the
Speaker 5: world that is not always it's not always aligned with
Speaker 5: our own interests.
Speaker 3: Yes, very true. And there was an Israelian minister I
Speaker 3: don't remember which one they called for assassination of President
Speaker 3: l Charva. So yeah, that's obviously Charles is super smart
Speaker 3: on Syria. I go to him to get information for sure,
Speaker 3: but there, Yeah, there's a lot of tension in Israel
Speaker 3: when it comes to that government, at least from that minister.
Speaker 3: It's beyond just a soft regime change, right, it's.
Speaker 2: A direct.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we'll see what goes down. Hopefully this sees
Speaker 1: fire holds and less people get killed.
Speaker 5: Moving on, I would be permits if I didn't comment
Speaker 5: that I love your haircut.
Speaker 2: Thanks. I appreciate that. I'm trying to look like you.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm going for.
Speaker 3: Yeahwaw, it's like a popular haircut now, Yeah, like this
Speaker 3: is walking around town. I mean this, by the way,
Speaker 3: this week my town goes from like nine thousand to
Speaker 3: like forty nine thousand because we have a massive concert.
Speaker 3: It's like three days of country music. It's awesome. You
Speaker 3: hear it from my house. But you've seen a lot
Speaker 3: of new people in town obviously, and there's a lot
Speaker 3: of the marine haircuts. I don't it's a style now
Speaker 3: or what.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well it's more of a fade rather than like
Speaker 2: a high insight.
Speaker 5: But the style he's even got like the you know,
Speaker 5: the the lance corporal mustache where you're trying to get
Speaker 5: away just outside of rags, inside of rags. That's my
Speaker 5: that's my first. So Mugeant used to say, hey, if
Speaker 5: you ever looking in the mirror and going damn, that's
Speaker 5: a fine looking mustache, then it's.
Speaker 2: At a rate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so that's why they have like these weird ass
Speaker 1: like super tight.
Speaker 3: Like mm hmmm.
Speaker 2: Of course, I mean it makes sense.
Speaker 5: No, don't don't diminish from my compliment.
Speaker 1: No, please keep keep compliment to me. This could be
Speaker 1: a show entirely compliment to me. I always yeah, of course,
Speaker 1: it's like a daily occurrence for me. All right, new
Speaker 1: battle dodge damage assessments just dropped. We like it's an
Speaker 1: album uh on Iran and what went down there? They
Speaker 1: said that Ford now was completely not i mean destroyed
Speaker 1: or taken back a good amount of time, but isfahan
Speaker 1: And what was the other one? Was it in the
Speaker 1: Tansy Yeah, that they were you know it was basically
Speaker 1: uh not super It wasn't destroyed, you know, it wasn't No,
Speaker 1: I wasn't obliterated.
Speaker 2: Uh oh.
Speaker 1: Well the other thing was Sancom did propose a larger
Speaker 1: campaign that took may have taken weeks that President Trump
Speaker 1: said no to. He decided to do this the one
Speaker 1: night only thing. What do I mean, I don't think
Speaker 1: is that really shocking that Sancom has a plan about
Speaker 1: like a multi day air campaign over around like it's
Speaker 1: been We've been planning this for twenty five years.
Speaker 3: Yes, you always have three courses of actions and Andy
Speaker 3: and Jail tell you, right, you have one that's like
Speaker 3: really high and they get the one you want it's
Speaker 3: a medal, and then the one you definitely don't want
Speaker 3: us at the bottom.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: So you know, I'm sure said comp said we could
Speaker 3: do this operation for a month. No one that you know,
Speaker 3: the president is likely going to say no, and then
Speaker 3: he's gonna go with the second one, right, it's like
Speaker 3: the Goldilocks effect. You know, we knew this was gonna happen, right,
Speaker 3: BDA's get better with time, we get more people talking
Speaker 3: on phones. It wouldn't we get human assets to get
Speaker 3: access that didn't have it immediately after? Obviously it makes sense.
Speaker 3: Or now is where we dropped I think that was
Speaker 3: the one we dropped twelve you know g W fifty
Speaker 3: seven's right, So who's designed to destroy subterranean the other ones?
Speaker 3: Israel hit a lot of surface strikes. I think there
Speaker 3: was two Atton's, so I think we can expect that.
Speaker 3: So it's it's lining up. The only thing I would
Speaker 3: say is we still control the air over on so
Speaker 3: this isn't if we have the intelligence they are either
Speaker 3: rebuilding that I think Israel go ahead and strike or
Speaker 3: what we don't know is the stuff that's most concerning.
Speaker 3: It looks like a lot of the highly enricheranium did survive.
Speaker 3: They could probably move to a black site another ones
Speaker 3: when we don't know about, and start heading toward it
Speaker 3: at the time when the IAEA cooperation is now over.
Speaker 3: So this is not over. That's what I'm is my point,
Speaker 3: And I don't think we should view it as Okay,
Speaker 3: we struck him, and now we're not going to talk
Speaker 3: about iran nuclear ambitions. Ran probably has a nuclear ambition now,
Speaker 3: maybe that they didn't have before, you know, the war
Speaker 3: with Israel and the strikes. Right, they said over and
Speaker 3: over again that if you ever we ever strike their
Speaker 3: facilities are definitely going to try to get a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 3: So I think we should listen to them and just
Speaker 3: expect that this might require, you know, mowing the grass,
Speaker 3: as we used to say, We might have to do
Speaker 3: this over and over again. Not a good thing. But
Speaker 3: until Iran comes back to the negotiation table, we get
Speaker 3: an agreement and they allow the ia AEA back in,
Speaker 3: I think we can expect this boys Andy.
Speaker 5: J Yeah, I no, I mean I agree again with
Speaker 5: everything Mix said. One day, I'm going to have to
Speaker 5: find things to argue about with him. But I will
Speaker 5: say this, I know, and I'm I'm not just saying
Speaker 5: this again for the purpose of being contra I think
Speaker 5: that we just have to accept sooner or later, Iran
Speaker 5: it's going to get a nuclear weapon. It is what
Speaker 5: it is, you know, and it's not an existential threat
Speaker 5: to the United States. It's not necessarily in our interests.
Speaker 5: It's certainly not in our interests. Sooner or later it's
Speaker 5: going to happen. More concerning for us is the is
Speaker 5: the prospect of Iran continuing its malign actions in the
Speaker 5: Middle East and being a disruptive influence, and that really
Speaker 5: does is in contravention of our interests. You know, So
Speaker 5: I guess where I'm heading on this is again this
Speaker 5: is putting me, I know, way out in left field,
Speaker 5: but understanding that sooner or later Iran is probably going
Speaker 5: to develop a nuclear weapon. With that in mind, you know,
Speaker 5: I think, I think we drive our hid bargain as
Speaker 5: far as supporting around, supporting proxies and focus on that
Speaker 5: side of the equation and not get sucked into too
Speaker 5: much too. Is Israel's argument about you know, this is
Speaker 5: an existential threat to Israel, blah blah blah blah. Is
Speaker 5: it an existential threat to Israel? Israel's got nuclear weapons?
Speaker 5: You know, remember the Cold War? I mean we were
Speaker 5: both both your Soviet Union and the United States were
Speaker 5: existential threats to each other. But it never came to
Speaker 5: blows because everyone understood that ran in the end of
Speaker 5: the day, the Iranian administration. I'm not justifying them. I'm
Speaker 5: not saying they're good guys, but they're rational actors. And again,
Speaker 5: I know this flies in the face of conventional wisdom,
Speaker 5: but I think in the end it's I mean, we
Speaker 5: just have to be realist. It's going to happen. It
Speaker 5: may not be they're not going to have I don't
Speaker 5: think they're going to have a formidable array of nuclear weapons,
Speaker 5: but certainly I think they'll get one. But that's not
Speaker 5: for me. That wouldn't be my biggest concern. My biggest
Speaker 5: concern would be that they would consider continue to do
Speaker 5: what they've been doing since the nineteen eighties, which is
Speaker 5: just fuel a whole region with massive instability, supporting bad things.
Speaker 5: And that is what we should be going after. That
Speaker 5: is what is in opposition to US interests. We don't
Speaker 5: Our interests don't mirror those of Israel. And yes, the
Speaker 5: Israelis have since time immemorial the last few decades been
Speaker 5: banging the drama on, Hey, this is an existential threat
Speaker 5: to US. I would even argue that it's not. It's
Speaker 5: not even an existential threat to Israel for the reasons
Speaker 5: that I have stated, and I think we need to
Speaker 5: bear all of that in mind, I.
Speaker 4: Can't follow up with either of those. Those are those
Speaker 4: are growth great points.
Speaker 5: I mean by all means, by all means, go ahead
Speaker 5: and motograss yes, But at the same time, we need
Speaker 5: to be talking to Iran and we needed to be
Speaker 5: saying behind you know, behind the curtain. We need to
Speaker 5: be telling them, Hey, whatever happens on this this side, Okay,
Speaker 5: you know we're against proliferation.
Speaker 2: All that shit.
Speaker 5: But if you start support groups like the hu Thies,
Speaker 5: not start continue supporting groups like the Huthis or Hamas
Speaker 5: or Hezbola again, that's that's really going to get our goat.
Speaker 5: And that is what's going to piss us off. Or
Speaker 5: if you start fueling the Syria, if you start opposing
Speaker 5: the Syrian regime again and fueling the opposition there, that's
Speaker 5: going to really piss us off. That's when we're going
Speaker 5: to come down hard on you. Those are the things
Speaker 5: that we should be concerned about most.
Speaker 3: And on that point, I mean, we just or the
Speaker 3: Yemeni government just sees what seven hundred tons I think
Speaker 3: was the biggest one yet of very advanced weapons going
Speaker 3: from or on andy Emen. Right, so they hadn't stopped,
Speaker 3: right even with all this going on, they haven't stopped.
Speaker 3: And we just saw last week two commercial ships. I
Speaker 3: actually knew some of the security guys that were on them.
Speaker 3: They were sunk, struck, sunk, people killed, you know, civilians killed.
Speaker 3: And sure a lot of those weapons systems came directly
Speaker 3: from Iran. They use this proxy force as some kind
Speaker 3: of way to skirt responsibility, and to Andy's points, maybe
Speaker 3: we should just start holding them directly responsible for everything
Speaker 3: that they especially when they're launching you know, advanced cruise
Speaker 3: missiles that they obviously didn't make up in Hoofy Land
Speaker 3: at particularly commercial vessels.
Speaker 5: We've kind of been giving them a buy on this.
Speaker 5: You know, we make a big thing of the nuclear weapons,
Speaker 5: but think way back in Iraq when US soldiers are
Speaker 5: being killed by weapons supplied by Iran. You know, we've
Speaker 5: we've talked about it. We said we brought pressure on them,
Speaker 5: but we haven't really held that face to the grindstone.
Speaker 5: To mix my metaphors, right, I mean we haven't. We
Speaker 5: haven't really made this a red line, and I think
Speaker 5: it's time to do that.
Speaker 4: So let me ask them, if they do get a
Speaker 4: nuclear weapon, do you think that that would cause them
Speaker 4: to now bump up what they're doing already, because it's
Speaker 4: kind of like, you know, what are you gonna do?
Speaker 4: We have a nuclear weapon now, so now we're really
Speaker 4: gonna supply the Hoofi's. Now we're really gonna start shitting Syria.
Speaker 4: Or do you think that they I'm gonna say, I
Speaker 4: doubt this is probably rhetorical question. Or do you think
Speaker 4: once they get it, they'll be like, Okay, we're happy
Speaker 4: now and just back up.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's a great point, but I think you know,
Speaker 5: we call that bluff. I mean, you know, the United
Speaker 5: States is a nuclear has a vast nuclear array. Of course,
Speaker 5: Israel has a nuclear array. We think, we speculate that's
Speaker 5: bound to be far greater than Iran is able to
Speaker 5: build in the next fifty years. So again we're dealing
Speaker 5: with the rational actor. Iran can hold the prospect of
Speaker 5: nuclear weapons all at once, but in the end, we
Speaker 5: know they're not going to use them, and we can
Speaker 5: bring we can bring pressure to bear as though they
Speaker 5: are not a nuclear nation. I don't. I don't think
Speaker 5: it changes their calculus, is what I'm saying. And the
Speaker 5: way that North Korea being a nuclear country changes the
Speaker 5: calculus with North Korea. You've got to truly, you know,
Speaker 5: you've you've got a guy who is totally irrational and
Speaker 5: doesn't give a shit how many of its population are killed.
Speaker 5: And at the end, you know, it's not a it's
Speaker 5: not the same model as the Soviet Union or even Iran,
Speaker 5: and we have to recognize that that. You know that
Speaker 5: if we could, if we could go back in time,
Speaker 5: that's one thing that we certainly would do. Pakistan is
Speaker 5: a nuclear nation, and we've seen some we've seen some
Speaker 5: nott jobs and in charge of Pakistan, but at the
Speaker 5: end of the day, these are the United States. We're
Speaker 5: relatively comfortable Pakistans am going to do anything against overtly,
Speaker 5: overtly against our interests. But there's always a prospect that
Speaker 5: Pakistan is going to use nuclear weapons against in you know,
Speaker 5: me walking a fine line across the globe on this topic.
Speaker 5: But I just again, I'm just saying from our perspective,
Speaker 5: from the perspective of US interests, what has really hurt
Speaker 5: us and will continue to hurt us or Irania is
Speaker 5: iranium malign action in the Middle East. That is, that
Speaker 5: is what we really should be focusing on.
Speaker 3: Would be interesting to see what the intelligence community said
Speaker 3: about if if there was a kickoff of nuclear weapons
Speaker 3: arms race, right, so would that stabilize destabilize the region
Speaker 3: with everybody? You know, it's kind of like walking into
Speaker 3: a bar where everybody's armed. People tend to be polite,
Speaker 3: you know. I don't know. I don't know the answer
Speaker 3: to that, and you can do that actually a Montana.
Speaker 3: But that's that's a good question. I don't even know
Speaker 3: what the intelligence community is assessment that that would be,
Speaker 3: would it? You know, because there's a concept during the
Speaker 3: Cold War, the mutually assured destruct right so mad that
Speaker 3: it kept it a cold war because it was it
Speaker 3: was in no country's interest in the US or the
Speaker 3: Soviet Union to have a hot war when we were
Speaker 3: both armed to the teeth through with thousands of deliverable
Speaker 3: nuclear weapons. I don't know, but it'd be be interesting
Speaker 3: to see if we could get somebody on the show
Speaker 3: that has worked in that area of analysis.
Speaker 1: And it'd be interesting to see if somebody would actually
Speaker 1: say that that would be the case, because like I
Speaker 1: feel like if there is an actual intelligence assessment like that,
Speaker 1: maybe twenty years ago or whatever, it would ever be
Speaker 1: released because you know, there are people that don't want
Speaker 1: a run to have a bomb. They don't want it
Speaker 1: Saudi's to have a bomb, you know, because if Shia
Speaker 1: bomb's going to you know, start a Sunni bomb.
Speaker 3: Yeah. The other issue is this is that the nuclear
Speaker 3: confrontations are not regional, right if you see then you
Speaker 3: can look at this on YouTube, if there was a
Speaker 3: regional limited exchange nuclear weapons in India Pakistan. I mean
Speaker 3: it dramatically affects the entire world ecosystem, like severely, not
Speaker 3: like oh it's a little dark today. Now we're talking
Speaker 3: like crop production goes down fifteen to twenty percent. It's
Speaker 3: a it's a real global consequence.
Speaker 5: And I would say that is we're far greater risk
Speaker 5: of that happening. Indeed, it's come close to happening back
Speaker 5: in the late nineties than we are of Iran and
Speaker 5: Israel really using squaring off and using nuclear weapons. I
Speaker 5: guess when I'm saying first strike or not on either side,
Speaker 5: I think both countries in the end are rational enough
Speaker 5: not to do that. But I'm not now for the audience,
Speaker 5: I'm not saying that Pakistan and India are not rational actors,
Speaker 5: but I'm saying the level of hatred between those two
Speaker 5: countries take makes them to the point where perhaps they
Speaker 5: ceased to be objectively rational, you know. And the last
Speaker 5: thing I'll say on this is, and I remember having
Speaker 5: a Pakistani brigadier is a very charming guy and you know,
Speaker 5: brought up in the British tradition. That's probably why he
Speaker 5: was charming. You know, played cricket, was drank tea and
Speaker 5: all of these things. And yet when we started talking
Speaker 5: about India and we started talking about what was the
Speaker 5: incident of the late nineties with it kargal Am I
Speaker 5: pronouncing it right, And he talked about the fact that
Speaker 5: Pakistan has a policy of first strike, all right, a
Speaker 5: first strike preemptively, Okay, if they think India is going
Speaker 5: to drop the bomb, their policy is we're going to
Speaker 5: do it first, all right. And he was quite open
Speaker 5: about this. That is scary. I mean, that really is
Speaker 5: scary because, as Nick says, that's not going to just
Speaker 5: affect Pakistan in India, that is a constant threat that
Speaker 5: I think, because it's been around for so long, be
Speaker 5: kind of underplane. Yeah, I say, is what I'm trying
Speaker 5: to say again, having a nuclear bomb, I mean, sorry, Iran,
Speaker 5: having a nuclear bomb while certainly not something that we want,
Speaker 5: is perhaps not as as a disastrous event as we
Speaker 5: may all the Israelis betray it.
Speaker 3: I think the best course of action, if we could
Speaker 3: sweeten the pot, if you will, is to get them
Speaker 3: back in a nuclear agreement, and if they could develop
Speaker 3: an economy, because they have super intelligent people, they had
Speaker 3: society very innovative, if we could, and you brought this
Speaker 3: up earlier, Andy, if we could get them to have
Speaker 3: a sizable middle class, Right, that's what stabilizes countries. Every
Speaker 3: country has really poor and really rich people. I don't
Speaker 3: not where you go. It's the middle class that stabilizes that.
Speaker 3: That educated in education, and you know, a sound economic
Speaker 3: base with people, are you know, comfortable they can secure
Speaker 3: livelihood for their families. That's that's where they need to go.
Speaker 3: And I don't think they're going to get there unless
Speaker 3: they're left let back into the global economy. And that's
Speaker 3: only going to come with a new nuclear agreement, you know,
Speaker 3: a new The issue is is regime care about the
Speaker 3: regime only? Or do they care at all about the
Speaker 3: people of Iran?
Speaker 1: But Mack, let me, let me let me ask, and
Speaker 1: Andy and Jay like, let's say they do come together
Speaker 1: and come back with a new agreement and it's jcpoa
Speaker 1: two point zero with some like added things or whatever. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: what's the stop is? Yeah, what's the stop Israel from
Speaker 1: undermining that agreement like they did from two thousand and
Speaker 1: five twenty fifteen onwards.
Speaker 4: I don't think there's anything.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what I'm saying, Like, we can do
Speaker 1: all this work, this diplomatic work, people grinding for years
Speaker 1: or decades at a time, and just Forhraser up to
Speaker 1: be like, you know what, We're going to fucking bomb
Speaker 1: them again because we feel threatened. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: I would argue this is going to accelerate their nuclear
Speaker 1: program rather than them even nen Yahu's saying they're a
Speaker 1: year away in his speech right after he bombed them.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think the US would have put a
Speaker 3: lot of pressure obviously, and we do give them a
Speaker 3: sizeable portion of their defense budget is coming from the
Speaker 3: US taxpayer. I would like to hear their argument. I
Speaker 3: don't disagree with your point, D, but I like to
Speaker 3: hear their argument. And we say, we just got an agreement.
Speaker 3: President Trump has said no enrichment and Iran and if
Speaker 3: we feel that we can validate it, and they're not
Speaker 3: enriching at all. So they're part of this multinational consortium
Speaker 3: of you know, they get you know, enrich uranium from
Speaker 3: outside the country to use for their nuclear program. And
Speaker 3: let's face it, they have. Energy is not an issue
Speaker 3: for Iran. So the need for a nuclear program, it's
Speaker 3: not as high as other places. But if we get
Speaker 3: to that in Iran, I mean, excuse me, Israel still
Speaker 3: tries to I would have to hear their argument. I
Speaker 3: do think the US could put and would put significant
Speaker 3: pressure if they got Iran to concede to the no enrichment,
Speaker 3: which is beyond what the twenty fifteen JCPOA had and
Speaker 3: at that time was like three point six seven or something.
Speaker 3: It's enough for energy, but obviously not anywhere close to
Speaker 3: the ninety percent for enrichment. But it's like, look like
Speaker 3: they're talking anymore.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think it's to me it's administration dependent. You know,
Speaker 4: are they willing have they shown a history of actually
Speaker 4: enforcing what they say as far as hey, we have
Speaker 4: something in place, keep your hands off of Iran until
Speaker 4: you know they prove otherwise. But I also think it's
Speaker 4: Israel dependent as far as telling us ahead of time, Hey,
Speaker 4: in twenty four hours, we're going to bomb them because
Speaker 4: we have intel that they're rebuilding or whatever, or are they
Speaker 4: just going to do it? And then we have to do,
Speaker 4: you know, play catch up. So I think maybe they're
Speaker 4: those factors are also in play.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: We seem to be, and have been for a while,
Speaker 5: in a rather unhealthy position of saying collectively that that
Speaker 5: any criticism of Israel is Unamerican, and I think we
Speaker 5: have to remind ourselves of the fact that our again,
Speaker 5: our interests do not always align absolutely with Israel. And
Speaker 5: I will remind everyone, not you guys, because you remember this, right,
Speaker 5: Do you remember Pollard, the whole Pillart case?
Speaker 4: All right, you remember that case?
Speaker 5: Yeah, Mick, you may not remember this, but when when
Speaker 5: Pollard was when he was pardoned or let not pardoned
Speaker 5: or let go. Uh, there was a there was considerable
Speaker 5: opposition to that within the intelligence community, mainly from the
Speaker 5: agency but also the NSA. And I'll tell you why.
Speaker 5: It wasn't simply because he betrayed his country, but it
Speaker 5: was the nature of the stuff that he was handing
Speaker 5: to Israel. He threatened, he was handing sources and methods
Speaker 5: not related to Israel, but stuff that we were doing
Speaker 5: against the Soviets. All right. Why did the Israelis want
Speaker 5: that stuff? Well, they were negotiating getting certain Jews, high
Speaker 5: level dissonance out of Soviet the Soviet Union at the time,
Speaker 5: guys with specific scientific expertise. They were in it. They
Speaker 5: were bargaining with the Soviet government at the time to
Speaker 5: get these guys out. And then suddenly they task one
Speaker 5: of their agents to start collecting stuff that we are
Speaker 5: collecting on the Soviets to include and I can't mention
Speaker 5: the program here, but a very highly classified program as
Speaker 5: a method of US collecting intelligence in a certain spectrum.
Speaker 5: I think you guys are tracking what I'm saying from
Speaker 5: the Soviets. Pollard gave that to the Israelis, and we
Speaker 5: have no doubt that was passed on to the Soviets.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 5: That is why the Agency was so pissed off when
Speaker 5: Pollard was released from from jail. It wasn't simply that
Speaker 5: he was passing. He was letting an ally know what
Speaker 5: we were doing. Because the second part of this, why
Speaker 5: would the Israelis want a spy on the United States?
Speaker 5: We let them know everything, right, I mean, our our
Speaker 5: level of intelligence sharing is pretty high level, as you
Speaker 5: guys know, So the only reason they would want to
Speaker 5: have a spy within within our you know, within the
Speaker 5: intelligence community, would be to collect on areas that we
Speaker 5: wouldn't normally pass to them, again, kind of a counter
Speaker 5: Soviet operations.
Speaker 2: And I bring that.
Speaker 5: Up simply as you know, it's not I'm not there
Speaker 5: againing the Israelis. I'm just pointing out there is a
Speaker 5: classic case of the fact reminder to all of us
Speaker 5: that our interests do not neatly overline. The Israelis will always, always,
Speaker 5: when it comes to a choice like that, They're not
Speaker 5: going to be affected by emotion. They're going to be
Speaker 5: affected by their own interests, even if it means japanizing
Speaker 5: US sources and interests. And that's just the nature of
Speaker 5: the world. We need to understand that before we get
Speaker 5: all weak need and start thinking that it's around the
Speaker 5: United States are the same entity.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and there's nothing un American about I would second
Speaker 3: Andy's point about criticizing the policies of Israel. There's nothing
Speaker 3: un American about criticizing the policies of America, right, I mean,
Speaker 3: that's very American. And there's plenty and I know I
Speaker 3: have a lot of It'sraeli friends that also do criticize
Speaker 3: and disagree with the policy of the current administration. So
Speaker 3: hopefully that that's just a very weak way to debate,
Speaker 3: you know, policy issues, just simply claim you're not patriotic
Speaker 3: because you disagree it's a policy.
Speaker 1: Issue, but it's or even anti semitic to people that Yeah,
Speaker 1: which is kind of wild because like you even saw
Speaker 1: you know, the former PM of Israel.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what's happening after the idea? If people are familiar
Speaker 3: with the idea, if there they tend to be middle
Speaker 3: of the road, you know, at least they were, and
Speaker 3: plenty of them disagree. It doesn't make them right or wrong,
Speaker 3: but it only doesn't make them anti semitic. Uh, you
Speaker 3: know a Jewish Israeli IDF soldier.
Speaker 1: All Right, Andy's gone, I love Andy, will miss Andy.
Speaker 1: That's what happened. I don't know, he said he had
Speaker 1: said in the chat he had to run. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: Uh interesting take. I mean we we what we we
Speaker 1: had Bill Evanina on on the team hoouse the other day.
Speaker 1: Uh just came out. Uh, he's the former director of
Speaker 1: Countering Intelligence for the d N I and I slipped
Speaker 1: in a question at the end where I was like, hey,
Speaker 1: I know, obviously we have like you know, is Iran, Russia,
Speaker 1: China that are like actively trying to penetrate, you know,
Speaker 1: us by agencies and spy on us in general. I'm like,
Speaker 1: out of their allies, which is like the worst acting
Speaker 1: And I asked that because I knew the answer, right,
Speaker 1: and he said it was Israel. I mean, he had
Speaker 1: a pretty diplomatic answer though, like saying, you know, like
Speaker 1: we're really close allies, blah blah, we look at this
Speaker 1: this friendly fire. I'm like, okay, I mean I wasn't
Speaker 1: the host there, so you know, finally Jack, let me
Speaker 1: speak on the teamhouse. But it's interesting, right, like an
Speaker 1: ally that we do a lot for I mean we
Speaker 1: do a lot for it still actively and forget the
Speaker 1: just a Pollard thing right during like that era, but
Speaker 1: also right now, what's happening, I mean they do it now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean we gotta be smart, we gotta be
Speaker 3: we gotta be realistic. I'm a I support Israel the
Speaker 3: country for sure, but yeah, there's a there's I mean,
Speaker 3: a lot of our allies collect on us should we
Speaker 3: collect a lot of our allies too, right, So I
Speaker 3: guess when you're in the spy game, you're not as
Speaker 3: you're more pragmatic. I guess, right, because it's hard to be,
Speaker 3: you know, flipping out when somebody's spying on us and
Speaker 3: we're spying on them. So it's it's something that happens and.
Speaker 1: A yeah, last bit, there's a lot going on.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: Barakraavid the reporter from Axios. UH said that the WSHA
Speaker 1: chief David Barnea visited the White House this week to
Speaker 1: discuss Israel's plans to transfer the population of Gaza and
Speaker 1: requested the assistance of the of US, the American in
Speaker 1: encouraging other countries to absorb hundreds of thousands of pop
Speaker 1: of people from Gaza. Uh, that's crazy. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: like that. I know that's not crazy analysis, but that's
Speaker 1: a fact that's insane. To displace hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: people from Gaza to other countries, doesn't matter where. Some
Speaker 1: would say that would constitute a war crime. Myself included,
Speaker 1: what's gonna how the fuck do we fix Gaza? Make
Speaker 1: go ahead, tell us.
Speaker 3: Right now, Wow, we're gonna have to start over with
Speaker 3: the hour and I probably still want to come up
Speaker 3: with a solution. I would say, if you forcibly displace
Speaker 3: people from their country, that's against international law. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 3: I'm not an international lawyer, but I'm pretty confident in that.
Speaker 3: And uh, I don't know how you practically do that.
Speaker 3: From a military perspective, I'm sure the idea of head's
Speaker 3: blowing up, like we're gonna move We're gonna forcibly move
Speaker 3: two point two million people. Remember moss Is only was
Speaker 3: at the beginning only thirty thousand people, Yeah, terrorists, So
Speaker 3: now they're probably down around ten from the So we're
Speaker 3: talking ten thousand are terrorists, and we're going to forcibly
Speaker 3: move two point two million people against their will to
Speaker 3: countries that don't have the capacity to host some of them,
Speaker 3: at least the countries I saw listed to take care
Speaker 3: of their own people. Right, So how are you support?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Right, So the practically, it's the legality is obviously an issue,
Speaker 3: but also just the practicality is also an issue, Like
Speaker 3: you're gonna I mean, I don't even know how one
Speaker 3: would do that, and I don't know what you would
Speaker 3: do with people once you got there? Is the international
Speaker 3: community going to fund in perpetuity the housing food expense
Speaker 3: that you know, these countries, a lot of them are Africa,
Speaker 3: would need to support their people, these, you know, the Palestinians.
Speaker 3: And then what kind of destabilizing issues that caused for
Speaker 3: those countries. I mean, you just keep going and going,
Speaker 3: and it's not good. The idea I think, I think
Speaker 3: the best way to focus is how do we end
Speaker 3: the conflict. How do we ensure the security concerns of Israel,
Speaker 3: which obviously are real. How do we reconstruct Gaza so
Speaker 3: that the Palestinians can live in peace and develop and
Speaker 3: have their own future for their families. And then how
Speaker 3: do we eventually get back on track for a two
Speaker 3: state solution, which we seem to be very far away
Speaker 3: from now, much further than we have been in the past.
Speaker 3: So that is where I think the effort should be.
Speaker 3: I can't even imagine how the forcible relocation of people
Speaker 3: out of Gaza.
Speaker 2: Would even.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think every country on that list right off
Speaker 4: the bat to say absolutely not.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 4: The answers no, you know, whatever else we can do
Speaker 4: to try to help, we'll do, but no, because if
Speaker 4: you even entertained talks in that you're opening up a
Speaker 4: You're going down a slippery slope with that. So I
Speaker 4: would say hell no, and the US should be first
Speaker 4: and foremost to say no. Not that I'm saying they're
Speaker 4: coming here, but I'm saying, Israel, take that shit off
Speaker 4: the board. It's not even a it's a non starter.
Speaker 3: Right, and the first step. And I think the US
Speaker 3: is obviously pushing for this. We saw an announcement I
Speaker 3: think was it last night, that there was the hostage.
Speaker 3: But we should all be rooting for the US and
Speaker 3: in their effort, our effort to get to a ceasefire,
Speaker 3: the sixty day ceasefire that is, I mean, the hostages
Speaker 3: need to come out, massive amounts of humanitarian and assistants
Speaker 3: need to go in. It's a dire situation on both fronts.
Speaker 3: So we should be rooting for that. But this this
Speaker 3: idea that they're going to forcibly relocate millions of.
Speaker 2: People, bat shit you. Yeah, it's just a non starter.
Speaker 3: I think it's and if we had anything to do
Speaker 3: with it, but that would be forever.
Speaker 4: Black mark on us, exactly.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 1: Last bit of news, USA IDE officially shut down. They
Speaker 1: we just burnt five hundred tons of emergency food stores
Speaker 1: that weren't even in America, I don't think, right, they
Speaker 1: were already overseas, and we destroyed that stuff five hundred
Speaker 1: tons of food that's probably already been paid for. Right,
Speaker 1: It's not like we're gonna bounce on the check.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Yes. Kind of unbelievable that this is how these things work.
Speaker 1: Make I mean, you're in a humanitarian space. You tell me, uh,
Speaker 1: you could use probably five hundred tons of food to
Speaker 1: for what your you do your endeavors.
Speaker 3: Yes, And I think, I mean, this is this is
Speaker 3: just should happen. Let me just put it that way.
Speaker 3: To your point, it is overseas because we prepositioned these stores.
Speaker 3: A lot of them were these emergency biscuits that you know,
Speaker 3: a kid can eat two of them a day and
Speaker 3: survive and has all the nutrition and vitamins and all
Speaker 3: that and minerals and stuff already paid for. I don't know,
Speaker 3: but it seems to me like we should have we
Speaker 3: the government should have offered the World Food Program because
Speaker 3: it costs money to actually destroy it. Right, So like
Speaker 3: if we said, hey, World Food Program, come take all
Speaker 3: this stuff, give it out, right, that's or any of
Speaker 3: the big angos that have the capacity and potentially the
Speaker 3: money to move it or pay for the least place
Speaker 3: that we're don't want to pay for anymore. It just
Speaker 3: seems like it's a total total waste there. There's a
Speaker 3: report out in the Washington Post that came out July first,
Speaker 3: which is today the USA AID officially shut down, that
Speaker 3: they predict fourteen million people will starve to death by
Speaker 3: twenty thirty because of the cuts within foreign aid, not
Speaker 3: just the United States, but also what USAID used to do. Now,
Speaker 3: I get some of the criticism they're paying for stuff
Speaker 3: that they shouldn't have, but the core mission to contribute
Speaker 3: to the plight of humanitarian crisises as a country, we've
Speaker 3: always been very good at that. We should be proud
Speaker 3: of it. Why that needs to continue, and then to
Speaker 3: develop countries so they don't become a perpetual state of
Speaker 3: need so that they can't eventually join the world economy
Speaker 3: and maybe even trade with the United States, right, I mean,
Speaker 3: we're a capitalist society, we should want that. I think
Speaker 3: that core mission should never have been cut down. And
Speaker 3: you could talk about pep far. I mean President Bush
Speaker 3: came out with President Obama on the concern with that.
Speaker 3: You know, you in that it's not only horrible for
Speaker 3: the people in those countries, but that could spread you know,
Speaker 3: these these international epidemics around the world. Right, it's not
Speaker 3: just a nothing wrong with helping people just for the
Speaker 3: sake of helping people, right, but it's also on our
Speaker 3: own interest. You could have mass migration, you could have
Speaker 3: you know, the spread of disease that wouldn't be spread
Speaker 3: if we contained it at its poort at origin. So
Speaker 3: there's I think, I think this needs to be returned on. Fine,
Speaker 3: it's in the it's in the State department. Now, a
Speaker 3: lot of people on both sides. Aisle used to argue
Speaker 3: that USA should fall under the State Department anyway, but
Speaker 3: it needs to be turned back on the US should
Speaker 3: play a prominent role in I think humanitarian assistance and
Speaker 3: disaster relief around the world, and right now we're we're
Speaker 3: not doing it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, very well said. I feel like I
Speaker 1: don't know how anyone can really disagree about this, because like,
Speaker 1: even yeah, right, USAID was probably doing some bullshit and
Speaker 1: wasting money like most probably government programs do. But for
Speaker 1: the most part they did a good job, and frankly,
Speaker 1: their budget was a fucking rounding error in our federal budget. Right,
Speaker 1: it wasn't like we were spending I love you guys,
Speaker 1: and I love the military, and I love what it
Speaker 1: stands for, but like they should get their ship together too,
Speaker 1: in terms of like an audit and seeing where our
Speaker 1: money fucking goes there. It's a trillion dollar thing besides
Speaker 1: the Marines, right, the Marines Marines past their audits.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it did.
Speaker 3: And I think most mintary members would agree with you.
Speaker 3: Did you say, you know?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 3: They can they can see that a lot of this
Speaker 3: stuff isn't getting spent correctly. It's not a it's not
Speaker 3: a slight on the military.
Speaker 2: It's interesting, man.
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of stuff that most people
Speaker 1: will agree on if just you know, because it's.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's kind of human nature.
Speaker 1: Like yeah, all right, we see starving kids somewhere, like
Speaker 1: we want to help them. We think there's waste, frauding
Speaker 1: abuse somewhere. We should actually look at it and pinpoint
Speaker 1: it and take the time to figure it out and
Speaker 1: fix it instead of just chopping it like it's just
Speaker 1: we're worried about our next earnings call.
Speaker 2: Like it's a publicly traded company, it's not how government works.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and I just read something yesterday and I'm paraphrasing
Speaker 4: here speaking of waste something. Basically, this expert said from
Speaker 4: the moment that these funds were frozen, and that includes
Speaker 4: like this, this food that was spoiled from the time
Speaker 4: that that aid stopped the vendor as far as the
Speaker 4: vendors and the contractors go to distribute it, and all
Speaker 4: that other stuff. The interest that is accruing on all
Speaker 4: of that stuff is starting to surpass what is the
Speaker 4: supposed savings and ending the program. So it would have
Speaker 4: been cheaper to, like you said, Mick, give it to
Speaker 4: another organization and say pass this out or you know,
Speaker 4: restart part of the program. You know, it'd be worth
Speaker 4: the money. But we're wasting money trying to save money.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 3: And a lot of this would have gone to children, right,
Speaker 3: Like everybody, everybody that's an adult should care about that.
Speaker 3: It should be your you know. So yeah, super, I.
Speaker 2: Mean even if you don't like kids.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like, yeah, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Like, let's feed some starving kids, you know what I mean,
Speaker 2: Like not be a political thing, right Exactly when I was.
Speaker 4: In Somalia, people would you know, joke and you see
Speaker 4: it in the movie Blackhawk Down. You know, they call
Speaker 4: the Somali's skinnies, you know, and obviously that's a horrible thing.
Speaker 4: They're you know, they're they're dying. They were dying and
Speaker 4: they are dying. But I still saw those same marines
Speaker 4: while we were out feeding starving children, giving them food
Speaker 4: or a little bit of water and stuff like that.
Speaker 4: So anybody with a heart, you know, and a soul
Speaker 4: should be all on board with getting this food to
Speaker 4: where it needs to go and not just food all
Speaker 4: the aid.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, boys, I want you guys to do
Speaker 1: us all a favorite. Check out Nick Mulloy's link, check
Speaker 1: out Andy's links, check out Jason's links. We have a
Speaker 1: new newsletter for the Teamhouse and eyes On. It aggregates
Speaker 1: everything that link is in the description as well. And
Speaker 1: the best way to support the show isreon dot com
Speaker 1: slash the Teamhouse. You get both eyes On and the
Speaker 1: Teamhouse ad free and early get early access. And yeah,
Speaker 1: as usual, guys, this is great.
Speaker 3: Awesome, thanks thanks Jent, have a great rest of your weekend.
Speaker 4: Take care of me too.
Speaker 6: Hey guys, it's Jack. I just want to talk to
Speaker 6: you for a moment about how you can support the show.
Speaker 6: If you've been watching it enjoying it, but you'd like
Speaker 6: to get a little bit more involved and help us
Speaker 6: continue to do this, you can check out our Patreon.
Speaker 6: It is patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse, and for
Speaker 6: five dollars a month you can get access to all
Speaker 6: of these episodes of The Teamhouse ad free. The same
Speaker 6: goes with our affiliated podcast, eyes On with Andy Milburn,
Speaker 6: Jason Lyons mcmulroy that one, you will also get all
Speaker 6: of those episodes ad free, and you support the channel
Speaker 6: and the show, and we really appreciate it. The Patreon
Speaker 6: members are literally what has helped this company and this
Speaker 6: small business survive, especially during our early years, and you
Speaker 6: are what continues to help this thing going even as
Speaker 6: we navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising. So we
Speaker 6: really appreciate all of you guys. There's going to be
Speaker 6: a link down in the description to that Patreon page,
Speaker 6: and there is also going to be a link to
Speaker 6: our new merch shop, so if you guys want to
Speaker 6: go and get some Teamhouse merchandise, we got stickers and
Speaker 6: we also have patches, and I should mention if you
Speaker 6: sign up for Patreon at ten dollars a month. We
Speaker 6: will mail you this patch as well, so we really
Speaker 6: appreciate that. But they're also for sale on the merch
Speaker 6: Shop and additionally they got t shirts up there, water bottles,
Speaker 6: a tote bag, coffee mugs, all that good stuff, so
Speaker 6: please go and check them out and support the show.
Speaker 2: We really appreciate it, guys.
Speaker 6: Thank you,