Speaker 1: Hey, what's up, guys. This is du do us a
Speaker 1: favorite and check out our Patreon page. It's patreon dot
Speaker 1: com slash the Teamhouse. You get both Teamhouse episodes and
Speaker 1: Eyes on Geopolitics episodes completely ad free. You get them
Speaker 1: early too. You can ask us questions. You can also
Speaker 1: watch the Team House episodes live as we shoot them.
Speaker 1: So uh, and you help support the show and support
Speaker 1: what we're doing here. It's Patreon dot com Slash the Teamhouse.
Speaker 1: Those links are in the description or if you're listening,
Speaker 1: it's in the show notes down below, so you can
Speaker 1: click it real quick and easy, and it helps us
Speaker 1: keep the lights on. So we appreciate it, and we
Speaker 1: appreciate you guys listening. Thanks a bunch, heverybody. Welcome to
Speaker 1: another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics. I'm here with Andy Milburn,
Speaker 1: Mick mulroy, I'm Dimitri con Tacos. A lot happening as usual.
Speaker 1: First and foremost, the biggest thing is I want you
Speaker 1: guys to do a couple of things. Let's do some
Speaker 1: house click keeping. Andy Milburn wrote a great article on
Speaker 1: one in the row. This down in the description we
Speaker 1: spoke about in a previous podcast. You could check that
Speaker 1: out if you haven't yet read the article. That's really great. Also,
Speaker 1: Mick Molroy's got a new podcast called The Pub and
Speaker 1: the Porch Applied Stoicism comes out every Monday. Check that out.
Speaker 1: Link is in the description as well. And if you
Speaker 1: want to find any more from these guys, all their
Speaker 1: links are in the description. Check them out there and
Speaker 1: Patreon dot com slash the teamhouse to support the show. Okay,
Speaker 1: with that said, a lot happening. It looks like we're
Speaker 1: building quite a big presence in the Gulf and in
Speaker 1: the Mediterranean UH to possibly attack Iran. The protests kind
Speaker 1: of spiked up a little bit over the last week again,
Speaker 1: but they've kind of seemed to have simmered down for
Speaker 1: the most part. Internet is still spotty coming in and
Speaker 1: out of your own Where does this go? There's talk
Speaker 1: now that there's there's a bit of negotiation going on.
Speaker 1: It seems like we're trying to fold into nuclear talks
Speaker 1: as well. Where are we at with this? Make You Go?
Speaker 2: First readings from the city of Bozeman, Montana, where we're
Speaker 2: about to kick off one month of tackle training at
Speaker 2: Lowbo Institute here and we're in sorts of snow. It
Speaker 2: is going to be fifty degrees. That's not good for
Speaker 2: when a warfare training.
Speaker 1: We have plenty of that. Come to New York, bro,
Speaker 1: we have plenty of that shit.
Speaker 2: So we're going to have to get telicopters to fly
Speaker 2: as the only way we can do this is on altitude, right.
Speaker 2: That's so it's going to be a challenge, but anyway,
Speaker 2: it is what it is. So on Auran we have,
Speaker 2: as you said, massive build up. We have multiple aircraft
Speaker 2: carrier strike groups. Concluding right, I think it's mass for
Speaker 2: the mountain chain in Oman right now, which is smart.
Speaker 2: Plus every time I turn around there's another destroyer. I'm
Speaker 2: not sure where are they're all coming from, but those
Speaker 2: can be significant when it comes to guided missiles of course,
Speaker 2: and the air capacity just keeps flowing and flowing and flowing.
Speaker 2: So we're definitely headed toward something, right, So what the
Speaker 2: off What could be the off ramps? It would be
Speaker 2: to earnestly start negotiations in a new nuclear agreement that
Speaker 2: goes beyond just a nuclear agreement but also includes ballistic
Speaker 2: missile programs and proxy for support. That is what I
Speaker 2: think the administration is requiring. They've been requiring that since
Speaker 2: the first administration, and I think it's legit at least
Speaker 2: to want to address all those From what I'm hearing,
Speaker 2: Iran might be able to accept some kind of restrictions
Speaker 2: on proxies, but won't un ballistic missiles because they consider
Speaker 2: that like their only real defense. So and everything else
Speaker 2: I've heard is essentially this isn't going to go anywhere.
Speaker 2: So if it's not, if it's not, let's hope we're wrong.
Speaker 2: I always hope that the Wellmacy ruled the day that
Speaker 2: I can't see the US, the White House not taking
Speaker 2: some form of military action. Right there's a huge build
Speaker 2: up if they can't get even an agreement and principle
Speaker 2: to have a new JCPOA if you will, that they
Speaker 2: are closer to on the Trump ADMINSTRATIONE. I just don't
Speaker 2: think this will just end and that we'll just turn
Speaker 2: around and go home. So then the question is one,
Speaker 2: what is the objective? Is it simply to degrade the
Speaker 2: nuclear program? Further, is it regime change, which you know,
Speaker 2: I think we should probably have a whole section about
Speaker 2: the likelihood of whether you can do regime change. From
Speaker 2: the air, would say that would be incredibly difficult. The
Speaker 2: geography of her on it's almost four times the size
Speaker 2: of a rock, if you want to compare that when
Speaker 2: it comes to us, you know, past conflicts, and it's
Speaker 2: got about ninety million people, so more than half more
Speaker 2: than double a rock. The geography's mountainous. It is designed
Speaker 2: to sustain. It's primarily the regime's primary purpose is to
Speaker 2: maintain the regime, so it has all these power centers.
Speaker 2: The supreme leader is basically just holds them together. Even
Speaker 2: if he was taken out. All those power centers are
Speaker 2: not only invested in continuation, they're literally would be toast
Speaker 2: if they didn't maintain it right. There's simply no way
Speaker 2: to get all the leaders out of the country, et cetera.
Speaker 2: So it's going to be difficult to do even if
Speaker 2: you did a ground invasion, which would be insane, but
Speaker 2: from the air, very few if you think about, you know,
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety one saidam Air at least for a rock
Speaker 2: obviously didn't change regime. There's many examples, so I don't
Speaker 2: think there will be a serious for regime change, but
Speaker 2: they could, you know, support the protesters because if anything
Speaker 2: is going to change your regime, it's going to have
Speaker 2: to come from within. I just don't know how much
Speaker 2: you can do to support just by hitting security infrastructure
Speaker 2: or like irgc de siege. And then there's the issue
Speaker 2: and then I'll stop here and throw it over to
Speaker 2: Andy for comments on all the above. But there's a
Speaker 2: lot of concern that the Iranians will see mine the
Speaker 2: straits of her moods, right, so that could cause major
Speaker 2: disruption and energy supplies. It would also really affect them.
Speaker 2: It wouldn't in fact, the United States as much as
Speaker 2: other countries though, quite frankly, because we just don't get
Speaker 2: as much oil from there. And then there's this discussion
Speaker 2: that I think is legitimate about whether the US could
Speaker 2: do some kind of blockade. Legitimate in the sense that
Speaker 2: I think it's actually being discussed. I don't know, be
Speaker 2: frank how effective it would be, but it's kind of
Speaker 2: like looking at Venezuela, which is not a real model
Speaker 2: for a ROD, but you know, we remove the leadership
Speaker 2: and now we're doing enable blocking. Or I think that's
Speaker 2: being considered at least for I don't know how effective
Speaker 2: it would be, but that's uh, that's where I think
Speaker 2: the summary is of what I've discussed this week and
Speaker 2: what I've been told.
Speaker 3: Oh really, yeah, I I agree with everything MIX said.
Speaker 3: The one thing, there's a couple of things that have
Speaker 3: really complicated this and and of course I would say
Speaker 3: none of no regional leaders here in the Middle East,
Speaker 3: no or or seem confident about what is going to happen.
Speaker 3: But a couple of things. One is, first of all,
Speaker 3: and both of these happenings I'm not I'm not saying
Speaker 3: are linked to or and even trying to interpret them
Speaker 3: correctly or interpret them at all. If I was going
Speaker 3: to interpret them, presumably it would be correctly anyway. So
Speaker 3: Number one, diplomatic diplomatic negotiations efforts have not ceased, and
Speaker 3: fact they seem to have ramped up. Which makes me
Speaker 3: think that while I agree with Mick that there needs
Speaker 3: to be action at some point because or there will
Speaker 3: be action at some point, because I can't see the
Speaker 3: Iranians being able to compromise on some key issues right.
Speaker 3: But in the meantime, Trump seems to be up playing
Speaker 3: the role of Erdowan. He's calling him a problem solver, right,
Speaker 3: and Dawan has reached out to Iran and is offering
Speaker 3: to negotiate. It's interesting that it is Turkey doing this,
Speaker 3: and Trump seems to have confidence in Dauwan based on
Speaker 3: based on Erduwan's Yeah, I'm not saying he was successful
Speaker 3: in doing this, but his ability negotiate previously between Algelani
Speaker 3: or Alshira whatever we're calling him now and yes and
Speaker 3: the sd fright and uh so, so he's giving him prisident.
Speaker 3: Trump's giving other one credit for that and saying, hey,
Speaker 3: it looks like he's giving him a shot to negotiate
Speaker 3: before things go further as far as strikes are concerned.
Speaker 3: But to mixed point, we don't know how receptive and
Speaker 3: ran it's going to be, you know, Sertenly, the rant's
Speaker 3: showing those signs in their rhetoric of being willing to
Speaker 3: negotiate their threatening regional war if the United States strikes
Speaker 3: and there and various other dire threats and and uh
Speaker 3: when I think about why would they do that, the
Speaker 3: only thing I can think is maybe it's an effort
Speaker 3: to portray this as at first it's a show of strength,
Speaker 3: maybe false strength, paper Tiger. But the other thing is,
Speaker 3: you know, we talked about this too, that Iran seems
Speaker 3: to be I won't say on the verge of toppling
Speaker 3: the administration, because it's far from that. But certainly these
Speaker 3: demonstrations that have occurred are more serious, more in debt,
Speaker 3: had been put down with greater brutality than previous protestation protest.
Speaker 3: So it looks as though maybe this is an effort
Speaker 3: to rally the country and behind, you know, towards an
Speaker 3: external enemy. That may be why Iran's ramping up the rhetoric.
Speaker 3: I can see no other rational reason to do it, so,
Speaker 3: you know. But but the thing is, and we'll see
Speaker 3: once reached out to them, we haven't seen whether Iran
Speaker 3: is receptible or not. There's there's probably three things that
Speaker 3: this but there's three problematic areas. There's four if you
Speaker 3: count the protests, right, and you've count the brutality which
Speaker 3: with which the the Uranians put down the protest. But
Speaker 3: as far as points to negotiate on, there's the nuclear issue,
Speaker 3: right the I think, you know, I think it's open source.
Speaker 3: It is open source now that the bomb damage assessments
Speaker 3: on Ista, the Tarns and for Doux are not as
Speaker 3: stick now as as they appeared, you know, right after
Speaker 3: the strikes, and that either the Iranians were very quick
Speaker 3: at turning around and starting to build their capability again,
Speaker 3: or the damage wasn't as bad as we thought. Okay,
Speaker 3: So so there's that, right, How ensuring that that Iran
Speaker 3: steps back from its plans to to create to build
Speaker 3: a nuclear weapon. Potentially that's the point of negotiation. Potentially
Speaker 3: Turkey could offer to take the enriched uranium that the
Speaker 3: that Iran has and and store it in Turkey in
Speaker 3: return for and I'm on the finash of my technical
Speaker 3: technical ability here, but remember the deal with Russia, right,
Speaker 3: Russia was going to do this back in twenty ten
Speaker 3: in return for rich uranium, I mean a non non
Speaker 3: weaponizable uranium that that could could help her oun't build
Speaker 3: a civilia a civil nuclear capability. Okay, I haven't worded
Speaker 3: that very well. But do you understand giving up weaponized
Speaker 3: uranium in return for assistance with with with the civil
Speaker 3: nuclear capability? Okay? That potentially a compromise point number two
Speaker 3: on the proxies. Well, there isn't. Actually, it's really really
Speaker 3: difficult to enforce. If Ron says, oh yeah, we'll step
Speaker 3: back from bolstering the huthi's his boller. They could agree
Speaker 3: to do that, whether the US would would honor that
Speaker 3: concession or even give it credibility. I don't know, but
Speaker 3: it's certainly something in the Uranians could agree to do.
Speaker 3: And as we know, you know, his Bolla is kind
Speaker 3: of on the ropes anyway, and and it seems as
Speaker 3: though the Huthis two have died down in their activities,
Speaker 3: so maybe maybe Iran would be happy to do that
Speaker 3: in order to focus on getting a firmer grip back
Speaker 3: at home. But the third point, which would be reduction
Speaker 3: of the missile ballistic missile capability, I can't see them
Speaker 3: compromising at all, can you make? I mean, I think.
Speaker 2: That's the that's the most difficult one for them.
Speaker 3: I agree, yeah, I mean, that's the long poll. It's
Speaker 3: a it's an essential component of Iran's defense network, and
Speaker 3: they don't have the ability to rapidly regenerate that that capability,
Speaker 3: and they're actually down, you know, I know, estimates of
Speaker 3: what their inventory looks like are varied and unlikely to
Speaker 3: be entirely accurate, But a lot of what is left
Speaker 3: are liquid fuel ballistic missiles, which means that who you know,
Speaker 3: if they do launch an attack the US or Israel, whoever,
Speaker 3: the and the region are going to get a far longer,
Speaker 3: greater warning. Right as far as repercussions agree. You know,
Speaker 3: the the worst thing that can happen that Iron could
Speaker 3: do isn't launch missiles, ballistic missiles and drones from the
Speaker 3: homeland because as as we've seen before with the US,
Speaker 3: where US anti air defense systems in the region sent
Speaker 3: missile batteries, agus cruisers and all and the like, you
Speaker 3: get so much warning. And with the sin and the
Speaker 3: missiles being what they are, they relatively easy to intercept.
Speaker 3: So two things, though, are a real threat. One is
Speaker 3: the threat from proxies uh and specifically the you know,
Speaker 3: actually this is the category of proxies. I didn't mentioned
Speaker 3: the Shia militias in Iran in particular, always a threat
Speaker 3: and the flashtip bang that they attack US bases is
Speaker 3: far quicker as number one is. Mix said also sewing
Speaker 3: mines in the Gulf. And last single levial Mick, what
Speaker 3: do you are you tracking these explosions in Iran itself?
Speaker 2: You know, I've got a question about that this morning.
Speaker 2: I don't have any details.
Speaker 3: There's been.
Speaker 2: Like four or five in multiple different cities, and the
Speaker 2: regimes all blame and a want gas leaks and just
Speaker 2: by you know, statistics. It's likely not all gas leaks,
Speaker 2: so that could be preparation. It's common for FASIAD the agency,
Speaker 2: to have that task. It doesn't necessarily do much in
Speaker 2: and of itself, but it kind of creates a situation
Speaker 2: where the regimes scrambling around the supporters feel like there's
Speaker 2: something happening. It looks organic. I don't know one way
Speaker 2: or the other. I wouldn't be saying it, but it
Speaker 2: could be basically preparation for what's to come, which would
Speaker 2: be significant air and missile strikes on multiple different targets.
Speaker 3: It's good, big.
Speaker 4: Thanks to our sponsor today, us Elite Medical Services dot com.
Speaker 4: If you are a veteran and need further medical documentation
Speaker 4: to help bolster your claims, please check out us Elite
Speaker 4: Medical Services dot com. Not only do they help veterans
Speaker 4: with medical nexus letters and DBQs, they offer wellness and
Speaker 4: longevity treatments such as testosterone replacement therapy. Please go and
Speaker 4: get checked out by one of their providers. We're all
Speaker 4: just trying to get by improve our families, life, business,
Speaker 4: and our own well being. The veteran population has had
Speaker 4: enormous amounts of stress that has led to chronic fatigue.
Speaker 2: And much more.
Speaker 4: The VA is an interesting place, and medical evidence is
Speaker 4: the premise of your claim. You deserve what you fought for.
Speaker 4: You deserve to feel better again, more energy, better mood,
Speaker 4: better recovery and more. I can also say from my
Speaker 4: own personal experience that trying to go through VA and
Speaker 4: file disability claims is incredibly difficult and there's no way
Speaker 4: I would have been able to do it without a
Speaker 4: service such as us Elite Medical Services dot com. So
Speaker 4: please go check them out, and you can use the
Speaker 4: discount code Team twenty to get twenty percent off when
Speaker 4: you go and use them today. So go check them out.
Speaker 4: So go to us Elite Medical Services dot com and
Speaker 4: use the discount code team twenty to get twenty percent
Speaker 4: off today.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's it is interesting, and there is there is
Speaker 3: an Israeli unit whose mission is to do that sort
Speaker 3: of things using using ground launch precision guided weapons. So
Speaker 3: it's feasible and and and to the you know, the
Speaker 3: Iranian regimes claims that these are gas leaks. And if
Speaker 3: you remember, back in July, on a single day back
Speaker 3: in July, there were four incidents in throughout Tehran, one
Speaker 3: in calm one in a place called Karaj, one in Tehran,
Speaker 3: and I can't remember the fourth one. I think it
Speaker 3: was an island in the gulf in the Straight of
Speaker 3: hor moves explosions, right, And the one in the Straight
Speaker 3: of hor Moos was a really big one that destroyed
Speaker 3: reportedly two hundred stores. Although that's how you know, what
Speaker 3: does that mean? How big those But that sounds like
Speaker 3: a big explosion. And in Bandura, Bass and the entire
Speaker 3: shopping mall the later there's a big mega mall burned down,
Speaker 3: and then the Uranian government at the time said it
Speaker 3: was due to technical failures and the explosion of gas
Speaker 3: cylinders or poor maintenance. I mean, it seemed pretty ridiculous.
Speaker 3: So now they're claiming to come.
Speaker 2: They're concerned that it looks like they're losing control, right,
Speaker 2: which is the purpose of the operation. So that's this
Speaker 2: could be very much be the case. I would uh
Speaker 2: another conversation, I had, you know, to present both sides
Speaker 2: if you will, you know, on the US use of force.
Speaker 2: The person I was talking to said, oh, okay, well,
Speaker 2: either the Uranians can agree to adjust their nuclear ambitious,
Speaker 2: holistic most missile program proxies, or we can do it
Speaker 2: for right, So, is this going to be a thing
Speaker 2: that every time we think that they're going ahead with
Speaker 2: a nuclear weapon, And let's be fair, they have four
Speaker 2: hundred and forty one kilograms of enriched uranium to sixty percent,
Speaker 2: there's no reason I have sixty percent. They're almost in
Speaker 2: the perfectly wrong spot. It's not for civilian purposes, and
Speaker 2: they don't have a nuclear weapon. So from regene endurance,
Speaker 2: ivan the you know, the middle ground is not necessarily
Speaker 2: a smart move, but this one can mact the argument
Speaker 2: that we're just going to mow the grass and make
Speaker 2: sure they never get there. And the same thing with
Speaker 2: the ballistic missile probe. Every time they start rebuilding it,
Speaker 2: which they are, it happens again. So from a practical purpose,
Speaker 2: maybe that's one of the views inside the White House
Speaker 2: right now. And the other part is you can say, well,
Speaker 2: it's unlikely that you're going to actually change your regime.
Speaker 2: I think that's fair probably the intelligence segment assessment. And
Speaker 2: then even if you do change the regime, whether it'd
Speaker 2: be more favorable to the United States. I think those
Speaker 2: are both totally legitimate questions. The person I was talking
Speaker 2: to said, well, probably worth rolling the dice. So if
Speaker 2: you're a gambler, you roll the dice. You don't know
Speaker 2: if it's going to be better or worse the same,
Speaker 2: but you know there's a chance, I guess. So I
Speaker 2: don't know if that's the way you should make, you know,
Speaker 2: major policies, decisions on war and peace. But I guess
Speaker 2: there is certainly a line of thought that it's worth
Speaker 2: trying to change the regime simply to see what happens.
Speaker 2: I think has a danger is game to start playing with,
Speaker 2: even with despotic regimes like arod Ah. But you know,
Speaker 2: obviously there's different views inside the government, and we don't
Speaker 2: know which one's going to be prevailing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the that's a I think you're right that the
Speaker 3: mowing the grass scenario seems the most likely. And I
Speaker 3: noticed that that our administration has kind of backed down
Speaker 3: from discussions of regime change. Though it's hard to tell,
Speaker 3: but Rubio, when he was being interviewed the other day,
Speaker 3: and I forget where, and I forget exactly when, but
Speaker 3: it's in the last couple of days, seemed quite very
Speaker 3: h you know, he was pointing out all the problems
Speaker 3: that you just did, obviously with regime change. And as
Speaker 3: we talked about on this show, you know, you've got
Speaker 3: to have a viable opposition to come into place, and
Speaker 3: that just isn't that isn't in place right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, speaking as a layman, I think it's
Speaker 1: rolling the dice in terms of destabilizing an entire region
Speaker 1: by decapitation strikes or whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 1: Trying to take out the regime in Iran is kind
Speaker 1: of crazy. Is batshit insane to me? A lot of
Speaker 1: times before this we've to do air strikes or even
Speaker 1: talk about regime change. We were like in at the UN.
Speaker 1: Sure we might have been lying to the UN about
Speaker 1: anthrax and you know nine to eleven being you know,
Speaker 1: connected to Iraq uh, but we would build up a coalition,
Speaker 1: we would do the things that you know, do we
Speaker 1: take certain steps before we'd start bombing a place another
Speaker 1: country to you know, to hopefully maybe get some regime change.
Speaker 1: And even if it isn't a regime we don't like,
Speaker 1: you know, it's okay, Like I would think we would
Speaker 1: be operating on more of a more certainty than this.
Speaker 1: It's going to be completely real, honest, Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2: Good point, very good point. Hopefully that's not how we're
Speaker 2: deciding on you know, major strategic policy decisions. Gossip backfire, right.
Speaker 2: We're not the only country that can decide that's that's
Speaker 2: that's a good policy, right, right, Yeah, I decide to
Speaker 2: right that we just go around taking on leaders. And again,
Speaker 2: the way Iran is configured, like most regimes like this,
Speaker 2: their primary purpose is to stay in power. It's not
Speaker 2: to like promote the interests of the Ranian people. So
Speaker 2: they're designed to withstand not only a direct ground invasion, right,
Speaker 2: the besiege forces, like it's over a million people, and
Speaker 2: it's really designed to be very like autonomous, separate units
Speaker 2: that can fight on well passed an actual conventional military invasion,
Speaker 2: and the power centers and it's all tied to you know,
Speaker 2: I take complete corruption with huge offshore uh you know,
Speaker 2: repositories of money.
Speaker 1: Right, So.
Speaker 2: It's going to be very difficult, I think, to facilitate
Speaker 2: a regime change.
Speaker 3: But I think, yeah, they come to the only wild
Speaker 3: card would be taking out the supreme leader, and there
Speaker 3: you're on, You're on shaky honestly, I mean international law,
Speaker 3: the decapitation strikes, going after actually killing the head of
Speaker 3: the state as a a big deal. I don't know
Speaker 3: whether that would be an obstacle for us, but perhaps
Speaker 3: more importantly, Yeah, its mixed, pointed out, you don't know
Speaker 3: what comes next, and there is no like the may
Speaker 3: just need to just wait he's going and and the
Speaker 3: point is that it mixed entirely, right, Yeah, the republic idea, sorry,
Speaker 3: the Revolutionary Guard and the besiege have the they'll they'll
Speaker 3: have you know, they'll be there's there's a transition plan
Speaker 3: in every case. And and as we talked about the hole
Speaker 3: that the I g r C has on the Iranian
Speaker 3: just the country itself is multifaceted. It's economic and its military.
Speaker 3: I mean, it goes deep into the the roots of
Speaker 3: the the fabric of the country itself. You don't you
Speaker 3: don't topple it by simply killing one or two people.
Speaker 3: So yeah, it's gonna be interesting. The you know, the Turks,
Speaker 3: I mean, the Turks haven't got up. I mean they remember,
Speaker 3: of course, the Turks backed Algilani who overthrew the overthrew Asad,
Speaker 3: who is Iran's Iran's a man in Syria, and so
Speaker 3: they were on bad terms then. But it does look
Speaker 3: as though the Turks of being trying to kind of
Speaker 3: reach what they have been reaching out to the Iranian
Speaker 3: side during all the protests. I believe it was other
Speaker 3: one what might have been, as Foreign Minister said commented
Speaker 3: publicly that there is that that was it was really
Speaker 3: influenced behind the protests, you know, which kind of played
Speaker 3: into Iron's in my messaging too.
Speaker 1: So one question, I have a question, what does what
Speaker 1: does our Turkey get out to do with this? Like, well,
Speaker 1: how do they benefit?
Speaker 2: They like to be viewed as like one of the leaders,
Speaker 2: you know, quite frankly in the Muslim world, and I
Speaker 2: think part of trying to get that kind of mantle
Speaker 2: now is being directly involved in negotiations to avoid conflict
Speaker 2: or in conflict. You see a guitar, it's Turkey, you know,
Speaker 2: in Gaza for example. Other than that, maybe favor favored
Speaker 2: status within the Trump administration, but it's kind of one
Speaker 2: and the same. It's just really presenting your country as
Speaker 2: a leader in that.
Speaker 1: That's only why, just to like show like, hey, we're statesmen,
Speaker 1: we can we have influence in the region.
Speaker 3: That's a big deal for Iruwan to be seen as
Speaker 3: being a major states from the international stage. I mean,
Speaker 3: his country's economy is in shite state, partly because of
Speaker 3: his policies. He has thousands of dissidents in prison. There
Speaker 3: is trouble bubbling in Turkey, but the Turks are are
Speaker 3: naturally quite nationalistic. That's an understatement. And so again on
Speaker 3: the world stage, being able to see their leader take
Speaker 3: a prominent position as a huge deal. That's number one.
Speaker 3: Number two is you know there's always been I mean
Speaker 3: this all regional rivalry, right, it's all it's like nineteenth
Speaker 3: century Europe. That's really like Middle East now is there
Speaker 3: are no friends, there are only interests. And so you
Speaker 3: see this shifting dynamic. And UH, and Turkey would like
Speaker 3: to be seen as being to go to negotiating in place,
Speaker 3: for instance, Saudi Arabia and in this and in this
Speaker 3: particular particular instance, you know, the Saudi's UAE, the Qataris
Speaker 3: are all unified and advising President Trump not to strike Iran.
Speaker 3: You know, I say they they and Uh and and
Speaker 3: so it is Dawan that Trump has reached out to
Speaker 3: to to kind of issue to do this negotiation and
Speaker 3: issue the warnings. And another one likes that, you know, yes,
Speaker 3: makes him feel as chopped.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it was yesterday or the day before,
Speaker 1: there was some like uh talk coming out of like
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia saying like kind of going back on that,
Speaker 1: like being like, oh yeah, maybe we should you should
Speaker 1: hit Iran too. I don't know if it's just like
Speaker 1: different factions within the kingdom that are.
Speaker 3: Like it was NBS his brother, who's the defense cost Yeah,
Speaker 3: in DC talking to members of the think tank in
Speaker 3: a you know, it was a I mean, it was
Speaker 3: open to journalists, so it wasn't as though they were
Speaker 3: trying to hide anything. And he he made the comment,
Speaker 3: and it may have been taken out of context that
Speaker 3: if the United States didn't strike Iran there would be
Speaker 3: a problem of losing credibility. And again this might have
Speaker 3: been taken out of context. He might have said, hey,
Speaker 3: listen all that, you know, I understand that the United
Speaker 3: States might lose credibility because you built up forces in
Speaker 3: the region. And he might have then gone on to say,
Speaker 3: but because you know, the Saudis haven't said, oh no, no,
Speaker 3: that's not the case. They haven't done anything to repudiate
Speaker 3: repudiate what he said. And I think it's it might
Speaker 3: be the Western media that's saying that it's a directly
Speaker 3: opposed to what NBS is saying, which is, hey, this
Speaker 3: isn't going to be in the best interests of the
Speaker 3: region to strike Kuran.
Speaker 1: And also Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 2: Sorry no, I was just going to say, it did
Speaker 2: seem like a change. Like all the reporting before was
Speaker 2: that Saudi Arabia didn't want to see military action against Iran,
Speaker 2: which is why I think this got so much attention.
Speaker 2: But it could be what Andy said. He could say, well,
Speaker 2: now that we're here, right that we the US built
Speaker 2: up this huge military presence, I can see why it
Speaker 2: would be difficult not to use. It doesn't necessarily mean
Speaker 2: he thinks or more importantly, Saudi thinks it would be
Speaker 2: a good idea. I just don't know. But if you
Speaker 2: look at the reports, it seems to be contradictive of
Speaker 2: our contradictory of what they had originally.
Speaker 3: But the media loves doing that, you know what I mean?
Speaker 3: That makes the story right.
Speaker 1: Also, I mean another like Saudi Arabia did are saying
Speaker 1: there like the US is not allowed to use their
Speaker 1: airspace if there is an attack on your own.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: Turkey said the same thing too, interestingly, so does Cutter,
Speaker 1: and I get it. They don't want to get but
Speaker 1: let's take my sills far down their soil. And also,
Speaker 1: don't we have a deal with cutter now we do?
Speaker 3: We do?
Speaker 1: Right, A newly minted one. Last that happened after the
Speaker 1: last enhanced enhanced.
Speaker 2: So there's you've got NATO of course, and you have
Speaker 2: major non NATO allied status. I don't know how many
Speaker 2: countries are in that, but now like Qatar has enhanced
Speaker 2: major non NATO allied status with this. It's an executive
Speaker 2: order though, so they probably realized that, okay, one the
Speaker 2: president can change his mind. Yeah, it's simply you know,
Speaker 2: the president drawing a promise to him, you know, for himself.
Speaker 2: So they probably realized that although it's better than not having,
Speaker 2: it doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to last beyond
Speaker 2: President Trump's administration or even that you know.
Speaker 1: That's the case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they don't have to. There's no it's not a treaty.
Speaker 2: That's the point.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, uh So what happens next? What do you guys,
Speaker 1: Let's do some speculation, that's always fun. What happens next?
Speaker 1: Does it happen? Are we waiting for the full moon?
Speaker 1: For no moon? So Jay Sock can go in and
Speaker 1: snatch the supreme leader. What are we doing?
Speaker 2: I imagine that they're actually briefing President now on courses
Speaker 2: of action. Again, maybe a decision brief. It's it's because
Speaker 2: the assets are in place, and then if he decides
Speaker 2: to go ahead, then then from the process it goes
Speaker 2: back to the Defense Department and then of course the
Speaker 2: Central Command, and then it's then there's all sorts of
Speaker 2: other consideration and when it will happen. Right, they might
Speaker 2: want to, you know, just like we did in Venezuela.
Speaker 2: Not to say that there are any work comparable, but
Speaker 2: we send planes that way. We see how they react,
Speaker 2: we see where their defenses are, we see how they
Speaker 2: scramble planes. We might start doing that. The weather and
Speaker 2: all that stuff plays apart. It's over to the military
Speaker 2: at that point to pick the ideal time based on
Speaker 2: non political issues, right, stuff that's more in line with
Speaker 2: being most advantageous for the military, and then we'll see.
Speaker 2: I don't know how long we give them to decide
Speaker 2: whether they're going to come to the negotiation table, but
Speaker 2: everything I've seen is they've kind of poot pooed even
Speaker 2: doing it. They be in the running regime so I
Speaker 2: don't know what would stop it from happening now unless
Speaker 2: we just pulled off, and that seems unlikely.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I'm gonna agree with Mick. I think
Speaker 3: that the target, you know, the most practical courts of action.
Speaker 3: Of course I'm not, you know, I'm not even when
Speaker 3: I was in the uniform, I wouldn't be in the
Speaker 3: decision it's based on this, But most practical courts of
Speaker 3: action would seem to be to go off to the
Speaker 3: nuclear facilities to to continuously degrade them, and also to
Speaker 3: degrade the Iranian inventory blistic missiles, because that would be
Speaker 3: those two things. And and aired efense, you know what
Speaker 3: they have left at their head offense because they were
Speaker 3: the Russians are the only one who ones who are
Speaker 3: resupplying with air defense. So those those three things could
Speaker 3: you could achieve really, you know, I'm not saying you're
Speaker 3: going to achieve are overwhelming, decisive effects permanent, but you're
Speaker 3: certainly going to be able to achieve significant effects in
Speaker 3: those three areas rather than if you go after you know,
Speaker 3: members of the regime of administration, in which case the
Speaker 3: repercussions may as we put as we pointed out, maybe
Speaker 3: may come back and buy you things that I think
Speaker 3: are possible too, but probably won't happen, you know, covert action.
Speaker 3: Mix the expert on this, but it's always it's always
Speaker 3: a possibility. But I think we would work through partners
Speaker 3: if we did that COVID action, particular partner in the
Speaker 3: region who is already involved in those things in Iran.
Speaker 3: I would guess, and again I'm speculating here, i'd have
Speaker 3: any access to knowledge, and if I did, I wouldn't
Speaker 3: share it, But I would guess that COVID action within
Speaker 3: Iran continues to be problematic for US United States for
Speaker 3: a number of reasons. You know, it's a high risk
Speaker 3: and it's it's just an area that would be tough.
Speaker 3: I think, make feel free to jump in.
Speaker 2: And yeah, I don't know, Just like Andy, I wouldn't
Speaker 2: say if I did, But I mean, I wouldn't talk
Speaker 2: about it if I had, and I don't have any
Speaker 2: access to it. So what I would say about COVID
Speaker 2: action is it works best if it's in conjunction with
Speaker 2: an overall strategy. Oftentimes, at least the agent feels like
Speaker 2: if they can't figure it out diplomacy, diplomatically, they can't
Speaker 2: figure it out militarily, They just the age you'd say,
Speaker 2: good luck, it's it's a dumpster fire, and then like,
Speaker 2: how is that a place to start?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: It should be like supporting diplomacy, economics, military action and
Speaker 2: covert actions should just be a part of that, not
Speaker 2: the the solution to most problems. So if we do
Speaker 2: go forward, I would guess there is definitely a component
Speaker 2: to that that is enhancing for what the overall strategy is.
Speaker 2: But I don't know. I don't know that for sure.
Speaker 2: We already talked about potential sabotage operations and then sometimes
Speaker 2: you know, sometimes we're better at doing something sometimes our
Speaker 2: partner countries are, so.
Speaker 1: We can say Israel, yeah, yeah, of.
Speaker 2: Course Israel, right, So they obviously have focus nine percent
Speaker 2: of their efforts on or on or their proxies. So
Speaker 2: and we cover the world, so but we can can
Speaker 2: help them as well. I think we'll see action over
Speaker 2: the next week probably if this is going to happen,
Speaker 2: and we'll see indications to be frank, because this would
Speaker 2: be you know, they still probably want to withdraw non
Speaker 2: essential personnel from like Alu Daid like we did last time,
Speaker 2: So you'll see a flow. Obviously the military we wouldn't
Speaker 2: want to give those indicators. But there's only so much
Speaker 2: they could cover, right, I think you will see potentially.
Speaker 2: Oh there's another issue. That's this blockade again that the
Speaker 2: US is discussing. There's some concern that it could actually
Speaker 2: trigger the conflict. So we're putting naval assets in place,
Speaker 2: they're doing naval exercises around the straits of horror moods.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but they stopped, they rescheduled, they.
Speaker 2: Did whatever they rescheduled it, right, So that's that probably
Speaker 2: was because of that concern there we're going to be
Speaker 2: in direct proximity. One thing happens, and you know, ah,
Speaker 2: that's that that makes the decision for US rather than
Speaker 2: the commander chief maker.
Speaker 1: But I believe they have tentative, a tentative exercise schedule
Speaker 1: with Russia and China out in the Indian Ocean for
Speaker 1: like a month from for like a few weeks from now.
Speaker 1: But it's tentative, so I don't know if it's going
Speaker 1: to go down then.
Speaker 2: Of course, another issue in this is like what is
Speaker 2: rural congress plays, right, So these limited military engagements, the
Speaker 2: White House will argue doesn't trigger the War Powers Act.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: But if you have a near continuous limited military engagements,
Speaker 2: one could argue like, well, it's yeah, I guess taken individually,
Speaker 2: they're limited. But now it seems to be the force
Speaker 2: of our diplomacy seems to be led by force.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: And again, I was for the strikes in Iran on
Speaker 2: nuclear facility, and I was for the apprehension of Madua.
Speaker 2: So not that that matters, but that I would say
Speaker 2: that there is a legitimate discussion of can you is
Speaker 2: congressional approval and participation only when it lasts beyond sixty days?
Speaker 2: Or when does Congress say you can't just go from
Speaker 2: country to country Venezuela and Nigeria, Arah, and you know,
Speaker 2: whatever's next and not trigger the congressional part of the Constitution.
Speaker 2: When it comes to decorational war, I don't know if
Speaker 2: that's ever going to be resolved. Doesn't seem like the
Speaker 2: Supreme Courts willing to weigh in in a very legitimate
Speaker 2: way on the War Powers Act, And what is the
Speaker 2: lanes of the road between Congress and the Chief Executive.
Speaker 3: I think that's become a mood point sadly, I mean sadly,
Speaker 3: regardless of the administration, because the intent of the Warpalas
Speaker 3: Act was to was to rebalance the constitution. Right, so
Speaker 3: there was a genuine check on the executive when it
Speaker 3: came to military adventurism overseas. And yes that is that's
Speaker 3: the role of Congress, but it's become a political football.
Speaker 3: So if one party has holds both chambers, they're going
Speaker 3: to make it difficult for the executive to to you know,
Speaker 3: to to go to war or or take military action.
Speaker 3: But if he but if the executive, if you know,
Speaker 3: the same party is in parent in both chambers, or
Speaker 3: it's dominant in the Senate in particular, and it's the
Speaker 3: same party as the president, then you're going to see
Speaker 3: a very less safe their attitude towards allowing the executive
Speaker 3: to do what he wants. It's not the intent of
Speaker 3: the you know, here am I divining the constitution, But
Speaker 3: that's not the intent of checks and balances, right. The
Speaker 3: intent was that the perseperience that that whoever holds the
Speaker 3: purse strings, which is Congress, is a genuine check to
Speaker 3: prevent the president taking the country into to war basically
Speaker 3: and committing American soldiers to war without without the say
Speaker 3: so of elected representatives. That's the intent, and the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court was supposed to be the arbiter on that. And
Speaker 3: you know, when gray areas have arisen, But as Mix
Speaker 3: pointed out, that hasn't happened, you know, I mean we continued.
Speaker 3: I mean, yes, I know, Iraq and Afghanistan were different
Speaker 3: because we were operating under an AUMF but authorized usimilitary force.
Speaker 3: But there was never any concerted effort to revise that
Speaker 3: AUMF right, and it just continued and coninued and continued.
Speaker 3: And that's part of the problem why we ended up
Speaker 3: in Afghanistan. I think one of the reasons, one of
Speaker 3: the many reasons why we lost our way in Afghanistan
Speaker 3: because there wasn't a sufficient congressional oversight to demand what
Speaker 3: exactly is our strategy and all the effort that we're
Speaker 3: putting in, how we how are we how is it
Speaker 3: aligned with a coherent policy? Rotation off the rotation. The
Speaker 3: great efforts that we saw on the ground at the
Speaker 3: tactical level evaporated because they didn't align with the coherent policy.
Speaker 3: And that should have been a congressional role to ensure
Speaker 3: that happened. But it didn't happen. And everyone, you know,
Speaker 3: when when Kabul fell or everyone to point the finger
Speaker 3: at each other. It became a political football too. But
Speaker 3: the book bottom line is, I'm not arguing from the
Speaker 3: point of view by the party. I'm just saying Congress
Speaker 3: didn't do what it was supposed to do over the
Speaker 3: course of twenty years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we kept expanding a UMF. Right, So then
Speaker 2: they gave us a reason to be and yeah, man
Speaker 2: in Somalia, Syria, right, any any continuation that had to
Speaker 2: do with al Qaeda, isis, et cetera became It became
Speaker 2: like an endless approval for Congress. And I'm not saying
Speaker 2: we shouldn't have fought in those places, don't get me wrong.
Speaker 2: But from a constitutional structural perspective, what is I think
Speaker 2: the I think the answer of American people is it
Speaker 2: looks like they're just not gonna do their constitutional role.
Speaker 3: Congressome Yeah, I mean it's supposed to deliberate. But when
Speaker 3: when so small, when you have an all volunteer force
Speaker 3: representing such a small percentage of the average legislators constituent constituents, right,
Speaker 3: I mean, who's writing letters saying, hey, why is my
Speaker 3: sunnel daughter in X place? It's it's a tiny minority,
Speaker 3: tiny minority. And so you know, if I'm not I'm
Speaker 3: not suggesting we should have the Trump but Trent, that's
Speaker 3: you know, Vietnam. That's why it was such a big
Speaker 3: issue because because of course, yeah, I mean it is.
Speaker 2: You didn't see anywhere near the level of protest the
Speaker 2: last twenty years of the jewop then you did, you know,
Speaker 2: because it had direct impact on everybody, regardless of their
Speaker 2: position on the world work.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Also, most of the most of the families of
Speaker 1: folks who are deployed over the last twenty years probably
Speaker 1: weren't massive campaign donors either, So who's really going to
Speaker 1: fucking listen to them?
Speaker 2: And I also don't want to. I mean, even if
Speaker 2: you oppose the war, I think families would be a
Speaker 2: little hesitants, be too vocal when they're child volunteered to
Speaker 2: be in the you know what I mean, So especially
Speaker 2: if you joined. Yeah, a good point. I mean, if
Speaker 2: I'm not saying to bring back the draft, but I
Speaker 2: think we can all agree that if we had a draft,
Speaker 2: military adventurism would probably a subside quite a bit. Yeah,
Speaker 2: certainly when it comes to introducing ground forces.
Speaker 3: And you could have a you know, you could have
Speaker 3: a non military national service aspect of it, like the
Speaker 3: GERM instead and you you know, post of the things
Speaker 3: would happen like Brooklyn would be clean, I mean, and
Speaker 3: you sensitive just that sense of national nation.
Speaker 1: Nowhere out of nowhere. Yeah, it's anti Brooklyn rhetoric. That's unacceptable.
Speaker 1: Don't don't they aren't they using the aa U m
Speaker 1: F to justify what they're doing with the U the
Speaker 1: drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific and also what
Speaker 1: happened in Venezuela.
Speaker 2: The rhetoric, I don't. Yeah, there's no connection between al
Speaker 2: Qaida that I could think of the drug card.
Speaker 1: But isn't that the reason why they Isn't that why
Speaker 1: they organization? But then they call them like uh narco
Speaker 1: terrorist organizations and they change the wording for them to
Speaker 1: like make it seem like, yeah, no, we could do this,
Speaker 1: this is okay, this is not against.
Speaker 2: The designate them by foreign teriors. Organization right under their authorities.
Speaker 2: Doesn't give you right to use meltzer actions. It's basically
Speaker 2: like sanctions and banking and travel or something. Right, it
Speaker 2: sounds the same. It sounds the same right as aof
Speaker 2: and foreign terrorist organizations. Sure, but it's it's not I
Speaker 2: don't think legally.
Speaker 1: Let's talk real quick about what's going on in Syria.
Speaker 1: You know SDF and uh Alfshara forces or the you
Speaker 1: know Syrian government forces are clashing. Uh, another place where
Speaker 1: Turkey has a lot of sway. Uh. Just a quick
Speaker 1: rundown on what's what's up there? How's it looking? Because
Speaker 1: there was some talk about there being like they were
Speaker 1: going to figure it out, they were gonna came to
Speaker 1: some kind of some kind of piece or some kind
Speaker 1: of deal, and it seems to have unraveled a little bit.
Speaker 2: A bit, I mean, just the background. Obviously, this has
Speaker 2: been contentious between the United States and Turkey for the
Speaker 2: entirety of the Defeat Iceis campaign and named durant ifew
Speaker 2: devices because the US has been paired with the SDO
Speaker 2: whose primary leadership Corps at ypg WI, the which the
Speaker 2: Church to leave is too connected to the p k K,
Speaker 2: a foreign terrorist organization. But the US, particularly the Defense
Speaker 2: Department and the Agency, seen that they were the most
Speaker 2: effective partner. They fought alongside the United States, sometimes well
Speaker 2: beyond what they would have really needed to protect themselves,
Speaker 2: and did most of the fighting to dieing against ISIS,
Speaker 2: which benefited the world. Where there's an eighty country coalition
Speaker 2: and those are the country coalitions to those of the well,
Speaker 2: it's they both Arab and kurd to be fair, inside
Speaker 2: of the STF, it's just that the leadership is prime
Speaker 2: predominantly Kurdish. But you know, eighty eighty country coalition, Yes,
Speaker 2: you did most of the fighting, right, So I think
Speaker 2: I personally think uh, and I know them a lot
Speaker 2: to be To be upfront, we owe them to be
Speaker 2: their partner in in advocating for them in a future series.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying we should advocate for the Rahava concept
Speaker 2: and they're completely autonomous and all that stuff, but they
Speaker 2: they I think earned the right of the United States
Speaker 2: to be an advocate with the El Shara interim government
Speaker 2: so that they're in a good place and isn't a
Speaker 2: good place. I'm not saying we should be totally biased
Speaker 2: toward them, but I think a lot of them feel
Speaker 2: like we're essentially abandoned, and that's happened before. It causes
Speaker 2: a lot of tension with the Special Operations community, who
Speaker 2: has spent a lot of times a lot of time,
Speaker 2: particularly the army side of that, and with the agency
Speaker 2: because they have been exceptional partners when it came to
Speaker 2: on the ground biting. And I think that's something that
Speaker 2: I hope that we can keep in mind that every
Speaker 2: every international engagement isn't purely transactional. There has to be
Speaker 2: some loyalty to partners and allies or they're not never
Speaker 2: going to be that toward us. Again, there's a practical
Speaker 2: reason too, in addition to just ethical. I know we
Speaker 2: didn't have much time at the end, but this could
Speaker 2: this could come back next week.
Speaker 3: Andrew, No, I mean I agree, tell you, mac I
Speaker 3: wrote an article back in twenty nineteen. She was an
Speaker 3: interview with MSNBC and which which when when we were
Speaker 3: first talking about pulling out of Syria right and leaving
Speaker 3: the SDF to the mercy of the Turks, Like may
Speaker 3: I feel quite strongly about standing by our allies the
Speaker 3: you know, I'm not just saying that in a vague term,
Speaker 3: we turned our back. Historically, we haven't been very good
Speaker 3: at standing by the groups who who don't represent foreign
Speaker 3: sovereign countries but have done the lion's share of the
Speaker 3: fighting against our enemies. You know, you go back all
Speaker 3: the way to Vietnam and the Montagnards and and not
Speaker 3: just the Montagnyards, but various other ethnic groups within Cambodi,
Speaker 3: Alaos and Vietnam and then in in the you know,
Speaker 3: the kind of ISSIS campaign was the success that it
Speaker 3: was because we had a capable ground fighting force and
Speaker 3: we collectively defeated ISIS at the incredibly low cost when
Speaker 3: it comes to casualties. It was the antithesis of Afghanistan
Speaker 3: where we flailed around and lost, and that was thanks
Speaker 3: to the SDF. Yes, they were in it for themselves,
Speaker 3: of course, but but it was a good partnership and
Speaker 3: and actually it was a partnership based on trust. You know,
Speaker 3: we had teams in there. The US soft community are
Speaker 3: very small teams working with their SDF, coordinating fire support
Speaker 3: totally at that mercy, were totally beholden to them for
Speaker 3: protection and they never let us down. So yeah, I
Speaker 3: feel pretty strongly about us turning our backs on them
Speaker 3: in any in any way, whether it's with the Syrian
Speaker 3: regime or with the Turks.
Speaker 1: Right anything else. Guys, it's pretty good, pretty solid. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I want everyone to do a favor, like and subscribe
Speaker 1: if you're listening to us on audio. Rated five stars,
Speaker 1: subscribe there, tell a friend, you know, why not. Mick Molroy,
Speaker 1: he's got a great new podcast called The Pub and
Speaker 1: the Porch Applied Stoicism. That link is in the description.
Speaker 1: Andy Milburn, great new article about what's going on, uh
Speaker 1: with the urban warfare in Gaza down in the description
Speaker 1: he wrote that for one of the Rocks. That link
Speaker 1: is there as well. And he's got a great book
Speaker 1: When the Tempest gathers. I'm still waiting for Mick to
Speaker 1: write his book. I'm very excit. I can't wait for that. Uh.
Speaker 1: And yeah, Patreon doc Yeah, Patreon dot com, Slashi team
Speaker 1: House please one more.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: The summit that's coming up. So it's called the Montana
Speaker 2: Intellivision Summit. It's going to be in down the Lobo's
Speaker 2: head headquartered in Whitefish. Hopefully we'll get the whole podcast
Speaker 2: team out there. It will change to the white Fish
Speaker 2: Security Summit this year, but it's the same thing, same thing.
Speaker 2: We hope to make it a place where it will
Speaker 2: probably remain the special operations intel heavy, but it will
Speaker 2: include policy and everything that goes into national security. And
Speaker 2: there's a lot to do in Whitefish biased but I
Speaker 2: think it's going to be excellent, and we hope to
Speaker 2: make it an annual thing with this new group we're attached.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that link is also in the descriptions. Check it
Speaker 1: out there if you want to go for tickets and everything.
Speaker 3: So he's on the that's just speaking, perfect location, and
Speaker 3: I agree with your decision. Meant to shift that from Brooklyn,
Speaker 3: not just because the activities that you can pursue in
Speaker 3: Brooklyn are quite a different level, but the Brooklyn Intelligent
Speaker 3: Summit is well in Oxymoron, so I believable.
Speaker 1: You're just faming. You're defaming the great Borough of Brooklyn,
Speaker 1: and it's frankly disgusting.
Speaker 3: It is disgusting.
Speaker 1: Thanks guys, As always, check us out. The links ever
Speaker 1: for everything is in the description. We'll see you next week.
Speaker 2: Thanks.
Speaker 4: Ye hey, guys, I want to tell all of you
Speaker 4: today about a new newsletter that we're launching that encompasses
Speaker 4: both the team House podcast, the eyes On podcast, and
Speaker 4: the high Side News outlet which I run with Sean Naylor.
Speaker 4: The newsletter is going to be once a week. It's
Speaker 4: going to come into your inbox and you're going to
Speaker 4: get the most current podcasts on eyes On and the
Speaker 4: Teamhouse and whatever's topical or current on the high side.
Speaker 4: So it's another way for us to get the information
Speaker 4: out to you as social media algorithms are pretty iffy
Speaker 4: and you never really know what you're gonna get. So
Speaker 4: this is a once a week email. It'll slide into
Speaker 4: your inbox and it will have you know the greatest
Speaker 4: hits of that week.
Speaker 3: It's really good Dan checking it out.
Speaker 4: The website for it is team House Podcast dot kit
Speaker 4: dot com, slash Join Teamhouse Podcast dot kit dot com
Speaker 4: slash join.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 4: You go there and you enter into your email list
Speaker 4: or you enter your email into the little thing on
Speaker 4: the website and you're good to go, and that'll be it.
Speaker 4: So we really appreciate your support and I hope you'll
Speaker 4: consider signing up.
Speaker 3: Where's the link.
Speaker 4: The link will also be down the description if you're
Speaker 4: looking for it there, and that's Teamhouse Podcast, dot Kit,
Speaker 4: k I t Kilo, India, Tango dot com, backslash Join
Speaker 4: passsssssssssss