Speaker 1: So most important is our all. Everyone watching, please go
Speaker 1: to the subscribe button and subscribe now. It's not as
Speaker 1: though we're going into rivalry with the Teamhouse, but we
Speaker 1: are starting. We are starting as an offshoot franchise, okay
Speaker 1: with under the Lorded Chank Murphy Media Empire, and so
Speaker 1: please give us a boost. Otherwise well as we'll get
Speaker 1: fired with the exception of d of course, and no
Speaker 1: one wants that to happen, So do so now, and
Speaker 1: who knows, we may make one hundred and forty thousand
Speaker 1: subscribers by the end of the day.
Speaker 2: D I hope you all right?
Speaker 3: Yeah, So the link is in the description for the
Speaker 3: new eyes On team eyes On YouTube channel, So go
Speaker 3: ahead and go to the description, click that link and
Speaker 3: click subscribe. See don't miss a single episode.
Speaker 1: Hello everyone, and welcome to another episode of eyes On.
Speaker 1: I'm Andy Mulburn, I'm Jason.
Speaker 2: Lyons, dimeach contacos deee.
Speaker 1: What do we have lined up today?
Speaker 3: It's a lot of cooking first and foremost. We were
Speaker 3: talking before the show about what's going on. It looks
Speaker 3: it seems like there's going to be an imminent attack
Speaker 3: on Iran from Israel.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's already publicized. Yes, old news, that's not an
Speaker 1: open source sadly, Yeah, no, exactly right, that is, you know,
Speaker 1: that's that's part of this story. But the attack itself
Speaker 1: now is not the main story. The main story is
Speaker 1: the fact that news of such an attack was leaked
Speaker 1: to number one and number two, that the US administration
Speaker 1: is staying or not actually when I say that, not publicly,
Speaker 1: but that they are that you know, they are confident
Speaker 1: that it's will not attack either nuclear facilities or Iran's
Speaker 1: oil infrastructure or reserves, which were the two, you know,
Speaker 1: the two big questions, because we didn't want a global
Speaker 1: economy to be sent down the toilet, and also you know,
Speaker 1: the obvious escalatory ramifications with going after nuclear facilities. Now,
Speaker 1: whether we changed metna Who's mind remains to be seen.
Speaker 1: In other words, whether this was really a mind change,
Speaker 1: or whether he'd already resolved to do what he's going
Speaker 1: to do and avoid those two things, or who knows
Speaker 1: whether the you know, the extreme right within Israel will
Speaker 1: still sway him into taking stronger action, although that does,
Speaker 1: you know, admittedly seem unlikely. So so one, you know,
Speaker 1: I suppose, I mean, it's so difficult when you are
Speaker 1: tracing the cause and effect in this type of thing,
Speaker 1: and I'm not trying to do so by mentioning the
Speaker 1: his bolodrone attack that exploded near Netnil Who's home on
Speaker 1: the nineteenth. He's got like a country home out in Caesar,
Speaker 1: a very nice place, and you know it, neither he
Speaker 1: nor his wife, no members of his family were home.
Speaker 1: The blaster did hit the house, calls damage, no casualties.
Speaker 1: But he takes these things. He takes these things very personally.
Speaker 1: And there was an incident back in twenty nineteen when
Speaker 1: he was he was talking to an audience and an
Speaker 1: attack by a rocket attack by I think it was
Speaker 1: Palestine in the Islamic Jihad. Yes, it was definitely interrupted
Speaker 1: this political rally and he had been rushed off the
Speaker 1: stage by his bodyguards. And the photographs were in Israeli. Okay, now,
Speaker 1: you know a lot of people would think, okay, that's
Speaker 1: that's kind of cool as leader of the country being
Speaker 1: shown also to share the same dangers as their people.
Speaker 1: But this isn't what who wants. He doesn't want to
Speaker 1: share the same dangers, and he found those, you know,
Speaker 1: the pictures back then very humiliating and and apparently he
Speaker 1: you know, he drove to the headquarters they carry at
Speaker 1: the headquarters of the Israeli Defense Ministry and ordered the
Speaker 1: killing of Islamic jihad leader Bajo Abu al Atta right
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. So you know, my point is he makes
Speaker 1: decisions reflexibly based on on frets to himself personally. So
Speaker 1: let's not discount that that attack, you know, and the
Speaker 1: effect of that attack. That having been said that, you know,
Speaker 1: these mysterious Israeli and American security sources who keep discussing
Speaker 1: things in sidebars to the media are apparently saying that
Speaker 1: there is a US Israeli understanding it's been reached, promising
Speaker 1: to reward Israel from refraining from attacking Iran soy industry
Speaker 1: and nuclear power infrastructure, and in return, the conversation is
Speaker 1: going to include lifting US suspension of certain arms and
Speaker 1: ammunition shipments to Israel and even accelerating their supply right
Speaker 1: to include the famous D nine bulldozer, which has been
Speaker 1: a mainstay of Israeli operations in Gata. Indeed, you know
Speaker 1: the D Nines, the D nine. As anyone has been
Speaker 1: involved in an urban fight in the last two decades,
Speaker 1: the D nine will tell you. Anyone will tell you
Speaker 1: it's worth its weight in gold. It's like a combat bulldozer,
Speaker 1: and it has multiple uses, and it is in many
Speaker 1: ways more useful than it tank that in those environments.
Speaker 1: The only thing that lacks, of course, is a significant
Speaker 1: direct fire ability capability. But now that the you know,
Speaker 1: there's so many ways to protect such a thing, especially
Speaker 1: in an environment like Garza.
Speaker 4: It is.
Speaker 1: It is a it's an iconic, ah and very effective weapon.
Speaker 1: Although perhaps we're not going to see a rush to
Speaker 1: be a D nine bulldoz a driver anytime soon in
Speaker 1: the U us MS lineup, But in any case, so
Speaker 1: they are also involved in the apparently in this agreement
Speaker 1: to provide compensation for the Israeli restraint has been an
Speaker 1: agreement to step up US attacks on hoof you weapons
Speaker 1: depots and other strategic targets and Yemen. Cynics might say,
Speaker 1: for what it's worth, you know, for all the good
Speaker 1: that has done to date, but there is a feeling
Speaker 1: now that those are becoming in recently effectives as US
Speaker 1: intelligence perhaps gets get gets a little more acute, you know,
Speaker 1: on a topic that we have discussed here and and
Speaker 1: the US has already you know. The last strike we
Speaker 1: did was this on the sixteenth, I think too, and
Speaker 1: it was yeah, that's right. And then they went off
Speaker 1: for the major Hoofy weapons depot and by all accounts
Speaker 1: was effective. So we shall see and maybe I should
Speaker 1: not be a synic about our ability to suppress the Hoofees.
Speaker 3: And a little bit that be to know that B
Speaker 3: two hit. There was talk about it being more of
Speaker 3: like a strategic play showing Iran, like hey, because like
Speaker 3: why we use B two's yeah for hate Goofy targets.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to point that out because like what happened,
Speaker 3: people were talking about how it's like a strategic move
Speaker 3: to show Ran, like hey, what's what's what?
Speaker 2: Like we're here?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think there were I think there were three reasons.
Speaker 1: One was iron. Second was Israel to show hey, look
Speaker 1: we're you know, we really are serious about that and
Speaker 1: israelis now care about the whois because the Houthis had
Speaker 1: been striking into Israel a limited success, but they did
Speaker 1: get a missile into Tel Aviv, which was symbolically a
Speaker 1: big deal and inflicted a inflicted casualties, but the well
Speaker 1: was yeah. So those two reasons and then the third reason,
Speaker 1: of course, is that if you're a B two pilot,
Speaker 1: you're watching your career go down the ship it because
Speaker 1: all your compadres are, you know, are getting plenty of
Speaker 1: trigger time or togal time or whatever they call it
Speaker 1: in the Air Force. And you know, even even the
Speaker 1: drone dudes you know in NALYS are are getting PTSD
Speaker 1: and stuff and medals galore, whereas the B two guys
Speaker 1: are stuck in that way where they's stuck in that base.
Speaker 4: In the Missouri I mean Middle East, Midwest, yeah, Missouri, Yeah,
Speaker 4: and and there's nothing to relieve their their routine.
Speaker 1: So I think you know that I'm only half joking
Speaker 1: here that plate played into a Tomb'm sure there was
Speaker 1: a B two pilot, senior B two pilot involved in
Speaker 1: the planning of this whole thing, I mean, the strategic
Speaker 1: level decision to use that platform. And then you know,
Speaker 1: on the topic of compensation, uh, the Pentagon is said
Speaker 1: to be considering all right. I love that vague phrase.
Speaker 1: Deployment of a second fad anti missile battery in Israel
Speaker 1: and fad IS is also a big deal. You know,
Speaker 1: the Israelis, their their three tier air defense system is
Speaker 1: effective but not effective enough to you know, to stand
Speaker 1: against another onslaught, perhaps like the one that aren't sent
Speaker 1: by itself. All right, Israel knows it's never going to
Speaker 1: have to do that by itself. But nevertheless, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't everyone's aware that perhaps it has not seen
Speaker 1: its full saturation where there is an external attack and
Speaker 1: then you have two internal groups. Has Bono in her
Speaker 1: mass attacking Israel at the same time, a possibility that
Speaker 1: until recently seemed very likely but now seems increasingly unlikely
Speaker 1: because neither her mask nor his Bolla is probably capable
Speaker 1: of launching physically capable launching such an attack in Iran
Speaker 1: just doesn't you know, there's nothing to benefit Iran by
Speaker 1: doing so. And if you look at all of the
Speaker 1: rhetoric coming out of Tehran now, it is de escalatory.
Speaker 1: You know, that's the last thing Iran wants is to
Speaker 1: go to war right now. So the fad battery, yeah, symbolic,
Speaker 1: but on the other hand, it does it really does
Speaker 1: bolster an element of what the Israeli is used to
Speaker 1: be concerned about, being one of their critical vulnerabilities, the
Speaker 1: defense they're vulnerability to being overwhelmed by a mass simultaneous attack.
Speaker 1: So what are the Israelis going to attack?
Speaker 3: I like, yeah, so you said, like it's gonna be
Speaker 3: a bit of like an and dyne like kind of attack,
Speaker 3: right because we've paid them off. Isn't it a bit
Speaker 3: crazy that we're basically or expediting what we were gonna
Speaker 3: give them already, that we're talking them off the ledge
Speaker 3: of like hitting nuclear facilities or oil fields or whatever,
Speaker 3: or like a real deal attack with.
Speaker 2: Just uh, you know, arms Like, isn't that nuts?
Speaker 3: Or I mean, it's probably the way we do business anyway,
Speaker 3: like in the world, but it seems like we're being
Speaker 3: very blase about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think, I know, I think it's far from nuts,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean I think, I mean, if you
Speaker 1: look at at some of the best US foreign policy
Speaker 1: of the ages, you know, going all the way back
Speaker 1: to to the early part of the twentieth century Middle
Speaker 1: East in the interactions Middle East history, the you know,
Speaker 1: the current the stick. The current stick's always been something
Speaker 1: that we use with effective diplomas, seeing we know, persuasion
Speaker 1: by itself doesn't matter at all, and it matters doesn't
Speaker 1: count much at all, especially arguably as the United States
Speaker 1: that our position in the world stage becomes some would
Speaker 1: say less prominent, right, and we are no longer the
Speaker 1: indispensable ally to Israel that we thought we once were.
Speaker 1: You know, I think Israeli is our son who think, hey,
Speaker 1: we can do this by ourselves, and especially now with
Speaker 1: its leak, you know, we we the United States Alliance
Speaker 1: may does seem, especially the right wing Israelis as more
Speaker 1: of a liability than a help. And so I suppose
Speaker 1: under the principle of striking while the iron is hot,
Speaker 1: Secretary of State Blinker Anthony Blinkin arrived in Israel yesterday
Speaker 1: morning and his first stop in the regional tour. But
Speaker 1: clearly he's there to not just monitor Israeli preparation for
Speaker 1: a possible tag, but but but to limit its extent.
Speaker 1: And you know, he's probably arguing that, you know, having
Speaker 1: killed the heads of both Iran's main range regional proxies
Speaker 1: in recent weeks, his Bolla Chief Israela and hermas Had
Speaker 1: yahwah Simha, the parts are now clear for Israel to
Speaker 1: reach arrangements ending the war on all fronts. So that's
Speaker 1: what Israel wants to do, you know. So so in
Speaker 1: a sense, I hate say the region has reached this
Speaker 1: decision point or a historic crossroads. But in the sense
Speaker 1: it has you know, I mean, according to you know,
Speaker 1: Israeli assessments, Hasbala wants to win the war, all right,
Speaker 1: not even then, you know, even in two thousand and
Speaker 1: six that that message was that they weren't getting such
Speaker 1: a clear message. But they've now been dealt the worst
Speaker 1: blow in their history. Uh and and and you know
Speaker 1: they're exhausted. Iran wants to end it, as I pointed out.
Speaker 5: And Hamas has stopped functioning as a government or a
Speaker 5: military body. It's got no leadership at all, all right,
Speaker 5: Marmwood Cinema. Unlikely you know, or I mentioned his name
Speaker 5: is Sinmar's brother because he's he's the most extreme of
Speaker 5: those who are left. But he's very deep somewhere in Gaza,
Speaker 5: either alive or dead, and has no influence. So the
Speaker 5: authority has defaulted to the political leadership.
Speaker 1: And they have always been more moderate than you know,
Speaker 1: than the military leadership of Hamas, so or situated or
Speaker 1: you know, from a point of view of his Israel's adversaries.
Speaker 1: Things seem right now, you know, see, things seem to
Speaker 1: be in the right place for some kind of settlement, okay,
Speaker 1: But all right, black Swan Benivier and the hardliners in
Speaker 1: Nefniahu's Likud party who don't want the water to stop
Speaker 1: until hisbolla and hamas are crushed to a pole. And
Speaker 1: this week on Monday, there was a rally attended by
Speaker 1: Benavie and other Knesset members, all right Ben gaver In,
Speaker 1: particularly as a Cabinet member, calling for the rebuilding of
Speaker 1: Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip, which is ral dismantled
Speaker 1: in two thousand and five, in other words, saying, hey,
Speaker 1: look now we've purched this whole area, let's move back in.
Speaker 1: So and you can't dismiss yeah. I mean, these people
Speaker 1: were once a fringe movement within Israeli society, but no longer.
Speaker 1: And these kind of meglemannic ambitions you're hearing among your
Speaker 1: mainstream politicians like Bendevere, like becos He other guy's Motridge.
Speaker 1: And you know, we keep using those two names, but
Speaker 1: they represent a sizeable, an influential part of his Rali politics.
Speaker 1: And then and then you add to that, okay, so
Speaker 1: you know Blncoln's already out there, you add to that
Speaker 1: US mediator Amos Hogstein. Okay, he's now on the ground
Speaker 1: trying to engineer a deal between Israel and Hezbolla, all right,
Speaker 1: and you know, nothing not with a run or anything.
Speaker 1: But he's focusing specifically in the local area. And you know,
Speaker 1: he's saying that that there needs to be a new
Speaker 1: mechanism to enforce you and Resolution seventeen oh one, which
Speaker 1: ended the two thousand and six war, which everyone realizes
Speaker 1: there needs to be, But the question is who can
Speaker 1: enforce that and is it enforceable? Okay, And we've talked
Speaker 1: about a little bit that before. Now for the first
Speaker 1: time this is from you know, kind of his perspective.
Speaker 1: I think now for the first time, the Lebanese government
Speaker 1: no longer has the buller constrictor of Hesbala around its neck,
Speaker 1: and it can make policy decisions such as enforcing and
Speaker 1: internationally agreed mandate without opposition. Okay. That's how the US
Speaker 1: is thinking. However, on the ground, a little bit different. Okay.
Speaker 1: So the seventeen oh one resolution calls for all aren't
Speaker 1: militias to be pulled back north of the Litani River,
Speaker 1: and okay, that makes sense, all right, But there's a
Speaker 1: couple of couple of reasons why that alone, it's going
Speaker 1: to be hard to enforce, and even if they do enforce,
Speaker 1: it's not going to be particularly in effective. Okay, effective
Speaker 1: Number one is there, you know, the the rank and
Speaker 1: file of Hasboala isn't heavily embedded in the towns and
Speaker 1: villain is south of Latani. In other words, you know,
Speaker 1: you could there are families whose husband and brothers within
Speaker 1: that family, all the male members are part of his Bolla,
Speaker 1: right and you know they may do other things that
Speaker 1: may not be a full time job, but they are
Speaker 1: his Boller fighters and for number of them, it is
Speaker 1: a full time job, right. So it's more than just
Speaker 1: moving a militia north. You know, when you have an
Speaker 1: organization like that heavily embedded in the local community. And
Speaker 1: number two, you know even I mean obviously with ranges
Speaker 1: of the rockets and missiles that his Bolla has now,
Speaker 1: most of the long range rockets, those that are surviving
Speaker 1: are up north are in the par valley or vicinity
Speaker 1: of Bay Route. They're not south of the Latani rivers.
Speaker 1: So simply moving people, militias weapons is not going to work.
Speaker 1: But what might work is a concerted attempt effort to disarm,
Speaker 1: you know, to make disarmed people out of the Latani River, right,
Speaker 1: so leave in place, but disarmed, Yeah, I just don't
Speaker 1: see how they have any other option to leave them
Speaker 1: in place. You know, what are you gonna do. You're
Speaker 1: gonna try to drive the whole population north of the
Speaker 1: Latani River. And that's not what the resolution says, you know,
Speaker 1: but but uh, I mean nevertheless, okay that that's kind
Speaker 1: of my Sinicis and the Israelis are still saying we
Speaker 1: need an arrangement that moves his baller north of the
Speaker 1: Tani River and strengthens the Lebanese central government because if
Speaker 1: if seventeen or one is not enforced, then you know,
Speaker 1: the Israelis will remain there to to do so, you know, arguably,
Speaker 1: although they don't want to obviously, they don't want to
Speaker 1: remain there, and then so so his Bolla. But you know,
Speaker 1: the advantage though, for the side of of peace. I
Speaker 1: guess the advantage here is that his Boller, as I said,
Speaker 1: does seen now to want to want to respine, right obviously,
Speaker 1: and so you know, if there's any time to do this,
Speaker 1: it is now. And at the same time, with Hermas,
Speaker 1: there's an opportunity to renew negotiations for a deal. There's
Speaker 1: you know, people forget, well not not families of hostages,
Speaker 1: but in the States it is sometimes forgot. And there
Speaker 1: is still some one hundred and so hostages in Gaza, right,
Speaker 1: haven't been recovered one hundred and five I think it is,
Speaker 1: And so negotiations to freedom and Holpy the fighting in
Speaker 1: Gaza is still a priority. And as I mentioned earlier,
Speaker 1: you know, now there's been this shift in the balance
Speaker 1: of power within Hamas since Saintmar's killing that passes the
Speaker 1: baton to Harmas is exiled political leadership, which, as I've said,
Speaker 1: is is far more in a far more moderate And
Speaker 1: then the last time you mentioned the Egyptians, right, and
Speaker 1: you know, as being kind of unhelpful, Well, you know,
Speaker 1: I think a lot of Israelis might agree with you.
Speaker 1: But but interestingly enough, so the Egyptians had a long
Speaker 1: time a long time head of their intelligence and this
Speaker 1: is quite unusual in any intelligence service, perhaps except for
Speaker 1: Western you know, c I A for an intelligence chief
Speaker 1: to almost have kind of rock star status. But the
Speaker 1: but but a basque Kmal did you know he was
Speaker 1: he was very he was very well, he was feared
Speaker 1: and feared and revered I suppose within certain circles in
Speaker 1: unless a basque kamal, and he's well known to the
Speaker 1: Israelis and and they certainly they could negotiate with him,
Speaker 1: but there was always a feeling that he, you know,
Speaker 1: he was keeping some cards on the side and not
Speaker 1: giving you know, a full full court press to Israeli
Speaker 1: harmss negotiations. Well, his replacements a guy named Hassan Mahmoud Rashad,
Speaker 1: unknown quantity, but certainly determined to prove himself and seems,
Speaker 1: you know, for him, the perhaps the sign of success
Speaker 1: would be for the negotiations to go ahead, and it
Speaker 1: would be just kind of great feather in his cap
Speaker 1: if he could make that happen. So the conditions are
Speaker 1: ripening for for that to be a peace settlement. That's
Speaker 1: not to say that there will be one.
Speaker 6: Do you think any of this is going to be
Speaker 6: or is being slow rolled for the sake of the
Speaker 6: US elections to see what the outcome is going to
Speaker 6: be in you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that's great. That's a great point, Jason. And
Speaker 1: there is no doubt about it that around the world
Speaker 1: everyone is watching US election speaker for for possible outcome.
Speaker 1: There is no doubt about it that, you know, I
Speaker 1: mean Trump and Netne, who are far closer than anyone
Speaker 1: likely in the Democratic candidacy.
Speaker 6: And.
Speaker 1: In fact Netne who has called I mean Trump called Netnia,
Speaker 1: who a good man recently, you know, I mean it,
Speaker 1: so Israeli certainly have an eye on that. When I
Speaker 1: say the Israelis, I shouldn't say that, I shouldn't act
Speaker 1: as there you know, homogeneous and all that, But I
Speaker 1: mean the right wing of the Lacude Party undoubtedly is
Speaker 1: awaiting that eventuality, well possible possibility.
Speaker 2: M h.
Speaker 1: Are you guys? So before we get into this leak, uh,
Speaker 1: which is you know in the end, I mean, like
Speaker 1: we've said before, when you look at what was in
Speaker 1: that leak, it's nothing really to see, you know. But
Speaker 1: but nevertheless the leak itself is significant, I mean top
Speaker 1: secret information leak on purpose and and what so what
Speaker 1: what this stuff shows and it looks you know, the
Speaker 1: if you're following this on on Twitter, you know, there's
Speaker 1: there's a a school of thought and Twitter, right, an
Speaker 1: informed school of thought that thinks that this came from
Speaker 1: the office of the Secretary of Defense himself. You can't
Speaker 1: prove that obviously at this stage, because actually, this is
Speaker 1: this is stuff that comes from what am I thinking
Speaker 1: at Jason, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, right, So it's yeah,
Speaker 1: it's yeah to which analyzes satellite imagery and also you know,
Speaker 1: the the NSA, which which does communications intercepts. So it's
Speaker 1: coming from more than one. It's coming from two agencies.
Speaker 1: So the leak is likely to have been more central,
Speaker 1: but that's not to say that, you know, it could
Speaker 1: have come through any number of hands as it was
Speaker 1: passed into IST's office.
Speaker 6: I was reading that, I'm sorry, Jerusalem. I was reading
Speaker 6: a Jerusalem Post or Jerusalem Post that apparently a name
Speaker 6: is being floated around as a possible source of the leak, which.
Speaker 1: The Pentagon denies.
Speaker 6: Her name is Ariyan Tabatabi Tabataba, chief of staff for
Speaker 6: the of the Assistant Secretary of Defense will Spressal operations. Again,
Speaker 6: Pentagon is saying that's not true. You know, FBI obviously
Speaker 6: would have the lead on this, so they would be
Speaker 6: the the final sale on whether that's true or not.
Speaker 6: But apparently she was under Yeah, she was under fire
Speaker 6: back in twenty twenty three, members of Congress.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I wanted her Iranian Iranian connections. Yeah, because her Yeah,
Speaker 7: her family communication. Yeah so she but I guess she's
Speaker 7: in the spotlight again.
Speaker 1: Yeah, not not just Iranian family members, but pro Ranian
Speaker 1: you know, allegedly pro Iranian family members. Yeah, I remember
Speaker 1: all that. Yeah, I I haven't heard anything more on that,
Speaker 1: but I do know you know, the documents, Uh, what
Speaker 1: they describe it is, it's nothing surprising. It's just you know,
Speaker 1: it involves and Jason, I don't even know. Can we
Speaker 1: do we talk about it? But finally I don't think
Speaker 1: we can even talk about.
Speaker 2: It, but I talk about it.
Speaker 1: I don't know, Man, let's move on. But it's not
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's got to do with with capabilities.
Speaker 1: And it's not a you know, it's not My point
Speaker 1: is it's not a it's not it's not a serious blow. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean they read like executive summaries. There's no imagery
Speaker 2: the fact that it was.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it's just meant it's just talk.
Speaker 6: It's just talk about capabilities. And I think that because
Speaker 6: what I'm reading, uh, is is it the question is
Speaker 6: is it a leak or is it a hack? And
Speaker 6: if it is a leak, is it an intentional leak,
Speaker 6: meaning did someone in the Pentagon in the US government say, okay,
Speaker 6: let's let this slip out purposely, I don't know what for,
Speaker 6: or was it leaked by someone trying to derail this
Speaker 6: whole thing. So again, FBI would have the lead on it.
Speaker 6: They would want to know who had access to the
Speaker 6: documents all the way up the chain, who had the
Speaker 6: most who has the most likelyhood of wanting to leak
Speaker 6: something like this, whether it's you know, to derail it
Speaker 6: for monetary gain, stuff like that. So there's definitely an
Speaker 6: active counterintelligence investigation going on and we're just gonna have
Speaker 6: to wait to see. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 6: when this first happened, you know, people got together and said,
Speaker 6: what is the damage to Israel here and.
Speaker 1: To the US?
Speaker 6: And it's really there. There isn't any you know, there
Speaker 6: isn't no.
Speaker 1: I mean, you could you could have you could have
Speaker 1: just assumed what was in these documents exactly been doing
Speaker 1: those things. So but but to your point, I think
Speaker 1: it's clearly pointing now to lead a purpose in the league.
Speaker 1: Because it was screenshots of the documents that appeared on
Speaker 1: a telegram channel. You know that alone doesn't differentiate it
Speaker 1: from the hack. But the FBI is saying not the
Speaker 1: FI but but at least, you know, official statements are
Speaker 1: now saying that that it was not it was most
Speaker 1: likely not a hack.
Speaker 6: And it would have it would have benefit if it
Speaker 6: was a hack. It would have benefited if it was
Speaker 6: Iran for them to say, look look at what we found,
Speaker 6: you know, instead of letting someone else see yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, you know, And I think, I mean, what's
Speaker 1: concerning is, of course, this isn't the first significant leak
Speaker 1: of sensitive intelligence, right in the last few years. You know,
Speaker 1: last year there was that, you know, a trash classified
Speaker 1: US assessments of the war in Ukraine and other foreign
Speaker 1: policy matters appeared on discord, right, and that that was
Speaker 1: that guy what was his name, Jared something, Yeah, National Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you know he's an enlisted emment in the Massachusetts
Speaker 1: and National Guard. So you could say, well, what what
Speaker 1: has that got to do with policy or anything? That
Speaker 1: has everything to do with policy or it has because
Speaker 1: you know, we need to know is a key part
Speaker 1: of class sharing classified information, and there was just you know,
Speaker 1: when you trace all this, there was just there's no
Speaker 1: way that this dude needed to know that stuff. And
Speaker 1: so if this is you know, and I don't know,
Speaker 1: that may have been a local policy. It may have
Speaker 1: been just a local command of being an idiot and
Speaker 1: not adhering to national security policy, but definitely definitely of
Speaker 1: you know, of violation and it and it had outsized ramifications.
Speaker 1: You know, a junior dude in his early.
Speaker 2: Twenties, Jack to Cherer, that's his name.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a gamer causing damage to US national security. But
Speaker 1: we allow that to I mean, we allowed that to
Speaker 1: happen by giving them this information.
Speaker 3: Well, frankly, I'm pretty surprised it doesn't happen more often.
Speaker 3: With so many top secret clearances over a million or
Speaker 3: whatever it is, it's pretty shocking that it doesn't get
Speaker 3: things don't get leaked more.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and I'll tell you it even starts at the
Speaker 6: at which they realized later on, at the lowest level
Speaker 6: of the basic rule is when you get up from
Speaker 6: your desk, if you you know, when you get up
Speaker 6: from your desks, you whatever it is, you pull your card,
Speaker 6: you you know, control all delete and lock your screen.
Speaker 1: You do something.
Speaker 6: And from what I understand, this kid had nothing to
Speaker 6: do with these programs. But he was some kind of
Speaker 6: a repairman like telephone or something where he was able
Speaker 6: to get access to these desks and people just run there, yeah,
Speaker 6: just leaving their screens open. Hey I'm gonna go, you know,
Speaker 6: I don't want to stand over your shoulder. I'm gonna
Speaker 6: go get a cup of coffee. Or they just walked
Speaker 6: away for whatever reason, and he's able to see these things.
Speaker 6: And that's like one oh one when you first start
Speaker 6: these jobs, is lock your computer screen, put all your
Speaker 6: classified away before you leave your desk.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I didn't realize that that was it. I you know,
Speaker 1: I wonder I wonder all that whether that was the
Speaker 1: comme on just covering its ass, you know, rather than
Speaker 1: rather than admitting, oh yeah we we let all these
Speaker 1: dudes need to know, it's much easier to say, oh,
Speaker 1: it was an awful it was supposed to all these
Speaker 1: guys who leave the right econs in that computer. And
Speaker 1: that absolutely could be the case, you know, could be
Speaker 1: it could be the case. But but that's a very
Speaker 1: risky way to do it. You know, if you're going
Speaker 1: around other people's workstations while they go to the head
Speaker 1: or something, and I'm trying to pull ship it I
Speaker 1: just don't buy that. Yeah, I think it was just
Speaker 1: the unit fucked up and they and they they just
Speaker 1: didn't have enough kohunas to admit it.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 6: And I think with this, uh, this latest leak, I
Speaker 6: think more damaging uh if, if that's going to happen,
Speaker 6: would be the butterfly effect of this, as in the
Speaker 6: trust between the United States and Israel as also too,
Speaker 6: it could be used here as a talking point politically,
Speaker 6: like you know, look, look what happened under your you know,
Speaker 6: your administration, you know.
Speaker 1: That sort of thing.
Speaker 6: So those butterfly effects are to me more concerning than
Speaker 6: the actual leak itself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, No, that's one hundred percent creer. I couldn't
Speaker 1: agree more. It puts this and a negotiating disadvantage to the Israelis.
Speaker 1: All right, no longer can we you know, point out
Speaker 1: the stuff that's happened there, massive intelligence failures, massive operational failures,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, because we had them of our own,
Speaker 1: you know. And it's so it's just embarrassing, that's what
Speaker 1: it is. And it's not good to be embarrassed as
Speaker 1: a nation, right, and we're going to get comments about that,
Speaker 1: you know, No, you know, arguably we shouldn't be embarrassed,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, these things happen, and they happened
Speaker 1: because we United States trying to do the right thing
Speaker 1: in the area. I'm sounding very facile here. I realize
Speaker 1: before long I'm going to be accused of being a patriot.
Speaker 2: How dare you?
Speaker 1: Of course? You know, of course I believe that. Yes,
Speaker 1: So what about the Middle East? To be if we have,
Speaker 1: if we've talked through all of that, I want to
Speaker 1: talk about these three thousand North Korean dudes who popped
Speaker 1: up now in Ukraine, I mean right in the Ukraine,
Speaker 1: yet in Russia preparing to go to Ukraine. Well, I
Speaker 1: think we talked about this before, right that there were
Speaker 1: multiple newspaper reports, most notably in the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 1: that ten to twelve thousand North Korean troops were on
Speaker 1: their way to Russia to fight on the side of
Speaker 1: Russia in the Ukraine conflict. And that news brought much
Speaker 1: speculation among you know, think tanks, r US about the
Speaker 1: quality of these troops, et cetera, et cetera. General consensus being, hey,
Speaker 1: this is something to worry about because sheer numbers. Okay,
Speaker 1: Number two, North Korea is likely to send their best, okay,
Speaker 1: out of a million man army. So even if you
Speaker 1: know the majority are mal nourish, then illiterate peasants the
Speaker 1: you know, they the ones they send overseas are likely
Speaker 1: to have been prepared for this. The third is that
Speaker 1: they're definitely sending their special forces, right, And anyone who's
Speaker 1: studied the Korean peninsular problem knows that North Korean special forces,
Speaker 1: while you know, probably not certainly not you know near pier,
Speaker 1: are a force to be reckoned with you and in
Speaker 1: twelve thousands a lot of dudes to pour into conflict
Speaker 1: like that. So this is yeah, this is definitely a concern.
Speaker 1: But the United States government said, and we've heard nothing
Speaker 1: about this either to support or deny it. Well, in
Speaker 1: the last day yesterday, the North Korean intelligence i mean
Speaker 1: no North sorry, South Korean National Intelligence Service director it
Speaker 1: doesn't matter his name, but Cho Tiyon right said that
Speaker 1: there were already fifteen hundred North Korean troops in Russia.
Speaker 1: He didn't specify where, but if you look on Twitter,
Speaker 1: there is some geolocation work that shows exactly where. It
Speaker 1: means nothing to me, obviously, you know it's fairly near
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian border, but it's not in Ukraine yet, So
Speaker 1: fifteen hundred troops already there and no, I'm sorry, three
Speaker 1: thousand already there. It was initial fifteen hundred, other three thousand,
Speaker 1: and they're expecting a total of ten thousand by December.
Speaker 1: All right, so in the next six weeks. Now, what
Speaker 1: geolocation was suggesting was that these guys were all arriving
Speaker 1: in one place and then being distributed to multiple military
Speaker 1: bases for training. But they are, you know, they haven't
Speaker 1: been deployed into battle yet, so they are being they're
Speaker 1: going through some kind of training with Russian military instructors,
Speaker 1: you know. In the Russian military blog asphere confirms that.
Speaker 1: Interestingly enough, there's a comment here. There was a comment
Speaker 1: somewhere about the Russians instructors about the troops, saying that,
Speaker 1: you know, they're surprisingly good quality troops. This could just
Speaker 1: be propaganda, but yeah, and that you know, they're eager
Speaker 1: to get into the fight, but nevertheless, they're likely to
Speaker 1: take massive casualties because they know nothing about modern warfare.
Speaker 1: I mean, North Korea has not been at war since
Speaker 1: the Korean War, right, so this is an interesting development
Speaker 1: and I think it's though, an indication of kind of
Speaker 1: the desperation that the Russians have for manpower right now.
Speaker 1: In addition to the troops, the North Koreans have sent,
Speaker 1: so apparently, according to South Korea, thirteen thousand containers of artillery,
Speaker 1: missile and other conventional arms to Russia since since August
Speaker 1: of last year. So that's a lot of that's a
Speaker 1: lot of freight. Thirteen thousand. You know, it doesn't say
Speaker 1: what size can do is these arms, but if those
Speaker 1: you know, regardless of these are like ah airlift airlifts,
Speaker 1: I mean a single platform airlift, then that is a
Speaker 1: hell of a lot in just a Yeah, I.
Speaker 3: Mean, I got a question, what does North Korea get
Speaker 3: out of sending potentially ten thousand troops right now, three
Speaker 3: thousand and all the equipment, all the shells and everything
Speaker 3: like that, Like, where do they stand to gain out
Speaker 3: of it?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the really scary party. Who knows, you know,
Speaker 1: help with their their nuclear weapon development.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like tech help, Yeah, have.
Speaker 1: Help with the missile program, which is uh, you know,
Speaker 1: which has been coming along faster than we want anyway,
Speaker 1: you know, that's where that's where they could really use help.
Speaker 1: And then of course money you know, in North Korea's
Speaker 1: always always strap the cash.
Speaker 6: Also too, they sign that they signed that agreement in
Speaker 6: une to back each other in the case of external aggression.
Speaker 1: So if in the unlikely chance that North.
Speaker 6: Korea decides to pour across the border to the South again,
Speaker 6: they could turn and be like, hey, guess what you
Speaker 6: promised us?
Speaker 1: So that's in their back packet as well. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just not a yeah. I mean, it's gonna be
Speaker 1: very interesting to see what happens. But my point is
Speaker 1: that the big news here might not be the truths themselves.
Speaker 1: The big news is what, you know, what the Russians
Speaker 1: are giving the North Koreans in return at least from
Speaker 1: the US foreign policy, and that's concerning. So d I know,
Speaker 1: I know. We're coming to an end of our of
Speaker 1: an inaugural episode as a separate channel under the Teamhouse franchise,
Speaker 1: and if you haven't already done so, everyone please click
Speaker 1: subscribe now by the end of the day. Our goal
Speaker 1: is to amass as any subscribers as Teamhouse.
Speaker 2: Maine more a million, a million. Yeah, subscribe, Yeah, please subscribe.
Speaker 3: So the next few episodes we will be posting on
Speaker 3: the Team House channel and on eyes On's new channel,
Speaker 3: just to do a little bit of cross promotions. So
Speaker 3: don't forget the linkers in the description, Hit the like,
Speaker 3: hit the subscribe for the new eyes On podcast channel lease.
Speaker 1: And and his you know, that's kind of cool, my eye.
Speaker 1: I think it's an interesting point to end on a
Speaker 1: nostalgic point, perhaps this day in nineteen eighty three, Operation
Speaker 1: Urgent Fury began. That was the invasion of Grenada. And
Speaker 1: and some of you d you went to life back then, Nope,
Speaker 1: but yeah, but those of us, those of us who
Speaker 1: were remember, you know, say it was another tube in
Speaker 1: a time the Marines had lost, you know, some two
Speaker 1: hundred and forty one Marines in a in the in
Speaker 1: the explosion in Beirute on October. It was the twenty third,
Speaker 1: I believe, nineteen nineteen eighty three, so it had just happened.
Speaker 1: And the very next day, you know, the decisions made
Speaker 1: to go into the Grenada using a combined the Joint Force,
Speaker 1: my joint force, involving Army rangers, special forces, and of
Speaker 1: course the Marines, eighth Marines. Those of you who have
Speaker 1: seen that iconic movie Heartbreak Ridge will know the story
Speaker 1: in its entirety. But you know, an important part of
Speaker 1: Vergin Fury was we learned how fucked up we are
Speaker 1: when we do joint operations. You know, I mean, urgent
Speaker 1: fury was like a massive exercise. It was you know,
Speaker 1: I know urgent Fury veterans, so it will be upset
Speaker 1: at me saying this, but it wasn't combat. It was
Speaker 1: it was a massive exercise, and we didn't do well.
Speaker 1: We really didn't. We struggled everything, you know, even in
Speaker 1: the marine, or we struggled with air ground coordination, which
Speaker 1: we prize ourselves on. You know, there's that iconic, that
Speaker 1: probably apocryphal story about you know, a forward air controller
Speaker 1: trying to to call in and strike using a payphone.
Speaker 1: Whether or not that is true, it's it's issues that
Speaker 1: you know that that we had there on the ground.
Speaker 1: There were fratracide issues, there were you know, all kinds
Speaker 1: of stuff we learned that we needed, we needed more jointness.
Speaker 1: Uh and and you know, at the tacticle level, we
Speaker 1: learned that we were as good as we as we
Speaker 1: wanted to be, well thought we were anyway. So the
Speaker 1: legacy of urgent fury and that brings us nicely to
Speaker 1: a closing time, Fellas, unless unless you have any alevis
Speaker 1: or questions.
Speaker 3: Or have some more house some more housekeeping Andy Melbourne's
Speaker 3: book and his Twitter and everything is down in the description. Hey,
Speaker 3: the best way to support both the Teamhouse and Eyes On,
Speaker 3: besides subscribing to the new channel, which is the lick
Speaker 3: is in the description, is going to patreon dot com
Speaker 3: slash Teamhouse. All that information is down below. I make
Speaker 3: it easy for everybody. Please check it out.
Speaker 1: You see everyone until the next episode in a few days.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Thank you, everybod