The Team House - Ahmed al-Sharaa (Syrian President) Worked With U.S. Since 2016 | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: November 17, 2025

In this episode, the hosts discuss various geopolitical issues, focusing on the recent developments in Syria, the role of Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, and the potential military actions in Venezuela. They explore the complexities of U.S. foreign policy, the pragmatic approach to dealing with dictators, and the implications of military strategies in countering terrorism and narco-trafficking.Support the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseSubscribe to our new newsletter!!!!https://teamhousepodcast.kit.com/joinNew merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comCheck out Mick's new podcast here:⬇️Apple Podcasts:https://podcasts.apple.com/at/podcast/pub-and-porch-applied-stoicism/id1836955475Spotify:https://open.spotify.com/show/1k3QPmkAMwnGJxMLDwUSSd?si=n6piIu8XRcag1Z0K43A3bQYoutube:https://www.youtube.com/@UCd0Hq6QFk8CoTu5j-VU0Ong Find Mick Mulroy here: Fogbow ⬇️https://fogbow.com/Lobo Institute ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/Twitter ⬇️https://x.com/mickmulroy?s=21&t=-Ze3F_Ix2vlJ18KFvORTCALinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/Bluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.socialMick’s publications ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/publications/publications-of-michael-mick-patrick-mulroy/Find Andy Milburn here: Twitter ⬇️https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023Substack ⬇️https://amilburn.substack.com/Andy’s book ⬇️https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-OperationsBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.socialFind Jason Lyons here: LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?uBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.social"Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio"00:00 Introduction and Context Setting01:01 Syria's New Leadership and U.S. Relations08:54 The Role of Intelligence in Counterterrorism10:12 The Pragmatic Approach to Dictatorships13:19 Saudi Arabia's Influence and MBS's Visit26:18 Operation Southern Spear and Venezuela's Situation30:42 The Complexity of Military Intervention in Venezuela32:51 Covert Operations vs. Military Action35:38 The Risks of Military Engagement39:06 Legal and Political Implications of Military Action42:01 Strategic Considerations and Future Actions45:48 Conclusion and Future OutlookBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics. I'm joined today with Jason Lyons, Mick Mulroy, I'm Demichon Tacos. Do us all a favor real quick before we get into the nitty-gritty. Like and subscribe. If you're listening to us on audio, subscribe there, rated five stars. Do what you can. And also patreon.com slash the team house.

Help support the show. One more thing. Mick has a new podcast about stoicism. Those links are in the description. It's called The Pub and the Porch. applied stoicism. It's a great podcast. I listen to it every week.

So check them out there. Jason Lines is writing a book, which I'm very interested in reading when it's ready to come. Yeah, but I just did. Another little kidding. Yeah. All right. So it's going to be a good one.

So wait and just got to be patient. And when it comes out, we'll definitely be the first people to let you know. So guys. I'm going to put it right here, Jason. Hell yeah. This is what I do with my friends read books. So when I'm on ABC.

I make the stack. Give me a really, like, big book. Get some hair time. Right, yeah, exactly. Off the table edition. Crazy article that Mick pointed out in our chat this week about when Al-Shara, who the president of Syria now, also known as Al-Jalani, former HTS head, visited the White House today last week and met President Trump. Also, Jay, you pointed out, too. It was on Veterans Day.

that they met. Someone pointed out to me. A little ridiculous. If you think about it, a guy was an AQ guy. We had him in jail in Iraq and, you know, he probably was,

had a hand in killing a few, a few servicemen. So, you know, it's just a weird, weird kind of optics. They did try and, like, kind of keep it low key,

though. Like, there wasn't like a big, like, pool spray and stuff like that with him there. Some videos came out later of them meeting in the Oval Office

and stuff, some stills and stuff like that. But this article that came, I want to get the reporter's name right. Carlotta Gall. Basically what the article states is that Syria's new president, Ahmad al-Shara has formally aligned with his government

with the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS. According to recent reporting from Carlotta, Al-S.-Rahra has maintained a quiet corporation with the U.S. counterterrorism efforts since 2016, which is like the big, like, holy shit, since really? It's been almost 10 years. even though he was part of al-Qaeda,

then he started his own group. And I guess he's trying to play nice, obviously, and help us with ISIS, because it is in his backyard, obviously, and ISIS and his group were never really, they weren't sending each other Christmas cards. So, I mean, I kind of thought this was going on, too.

Like, how is this guy able to operate so freely if he's not at least helping us with, like, Intel on ISIS and stuff, which would also help him, because it's a rival of his. Mick, what do you got? Because I know you were down there, weren't you? Well, I mean, it's certainly interesting.

And I think he pointed out of a valid point. I mean, he seemed to not only survive, but strive. And, you know, the fall of Assad was somewhat miraculous. And that article has people going, maybe it wasn't as miraculous as we thought. So I don't know the answer, obviously, if I did, wouldn't say anything, but the article at least implies pretty closely that he worked with U.S. intelligence, right, for, as you said, almost 10 years. That might indicate while

why he was so, you know, roundly accepted as somebody who was al-Qaeda in Iraq and started al-Qaeda in Syria. Perhaps it was his cooperation with us that helped lead to things like the defeat of the ISIS Caliphate, at least from his intelligent networks, what I imagine would be pretty substantial in March of 19 to the killing of Baghdaddy. Who knows? I think clearly this indicates that he was assisting us, and that's one of the reasons why he could have been successful when it came to taking over the country and toppling Assad. But as far as, yes, he has a jihadist past.

I think most military people and agency people like me and Jay still have somewhat of a Scots view. We don't view him as a rock star that a lot of people do in D.C. But, you know, from a practical pragmatic position, we should want, if he wants to do and he does everything he says he wants to do, that's in the interest of the United States. that's in the interest of stability in the region, in the interest of our partners. So he has to prove it, but he is, right now he's walking the walk, right? So he's an interim president.

He's got an interim government. They seem to be focused on the people of Syria, certainly not fighting with its neighbors. They're now in the coalition to defeat ISIS. And eventually, the true test will be whether he gives up power if he's not the one that the people of Syria select. But I do, I think the pragmatic view would say this is going down the right route, but with a lot of caveats that we have to see this play up. If he does agree to normalize relations with Israel, be part of the Abraham Accords, that would be substantial.

I don't see them doing that until Saudi Arabia, which I know we're going to talk about today, does as well. really the other part of this is the countering of Iranian influence in Syria. It's clear that they have already done that by taking over and moving the Sadrishim. To see that continue would also be very much in the interest of the United States and Israel, for that matter. So there's a lot of things he's done to date that I think is in the right direction, and there's a lot of things that he says he's going to do that would be beneficial to us. So not as quately enamored with anybody, really, as some in D.C., but certainly want to see the concept that he's expousing.

And I have a lot of friends that know him in vouch for him personally after they have met him. So it's better for the United States. So from a pragmatic approach, like to see it's succeed. And as I'm sure someone will point out in the comments, it's hard. and it sucks, but especially in the intel business, sometimes we have to do business with people we don't like. We just don't like them. But if, like Mick pointed out, if it's in the interest of the United States and our allies, then we're going to swallow our pride and do it while hopefully keeping a close eye on them

so that if they go back to their old ways, well, then we handle it. But we've done it throughout history. And again, I'm not justifying. I'm just saying that that's the reality on the ground. So can't penetrate terrorist organizations by recruiting, you know, who are boys? It has to be. So I agree. And we'll see.

But, I mean, to put a positive thing, I understand why the U.S., and it started in the last administration. So this isn't even, you know, partisan thing. Not that we talk partisanship here. But, yeah, I think it was, I think we're heading the right direction. having the next phase for them really is the full incorporation of all the different ethnic groups and components that is Syria, which if it doesn't, it just becomes a rump state that's not stable. And that includes incorporating all of our Kurdish friends in the east of Syria. They were the primary fighting force. I mean, whether Jolani was, you know, an intel asset or just

simply helped us or not, that was just one small part, even if it was the case. The big part, did the most fighting, was the Syrian Democratic forces, the STF led by, in many ways, the Kurdish fighters and leadership. So let's not forget that. That's how the caliphate was actually beat. They're the ones that lost thousands and thousands of troops doing it. So we need to make sure that we are good partners with them and look out for their interests, but having a good relationship with El Shara,

having a good relationship with Muslim, means the United States could help stabilize and integrate Syria as a sovereign country. Yeah. You think he had anything to do with that Baghdaddy raid in terms of, like, Intel? I don't know. I think Jason pointed out a significant rival of his.

Right. You know how it works in the Middle East, especially everywhere, really. but the enemy of my enemy. So the raid was excellent. I mean, it was done by the Army component of J-Socq plus, obviously, me and Jason's old organization. They gather information from all sorts to, it probably wasn't, you know, like the movies, one specific asset. But, you know, I'm just going off of what the article says.

you know, if you're cooperating with the U.S. on countering ISIS and defeating ISIS for, you know, that'll make the time. That would indicate me providing information on HVTs, right? Yeah. I mean, that's that's speculation. It's not based on anything. I got another question. Let's say I don't want to be, I don't want to have, like, I'm not a wishful thinker. So my assessment, which means nothing, is that whenever these, like, elections are,

hell. Like, I don't think he's going to give a power. I don't think it's happening. Let's say he doesn't do that, right? Let's say the worst happens. And he's continuing, he's still cooperating with intelligence, right? And we're still swacking ISIS guys. The pragmatic in me is kind of okay with that, right? There's a pseudo-dictator in Syria, but he's helping us smoke ISIS guys. I'm kind of good with that.

We deal with autocratic countries all the time. But I'm just saying if he's going to live up to what he's saying that he would, when you call yourself an interim president, that means to me that you're going to accept that there's going to be elections.

And if you accept that you're in-room, if you don't win, just that, like, we should also support democracies too. And I think the people of Syria should choose choose their own leaders, right? And it can happen. There's going to be a lot of assistance to reconstruct Syria.

It's went through an incredibly disastrous civil war. And when they have an election, I'm sure the Carter Center and all the other watchdog groups for elections can be in there, certifying it to be, you know, fair. And whoever wins should be the winner, I think, I should promote that, period. Yeah, for sure. Jay, you got anything with that? I'm just trying to look.

I'm skimming through the article again. Just, because it wasn't. No, exactly what Mick said. I think that if he does, if the lectures are held, he does lose, that we could push for whoever does win to keep him on in some capacity so that he could continue to help us, you know. And it would also, if the person is. from a different faction, you know, it could help like kind of a,

like a, you know, a cooperative government type thing. So not like just put him out to the curb if he loses, you know, we could, if he's still useful, then we should push for that. But as Mick said, ultimately, it should be a democratic process and outcome. Because if not, then we just end up back in the Assad circle all over again. So he's a chance to be the Washington. to put my Stoic hat on, I mean, Washington was a well-known stoic. He was essentially an interim president, right?

He could have stayed on. He had plenty of people pushing him to be King George, America version. But he accepted a term limited himself, and he turned it over. That's why we have America. So, I mean, I'm not trying to say this is the equivalent, but to Syrians, it is pretty close. So if he wins, he wins, the Constitution, how does that play? out, why do they decide to govern themselves? I think one of the best things they could do,

not just not anything to do with national security, but is to have term limitations on leaders and promote the peaceful transfer of power based on the selection of the people. Yep. Fingers crossed. Maybe I'm just a cynical fuck. Maybe that's why.

Sorry about that. All right. Moving on, staying in the Middle East, though. MBS is headed to Washington. I think there's going to be a PBS special about that. A lot going on with there. It doesn't seem like it's exactly like gum drops and rainbows are current relationship with Saudi Arabia.

They're asking for a lot. We're asking for a lot in return. Nick, what are you hearing with that? Mick, are you frozen? Okay. It was a nice frozen. You froze like and you were smiling. It was very cute.

Yeah, yeah, he had a superhero pose. Okay. We were just talking about, like, NBS coming to Washington, and what are you hearing about that? What are we going to, what should we expect in the next week or so? Well, first of all, speaking of PBS specials, I don't know if you saw it, but the American Revolution is coming out. Ken Burns.

No, but I'm looking forward to it. Super excited about that. Everything he makes is just this, yeah, exactly. So I think NBS is, he's going to come with a lot of ask, and he probably's going to get a lot of asks, right? So from the Saudi perspective, they saw the new security agreement with Qatar, who was already a major non-NATO ally, but if you look at the specific language of the executive order, it kind of takes them above that.

It's almost Article 5 type language with Qatar. And, you know, Qatar provides the U.S. a lot. I mean, it's the biggest air base we have over there. of the forward command for Central Command. But a lot of the rifles in the GCC are going to say, whoa, wait a minute, you know, if they got something, we want something. So I think that's probably going to be the case. They're going to be luck for that kind of security guarantee that the U.S.

is already given to another Gulf country. I think they're going to be asking for F-35s, and the U.S. is going to push Israel to accept that. the issue of having to keep that edge for them. And I think the United States is going to turn on and say, okay, but how about recognizing Israel, normalizing relationships and joining the Abraham Accords, how about supporting the reconstruction of Gaza,

which I think Saudi would do anyway, but certainly the U.S. wants to see that happen, and it's going to take probably up to $200 billion to redo and reconstruct Gaza, so that's going to take a lot from them in the UAE and other wealthy Arab countries. So I think there's going to be a lot of quid pro quoin going on here between the two. So it should be a very interesting meeting and more importantly, the results of the meeting. Because we really want to keep Saudi Arabia in our orbit away from others,

as we do with any major country. And we need their assistance. in so many different places to promote, you know, quite frankly, stability in the region, which is in their interest and against Iran, of course. Iran still exists. We don't talk about it as much right now after all the setbacks that they've gotten by the United States and especially Israel. But they still exist and they're still malicious. And Saudi Arabia is a big component when it comes to pushing back against Iran.

And Saudi Arabia's always been a very good counterterrorism partner. It's in our interest. It's in our interest. So that needs to continue. So there's a lot of things I think to look for this meeting coming up between the Crown Prince and the President of the United States. Jason? Yeah, I mean, not much else to say. Keep them in our sphere of influence is the key.

We've been doing it since at least, you know, a good job of it since at least the 90s. with the hiccups here and there, you know, the conspiracy theories about 9-11 and the killing of, I'm going to say his name wrong, because Shogi. The Shogi, you know, those things. Yeah, but, I mean, just like we just talked about with Syria, we sometimes have to deal with people we don't, we aren't on the same page with on every single thing. But it's, I think it's key in the Middle East keeping them in our, within our sphere. influence.

It's interesting to me how like we have to massage Israel's ego to sell them F-35, Saudi Arabia. It's like no one should dictate to us who we could sell shit to ever, right? There's a reason why we won World War II, right? And we're the big boss now. And that's because no country can dictate to us who we sell weapons to, who we do intelligence on, like, and I understand it's such a hot button issue. and A-PAC spends a ton of money

but it's like dude sit up just be quiet you're lucky we're not asking you to fucking pay to reconstruct Gaza it's like if you break it you buy it that should be the

at least that should be that would be my thought process so there's a law where it comes from the city track and it's qualitative military edge I just looked it up

I don't it's codified into law in 2008, Section 36H of the Arms Export Control Act, which mandates that we, I think the language is right here, that in a loss is a superior military capability that enables it to deter, defend, against, or defeat any credible conventional threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states are non-actors. So we can't do anything to erode their.

advantage over another country. Israel's advantage. Yeah, self-imposed. I guess the OPEC did their fucking job that in 2008. Yes. I mean, that's a joke. That's an absolute joke. I mean, because I've heard a ton about, like, people talking about Katari money in Washington and stuff like that.

I mean, everyone's all other. That's been a policy since the 60s, but it's going to fly into law in 2008. So, I mean, we could always repeal the law. But that is why this is a discussion. It's not just because, you know, the relationship between any particular prime minister and president, there has to be a review of that because of the law. But if Israel is okay with Saudi buying the F-35s, then it gives us some us being in the U.S., some lovers to go, okay,

Well, for doing that, how about you normalize relationship with Dishra? And at the end of the day, all these Abraham Accords help stabilize the region. There becomes economic interfaces. There's travel. There's just personal relationships, which might sound like a small thing, but when it's on a large scale, it makes the chances of an actual conflict, which is horrible for everybody, much, much less. So that's why they being the first Trump administration got a lot of credit for the Abraham courts, which I think they deserve, and that's what they wanted to expand. It isn't just to claim, you know, you did something for the Middle East.

It's real. It really helps keep this area from having another major conflict, which nobody should all see. Yeah, maybe I'm feeling spicy today. I don't know. Why don't you? Yeah, that's fair. I mean, because, like, yeah, I get major conflict between, like, big nation states with big hairy American weapons. I get that.

That's no, no, bueno for anybody. But I guess it's okay if there's, like, these minor conflicts where, like, Israel dominates Gaza. That's cool. That's okay. I mean, if you're Saudi Arabia, there's no freaking way you're doing that without, like, some kind of actual lasting, legitimate peace in Gaza, which, as far as we know and we could tell, we've been paying attention to this for two years plus now. really paying attention to it. Israel's not exactly interested in doing that.

I read that the aid trucks are fucking cut in half to like they're fucking around with that. It's like how are you making a deal with somebody where you can't fucking trust? I don't know. I'm trying to figure it out.

Society's going to probably to normalize. They're going to require that the war and Gaza come to an end they're going to be a major part of the reconstruction effort and I imagine they're going to insist that there's a direct path toward a two-state solution. So the normalization could be

super beneficial not only to prevent any kind of broader regional conflict, but that's a specific one you're talking about. It could not only end, but it could also head into a direction that it doesn't happen again because there's an independent state that lives in a peace with its neighbors, especially Israel. Now, the issue is that Saudi always gets asked to pay for everything. sure yeah yeah um you know it's like heaven i guess one friend it's like a gazillionaire won the lottery or something so he's always paying for dinner yeah right uh but the price of oil is down so that matters like it's what 60 i don't really track that much yeah it's in the mid 60 yeah it's like 64 last time i saw yeah so that starts there starts uh cutting back a bit on what they can do

when it comes to the stuff but i would say i hope it goes up but i don't because nothing gets Saudi, but that makes everything cost. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we all like know that Saudi Arabia is the counterbalance, I guess, to Iran, right? The Sunni Shia beef. More and more over the last year, a couple of years, you know, they seem to be normalizing a little bit. I guess not fully normalizing, but like, you know, at least flirting with it.

is that kind of just for show? Because like I feel like it's like a pseudo-cold war, like how it was with us in USSR, like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Like they might act like they're normalizing or semi-normalizing relationships, but they're always going to be diametrically opposed. I mean, it seemed like it was real.

I think from the Saudi perspective, they want to look at global economic integration, right? They're not looking to, you know, their military capacity isn't one that they would want to test it, put it that way. They just joined a security agreement with Pakistan, who's a nuclear armed country. There's some question about whether, I mean, does that make Saudi a nuclear armed country, right? That's an interesting way to do it. In fact, you know, I've seen analysts going to set. There's nothing in there that says that Pakistan couldn't move nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia.

But I don't, you know, obviously I don't think it would be in all in their interest to have a conflict, especially a lot of war with Iran. No, nor ours, nor anybody's. So super disruptive to the global economy. So, I mean, I think they want to normalize relations. I don't think they have a desire. And remember, the Saudi-led coalition, Yemen, the Houthis launching attacks against Saudi Arabia, Houthis are, you know, a proxy force, albeit a somewhat tenuous one of Iran. They normalize relationships with Iran.

Iran cuts off support for the Houthis. Saudi doesn't have as big as a Houthi issue, right? So, and they don't. So I think they're looking at it pragmatically. Certainly, you know, they are an autocratic monarchy. Sure. You know, we shouldn't sugarcoat that. And Jason already brought up, Keshogi was.

just despicable. But, you know, the U.S., every administration going back to, you know, the 40s has dealt with them because it is important. The relationship between the countries are important. Not everybody's in democracy. Unfortunately, more countries are turning away, which is a problem. But we have to deal with them all. If we isolate ourselves, it doesn't help the United States and doesn't help the interest

of democracies around the world, which we're supposed to be the lead. Yep. All right, so we'll see what, like, the laundry list is this week coming up at the meeting with MBS and President Trump. Last bit, Operation Southern Spear, so I guess it's cool. They gave it a name. That's nice. About 25% of the U.S. Navy is parked off the shores in the Caribbean, off the shores of Venezuela and the Caribbean. A ton of B-52, a lot of firepower down there.

We know that Jay sucks down there. We know, obviously, because. President Trump signed or announced that he's given the CIA the okay for covert action, which is hilarious. So we know things are cooking. So when is this going to go down? I thought it was going to go down at some point this week with the whole Epstein stuff blowing up, but it hasn't yet. So what do we got, Mick? What are you hearing from your sources?

Apparently the Southern Spear is a rebranding of stuff that was always going on, already going on. And it had to do with remote autonomous stuff that was in the region that South Com was controlling. It was rebranded and was given specific objectives. And if you just read the objectives, right, protect the homeland. That's obviously a standing order. But also rid the Western Hemisphere of Narco-Terrorist and stop all illicit drugs into the United States. I'm just saying that's not going to end any time soon. Right?

That is a very broad, very open objective. The third one, of course, we've been trying to do for decades. So I'm not saying we shouldn't be trying to do it at all. I'm just saying that it's not specific to Venezuela. There's plenty of countries that have narco-terrorists and manufacture drugs that come to the United States and kill Americans. So the first part is this could be a very regional thing. It could be well beyond, you know, Mexico, obviously.

Most fentanyl comes from there. It's put together there, Chinese precursors, Peru, Colombia, obviously Venezuela. Does that mean that this is going to expand? Is it going to start with Venezuela and expand? Don't know. And this is obviously very open in it. And as you already mentioned, we have 20 plus percent of the Navy's assets. Now with the USS Gerald Ford and accompanying ships, I don't know, it's like 12 ships.

we don't need that to interdict small drug modes. Right. So is this going to be actions, course of actions is going to be decided to strike inside Venezuela to start taking out the infrastructure for the drugs? Is it going to be specifically about some kind of pushing a regime change, you know, some internal force that might be organically already there? He's a very unpopular, non-elected president or leader,

and a dictator? Is it a combination of the two? Is there some covert program to do that? Is it going to be an apprehension operation, either done by J-Soc or the agency, or what? I mean, we're all waiting because the level of firepower we have down there could do all the way up to include an apprehension operation, but we still have nowhere near enough forces to do like an invasion.

I don't think that's even on the tables. I mean, that's, that's like, if you think about Iraq, it's about 25 million, Venezuela's 30 million. We had about 180,000 to do Iraq. So we're not, thankfully, it doesn't look like we're looking at some kind of long-term occupation of Venezuela, which would be considerable. And all the legal issues, the authority that would be needed to do that. But a Noriega type apprehension or just formating up uprising, uprising. could happen. And you are seeing more statements by Machado, right, who would probably be the legitimate president if it wasn't for Maduro essentially saying she can't run. And, you know,

recent Nobel Peace Prize recipient. She's saying a lot and she's, and she's basically, you know, at least in the messages I read, talking about doing the right thing, talking directly to the military, which to me means taking this guy out of his business. I mean, I love it. I love Machado. She's a gangster. I think she should be the president of Venezuela, you know, because Maduro is a garbage can. But I don't know if I want, like, you know, America's Rangers and Delta Force and SEALs and CIA guys going into for an apprehensive and like apprehension.

And like, there's no guarantee that's going to work. We might lose guys. like for and you know to go back to the southern spear like bullets of what the what their aim is narco terrorism what the fuck does that even mean like somebody explained like i i mean so we're going to take over venezuela then we're going to take over mexico and then we're going to take over columbia and then we're and and americans love cocaine and drugs like they're never going to stop it's a huge market right market economics they love it they buy it they use it uh someone's going to supply it at some point.

It just to me, I don't think the juice is worth to squeeze. I love the covert stuff. Rock and roll, make it happen. Like, get in there, do with the influence ops, trying, you know, bring Machado's resistance up. Do what you can, right? And if you do see a golden opportunity to take Maduro out or apprehend them where it's like we might not lose three

Blackhawks with operators on them, go for it. But like it's how often does that happen where you have a golden an opportunity where, you know, things are going to go swimmingly. I don't know. I don't think the juice is worth to squeeze to me, especially for like a Venezuela's a second or third tier narco state. Mexico is the real problem, and we all know it. Yeah, and I think, I mean, one of the things that the agency and covert action can do

is try to avoid the need to use the military, right? So, and you can't overthrow somebody that people of the country don't want them to be overthrown. So that's, I mean, I guess technically you can arrest him or do something like that or some kind of targeted killing. But he's super unpopular. It's like 80% disapproval rate, right? So it might not be that much to tip this. It might just be knowing that the U.S. supports it, some kind of direct support by the, and I'm just making this up. I have no idea or we'll be talking about it.

Direct support to certain political entities, military entities. Just to basically light the fire that could get this person either detained and turn over the United States for trial or they try him in Venezuela from all the horrible human rights violations that he's had. In extra, you know, judicial killings of his rivals, etc. And Machado does come to power. and there's a much more friendly government to the United States. And other people of Venezuela. Because remember, Venezuela's got the biggest proven oil reserves in the world.

Yet 7 million people had to flee their country because they couldn't eat chow. Right? So he's destroyed what could be one of the most wealthiest countries in Latin America. And he's made it a total basket case. And if you want to really see what full version of socialism will do to a country, look at Venezuela. Right? So, but I agree. We don't want to see any kind of death of U.S. forces. And it is risky. As good as J-S.c is, and they're the best at that in the world. But there can always be, you know, helicopters that get struck.

Russia's flooded the zone with anti-aircraft weapons down there. So they can get lucky, and that would be a travesty. So hopefully we can do this without any risking directly. service medically. And at the end of the day, I don't, like you pointed out, Mick, you don't want to see any U.S. loss of life or anyone. But at the end of the day, we put all of that stuff down there, all that equipment, all those personnel down there.

And I'm not saying that we should do this for an ego trip, but if nothing happens and we just turn and head home, as much as I'd rather that than see loss of life, it's going to be a huge blow. to how people, you know, around the world look at us. You know, it's like all this blustering for nothing, you know. I'm not saying if we're going to do something, do it, shit or get off the pot. Because, again, I'm not the one that has to, you know, fly the aircraft, pull the trigger, whatever, you know, but it just, I hate using the cliche turns,

but it's looking like a big nothing burger until it's not, you know, and then we just have to see what's going to happen. You hope this was kind of played out, right? Like, if this is a bluff, like the gunboat diplomacy that everybody likes to use as a cliché, did they get like, what if he doesn't flee and go to Cuba or Russia? Like, how is this going to look? Like, if we bluff too many times, people are going to sign a carrier. Right.

You bring as many aircraft carriers you want. You're just a paper tiger. I don't know. We're going to find out. So I do think, you know, I think it was Washington Post that reported, and now several entities that the president was given the briefing, right? So this is a lot. In my experience, you just don't randomly go brief the president on military options that are this specific without him, A, asking for it,

and B, likely of one of those things being chosen. Right. So don't know what the options were. But I imagine all of them involve some kind of action. So it could be limited strikes. You know, we hit the production facilities, some of the transport hubs like ports and airports. I don't know. Or something more significant.

Or this attempt to apprehend them. I don't know. But my experience, the president doesn't get random briefs to take military action against countries unless he asked for it. unless there's a high probability that one of them is going to get chosen. And we can only hit these dinghies or these fishing boats, you know, individually for so long because we're expending manpower and money and equipment. And what is the actual, as, you know, as Dee said, what's the juice for all the squeeze, you know, that we're.

And plus, we're now having allies. who previously provided intelligence to us are saying, we're not doing it anymore, until you can give us some sort of legal justification, like concrete legal justification for doing it. So I don't, I think it's we're at one end of the other. It's that we can't do that part forever. So are we going to go, you know, kick the field goal and, or cross the goal line and, you know, start launching strikes or are we just going to turn and say, you know, don't do it again and go home? What are we going to do?

Right. And that was significant, Jay, which you referenced in the UK pulling Intel. I mean, they're the closest ally, really, we have. The five eyes, which seems it's all the colonies, oddly enough, right? So you got the UK. I think I'm sure that's the way the Brits view are, right? UK, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Right? So it's the closest relationship we have strategically, but also the middle. militarily, and the Brits, they have a pretty decent network in the Caribbean. I mean, they have a lot of territory. So the United States, obviously, we have the capacity to make up for what we're actually losing from them. But it's a pretty big political statement, even though it might not be a political statement, but it is that they are not comfortable with the legality of Florida. And that's something I think is going to get more and more questions from Congress.

carrying out not only that strikes against the drugboats, White House is going to say imminent threat, it's killing Americans. That's their argument. The other argument is, yes, but it's a law enforcement action. Generally, you arrest people. You produce evidence. They go to jail or not based on the evidence. And, to be frank, some of these are getting struck 1,000 miles from the United States.

thousand miles. So the eminency of the threat, I'm just putting both, I'm not a legal analyst, but I'm putting both arguments on the table. And then if you do direct action against Venezuela, that brings in, war powers act,

authorization, Congress. We already talked about that. Yeah, they pushed out. Yeah, and what role do they play in? They passed the buck, I guess. I'll give you a better term instead of like saying they pushed out, which is what they did. You know, they voted to not vote on it.

It's like, sorry. Which is in a way voting for. Yeah. Yeah. That's kind of authorization, right? I mean, they might not want to claim it, but if you say the president, any president doesn't have to ask Congress

to do direct military action against a country, then you're saying you can do direct military, you're authorizing it, right? Because that's the role that Congress under Article I place in that. declaring war. So it's going to be, there's going to be a lot.

If this, now limited in scope, maybe a short barrage of strikes against drug facilities. I don't know if that triggers the War Powers Act. But a long-term military campaign, you know, then it seems like that one to bring it into question. But isn't presently at 60 days, right?

like you can the president can deploy forces for 60 days congress can stop them they can vote to stop them under the war powers act say nope bad idea you can't do it if they don't vote to stop them they have 60 days under war powers act unless congress then authorizes them to continue if they don't authorize them uh so the absent of action then the president has 30 days to withdraw It's funny. How many days were we bombing the Houthis? Most of that was awesome. Oh, you mean. In 2020. Yeah, but that was a direct, they were shooting at us. Right.

That's fair. Yeah, you're right. I mean, the president of, you know, the director branch always has the ability to defend U.S. military personnel, U.S. assets, and U.S. nationals immediately. they don't have so because it was a continuous threat to U.S. military assets they were shooting at our naval vessels plus random commercial vessels they didn't need authorization yeah okay so again we'll wait and see what happens uh it's it's probably a go right at some point targeted strikes at least I would guess I mean I don't know everything's in place for it yeah yeah and now it is in place

right Jay I mean now is a Ford there now I know yeah I believe so yeah you gotta remember I mean they got a long range so you don't have to be like all up on Venezuela in fact there's a there's a 22nd view that's like I don't know

30 miles from yeah well and the USS Gravely which is a multi-purpose guided missile destroy yeah so Tomahawks Age system plus all all the F-35s

that are down there and other I mean, they've I think Maduro's mobilizing many in his country not because he thinks they can do much obviously against the United States because conventionally this isn't even up. But he's also worried that

people are going to uprise against him. Yeah. And maybe that is, in fact, what they want to do. They start taking strikes and then hope that some internal element in Venezuela

overthrowes Maduro. Let's just hope they're one that's then looking to hand it over to an elected rather than just become a new, you know, a new Maduro. Yeah. I mean, they could do really, really well in the world economy. People keep bringing up their proven oil reserves because it's like it's right there. I mean, not a lot of countries have, well, no country has as much as they do. They could do really well for themselves, be very much a partner to the United States.

A lot of I do for me, a lot of foreign media things, this whole, things about us stealing their one. Yeah, but they made it, they offered, like, making deals with the U.S., you know, and canceling contracts with China and Russia for oil and stuff like that, and we said no, no, right? So, like. Pushing for a better deal? I don't know. I mean, that's kind of crazy.

Think about it. Like, I know Mador is an asshole and he's a socialist and a dictator, but, like, we're pushing for a better deal. Imagine while you have a fucking gun to your fucking head. Like, think about that. It's kind of fucking insane. in terms of like making a deal, like economic deal. Well, maybe there's, I mean, I don't,

I know what you report you're talking about, Dee. Yeah. And I actually don't know if it's accurate. Yeah. But I wonder if we're waiting for a better, I don't know, better off, I don't know. It's going to be an interesting time next week. For sure.

If I'm Paycom, I'm fucking pissed, man. No? If you're the commander. They're always mad when they get resources. Yeah. Like CENTCOM, Southcom, like, what the fuck, guys? We got China right here. Like, hello.

Yes. Oh, man. I'm sure there's a lot of discussions with the chairman who is what they call the global integrator, right? So the chairman, the joint chat, chiefs of staff, the whole staff, they're supposed to move key national assets around based on what's going on. But, you know, the president ultimately is the way. decides what's going on. And right now he's decided that what's going on is, you know, a buildup against Venezuela.

So. Sick. All right. Anything else, boys? Yeah, I think we covered a lot. This would be an interesting week with the MBS. Is CBS visiting this week? Is it this week?

And although we don't know, it could easily the, whatever we're going to decide to do against me as well could happen this week. Because it does look like everything's in place. So were they waiting basically for their carrier to get there? Makes sense. They didn't need to with what they had, but that absolutely gives them the range that they need. So probably.

Yeah, BF is coming this week. They run out on targets. Yeah. I wonder if you have anybody in our audience that really knows the details of what kind of targets would be the extent of targets that would have to do with the drug trade? Or is this going to be like over

35 minutes? Yeah. I don't know. I don't know enough about, you know, what targets they would have other than just the production facilities have no idea how many there are. Are you really going to hit infrastructure

just because drugs go through it, destroy infrastructure? Maybe. I don't know. I'm sure the Intel community has been focused on this like a laser. But I just don't know if it would be like this giant,

build up for a, you know, very short. Because you'd see Tomahawk missiles coming off the destroyers, potentially on the nuclear submarines. You'd see the aircraft coming off the, you know, obviously the aircraft carrier, but also on a Puerto Rico. Well, if they would do any kind of operation to get McDuro, if not, I mean, this could be quick, very quick. And then we could just declare victory on the drug war.

I'm sorry. I'm being a prick today. I'm sorry about that, guys. And NBS is coming on Tuesday. Okay. Tuesday this week. So, yeah, we'll keep an eye on that for sure. I want you guys to do me a favor.

I'm going to have to re-listen to a couple of mixed podcasts about stoicism because today I'm not feeling very stoic. I'm kind of snappy. It's called the Pub and the Porch, Applied Stoicism. It's awesome. The links are in the description. They just started posting on YouTube also. That link is in the description as well.

Jason Lyons. his links are down there. Andy Miliburn links are down there. And support the show. Patreon.com slash the Teamhouse. You get both Teamhouse and eyes on geopolitics episodes. Add free early. And you can ask us questions too.

Shoot us a question. If you want to ask Mick, Jason, or Andy about their expert opinions on foreign affairs, feel free if you're a patron. Patreon.com slash the team house. Guys, as always, it's a pleasure. And I apologize for being an asshole today. No, man. We need that.

Mick and I try to hold it together and keep it as Yeah, I refuse to do that I refuse to do that So we need that Thanks, boys All right, James Have a good

Hey guys, how's it going? It's Dee. I want to thank you for watching this show I really appreciate it And I love for you guys To check out our Patreon It's at patreon.com Slash the Teamhouse

The link is in the description, super easy to find If you're listening, It's in the show notes as well You can find it right now there what do you get you get ad free audio ad free video for both eyes on geo