The Team House - Ceasefire Between Israel and Syria | Eyes On Geopolitics

Episode Date: July 20, 2025

In this episode, the hosts discuss the recent ceasefire in Syria, the complexities surrounding the Druze community, Israel's strategic interests, Turkey's involvement in the Syrian conflict, and the implications of Iran's nuclear ambitions. They also address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the challenges of international aid, emphasizing the need for a renewed commitment to humanitarian assistance and the importance of promoting democracy in the region.Follow our Newsletter!https://teamhousepodcast.kit.com/joinSupport the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseNew merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comFind 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.social00:00 Ceasefire in Syria: A Fragile Peace06:34 The Druze Community: History and Current Dynamics12:30 The Role of the International Community in Syria18:17 Iran's Nuclear Ambitions and Regional Stability39:05 The Risks of Nuclear Confrontation40:54 The Path to a New Nuclear Agreement48:26 Criticism of Israeli Policies and U.S. Interests52:46 Humanitarian Crisis and U.S. Foreign AidBecome 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 here with Mick Mollroyd, Jason Lyons, and I'm D'Amich Gontakos. A lot happening, as usual. The big stuff that popped off was Israel-bomb Syria last week. Hit the Ministry of Defense, hit the presidential palace, or in and around the presidential palace. Since then, Syria and Israel have come to a ceasefire that's been supported by Turkey, Jordan, and the U.S., obviously. you know a lot happening there that was like a quick one second thing but you know obviously to go from bombing a country to ceasefire within three or four days is a pretty pretty dramatic so

Mick what are you what are you tracking with that well first of all it's a good thing there's a ceasefire right the last thing the Syrian people need is another uh civil war they've been through over a decade they've lost over 300,000. people displaced millions of people. It's a good thing that Turkey, Jordan, the U.S. did broker the ceasefire. Just to catch people up, there is a group, a minority religious group called the Druze. They are in Syria, predominantly in Soweda province, which is in the southern part of Syria. There's about 700,000 of them. They're also in Lebanon. I think there's like 300,000 in Lebanon. And there's around 150,000 Druze in Israel. And they are, they are,

many of them are in the IDF in senior positions. They are, and I am an expert on Druze and obviously, I did know about them quite frankly before this incident, but basically they split from Shia Islam a long time ago, like 10, 1017 or something like that. that. They're very distinct. They have their own religion and it's not open to conversion and it hasn't been for a long, a long time. It's very secretive, but it has like a mixture of, of a form of Islam and it really does have a component of Greek philosophy, which obviously, you know, as somebody who follows Stoicism, is kind of interesting to me. But they're very distinct. And I bring this up because there are groups that consider them heretics, you know, Muslim groups, particularly the group that

supports or did support now is ostensibly part of the Syrian military, Islamic jihadists, right? HTS, former Al Qaeda in Syria, Al-Nus for Front and the like. So there is a natural conflict there, unfortunately. the Drues do not support the government in Damascus, so the transitional government led by the interim president, Ahmed al-Shara. So that's one component. And they were fighting with, although they are Arabs,

they were fighting with Bedouin Arabs in the southern part, partly because of territory, partly I think some would say because they compete for economic trade, even illicit drugs trade. I'm not saying they do or they don't, but that's one of the accusations against at least the part of them. But they don't want the government forces

of Akhman al-Shara, who they consider hostile to them in Shaweda. Okay. After this started and people started dying, we saw a lot of the stuff posted, the government sent forces in there, they said, to quell the violence. there's apparently a misconception by the part of the El Shara government that that wouldn't be a red line for Israel.

Obviously, that was a misconception. I think it's kind of hard for me to believe they didn't know that. Since Israel has made it very clear that they don't, they also don't trust El Shara's government, who they still refer to as Jalani. His name to Gur as a member of the Newspra Front and formerly a member of, al-Qaeda in Iraq. And they don't want them on their border. That's why they struck all they could of the Syrian military capacity right when Assad fled and Sharaw took over. That said, I would point out that Israel, if you were just protecting the Druze, there wouldn't really be a reason to strike and destroy, you know, the miniature defense in Damascus or strike

around the presidential palace. So from Israel's perspective, yes, they have a historical connection to the Druze. They have a lot of Druze with influence in Israel, but there's also a much broader strategic issue here with Israel not wanting any government forces near their border. So that's at least my summary of what's happening. This is very precarious if this were to kick off again if Israel and the government and Damascus were to go head to head. One, it wouldn't be much of a fight. But this could kick off other conflicts. You know, we obviously have the Kurds who have an agreement with the government, but that's not going that well. We could see essentially a breakdown. The international community is doing what they can. I think we have, we have cut sanctions.

Europe also. There's, we're looking at investments in the infrastructure. development, humanitarian assistance that would support this government that we need to stay until it has an opportunity for a full vote, it's supposed to be five years, so the Syrian people can choose who they want to represent them. Because even with the Reformation talks of Shirah, he is not an elected leader. There will be parliamentary elections in August. So we're starting to take a step toward that. But I think. think it's important that people know that this is still a very tenuous situation and it's not only in the interest obviously the Syrian people but the region not to have yet another complete breakdown

of Syria which destabilizes the region and could send another wave of you know refugees into Europe which is obviously not something the Europeans want to see kind of a long win in summary but no it's pretty good yeah it was a good one yeah I'll be honestly I completely forgot that the Druze, other than in the IDF, were a major part of Israeli culture, except for when I did started hearing about this incident, it reminded me back when I was a kid, teenager, and correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't there a big incident in Lebanon involving the Druze, a massacre at a refugee camp or something like that? Yeah. That was the first time I remember hearing about them. Right. So they're definitely a persecuted minority group.

You know, I don't want to act like a Muslim religious scholar here, but they have a different interpretations of the prophet Muhammad's status. I don't believe they think he was a prophet. But it's very difficult to learn about the religion because they're pretty closed. But I bring that up again because there is a conflict between those who would view them as nonbelievers. And then, you know, obviously the extremist elements of that.

would try to take violence against them for it. So they've been protecting themselves for a long time. They've existed. They fled from Egypt into the mountains of Syria, predominantly. And they're still there. And I think Israel views them somewhat as a, you know, a natural ally. And also because they do have influence in Israel. I mean, I know several very senior IDF officers who are, who are Druze.

Right. So they have, and Israel doesn't want to see, you know, 150,000 Drues flee into, not flee, but go into southern Syria to defend themselves, which they will. And they started doing. I was going to say, I heard they started. Yes. Yeah, it's right there, right? So it's not that far.

And then you've got Israelis, Israelis in there. And it's, the best thing is, you know, I think, not that they're asking me, is the government, Damascus, focus on. international development, getting food to the people, and moving toward a government that represents the people, but I mean by represents, they actually chose, right? And if they're good and they do all these things right, then maybe they'll be the ones they choose. If they don't, if they focus all their efforts on, you know, military activities against the minority groups, well, obviously, those minority groups aren't going to vote for you. So that's something I think the U.S. can assists with. We obviously want to see a stable Syria and it might just need some diplomatic coaching

right now. I have a question about like the history of the Druze and in Israel. And correct me if I'm wrong. In 1967, when that went down and Syria took the Golan Heights, isn't that when like the majority of the Druze population was joined, joined in Israel when they like annex the Golan Heights? Yeah, I think they I think they're predominantly from the go on heights. I don't want to go past my level of expertise on the Drews. I read a lot about them. You might guess because I talked about it on ABC quite a bit this week. But I knew no several.

But I do believe they're predominantly in the Golan Heights. Yes. Yeah, absolutely. And there was some, there's talk of, not talk, it's happening. Israel's moving two divisions up towards there. And they're looking like they are going to go into. what's the area called Swahida? I don't want to...

Sweda. Suweda. Sweda. It's the southern province of Syria. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, bro, I'm the cynical guy, right? I'm going to be honest. It's a land grab.

I'm going to say what I think. It's the land grab by Israel. And they could, you know, because I had Jack Murphy on it the other day and he made a good point. It's like, well, how can you pick and choose what minority groups you give a shit about?

Well, we do. Yeah. Throwing it out there. I don't agree with that either. I don't agree with that either. Yeah, that's fuck too. I think most, I mean, it's a fair point. It's a fair point.

You could, and Israel has basically made it a no-go for the, for the government, the transitional government, right? So in a way you could say it's a land grab in the sense that they won't, they just won't accept them down on their border. But yeah, it's more than just protecting a minority. It's also the strategic interests of Israel. Yeah. I don't think anybody think that's not true. Another factor that's complicated this is there's no one voice for the Druze in Soweda, right? So you get like three leaders to say, okay, yes, he's fire.

And then you got this guy, Hickmott that is head of the Syrian, not the Syrian, the Sweda Military Council. Oh, another factor to put in a little bit of the perspective. of the government in Damascus is they think a lot of the Assad regime fled and is in Soweda, right? They couldn't get out of the country. And they believe that this Sweda military council has many of the members or former regime members, who they obviously strongly oppose. And then the government of Damascus would also point out that they believe that a lot of the illicit drug trade happens down there. But they, of course, want to can the flip side of that. They want to control all of Syria, but let's let's go back to the legitimacy

history, right? So there needs to be a stable government in Damascus. They're it. I think that's why the U.S. government is supporting them. I'm not opposed to that, but let's also point out that they didn't get elected to be in Damascus. They just took over by force, right? So the, Jeffersonian democracy speak about them is a little overstated, I would say, to be fair on all sides. have to see what they do. They're saying a lot of the right thing, but there's also a lot of jihadists that are in that government. And that is, I think, a legitimate concern of Israel. Does it necessitate taking strikes inside Damascus? Probably not. But, I mean, let's be fair to all sides and let the, you know, let the listeners make their opinion.

Andy Milburn. Hey. How are you, sir? What's up, Professor? Good to see you guys. Now I can't see it because I got the wrong layout. Oh shit I don't even know you were there Yeah Andy just joined us

Of course Andy Milburn What are you talking with the whole Syria, Israel's You know now with the ceasefire Well I came in on the On the tail end of Mick's Mick's talk there

But I So in knowing Mick I will say right up front That everything he said was right And I agree with him 100% And I don't want to add anything But it And it'd be redundant

No I But I will say a couple of things, perhaps, that are, you know, not just for the sake of being controversial, Mick. I agreed that the Al Jalani's, the Aljolani sponsored government or brokered government or initiated government there in Damascus is not a democratic government. But, you know, I sometimes wonder if we aren't too wedded to the concept of democracy. It hasn't worked well for us. hasn't worked well generally in the Middle East, you know, a leap to so-called democracy. Think about, okay, I know I'm on thin ice here, but I think, you know, I think we have to put, I think we have to expect that there is going to be a, sorry, I think we have to expect that

there's going to be an interim period government that doesn't look democratic. And I think that may not be a bad thing. I mean, think about our own experiences in Iraq, you know, the democratic government actually brought around ISIS because it was democratic in the sense that it represented a sheer majority, but they, they were heavily punitive on the Sunni minority and it ultimately resulted in bad things. So, you know, in order to have a functioning, I'm pausing here for a moment because I'm wondering about our own model. In order to have a functioning effective democratic government, you need a broadly educated middle class.

And right now, that middle class is no longer existent in Syria. Everyone who could escape has escaped. And so this may be the best that we can hope for. So I assume you mean like promoting democracies overseas, not our democracy, right, Annie? Yeah. No, I get what you're saying, man. It's totally, I do concede that the idea that we can just go around the world making everybody democracy is just not going to happen.

I think we should promote it. I mean, that's what we are. But to your point, not every country is ready for it. All I'm saying is if you don't want minorities to fight back, claiming your legitimate government in Damascus because you took it by force. is not a good argument for why another group can't try to take your position by force, right? So there is no, there's no moral right there. So all I'm saying is they need to prove that they want to lead the country. Ultimately, that should be the choice of the people.

Or it's going to stay fractured the entire time. Because if they're going to try to dominate the minority, the minorities who is all armed, this is the Middle East, right? And the SDF is, of course, armed by us. They're going to say, okay, well, I guess Mike's right. So I'm going to take you on the battlefield. And I don't think that's in the interest of anybody in Syria. They have a lot.

They should focus on developing the country, building up any kind of economy, because you're right, I think 80% of the populations below the poverty limit. And then, you know, humanitarian assistance and that. And then hopefully they prove that they should be run in the country. Because there is elections coming up. So a form in August for the parliament. So they're trying to move that way, which I think is good.

But that's what I think what it does in addition to promoting democracy, which has been part of a foreign policy, it also gives people buy-in to the government, right, long term. They had a vote, win or lose, just like us. it's you know that it's it's it's it's it's it's buy into the government if not the government says hey I'm the government because I took over from the last jackass that tried to tell you what to do by the tip of a gun then they they don't have any buy it's just going to be fractured and you know yeah I agree with that 100% and I you know there is there's so many more things I mean I so far so

good, though. I have to say that there's so many things that could have gone cataclysmically wrong in Syria. I mean, you think about all the churn going on there. You've got the Alowites who now feel threatened. You've got a population, the majority of whom are extremely angry at the other whites and associate that sect with Assad and the previous regime and all the horrific things that went on. And yes, there have been there has been retribution, there, you know, they has been fighting between Al Jalani's mob and the Al-Aliads, but it's not as bad. It hasn't turned into a wholesale massacre the way people thought about. You think about the SDF, the Kurds and the Turks, the fact that they backed Al-Jolani.

You'd think also another potential would be out-and-out civil war between the Turkish-backed Arab groups and the Kurds. And that has been fighting, but it hasn't broken into a whole... scale war yet. You know, so there are... Oh, goodness. Yeah, I mean, there are a lot of, a lot of really bad things that could have happened that that have not yet happened. And there do seem, I will say this, regardless of Jalani's background,

there do seem to be some really mature, sensible voices in the administration, in the regime that has taken over now. I mean, at least they're saying the right thing. So all of these are positive indications. Yeah. And we've had, you know, and I've had direct contact with a lot of them. And I think they are, at least the ones I've talked to, mostly about humanitarian stuff, do have the interests of the people throughout Syria and mine.

So I'd have to give them that. And I'd have to give the administration, ours, the credit, Secretary Rubio for moving pretty quick on this and getting this, getting this stop. Like you said, this could have been far worse. It could have kept escalating and it could have turned, it could have turned even worse than it was, way worse than it was. I think we're so sorry Mick let me ask you um us aside and uh Israel aside what role do you guys think that turkey will play in Syria moving forward or do they only care about the north northwest is that it or will they get involved wholehearted well they're involved whole hard they're they they supported uh the interim president they supported his efforts um throughout and I think that's that's the other not danger. Well, I had danger. So you get a lot of tension between Turkey and Israel. I'm not saying that that could happen, but if it did happen, it would be dire consequence. If there was actually a conflict between a NATO ally and Turkey, who's obviously a very modern,

advanced military, and Israel, who's obviously a very modern and advanced military, that would be like a nightmare scenario. And I'm not saying it's likely to happen, but it's like the worst case scenario. Because they support Jalani, I mean, El-Sharah, and Israel does not, they do not buy into the reformist idea of which Yohani. And then the U.S. does. So the U.S. does, we've removed the sanctions apart, the sanctions that can be removed by the president. So the executive action sanctions, not the congressionally past ones.

And it looks like we're really moving to normalized relations. So the United States is kind of right there in the middle. But to Andy's point, this could have been far worse. Let's make sure diplomatically it doesn't get far worse. Yeah, we had Charles Lister on Middle East Institute before. He wrote a couple days ago that Israel's like essentially position was ever since El Shara took over was light regime change. And that's what they were like, which I don't know what that means. which is what they were lobbying the U.S. government for.

Sorry, Andy, I cut you off. Yeah, no, the only thing I was going to say is that both Turkey and Israel, you know, they are rational actors in the sense that they are not going to come to blows against one another. You know, they remember the, I mean, they've gone through periods of having bad relations. Remember that the incident, when was that back in 2009, or rather 2010, where that Turkish broke the Maris broke the blockade in Gaza and Flitla 13 intercepted it, and they came the blows there. But in the air, you know, again, everyone talked about then deteriorating situation,

possible conflict, but it's just not going to happen. between those two. They continue a dialogue, at least their militaries continue a dialogue, especially their respective air forces. They know that that would be bad for both countries to, you know, they're by no means friends, but they are both, they understand their rational actors in the same way that Israel and Egypt are. But yes, there is definitely a divergence of interest there. And there's some divergence of interest, frankly, between the United States and Turkey and Syria. We just haven't got, you know, we've seen that in the past when we were backing the SDF. And I think we're likely to see it again going ahead.

I mean, we're walking a fine line. I think it was a good decision by the administration to lift the sanctions and give this government a chance because anything is better than what has been happening to Syria since 2011. but in the end we've got to bear in mind that the Turks have an agenda in that part of the world that is not always it's not always aligned with our own interests yes very true and there was an Israeli minister I don't remember which one they called for assassination of President elsharva so yeah that's obviously Charles is super smart on Syria. I go to him to get information for sure. But there, yeah, there's a lot of tension in

Israel when it comes to that government, at least from that minister, it's beyond just a soft regime change, right? It's a direct. Yeah, so we'll see what goes down. Hopefully the ceasefire holds and less people get killed. Moving on to, I would be remiss if I didn't comment that I love your haircut. Thanks. I appreciate that. I'm trying to look like you. high and tight that's what I'm going for yeah it's a low bar it's like a popular haircut now

yeah like I walking around town I mean this by the way this week my town goes from like 9000 to like 49000 because we have a massive

concert it's like three days of country music it's awesome you hear it from my house but you're seeing a lot of new people in town obviously and there's a lot of the marine haircuts I don't know it's a style now or what Yeah. Well, it's more of a fade rather than like a high and tight, but

yeah, he's even got like the, you know, the Lance Corporal mustache where you're trying to get away. Just outside of regs. Just inside of regs. That's my first sergeant used to say, hey, if you ever looking in the mirror and going, damn, that's a fine looking mustache, then it's out of regs. Yeah. So that's why they have like these weird ass like. super tight. Yeah.

Can't go past you. Yeah. Like, Mm-hmm. Of course. I mean, it makes sense. Catapult of the lip. No,

anyway, don't diminish from my compliment. No, please keep compliment to me. This could be a show entirely about compliment to me. I'll completely take it. Turning heads there in Brooklyn.

I always, yeah, of course. It's like a daily occurrence for me. All right. New battle damage assessment just dropped like it's an album on Iran.

and what went down there. They said that Fordow was completely not, I mean, destroyed or taken back a good amount of time, but Isfahan and what was the other one? Was it Natanz? Yep. Yeah, that they were, you know, it was basically not super, it wasn't destroyed, you know. Wasn't obliterated? No, I wasn't obliterated.

Oh, well, the other thing was Sencom did propose a larger campaign that took May of taking weeks that President Trump said no to he decided to do this, the one night only thing. I mean, I don't think, is that really shocking that Centcom has a plan about like a multi-day air campaign over around? Like it's been, we've been

planning this for 25 years. Yes. You always have three courses of actions. Andy, Andy and Jay will tell you, right? You have the one that's like really high and you get the one you want to the middle and then one you definitely don't want it's at the bottom, right? So, you know, I'm sure. said, come said, we could do this operation

for a month. No one that the president is likely going to say no and then he's going to go with the second one, right? It's like the Goldilocks effect. You know, we knew this is going to happen, right? BDAs get better with time. We get more people talking on phones that wouldn't.

We get human assets to get access that didn't have it immediately after. Obviously, it makes sense. Fort hours where we dropped, I think that was the one we dropped 12, you know, GPU57s. Right? So who's designed to destroy subterranean? The other ones, Israel hit a lot of surface strikes.

I think there was two at, was it not tons? So I think we can expect that. So it's lining up. The only thing I would say is we still control the air over Iran. So this doesn't, if we have the intelligence, it says they are either rebuilding that, I think Israel will go ahead and strike. Or what we don't know is the stuff that's most concerning. It looks like a lot of the highly enriched uranium did survive.

They could probably move to a black site, another one we don't know about, and start heading toward it at the time when the IAEA cooperation is now over. So this is not over. That's what is my point. And I don't think we should view it as, okay, we struck them. And now we're not going to talk about Iran nuclear ambitions. Iran probably has a nuclear ambition now, maybe that they didn't have. before, you know, the war with Israel and the strikes, right? They said over and over again that

if you ever, we ever strike their facilities, they're definitely going to try to get a nuclear weapon. So I think we should listen to them and just expect that this might require, you know, mowing the grass, as we used to say. We might have to do this over and over again. Not a good thing, but until Iran comes back to the negotiation table, we get an agreement and they allow the IAEA back in, I think we can expect this. Boys, Andy, Jay? Yeah, I, I mean, I agree again with everything Mick said. One day I'm going to have to find things to argue about with him, but I will say this,

I know, and I'm not just saying this again for the purpose of being contrary. I think that we just have to accept sooner or later Iran's going to get a nuclear weapon. It is what it is, you know, and it's not an existential threat to the United States. United States, it's not necessarily in our interest. It's certainly not in our interest. Sooner or later, it's going to happen. More concerning for us is the prospect of Iran continuing its malign actions in the Middle East and being a disruptive influence.

And that really does, is in contravention of our interests. So I guess where I'm heading on this is, again, this is putting me, I know, way out in left field, but it understanding that sooner or later Iran's probably going to develop a nuclear weapon with that in mind. You know, I think we drive a hard bargain as far as supporting Iran, supporting proxies and focus on that side of the equation and not get sucked into too much to Israel's argument about, you know, this is an existential threat to Israel, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Is it an existential threat to Israel? Israel's got nuclear weapon. You know, remember the Cold War?

I mean, we were both, both the Soviet Union and the United States were existential threats to each other, but it never came to blows because everyone understood that. Iran, in the end of the day, the Iranian administration, I'm not justifying them, I'm not saying they're good guys, but they're rational actors. And again, I know this flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but I think in the end, it's, I mean, we just have to be realist. It's going to happen. It may not be, they're not going to have, I don't think they're going to have a formidable array of nuclear weapons, but certainly I think they'll get one.

But that's not, that's not, for me, that wouldn't be my biggest concern. My biggest concern would be that they would continue to do what they've been doing since the 1980s, which is just fuel the whole region with massive instability, supporting bad things. And that is what we should be going after. that is what is in opposition to U.S. interests. Our interests don't mirror those of Israel. And yes, the Israelis have, since time immemorial, the last few decades, been banging the drum on, hey, this is an existential threat to us.

I would even argue that it's not. It's not even an existential threat to Israel for the reasons that I have stated. I think we need to bear all of that in mind. Captain Jay? I can't follow up with either. Those are both great points. I mean, by all means, go ahead.

Mow the grass, yes. But at the same time, we need to be talking to Iran. And we immediately to be saying behind the curtain, we need to be telling them, hey, whatever happens on this side, okay, you know, we're against proliferation, all that shit. But if you start supporting groups like the Houthis, not start continuing groups like the Houthis or Hamas, or Hezbollah again, that's really going to get our goat, and that is what's going to piss us off. Or if you start opposing the Syrian regime again and fueling the opposition there, that's going to really piss us off.

That's when we're going to come down hard on you. Those are the things that we should be concerned about most. And on that point, I mean, we just, or the Yemeni government just seized, what, 700 tons, I think it was the biggest one yet of. very advanced weapons going from Iran and Yemen, right? So they hadn't stopped, right? Even with all this going on, they haven't stopped. And we just saw last week two commercial ships.

I actually knew some of the security guys that were on them that were sunk, struck, sunk, struck, sunk, people killed, you know, civilians killed. And I'm sure a lot of those weapon systems came directly from Iran. They use this proxy force as some kind of way to skirt responsibility. And to Andy's points, maybe we should just start holding them directly responsible for everything, especially when they're launching, you know, advanced cruise missiles that they obviously didn't make up in Huthyland at particularly commercial vessels. We've kind of been giving them a buy on this. You know, we make a big thing of the nuclear weapons.

think way back in Iraq when U.S. soldiers were being killed by weapons supplied by Iran. You know, we've talked about it. We said we brought pressure on them, but we haven't really held their face to the grindstone to mix my metaphors, right? I mean, we haven't, we haven't really made this a red line. And I think it's time to do that. So let me ask then if they do get a nuclear weapon, do you think that that would cause them to now bump up what they're doing already? Because it's kind of like, you know, what are you going to do? We have a nuclear weapon now.

So now we're really going to supply the Houthis. Now we're really going to start shit in Syria. Or do you think that they, I'm going to say, I doubt this is probably rhetorical question. Or do you think once they get it, they're like, okay, we're happy now. and just back up. I mean, it's a great point, but I think, you know, we call that bluff. I mean, you know, the United States has a nuclear,

has a vast nuclear array, of course. Israel has a nuclear array. We think, we speculate, that's bound to be far greater than Iran is able to build in the next 50 years. So again, we're dealing with the rational actor. Iran can hold the prospect of nuclear weapons. all at once, but in the end, we know they're not going to use them. And we can bring pressure to bear as though they are not a nuclear nation.

I don't think it changes their calculus is what I'm saying in the way that North Korea being a nuclear country changes the calculus. With North Korea, you've got a truly, you know, you've got a guy who is totally irrational and doesn't give a shit how many of its population are killed. and at the end, you know, it's not a, it's not the same model as the Soviet Union or even Iran, and we have to recognize that. That, you know, if we could, if we could go back in time, that's one thing that we certainly would do. Pakistan is a nuclear nation and we've seen some, we've seen some notchops in charge of Pakistan,

but at the end of the day, these are the United States, we're relatively comfortable with Pakistan is not going to do anything against overtly, overtly against our interests, but there's always the prospect that Pakistan is going to use nuclear weapons against India. You know, I mean, walking a fine line across the globe on this topic, but I just, again, I'm just saying from our perspective, from the perspective of U.S. interests, what has really heard us and will continue to hurt us, or Irania is Iranian malign action in the Middle East. that is that is what we really should be focusing

it would be interesting to see what the intelligence community said about if if there was a kickoff of a nuclear weapons arms race right so with that stabilized with destabilize the region with everybody you know it's kind of like walking into a bar where everybody's armed people tend to be polite you know I don't know I don't know the answer to that

and you can do that actually in Montana But that's a good question. I don't even know what the intelligence community's assessment of that would be. You know, because there's a concept during the Cold War, the mutually assured destruction, right? So mad. That it kept it a Cold War because it was in no country's interest, the U.S. or the Soviet Union, to have a hot war when we were both armed to the teeth with thousands of deliverable nuclear weapons. I don't know. that'd be interesting to see if we could get somebody on the show that has worked in that area of analysis

and it'd be interesting to see if somebody would actually say that that would be the case because like I feel like if there is an actual intelligence assessment like that maybe 20 years ago or whatever it would ever be released because you know there are people that don't want Iran to have a bomb they don't want the Saudis to have a bomb you know because the Shia bomb's going to you know start a Sunni bomb. Yeah. The other issue is this is that the nuclear confrontations are not regional, right? If you see the, you can look at this on YouTube.

If there was a regional limited exchange of nuclear weapons in India, Pakistan, I mean, it dramatically affects the entire world of the ecosystem, like severely. Not like, oh, it's a little dark today. Now we're talking like crop production goes down 15, 20%. It's a real global consequence. And I would say that is we're a far greater risk of that happening. Indeed, it's come close to happening back in the late 90s than we are of Iran and Israel really using squaring off and using nuclear weapons. I guess what I'm saying, first strike or not on either side.

I think both countries in the end are rational enough not to do that. But I'm not, now for the audience, I'm not saying that Pakistan and India are not rational actors, but I'm saying the level of hatred between those two countries takes them to the point where perhaps they cease to be objectively rational. And the last thing I'll say on this is, I remember having a Pakistani brigadier. It was a very charming guy.

And, you know, brought up in the British tradition, that's probably why he was charming, you know, played cricket, was drank tea and all of these things. And yet, when we started talking about India and we started talking about, what was the incident in the late 90s? Was it? Cargall, am I pronouncing it right? Sounds right. And he talked about the fact that Pakistan has a policy of first strike, right?

At first strike preemptively. Okay, if they think India is going to drop the bomb, their policies we're going to do it first. And he was quite open about this. That is scary. I mean, that really is scary because as Nick says, that's not going to just affect back stun in India. That is a constant threat that I think because it's been around for so long, we kind of underplay. Yeah. I guess what I'm trying to say is, what I'm trying to say again is Israel having a nuclear bomb.

I mean, sorry. Iran having a nuclear bomb, while certainly not something that we want, is perhaps not as a disastrous event as we may or the Israelis betray it. I think the best course of action, if we could sweeten the pot, if you will, is to get them back in a nuclear agreement. 100%. And if they could develop an economy, because they have super intelligent people, advanced society, very, innovative. If we could, and you brought this up earlier, Andy, if we could get them to have a sizable middle class, right? That's what stabilizes countries. Every country has really poor and really rich people. I don't know. Not where you go. It's the middle class that stabilizes that,

educated in education and, you know, a sound economic base where people are, you know, comfortable that they can secure livelihood for their families. that's where they need to go. And I don't think they're going to get there unless they let back into the global economy. And that's only going to come with a nuclear agreement, you know, a new. The issue is, is the regime care about the regime only? Or do they care at all about the people of Iran? But Mick, let me, let me ask, and Andy and Jay, like, let's say they do come together and come back with a new agreement.

And it's JCPOA 2.0 with some, like, added things or whatever, right? Yeah. What's to stop Israel from undermining that agreement like they did from 2005, 2015 onwards? I don't think there's anything. I mean, that's what I'm saying. Like, we could do all this work, this diplomatic work, people grinding for years or decades at a time. And just for Israel to be like, you know what, we're going to fucking bomb them again because we feel threatened. I mean, even though I would argue this is going to accelerate their nuclear program rather than

them, even Netanyahu's saying they're a year away in his speech right after he bombed them. I mean, I think the U.S. would have put a lot of pressure, obviously, and we do give them a sizable portion of their defense budget is coming from the U.S. taxpayer. I would like to hear their argument. I don't disagree with your point, D, but I like to hear their argument. We say, well, we just got an agreement. President Trump has said no enrichment in Iran. and if we feel that we can validate it, and they're not enriching at all.

So they're part of this multinational consortium of, you know, they get, you know, enrich uranium from outside the country to use for their nuclear program. And let's face it, they have energy is not an issue for Iran. So the need for a nuclear program is not as high as other places.

But if we get to that in Iran, I mean, excuse me, Israel still tries to, I would have to hear their argument. I do think the U.S. could put and would put significant pressure if they got Iran to concede to the no enrichment, which is beyond what the 2015 JCPOA had. At that time was like 3.67 or something. Yeah. It's enough for energy, but obviously not anywhere close to the 90% for enrichment.

But it doesn't look like they're talking anymore. Yeah. I think it's, to me, it's administration dependent. You know, are they willing, have they shown a history of actually enforcing what they say as far as, hey, we have something in place. Keep your hands off of Iran until, you know, they prove otherwise. But I also think it's Israel dependent as far as telling us ahead of time, hey, in 24 hours, we're going to bomb them because we have intel that they're rebuilding or whatever. Are they just going to do it? And then we have to do, you know, play catch up.

So I think maybe those factors are also in play. Yeah, we seem to be and have been for a while in a rather unhealthy position of saying collectively that any criticism of Israel is un-American. And I think we have to remind ourselves of the fact that, again, our interests do not always align absolutely with Israel. And I will remind everyone, not you guys, because you remember this, right? Do you remember Pollard, the whole Pollard case? All right. Oh, yeah. Yeah, Mike, you may not remember this, but when Pollard was, when he was pardoned or let not pardoned or let go, there was considerable opposition to that within the intelligence community, mainly from the agency, but also the NSA.

And I'll tell you why. I wasn't simply because he betrayed his country, but it was the nature of the stuff that he was handing to. Israel. He threatened, he was handing sources and methods, not related to Israel, but stuff that we were doing against the Soviets, right? Why did the Israelis want that stuff? Well, they were negotiating getting certain Jews, high, high level dissidents, out of the Soviet Union at the time. Guys with specific science. scientific expertise. They were in it. They were bargaining with the Soviet government at the time to get these guys out. And then suddenly they task one of their agents to start collecting stuff that we are collecting on the Soviets to include, and I can't mention the program here, but a very highly classified program was a method of us collecting intelligence in a certain spectrum. I think you guys are tracking what I'm saying from the Soviets. Pollard gave that to the Israelis, and we have no doubt that was passed on to the Soviets. That is why the agency was so pissed off when Pollard was released from jail. It wasn't simply that he was passing, he was letting an ally know what we were doing. Because the second part of this, why would the Israelis want to spy on the United States?

We let them know everything, right? I mean, our level of intelligence sharing is pretty high level, as you. guys know. So the only reason they would want to have a spy within our, you know, within the intelligence community would be to collect on areas that we wouldn't normally pass to them. Again, kind of a counter Soviet operations. And I bring that up simply as, you know, it's not, I'm not derogating the Israelis. I'm just pointing out there is a classic case of the fact, a reminder to all of us that our interests do not neatly overline. The Israelis will always, always, when it comes to a choice like that,

they're not going to be affected by emotion. They're going to be affected by their own interests, even if it means jeopardizing U.S. sources and interests. And that's just the nature of the world. We need to understand that before we get all weak need and start thinking that Israel and the United States are the same entity. Yeah, and there's nothing un-American about, I would second Andy's point about criticizing the policies of Israel.

There's nothing un-American about criticizing the policies of America, right? I mean, that's very American. And there's plenty. And I know I have a lot of Israeli friends that also do criticize and disagree with the policies of the current administration. So hopefully that that's just a very weak way to debate, you know, policy issues. just simply claim you're not patriotic because you disagree with a policy issue. Or even anti-Semitic, too. There are people that, yeah, which is kind of wild because, like, you even saw, you know,

the former PM of Israel. Yeah. And half the IDF, if people are familiar with the IDF, they're, they tend to be middle of the road, you know, at least they were. And plenty of them disagree. It doesn't make them right or wrong, but it certainly doesn't make them anti-Semitic, a Jewish Israeli IDF soldier. All right, Andy's gone.

I love Andy. We'll miss Andy. That's what I haven't. I don't know. He said he had to run. He said in the chat he had to run. Oh, okay. Yeah, interesting take.

I mean, we had Bill Evanina on on the team house the other day just came out. He's the former director of counterintelligence for the DNI. And I slipped in a question. at the end where I was like, hey, I know obviously we have like, you know, is Iran, Russia, China that are like actively trying to penetrate, you know, U.S. spy agencies and spy on us in general. I'm like out of their allies, which is like the worst acting. And I asked that because I knew the answer, right? And he said it was Israel.

I mean, he had a pretty diplomatic answer though, like saying, you know, like we're really close allies. We look at this as friendly fire. I'm like, okay. I mean, I wasn't a host there. So, you know, finally, Jack let me speak on the team house. But it's interesting, right? Like an ally that we do a lot for. I mean, we do a lot for.

It's still actively and forget just the Pollard thing, right, during like that era, but also right now what's happening. I mean, they do it now. Yeah. I mean, we got to be smart. We got to be, we got to be realistic. I support Israel, the country for sure. But yeah, there's a lot of our allies collect on us.

We collect a lot on our allies too. So I guess when you're in the spy game, you're not as, you're more pragmatic, I guess I would say. Right? Because it's hard to be flipping out when somebody's spying on us and we're spying on them. So it's something that happens. and yeah. Last bit, there's a lot going on.

Barakaravid, the reporter from Axios, said that the Assad chief, David Barnia, visited the White House this week to discuss Israel's plans to transfer the population of Gaza and requested the assistance of us, the Americans, and encouraging other countries to absorb hundreds of thousands

of people from Gaza. That's crazy. I'm just saying it like that. I know that's not crazy analysis, but that's a fact. It's insane to displace hundreds of thousands of people from Gaza to other countries. It doesn't matter where.

Some would say that would constitute a war crime, myself included. How the fuck do we fix Gaza? Go ahead, tell us right now. Wow, we're going to have to start over with the hour and I probably still won't come up with a solution. I would say if you forcibly displaced people from their country, that's against international law. Yeah.

I mean, I'm not an international lawyer, but I'm pretty confident in that. And I don't know how you practically do that from a military perspective. I'm sure the IDF's heads blowing up. Like we're going to move, we're going to forcibly move 2.2 million people. Remember, Hamas only was at the beginning, only 30. 30,000 people. Yeah. Terrorists.

So now they're probably down around 10. So we're talking 10,000 are terrorists. And we're going to forcibly move 2.2 million people against their will to countries that don't have the capacity to host some of them, at least the countries I saw listed, to take care of their own people. Right. So how are you going to support them? Yeah. Right. So the practical, it's the legality is obviously an issue.

but also just the practicality is also an issue. Like you're going to, I mean, I don't even know how one would do that. And I don't know what you would do with people once you got there. Is the international community going to fund in perpetuity, the housing, food, expense that, you know, these countries, a lot of them are Africa, would need to support their people, these, you know, the Palestinians. And then what kind of destabilizing issues that caused for those countries? I mean, you just keep going and going, and it's not good. I think the best way to focus is how do we end the conflict? How do we ensure the security concerns of Israel, which obviously are real?

How do we reconstruct Gaza so that Palestinians can live in peace and develop and have their own future for their families? and then how do we eventually get back on track for a two-state solution, which we seem to be very far away from now, much further than we have been in the past. So that is where I think the effort should be. I can't even imagine how the forcible relocation of people out of Gaza would even. Yeah, I think every country on that list right off the bat to say absolutely not.

No. The answer is no. Whatever else we can do to try to help will do, but no. because if you even entertain talks in that, you're opening up a, you're going down a slippery slope with that. So I would say hell no. And the U.S. should be first and foremost to say no.

Not that I'm saying they're coming here, but I'm saying Israel, take that shit off the board. It's not even a, it's a non-starter. Right. And the first step, and I think the U.S. is obviously pushing for this. We saw an announcement, I think, was it last night, that there was the hostages?

But we should all be. rooting for the U.S. and their effort, our effort, to get to a ceasefire, the 60-day ceasefire. That is, I mean, the hostages need to come out. Massive amounts of humanitarian and assistants need to go in. It's a dire situation on both fronts. So we should be rooting for that. But this, this idea that they're going to forcibly relocate millions of people. Bad sure, you could say it. Yeah. It's just a non-starter. I think it's, and if we had anything to do with it, but that would be forever part of our lives. Black mark on us, exactly.

All right, last bit of news. USAID officially shut down. We just burnt 500 tons of emergency food stores that weren't even in America, I don't think, right? They were already overseas and we destroyed that stuff, 500 tons of food. That's probably already been paid for, right? It's not like we're going to bounce on the check, right? Yes. kind of unbelievable that this is how these things work.

Mick, I mean, you're in a humanitarian space. You tell me you could have used probably 500 tons of food for what you do, your endeavors. Yes. And I think, I mean, this is just shouldn't happen. Let me just put it that way. To your point, Dee, it is overseas because we pre-position these stores. a lot of them were these emergency biscuits that, you know, a kid can eat two of them a day and survive

and it has all the nutrition and vitamins and all that and minerals and stuff. Already paid for. I don't know, but it seems to me like we should have, we, the government should have offered the World Food Program because it costs money to actually destroy it, right? So like if we said, hey, World Food Program, come take all this stuff, give it out, right? that's a or any of the big NGOs that that have the capacity and potentially the the money to move it and or pay for the least place that we don't want to pay for anymore. It just seems like it's a total total waste. There is there's a report out in the Washington Post that came out July 1st, which is the day the USA AID officially shut down that they predict 14 million people will starve to death by 2030 because of the. cuts both in foreign aid, not just the United States, but also what U.S. AID used to do.

Now, I get some of the criticism. They're paying for stuff that they shouldn't have, but the core mission to contribute to the plate of humanitarian crises as a country, we've always been very good at that. We should be proud of it. Why, that needs to continue. And then to develop countries, so they don't become a perpetual state of need. So they, they can't eventually join the world economy and maybe even trade with the United States, right? I mean, we're a capitalist society. We should want that.

I think that core mission should never have been cut down. And you could talk about PEPFAR. I mean, President Bush came out with President Obama on the concern with that. You know, in that, it's not only horrible for the people in those countries, but that could spread, you know, these international epidemics around the world, right? It's not just, and there's nothing wrong with helping people just for the sake of helping people, right? But it's also on our own interest. You could have mass migration. You could have, you know, the spread of disease that wouldn't be spread if we contained it at its point of origin.

So there's, I think, I think this needs to be returned on. Fine. It's in the state department now. A lot of people on both sides aisle used to argue that USAH should fall under the State Department anyway. but it needs to be turned back on. The U.S. should play a prominent role in, I think, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief around the world. And right now we're not doing it. Yeah, I mean, very well said.

I feel like I don't know how anyone to really disagree about this. Because, like, yeah, all right, USAID was probably doing some bullshit wasting money like most probably government programs do. but for the most part they did a good job and frankly their budget was a fucking rounding error in our federal budget right it wasn't like we were spending

I love you guys and I love the military and I love what it stands for but like they should get their shit together too in terms of like an audit and seeing where our money fucking goes there it's a trillion dollar thing besides the Marines right the Marines Marines past their audits

yeah did and I think most of the Most military members would agree with you, dude, just so you know. Sure. They can see that a lot of the stuff isn't getting spent correctly. It's not a slight on the military. It's interesting, man. I think there's a lot of stuff that most people will agree on if just, you know, because it's just.

Yeah, it's kind of human nature. Like, yeah, all right, we see starving kids somewhere. Like, we want to help them. We think there's waste fraud and abuse somewhere. We should actually look at it and pinpoint it and take the time to figure it out and fix it. said of just chopping it. Like it's just, we're worried about our next earnings call. Like it's a publicly traded company.

It's not how government works. Yeah. And I just read something yesterday, and I'm paraphrasing here, speaking of waste, something basically this expert said from the moment that these funds were frozen and that includes like this, this food that was spoiled. From the time that that aid stopped, the vendor, as far as the vendors and the contractors go that distribute it and all that other stuff. The interest that is accruing on all of that stuff is starting to surpass what is the supposed

savings in ending the program. So it would have been cheaper to, like you said, Mick, give it to another organization and say pass this out or, you know, restart part of the program. You know, it'd be worth the money, but we're wasting money trying to save money. Yep. And a lot of this would have gone to children, right? I think everybody's, everybody that's an adult should care about that. should be your, you know, so, yeah, it's super.

I mean, even if you don't like kids. Yeah. It's like, you know what I'm saying? Like, let's feed some starving kids. You know what I mean? Of course. We're part of a society. It should not be a political thing.

Right. Exactly. Yeah. When I was in Somalia, people would, you know, joke and you see it in the movie, Black Hawk Down, you know, they call the Somali skinnies, you know, and obviously, that's a horrible thing. They're, you know, they're, they're dying and they are dying. But I still saw those same Marines while we were.

were out feeding starving children, giving them food or a little bit of water and stuff like that. So anybody with a heart and a soul should be all on board with getting this food to where it needs to go. And not just food, all the aid. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Totally good. I want you guys to do us all a favor.

Check out Mick Mulroy's links. Check out Andy's links. Check out Jason's links. We have a new newsletter for the team house and eyes on. It aggregates everything. that link is in the description as well. And the best way to support the show is Patreon.com slash the teamhouse. You get both eyes on and the team house ad free and early, get early access.

And yeah, as usual, guys, this is great. Awesome. Thanks, Jenks. Thanks, Jen. Have a great rest of your weekend. Take care. You too. Hey, guys.

It's Jack. I just want to talk to you for a moment about how you can support the show. If you've been watching it, enjoying it, but you'd like to get a little bit more involved and help us continue to do this. You can check out our Patreon. It is patreon.com slash the Teamhouse. And for $5 a month, you can get access to all of these episodes of the Team House ad-free. The same goes with our affiliated podcast, Eyes On, with Andy Milburn, Jason Lyons, Mick Mulroy.

That one, you will also get all of those episodes ad-free. And you support the channel and the show, and we really appreciate it. the Patreon members are literally what has helped this company, this small business, survive, especially during our early years. And you are what continues to help this thing going even as we navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising. So we really appreciate all of you guys. There's going to be a link down in the description to that Patreon page. And there is also going to be a link to our new merch shop.

So if you guys want to go and get some Team House merchandise, we got stickers and we also have patches and I should mention if you sign up for Patreon at $10 a month we will mail you this patch as well so we really appreciate that but they're also for sale on the merch shop and additionally they got t-shirts up there water bottles a tote bag coffee mugs all that good stuff so please go and check them out and support the show we really appreciate it guys Thank you.