The Team House - Deal with Iran in 24 hours? | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: June 15, 2026

We break down the latest Iran deal rumors, the Strait of Hormuz crisis, Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon, and whether any new agreement can realistically improve on the JCPOA. We also dig into broader U.S. foreign policy failures, the risks around Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, and the national security implications of Anthropic, AI export controls, and the emerging AI arms race.GhostBed ⬇️https://www.ghostbed.com/teamFOR 10% off! Support the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseSubscribe to our newsletter!!!!https://teamhousepodcast.kit.com/joinJack's news outlet:⬇️https://thehighside.substack.com/Find Jon Hackett here:⬇️Jon's Twitter:https://x.com/jonathanhackettJon's LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/thejonathanhackettJon's books:https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B0C5L659N5?ccs_id=e11a2062-f8d3-498e-bfd7-7d2f3869caf6Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thejonathanhackettTwitter: https://x.com/jonathanhackettCheck 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/Whitefish security summit ⬇️https://whitefishsecuritysummit.comFind Marc P here:https://x.com/MpolymerFind 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 Audio00:00 — Start02:15 — Iran’s Leaked Deal Points05:10 — War, Ceasefire, and Sanctions Whiplash09:46 — Why Lebanon Matters in the Iran Deal13:46 — Hezbollah’s Role in Regional Peace16:03 — The Strait of Hormuz Insurance Crisis22:09 — Why the UAE May Pay Billions25:14 — Iran’s Hidden HEU Stockpile29:56 — Why the U.S. Struck Iran Again33:36 — Can a New Deal Beat the JCPOA?40:01 — Why U.S. Foreign Policy Keeps Failing47:26 — Anthropic, AI, and National SecurityBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Aizond Geopolitics. I'm here with Mick Mulroy and Jonathan Hackett. A lot happening, as usual. The Knicks hopefully will win a championship tonight. As we're recording this, fingers crossed. USAB Paraguay 4-1, and that's the end of the sports update for this program. Back to like what we normally talk about.

UFC. Oh, yeah, UFC. It's on Sunday, huh? That's weird. It's never usually Sunday. It's usually Saturdays. It's Trump's birthday. Oh, happy birthday.

all the better many more many more um so um iran obviously we've seen it going back and forth again like we've seen the last like almost month uh there was i don't know if we spoke about the apache getting shot down and then we hit some like areas in south and southwest of iran and stuff like that too israel hit iran as well after after iran hit israel or shot ballistic missiles at them So there's been some back and forth stuff. Strad O'Harmuz is essentially closed, but there are some boats coming through, not anywhere near where it used to be. Yesterday, I believe it was Iran leaked the deal points.

And the deal points look like maybe one of the worst deals you've ever seen in terms of, like, what the U.S.'s interests are compared to what Iranian interests are. Like Iran's going to have like a freaking windfall of cash if this deal is done. President Trump, true socialed right after those deal points leaked that this is not true. And then cut to maybe eight hours later, the Pakistani, I believe, foreign minister, but I could be wrong,

said that we're a day out from it being signed and it's going to happen. Initially it was going to happen in Switzerland, but then they said, that's not going to happen. It's going to happen remotely, whatever. That there's a deal eminent in the next 24 hours. That's where we're at now.

What the deal looks like, one has any fucking clue. Most likely it looks, if I had to guess, it's looking like the stuff that Iran leaked out, those deal points. And I'll start with you, John. Like those deal points, can you give us like a little lay of the land of what those deal points are? Yeah, so these 14 deal points.

And first of all, this is probably not the actual agreement. This is more likely a exercise in public negotiation where Iran is trying to include the public in this debate because there are people in the United States that want this conflict over for various reasons. And there are some who want it extended for various reasons. And what Iran is trying to do is use the information environment to influence the behind the scenes, parts of the negotiations. And the U.S. has done the same thing. If you remember back in, I believe it was March, when there was the initial talk about any kind of ceasefire. There were a lot of leaked lists of things. You know, there was a 10 point plan. There was a 14 point plan and this and that.

And a lot of that activity is not necessarily to actually reach a negotiated settlement instead is to let the public know what the contours or edges are of the negotiation. In other words, what are the goalpost limits of the negotiation? Like, what does the playing field actually look like here? And that's the same thing when the U.S. and any other country comes to the table to negotiate. They come with maximal options because you don't want to come and bring your like 50% option to the table. You want to bring your 100% option and negotiate down to 60%.

you don't want to start handicapped. So what Iran is doing is demonstrating what are its maximalist positions? Like what does it really, really want? And then you can think about this as something that they can walk back from privately. And they can say, we've had heroic flexibility and we have decided to actually meet you at 60%. This is exactly what happened in 2015. It just wasn't public during the Iran JCPOA negotiations with the nuclear deal, the P5 plus one. There were some extreme positions that started.

And then if you remember Ayatollah Khomeini said, we have demonstrated heroic flexibility and accepted the nuclear agreement. So it's actually designed with the end in mind that, okay, when we actually do make an agreement, we can say that, you know, for these principles that we hold dear, we have decided to actually compromise. When in fact, those extreme points were never going to happen anyway, but it's about optics. How does it look to the consumer of that agreement, which is the Iranian people, the Iranian regime, the U.S., the world? there are a lot of people that Iran is thinking about, the regime is thinking about, of how to frame this properly for consumption globally, privately and publicly.

Yeah. So like what's wild to me, though, and Mick, I'd love to get your, your, you know, thoughts on this, but like, what's weird to me is like that came out leaked,

but we haven't really heard, nothing's been leaked in terms of like what the actual deal is going to look like, at least as far as I could, I've seen, which is weird to me, because if a deal, deal is so close to being signed and it's essentially 24 hours away, wouldn't like the

deal points be already like as closely negotiated as possible? Like you're right there. You're at the like less than one yard line. Yeah. Yeah. So it was a lot of whiplash last week, right? So it was like, hey, we need to jump on and talk about going back to war and taking Cogar Island.

Hey, I need to jump back on and talk about how the fact we're not going to go back to war and everything's going to be good and we're about on the verge of an agreement. and hey, we need to go back on to talk about Iran saying that all that stuff's bullshit. We're not even close to everything. You know, so like, and we don't know. We don't know what's actually going on and what's not. So, you know, not necessarily complaining about it. It's just that I think people are to the point where they're like, once an agreement signed,

make it public and then we'll know. Because if you listen to Iran, as you already said, Dee, that would be the worst agreement for the U.S. The points they leaked. You would essentially give away all your leverage. We're going to give you sanctioned relief, unfreeze assets, just to open a straight, which you don't possess in the first place. And then not only would be paying, and you could talk about the Reuters report

that basically some of our Gulf states countries are going to release. So it won't be us, but it will be them. But we will collectively be paying them to open the street, if that's the case, bad idea. But I think especially the stuff that, U.S. can control specifically, like sanctions relief, sanctions opposed by the U.S., like the frozen assets that we have direct control of, or even influence over, shouldn't be done until they get into a new nuclear agreement. We actually need that carrot for the agreement. Give it away before we get to the

agreement, man, they're just going to outweigh this administration, or they just might outweigh this administration on the next month, because they already got the benefits, right? And let's face it, We all agree that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon, but I think we can all accept that right now Iran's thinking we should have a nuclear weapon, right? So we're in a situation where this is even more important than it was before the war, because I'm sure that the IRGC extremists, you know, even amongst extremists, are saying, told you, we should have already acquired a nuclear weapon, and this wouldn't be an issue. So it's even more important that we get to there and we get an ironclad agreement that ensures they don't get a nuclear weapons, which means recovery of the H.EU, highly enriched uranium, which means zero enrichment, and it means a dismantling of the program that is validated by, you know, the IAEA, anytime, anywhere inspections.

If we don't get to that, I think we got issues. We do get to that. I think it, we do get to that. I think it, will be viewed as at least this endeavor was somewhat successful. So for the folks that are either saying this is, you know, already a success or already a failure, I don't think we know yet. That's to come. And that really is how this is going to end. It is going to end well for us. And that's going to come with some sanctions relief in unfreezing assets.

We've got to accept that. But that's for the Iron Cloud Agreement, not just to do something like, open up the street. You open up the straight, the blockade comes down. That seems fair, right? But after that, anything beneficial, and at least from what the U.S. is putting out there, talking about this is another issue. The U.S. say that Iran has given up supporting terrorist organization. So, as you all know, Iran doesn't consider Hezbollah terrorist organization. So I don't know if that's just, you know, the way the media is putting it out there, but like there's no way that that can't be specific.

Hezbollah Hamas, obviously, U.S. designated terrorist organization. That's not just a proxy. That's a terrorist organization. So if we're talking about that, it needs to be covered. And we'll just have to see, ultimately. I think it's too early to say this was entirely successful or entirely a failure. A lot's going to depend on what happens in the next 24 hours for some reason. and that's the new timeline.

And it looks like we're going to be done remotely. Okay. And I do believe it was Arakshi, so the foreign minister that said it would be public. Like it would be posted. So you would know what was agreed to and what wasn't. And both sides need that. Because we can obviously see that the propaganda wars have left us really puzzled about what is actually being discussed. Well, the one thing that Delta, like where they've met actually.

actually or whatever, like the, um, Trump reposted the foreign misprinisters tweet about that. So that it's going to be public or there's a deal that's eminent or whatever. Yeah. So like we've kind of, I guess, met somewhere in the middle. John, let me ask you, do you think, um, Lebanon is going to be included in this? So that's a super important point that I think a lot of Westerners don't understand why Lebanon matters in this discussion. As you mentioned,

Hesbola doesn't view itself as a terrorist organization. Iran doesn't view Hesbola as a terrorist organization. Some Lebanese people, about a third of the population, do not consider it a terrorist organization. In fact, their worldview is kind of what we would consider to be inverted based on our worldview. And if you look politically at Hizbollah, what is Hesbola today? They're different than they were 35 years ago when they first kind of said that they were Hezbollah. Today, they have 27 seats, I believe, in parliament, in Lebanese parliament, as a political party and as a military force. Their military capability is more than Lebanese armed forces. This is a

big problem for the current negotiations between the Israeli government and the Lebanese government, which is historic because Lebanon does not recognize Israel as a state. And they're in Washington, D.C. right now, trying to negotiate bilaterally about this smaller issue, the Lebanon-Israel issue, relative to the Iran issue. Well, 27 seats in Parliament out of 12028 seats in Parliament. That's how many people. That's a third almost of the Lebanese government, like of their parliament, is Hezbollah as a political party. This is something that cannot be ignored.

Because if you look at from 2017 through last year, Iran sent the IRGC sent one billion dollars a year to Hezbollah, the military wing of Hezbollah. So that's a lot of money for a militia in South Lebanon, right? So if we don't include that in our equation, it's kind of like when you're doing algebra and you leave out a variable, your answer keeps not coming to zero. It's like, why can't I solve this problem? It's because you're not including that other variable that has to be included in this larger equation to balance out all the factors. And so to your point, D, maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

If it is not, it is a mistake or if it is not, it is not going to last. And even Hassan Fadla, he's the son of an earlier Hezbollah member, a very prominent Hezbollah from the 80s. Two days ago was making a speech in the Dahia neighborhood, which is South Beirut, that Israel had bombed, which is the thing that triggered Iran to hit Israel this past week. He was making a speech and he said that if Lebanon is not included in the agreement, the agreement will not last, which is actually if you read Iran's, you know, what the Iran's state-sponsored media, that mayor news agency released two days ago, that was the first point in the 14 points.

Yeah. That if Lebanon is not included, this deal will not happen basically is what it came to. So it seems that Hezbollah and the IRGC are on the same page. They're both probably in open channels of communication about what this deal should look like because it matters to Iran, what happens in Lebanon. The reason is because of the nuclear program. If Iran can't have a nuclear program, they're thinking, how do we protect our territorial integrity, but we have to have surrogate forces between Israel and us.

The two most prominent surrogate are Qatib Hezbollah, which is part of Hashibah, or the popular mobilization forces in Iraq. And then in Lebanon, because we've lost Syria, Iran says, we've lost Syria to Assad to a Sunni. So now all we have left is Hezbollah in Lebanon. And we have to keep them alive on life support. Otherwise, we lose our territorial integrity,

our ability to actually have standoff defense of our borders against Israel. So this is how they're thinking about it. So if we aren't thinking about it like that too, if we're not creating an incentive for them to put this into the deal in a way that makes sense for us, this deal is going to be very weak. It's going to be very difficult to enforce. That is the biggest challenge of this because it really does appear to me, and maybe this is shifting, which would be great. But the U.S. is like the one that actually wants us to come to the end the most. So Iran's like, huh, this is really working this whole season, the straight, forcing this economic. energy crisis.

They're autocracy, right? So they don't really, they, they, they're, their, their people could take a lot of pain. People in democracies can do something about it. They realize that, right? So, and then, and then Israel, I mean, this, this, this, this could be a worst case scenario for Prime Minister Netanyahu, right? So they get, what are they talking about for the UA, releasing like $12 billion? Yeah.

Yeah, I want to make sure I get that right. But, um, Because Israel is looking at, you know, a billion dollars is a billion dollars, no matter who's releasing it, right? So all of a sudden, this regime who's super pissed off and we killed a lot of them gets $12 billion. There's a peace agreement. There's a nuclear agreement that I'm sure Israel's not going to agree with.

And now Israel is required to withdraw and leave Hezbollah armed and somewhat intact. So for their perspective, that's not a good scenario. area and they made it clear that they're not actually included in the ceasefire. So this is a, I think this has got to be an issue that's shared the burden, if you will, by the United States and Iran. As Jonathan just so aptly explained the relationship between Iran and Hezbollah, they have influence, right? You know, they considerably funded them a billion dollars a year.

They need to be a part of the regional peace. Iran being, you know, putting direct pressure on Hezbollah, both to stay north of the Latani River, to not attack Israel, at least, at the basic level. And then, of course, the United States would have a better time trying to influence our partner. But that's going to be the big challenge. It is going to be the thing that everybody's going to be looking at, which could blow this up, even if it's agreed to. Your mattress is one of those things you don't think about until it's too late,

until you're waking up with aches and pains and realizing you've been sleeping on a problem for years. Today's sponsor, Ghost Bed, is here to change that. And with the summer coming, there's one more thing worth thinking about, sleeping hot. If you ever woken up in the middle of the night, overheated and uncomfortable, you know how much it wrecks your sleep. Most mattresses trap heat. Ghostbed is built specifically to prevent that. It's built different, baby.

I've had a ghost bed mattress now for probably like 10 months. I love it. It's freaking awesome. I have the cooling thing definitely keeps it cool compared to my old mattress. I love it. I'm so happy I have it. And I'm so happy that they sponsor this show. Every mattress in the Ghost Pad lineup comes with cooling technology built right in.

Not an upgrade you pay extra for. It's part of how every mattress is designed. From their entry level comfort all the way up to the Lux. I have the Lux, by the way, because I'm fancy. Which features their most, and the Lux features their most advanced cooling system. and if you're not sure which one is right for you, head to ghostbed.com slash team and take their mattress quiz.

A few questions and you get a personalized mattress recommendation. Fast free shipping and 101 nights to try it out. If it's not the right fit, you get your money back. Simple, easy, peasy, baby. Right now, you can take advantage of Memorial Day pricing and Code Team gets you an extra 10% off. When you upgrade your sleep at Ghostbed, the makers of the coolest beds in the world.

Go get some. I love Ghostbed. That's ghostbed.com slash team and use the code team, T-E-A-M, for an extra 10% offsite wide. Thank you guys for supporting the show, and thanks Ghostbed for supporting the show. Love you. Bye. And I'll mention, too, about the straight. I've seen a lot of commenters in different videos and podcasts kind of say that Iran doesn't really control the straight.

There aren't Iranian vessels patrolling the straight. You know, it's a mistake to think that they actually do control it. And I struggle to wrap my head around a statement like that because you look at the effect. What is the net effect of the situation? And the net effect of the situation is that vessels are not moving at the same rate they were before the war started. And it's not just because the U.S. is bombing Iran. It's because there's a threat against those vessels economically that even if it was actually materially safe, like the boat could go through without blowing up, insurance companies, which are all completely based on risk analyses, are looking at this and saying, I don't care if it's actually safe. We're not sending our vessels because unless you're willing to pay $2 million per vessel for insurance,

plus the whatever toll Iran wants to charge, you're not passing through with my ship. I'm not going to insure that vessel. And that's really what is the important point about the straits. Iran doesn't even have to be there. It's the feeling that these companies have, these economic interests have, looking at the strait saying it's just not worth it. And until it becomes worth it, the vessel frequency is going to remain very low. Yep.

And I'm told by somebody I'm fairly, not fairly, I'm very confident knows what he's talking about, is that there can be some seepage. I don't know if that's the correct word, but it's only on the outflow. In other words, you could use the, you can use limited outflow through the southern part of the passage, but you can't get in. I don't know why that's the case. So we might eventually over time, it'll be way reduced to Jonathan's point, which is still means that the crisis. exist. But even once you get them all out, like, I don't know, months and months and months, like you're not getting any in. So it's eventually even that is just like a reserve that would eventually run dry. And eventually, their real reserves of countries around the world are going to run

dry. Like even if this is solved, apparently this issue isn't just going to be resolved economically for months. The longer it goes on, the more compounding it's going to be. And again, it's not just energy. It's also, you know, the nitrogen, the material used to make a fertilizer that's key for food production, you know, the hydrogen or the nitrous, yeah, the hydrogen. Helium, helium, yeah, that's used to make the high-tech chips. And all these things are just going to compound and get really consequential. The only person, the only country that seems to be, there isn't a country, actually, that's not impacted. Obviously, Iran's impacted by the blockade and everything else. But this is really something that I think the United States is going to press on,

but it's got a lot of challenges ahead of it to make sure. And even before the war started, China, the number one purchaser of oil from Iran, has been transitioning to an electrical vehicle society. And just, I believe it was in April, they reached 33 percent vehicles on the road are electric, are completely electric. This massive solar, there's, CNN did a whole piece on it. It's not just a solar fields, but they have mirrors that direct the sunlight into these towers. Have you seen these things? Yeah, so they're becoming energy independent. Yeah, energy independent.

So that's going to even, there are leverage to leverage around, right? So the further they get away from that mattering, because China doesn't like to get involved in, you know, other people's wars. So as soon as they can basically have less dependence, it's going to be not good for this when it comes to. It's not good for around either. What are they going to do when they can't sell energy to, John? Yeah.

Yeah. It's interesting to me, John. I'd love for you to name some of those podcasts or videos who think, like, you know, the straight of her moves, because it's not physically or actually mine completely, that they can't roll through no problem. Like, it's not, there's so many, like, the fact that they can't get insured or the insurance is just, you know, astronomical to the point that it doesn't make sense. it's all about the dollar.

Like, it's all about business. You know what I mean? Like, it doesn't matter if it's actually... It's behavioral finance. I mean, you think about, like, Al-Qaeda. How did Al-Qaeda actually harm the United States with the 9-11 attack? Although the thousands of lives that were lost was an immediate loss to this country, it was what they did to impose costs on our transportation system following the attacks.

That was the real success for them. TSA, all these difficulties we have going to the airport. If listeners remember who were alive before 9-11, you used to just show up at the airport and go sit in your seat and you didn't have to go through any kind of security at all. You just sit there and wait for your airplane to come. That is a totally different world that will never go back the way it was. Billions and billions of dollars that they were able to impose and cost on not just the U.S., but the West. Europe and, of course, worldwide now because every country, if they want to fly to the West,

they have to comply with some of these security requirements. So that's the real cost. And it only took one thing and didn't have to do anything else ever again. And it's similar with Iran. It's the idea. It's the danger that imposes the cost. In fact, it's just like nuclear weapon negotiation. You don't want to use your nukes.

You want to create fear of the nukes, but the moment you use it, now you have to actually work with it, which is not what you want to do. Instead, you want to leverage the feeling that the thing brings to the table, but not actually use it. And that's exactly what Iran is doing. And they understand that there is this effect on the economy without ever having to touch or put a single mine in the water as long as the fear is there. That's deterrence.

It is working. They do not want to go through that. They don't want to take the risk. And insurer companies don't want to insure them. And it won't be resolved by the trickle. Right? It won't be resolved by the trickle. Once a trickle actually comes out, there's nothing going in.

So this is going to go on for a long period of time unless the negotiators can do their magic. Let me ask you guys, why is the UAE like so down to just pay up, you know, multiple billion? I think it's 12 or 14 billion. Whatever the number is, it's just like, hey, don't bomb us anymore. And also, like, let us bring our oil out of the street and, like, we'll give you this 14 bill. This is a state acting in its own interest because they left OPEC. That was number one. They joined the Abraham Accords.

That's number two. They are seeing that this is a moment, like the say, let's past six years, is a moment in their history, a turning point. And they're calculating that, okay, in the future, countries will become energy, less dependent, let's say. That means our primary source of income is going to decrease. If you look at what Dubai is doing is trying to become a tourist hub and a cultural hub and trying to relocate a lot of things from the UK, for example, like the Louvre opening in Dubai, these are all indications that the UAE is trying to create itself as a place besides an energy place. And that's, I think, what they're doing right now is they're seeing this moment is a turning point. Like we have to do this.

If we don't, when hostilities reduce, we're just going to become like Bahrain or Qatar. That's only used for its oil or gas, and we don't want to be that way. And if you are in Abu Dhabi, Lubb is in Abu Dhabi. Oh, sorry. It's super. In Iraq, used to go there every time we had to go there on the humanitarian stuff. But so on that point, I mean, I imagine, don't know this to be true, but I imagine they got some form of a green light, right?

They were probably using that literally as the carrot to get this going. I don't like it, but, you know, nobody's asking me. I don't like paying countries to set an example, not specific to UAE, but paying countries to do things that they don't legally have the authority to do in the first place. Right? So as soon as there's like eight major maritime choke points, if you will, around the world. And there is some country that's next to them. Yeah. So if they can create at least the impression that it's dangerous by shooting at some, you see what I mean?

I mean, it doesn't, we need to, as an international community, say, uh-uh, we're not playing this game. You don't get to, you know, hold the world economy hostage because you've got, you know, a bunch of small boats with, you know, missiles on. And you're willing to kill innocent civilians who happen to be, you know, commercial seamen. So I think we have to draw a line there, but I do understand we're going to have to have some carrots to get her on to back the nuclear agreement. I think that's the sanctions relief. I think most of their, it should be performance-based. You've performed this, i.e. open the straight, you get this. We open the blockade.

It can happen at the same time. It can be phased. But then for the financial relief, at least most of it, should come at the conclusion of the nuclear agreement. Maybe I'm a hawk, but that's what everybody used to say. We'll see what they say when this agreement come out. It's a different world, man. You know? I mean, February 27th, I was with you until we started bombing them.

And then now the goalpost has moved dramatically and not in our favor. Talk about a little bit about the H-EU. There's a CNN report yesterday. In recent weeks, Iran has drastically escalated efforts to seal off its cachet of of near bomb-grade uranium, deliberately collapsing tunnels and booby-trapping entrances with explosive mines,

according to five sources familiar with U.S. intelligence. What do you guys make of that? Because obviously, if we do have a ceasefire tomorrow signed, that's a 60-day extension or whatever any day extension to negotiate the nuclear issue,

what is that signal to you guys, that they're trying to, like, bomb it in place and make it, like, you know, unattainable? Well, they, well, there's not. a deal until there's a deal. They probably solve the report, right, on the chairman. The chairman who had to cut short his European trip and go to Tampa and be briefed on it. I don't know if that's accurate, but that's, you guys know it's, so they know it's not only

part of our plan, but a serious briefed part of our plan. And because of the comments around it, they know that the U.S. doesn't want to do it. So the more they make it more dangerous to the force that would be carrying it out, the more likely we won't do it. So I think it's very unlikely. So the best way to recover that is doing negotiated diplomatic, where we can just go in, nobody's getting shot at, and they can bring in the earth movers. I think, like an isophon, they're going to have to build probably an expeditionary airfield of some sort. Yeah, because it's – Right.

And you can only remove the highly enriched uranium with fernetive. swing. You can't do it with the helicopters. So it's way better to do this because think about it. It could take weeks. So we're going to have me on the ground, you know, even if we send in, you know, all the forces we have are raid out there. They're going to get hammered for weeks, you know. It's in most of these facilities are in the middle of that country. Like it's not the, it's not the ideal solution. And we should we should, we should want that to be recovered for sure, but it should be are covered in a way that doesn't put, you know, this many troops at significant risk.

And also, I know I obviously haven't seen the intelligence, but using measurement and signature intelligence, you could look at what they're doing. Let's say that they're putting minds at certain HEU points. Well, that's just telling me where all the HEU is hidden. Yeah. You know, so it seems kind of interesting. I wonder, like, what actually is going on, you know, that we can't see on their side. Like, are they, are they using OPSEC to, like, create deception, like to put some other minds, some other places? Or are they leading? some that are not mined, you know. They start putting it out random places.

We're like, oh, I didn't know they had it there. Yeah. Yeah. Right. It's tough. I mean, there's either we can either get it all out of the country and destroy it. They could get it out and then degrade it back down to, you know, civilian usage. I mean, and the other thing about this whole scenario, you can bring in low enriched uranium to use for civilian purposes.

If it was really about their wanting to have a civilian nuclear program, that can be done. But it's, they have almost a thousand pounds of 60% of rich uranium, which is so far beyond what you need, that it shows that they, that they, it isn't about a civilian nuclear. Like, there's no reason to do it to that level, which shows that their intent ultimately is to get a nuclear weapon. And from a purely pragmatic perspective, you know, if we, you know, if you were on their side, you'd be like, yeah, we need one. We don't want you to have them, do everything.

And I agree with doing, but it, like, They have all the incentive now to get one. When they can announce, you know, we have a deliverable nuclear weapon, the world changes. Well, the difficulty they have, too, is that they could make 90% weapons grade, but they haven't developed sufficiently a delivery vehicle yet. So that's the other challenge that they have not really gotten towards. So they've done really well on the enrichment side, and it's a short technical step from 60 to 90%, but the problem is weaponizing it.

And I think that's probably what Israel has been targeting more than the enrichment program, is the weaponization of it because the enrichment is one thing, but you have to deliver it. And I think as long as they can't deliver it, the nuclear core and the triggering mechanism. Yeah. Yeah. Minuturize it for delivery. That's like years away, right? Right. Yeah. And it's highly technical and they don't have the organic ability to create the actual devices that would allow it to work. If it's years away, why do we attack them?

We don't want them to get any closer, right? What you said, John? Pathway defeat. This is the whole concept of countering weapons of mass destruction is that you don't just strike the end point or the beginning point. You actually look at the entire pathway of how it's produced and you hit every single vulnerability along because it's a hedging attempt so that in case that your strike on that vulnerability X was not sufficient, you're also hitting vulnerability Y, vulnerability Bravo all the way along so that the whole system itself is degraded. But there's also like the reality on the ground right now after the June 2025 strike For the most part every intelligence assessment obviously I'm not privy to the classified shit Said that Dan moved it. It's been there. It hasn't gone anywhere Isn't there something to say that and we were working diplomatically to figure it out maybe get it taken out of there Isn't there something to be said about like we did the job last June? Why do we have to do it?

it again. Because there's a reason. They can produce their own centrifuges now. So even if they leave the stuff in Isfahan, they actually have two other reactors that are under construction right now. One's a heavy water plant, which makes a special kind of hydrogen used for weaponization. And the other is actually an enrichment facility. They also have two million kilograms of uranium in a mine that's in their territory. So let's say we remove all of the uranium, we remove all of the centrifuges, they can still produce more centrifuges, and they can still enrich more uranium. So this is kind of, it's like a runaway problem where you're just kind of like grabbing at them as they're running and they're still doing it or they still could do it. And the thing is you need

to remove the will to do it rather than anything else. Because as long as a will is gone, the threat's gone. Well, right now they have all the will in the world to keep doing it with whatever resources they can because they're being attacked by two countries with nuclear weapons. And they're like, we will do whatever it takes to make sure that our program does not go away. Like, we'll make, even if we have to make you think that it's going away and we'll do it temporarily, we still have the ability to do it. And Natanz, they have a factory underground that can actually make the IR7 centrifuge, which is the most advanced centrifuge that is out there right now, besides the ones the U.S., Russia, and China have. This is a really advanced centrifuge. They can make it.

They have the ability to produce it. And they need some rare earth and other special minerals to do it, but China and Russia will give it to them. Or they can get it from other sources as well. So I think the nuclear threat is going to exist as long as the will exists. And the will's stronger than ever. Absolutely. Yes. Good God, guys. What do we do that? We'll find out in the next 24 hours, right?

What do you guys think? Does it happen? Is there a deal in the next 24 hours? It is a weekend, and he loves doing stuff with the market on the weekend. Yeah. And we just got a SpaceX IPO, so that's good. flying to DC tomorrow. I'll be flying in right when the UFC fights going on.

Perfect. I mean, because there's no way to tell. I mean, I don't know what to make of like the Pakistani foreign minister coming out and saying there's a deal imminent. Like, does that change it? Well, when you say that 85% is there, I mean, I like to look at a glass half full, but like 15% is actually really substantial. Right? That could be like the biggest parts of the agreement. Like the 15% could include, I want all the benefits up.

front or, you know, or I'm telling us, and that's a non-starter. I think if the U.S. gets what it says the terms are or in a better place, well, I'll have to see. But the terms have to be better than the 2015 JCPOA. They can't just be better than February 28th. It has to be like all the way better because that would mean the whole thing was for nothing. Yeah. Yeah, it is. You know, you can, you can spin whatever you want, but history is going to be very critical with a decision you get out of an agreement to only get back into the same agreement, basically, this many years later, after, you know, the 60% enriched uranium with the proxy forces basically just increasing their

activities. Everything is, yeah. And Americans have died in between then because of it. Right. You know, 2019, 2020, this year, like, Americans have died because we pulled out of that agreement. for strategic reasons and obviously political reasons. It needs to be better. And really, the only way to be better is zero enrichment.

Because it's very limited in JCPOA. I think there's no way that happens. No way. I mean, have the straight-oharmuz open back to normal. And a better deal than JCPOA, there's no way Arangos for that. Well, the one thing that would make it better is that, Hezbollah is disarmed and the Lebanese armed forces take over control of South Lebanon. This would be a significant difference between the 2015 JCPOA and whatever we come up with now.

Even if everything else was kept equal, this change would make it arguably a better deal. Although you have to ask, was it worth that? Like everything we've done in the last 11 years, was that cost worth just adding Hezbollah to the agreement? And I don't know the answer to that question. But at least you can have an argument. You can make a Right Right

We got to get to a better Agreement than the JCA And I think Jonathan's right We can get significant concessions from Hezbollah That's a positive

For regional peace for sure And the peak The people of Lebanon I mean Yeah Good Lord This is This is

This country used to be You know So much better Replace The Paris of the Middle East Yeah The Paris of the Middle East Yeah

When my team was there We were We were able to go skiing in the morning and then go surfing in the afternoon every day if we wanted to, but we were busy. Yeah. Now, I'm shame. Let me see what happens. Quick, quick, like, just a little history less because I'm not, I don't know this, but as a JCPOA was being negotiated, you know, in 2015, 2016, where were they at in terms of how much enriched uranium did they have? Was it anywhere near 60%?

I mean, the agreement itself kept it to three point. Three and a half or something, yeah. Like nowhere close. Now, the other side was, you know, I'm on either side. The other side will say, well, there's a lot of the enrichment when Biden came into office and, you know, they didn't immediately get back into the JCPOA. I don't know if that's true. But all I know is, the Pentagon, although we obviously, you know, once the president makes decisions to carry out orders, we question. like why not just make it a better agreement?

Why not just build off of the agreement that's there? Yeah, it wasn't perfect, not by a long shot, but neither is zero agreement. That's not perfect, right? And we could have addressed the issues of ballistic missiles and supporting terrorist organizations. If it wasn't in the agreement, that meant we could address it by other means, because it wasn't in the agreement. You see what I mean? So that was our position at the time.

But ultimately, the president made the decision. And that's why I think it really needs to be more substantial. And also the reason the enrichment took so long, like it got back during the Biden administration, because the way that Iran abrogated its side of the deal was a slow incremental abrogation. So when the U.S. pulled out in 2017, we unilaterally pulled out completely. Like, we just abrogated everything in there and we kicked them out of the swift banking system. So it was kind of a two-prong strike against them. But Iran still followed the deal because the other P5 plus one countries were following it.

And so Iran had an incentive to continue because of the sanctions structures that were associated with the agreement. So they actually would telegraph and they would say, you know, in three months, if X doesn't happen, we're going to increase by this percentage. And they very incrementally did so until about 2019, 2020, when they were all the way back up to or all the way to 60% in Richmond. So they were telegraphing and giving opportunities for the West to say, okay, never mind, we're going to come back to this agreement, which I mean the United States by that, of course. But the U.S. ignored that. And Biden also ignored it. I mean, it wasn't that it was Trump versus Biden. Like it was the U.S. decided not to return to the deal.

Why? Why wouldn't why? Why wouldn't the Biden administration try to get back into that deal? I think, I mean, this is my opinion, probably because the Trump administration had made an agreement with the Taliban about the withdrawal from Afghanistan before. Trump's exit, but it was timed at the early months of the next president's presidency, so that whichever president came next would have to deal with the exit from Afghanistan, and that was what was going on back then. And I think probably there was discussion within the Biden administration that we don't

want to involve ourselves in an Iran negotiation while we're also trying to solve the Afghanistan withdrawal problem. And I think that's probably part of the calculus that went into why they didn't restart those talks at that time. Now, we've got to look forward. We've got to learn from that. look forward to how we can put the U.S. in a better position, which is, I mean, it's challenged right now. So it's to be determined. Why would they think that the Afghanistan withdrawal

would actually have any effect on the negotiations trying to get back on the JCPOA or add to it or whatever? Why is that even in the calculus? Because that's the entire eastern border of Iran. Okay. It's a massive security concern for both Iran and Pakistan. So if the U.S. is negotiating with Qatar and Pakistan and Afghanistan about the Taliban, you know, you have to consider that issue. Okay. That's another episode talking about Afghanistan. Yeah. We got to get to a point where we have the strongest military in the world by far and the best intelligence service, I'd say.

And somehow we can't come out ahead in these conflicts that we decide to go into. It's like, I think we have a policymaking issue here because we certainly don't have a practitioner issue. by practitioner. I mean, people are carrying out policy. I think we have the most effective diplomats, military, intelligence services in the world. Yeah, we seem to have a real hard time coming out strategically ahead in these conflicts we decide to get into.

It's just improperly using these exquisite instruments that we have. Right. And you have experts usually on the NSC, right, that'll tell you X, Y, Z will happen most likely. and the policymakers being like, that doesn't matter. Like, we'll just do this anyway and not listen to experts. Well, even with the Obama administration, Timber Sycamore, the covert action in Syria, the NSC was the one pushing that covert action. They were saying, we need to go into Syria and arm these guys against Assad.

And people in other agencies like the CIA and other places were saying, well, if you do that, you know, these guys are affiliated with Al Qaeda and this is kind of problematic. And down the road, there might be some issues that happened, which ended up being true. But it took a long time for that to actually sort itself out in a way that we can actually see that that was true. And I'm not saying, obviously, people that are elected are elected and they make the ultimate decisions. It's not a listen to the careerist over. It is, we have an issue, right? Because we're not coming out ahead. So I'm all about the U.S. coming out ahead, which I think is good for, you know, the free world.

especially the world, but we need to figure out what we're doing wrong instead of just moving on to the next endeavor and not. It's very difficult to do because it becomes a partisan issue. But I think, you know, our foreign policy should not be a partisan issue. We should have a cohesive, comprehensive policy that lasts beyond whoever is in office. The only way to do that is to develop it together, right? The foreign relations committees, for example, should have a lot to say in consistency and our strategy should last beyond, you know, administrations, because it should really focus on our core strategic interests, which ultimately don't shift just because it's a party, a different party.

That's my, that's me being on the soapbox, but I think we're, I think whether you're on the right, left or center, and whether you're a public and Democrat or independent, you can say, we probably should be doing better with the, with the tools that we have in our toolbox. I think that's no, there's no question there. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, you know, even just dismantling USAID was a fucking terrible, terrible move. I mean, there was plenty of things that it shouldn't have been doing that it was doing. But again, then let's get it back on track to go to our core interests.

Our core strategic interests of the United States don't, aren't partisan. They're not partisan. We want to improve our economy. We want to stabilize the world's, so we can free trade with it. I mean, there's basic stuff. We want to have more democracies because why we're a democracy and we promote it. It's in our core.

It always has been, I guess, until recently. That needs to be, I know we're getting on a soapbox here, but we are talking about something that we could easily go with the way right now, come out behind. I'm definitely hoping we're coming out ahead. But we need to make sure that this, that we use the actual lessons learned, the expertise, and the tools that we have in our toolbox, which every American pays for. Let's also put it that way, right?

I mean, our next defense budget is going to be $1.5 trillion. Yeah, it's fucking atrocious, Mick. I'm going to be honest with you. I know this is like, you know, you guys are all in the service and stuff like that. 1.5, an extra 500 billion dollars for what nobody knows is a fucking joke. Don't get, you're going to get me on a soapbox, not. The foreign policy idea is to like, please. But like, you should expect the best, right?

That's what I'm saying. Sorry. For sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the form policy that we've been, we've been advertising this, this administration is that we're going to stop fighting wars overseas.

We are dismantling a lot of our security assistance. We're dismantling the Army's security force assistance brigades. So, like, we're trying to pull back forces. And the question is, well, how is it that pulling back forces cost more than having them deployed? And if that's true, then why take them back? Just keep them where they are at the lower cost that they were rather than using more taxpayer dollars for less. And we're going to have to pay again to get them back out there when we realize that it's really difficult to project force without having forces already projected. You know what I mean? Like it isn't. It's just it's just basic geography, right?

So we want it. We're not doing people a favor by having bases in their country. They're doing us a favor. Think of all of our efforts in Africa in the Middle East. I mean, if we didn't have our platforms in Europe. Yeah, no, we'd be a logistical nightmare. And we're supposedly like we're the best at logistics when it comes to like being able to project power, right? Like we're number one.

That's, I think our secret. Our secret to our success is actually logistics, right? Amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics. The U.S. has the ability to project force so much better than any other military in the world. That's our key. We have, you know, I think the best of a lot of different spheres of national security, but that ability to project force is really exceptional. But you need the basing, access, and overflight to do it.

And that means you need partners and allies who are willing to let you use their airspace, their airfields, their partnerships. And that can be accomplished with one soft team of 12 guys in that country training a tier one force in that country for a couple of years. That's enough goodwill for that country to say, yeah, you can use our airfield when you need to use it. Keep your friends. Keep your friends close, man. We're not doing a good job of that, Mick, right now. No better friend, no worse enemy. Yeah, that's right. General Mattis.

It should be the U.S. motto, right. Absolutely. That's right, General Mattis. Secretary Mattis, that should be our motto. And both sides of that equation, right? Because both sides count. You want people to be like, the U.S. is a damn good friend. They'll there when it's tough. And you want your enemies to be, you know, scared to death on us, right? Another great baddest quote, too.

The only thing they have to decide is when whole they're going to die in when we're there. Right? So, I mean, you want both. It can't just be one. You need, I don't think. You'll be most effective. You've got to be the good friend and the enemy that people don't want to go against.

Are we doing that? Are we living up to that? Currently? Some places, but not as much as we have been in the past. A little bit of a... Let's talk a little AI news. John just tossed this into the signal chat. A statement from Anthropic.

Statement on US, blah, blah, blah. The U.S. government citing national security authorities has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national. whether inside or outside of the United States, including foreign national anthropic employees. So it goes on. So that's pretty wild. I mean, you know, particularly with the business side of Anthropic. Well, they actually turned off Fable completely.

So in reaction to the news, just to be safe, Anthropics said, well, we're just not going to let anybody use it. So now they just pulled the plug on it completely. Yeah. But what, so what does Fable do again? Sorry. So Fable is their newest model that just came out last. Tuesday, I believe, and it's a very advanced version of the different types of reasoning models they have. So, Mythos came out before that.

Methos is even more advanced than Fable. Some governments, including France, have used Methos to develop cyber tools and to identify zero-day vulnerabilities and things like this, because it's very advanced. And so it seems the U.S. government is saying that, exactly, now it's in the hands of an ordinary user or a Russian or whomever or a North Korean, this would be a great ransomware builder. for example. So I think that that's the concern, but that means Anthropic now has a business problem, like you said, D, where they've developed this really advanced thing, and it costs a lot of money to develop it, and it can do a lot of good. And maybe it's kind of to look at it like nuclear science, where you could do a lot of good with nuclear research, and you can do a lot of bad with it, and how do you create the right balance between those two truths?

How do we, when we don't control what our adversaries develop? It's tough. Plus, you have China making it too. You can be real, like, breechy about it. But then when you go, well, the enemies are going to do it. I mean, Russia had to go back to the nuclear issue, Russia had a plan that if it felt like it got attacked and they couldn't, and their nuclear forces couldn't be in contact with the Kremlin, just started launching all the nukes. It was a dead man's hand. It just like this one missile went across the entirety of the Soviet Union, just launching all the ones that were still, you know, viable.

Right? So if you think about that's our adversary, you think they're not going to use AI to ultimate benefit them once they can? I'm not saying that that's an issue right now, but are we going to just tie our own hands? It's actually a really complicated discussion because, yeah, we don't want a computer decided to kill all these humans. They're already doing it, by the way, in Ukraine, AI, you know, targeting. Israel used it in Iran also during the first days of the salvo. Yep. it's happening it's happening and we use it as well well well this is a good point because Anthropic was the company that Pete Hax-F kicked out of contracts and I'm curious if this

this statement is a punishment for Anthropic refusing to put guardrails or to take guardrails off for the DOD yeah um because they didn't ban anything else they only banned Anthropics most recent model yeah so based on the the statement, our understanding is that the government believes that it has become aware of a method of bypassing or jailbreaking Fable 5, which you would think if they release Fable 5 on Tuesday and mythos, it's out there, right? The Chinese and the Russians likely or even like some independent group that works for either or both has jailbroken this and figured it out, especially the Chinese.

Like all their models are based on American models. You know, that's why they get them out so cheap. So to think that this is going to stop anything, and like it said in here, like even foreign national anthropic employees, like they have the smartest and best people are going to work at AI companies because there's big money to be made, right?

There's no, like, how can they put the toothpaste back in a tube here? John, you know, you don't know everything. John, tell us. You should ask Fable. Yeah, I wish I could start asking. it. I wish I started asking AI out of control AI. Well, the thing is we have to look at it like any other tool or weapon, which a tool can be a weapon and a weapon can be a tool. We have to think about

what is everybody else doing with it and what is our goal. And if our goal is to remain superior to others, we have to use it to its maximum capability because we have to assume that they will do the same thing. And if we don't do that, we are opening ourselves up like you said, to a vulnerability that they are going to be stronger than we are in this field. That would be a mistake. So maybe that is going on behind the scenes and we just don't know it. And maybe that's part of the ban on the average user using it. But we all know that suppression is not a good recipe for actual success. You know, like if you try to suppress someone from doing something, they're going to find a way around it. Iran is an excellent example of that. That repression is not going to solve

this problem. Instead, we should probably be opening it up to like some kind of competition among, you know, very advanced hackers and users to show us how they could best use Fable to do something egregious, like actually incentivizing that. Like we did at Black. hat, you know, National Security Agency was a frequent attendee at Black Hat. I was one of those people that was there. There are many people from intelligence entities going to these to see these really advanced smart people. How can they use this? And how can we keep them insulated rather than isolated? In other words, if they're making these really scary tools, how do we bring them into the fold before they go out and use it for bad? Because, you know, if you give them the correct

incentive, they're going to want to work with you. And I mean a positive incentive, not a negative one. There was the whole bug bounty program back in the early 2000s where we were paying hackers to give us zero days and then sign NDAs and promise not to use them and let us use them in our toolkit. And that's a reason we were able to do Stuxnet against Iran's nuclear program was because of a zero day like that. There were a couple of zero days involved there and some other very advanced hacks where we actually brought hackers in to help us. And I think it's very important to bring in programmers and people that are very savvy on this stuff to help us and to be part of us. because if we don't, Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and even some non-state actors who are just financially interested are going to take advantage of this new technology. The thing is, the technology is going to be there, whether we like it or not. We have to accept that it's going to be there. And what it is today

is not what it's going to be in 10 years. It's going to be dramatically more. And if we're left behind, we're going to be this, you know, like the Byzantine Empire, this like rump state that had this glorious past and everything else has passed us by. And that's kind of a choice we have to make right now. it's shocking to me frankly that like the national security apparatus in the United States doesn't have some kind of a mechanism in place with open AI anthropic and whoever else I could say I guess but they're you know lagging but at least anthropic which seems to be like the most bleeding edge frontier model how they don't have some kind of mechanism to be like this model we just made is fucking crazy and we're like

letting you know that for guidance and maybe we water it down for public use and stuff like that. Maybe we need to like, you know, rejigger what we need to jigger, like, you know, dial it down or whatever we have to do. I'm shocked that there isn't a mechanism like that already in place. Well, the thing is it's inevitable that this would be developed. It's just like physics. Like once people figure out the equations, anybody can do it with the right resources. And whether it's Anthropic that develops Fable or some other company that develops some other

LLM, the tools are there to make it happen. Right. And if Anthropics first, that's great. But a Chinese company like Deepseek, which is very good at industrial espionage, I mean, that's China's forte, figuring out reverse engineering and making a new version, that's their proprietary version that we have a hard time to understand. They're going to do it anyway. So we should be kind of helping Anthropic probably get even more advanced faster.

It's an arms race for sure. But the arms race also got us into space and created our GPS systems that we enjoy and many other positive benefits. There's a way to harness this to make positive benefits come to society if we're smart about it. If we're scared about it, that's actually the worst direction this could go, because then our adversaries are ahead of us. Found the third offset. National security has been like that continuous desire to get a step ahead. The question is how far ahead are we going to get over our adversaries or are we dragging them with us because they can simply recreate what our companies are already doing yeah yeah it's across the sphere i mean it's a bigger conversation

but if you think think of the top five you know most significant tech leaders they're not just running the world you know when it comes to national security it's also social and influence and like these these companies are becoming just colossal and something that I don't think we really had in history, at least to this extent. It's just imperviating everything, science, technology, development, culture. And you look at the CEOs, you see these, look at the CEOs of these companies and you're like, holy shit, do they really deserve this much power? I don't know.

I'll say no, they don't because they're fucking lunatics, but for the most part, they're lunatics. you know, yeah, it's going to be an interesting thing. I mean, I'm shocked that there's no, like, direct line from, like, Anthropic to the NSA to be like, hey, guys. I think this thing's, I hope so. There should be. They should be established.

But at the same time, you have Anthropic and an open AI raising money at, like, a scary level, like a spellbound bounding level, and they're going to try and go public this year and raise more money. So they're like, we need to be at the top. you know, this is a battle for fucking existence because I think in back of their minds, they know that at the end of the day, it's probably going to end up being like one massive AI company rather than like three or four just because the economics may not work. Because I don't know if it's, I'm one of the believers that AI is not going to completely like,

you know, people won't have to work anymore and change the world completely. I think it is a place for it for sure, like in productivity, but I don't know if it's to the point where it doesn't even make economic sense. And like there's that's that's another show we could totally get into and hopefully we will. I want to do something about AI and the business of it on this channel. Yeah. So we'll see. Nothing, no good news ever.

That's great. Really excited about it. I don't know how you guys worked in fucking national security for 20, 30 years. And it's just like, you guys got good news occasionally, right? We got bin Laden and that was good. That was good. In Pakistan. Yeah.

Well, we don't want to talk. We don't want to talk about that. don't mention that yeah fuck all right anything else that's on your mind guys I think we had a good episode

I want everyone to do me a favor I want everyone to go buy Jonathan Hackett's book Iran Shadow Weapons I also want people to go and check out Mick's new podcast that's pub in the porch applied stoicism and the Whitefish Security Summit that's coming up next February

all those links are in the description down below. And Patreon.com slash the Teamhouse is the best place you can go to support the show. You get both Teamhouse and I's on episodes, ad free and early. And you help support the show. Guys, a pleasure as always. Let's go, Nix. Hey, guys, I want to take a moment to tell you about the Team House podcast newsletter.

If you go and subscribe, it's totally free. And what it will do is aggregate all of our data, all of our content that we put out, the things that are on the team house, on our geopolitics podcast, eyes on, things that I write journalistically with Sean Naylor on the high side, anything else that we have going on, books we recommend, upcoming guests that we have coming on the show, and also, you know, filtering in some fun stuff in there as well. If you go and check it out, we send it out just once a week. We don't want to spam you guys. It's just a kind of roll-up of all of our content on a weekly basis. You can find our newsletter at teamhousepodcast.kitt.com slash join. Again,

the website for that is teamhousepodcast. Dot kit.com slash join. So we hope to see you there. The link will be down in the description.