The Team House - From Nukes to Missiles to Proxies: The Iran Deal Keeps Changing | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: February 9, 2026

We break down the U.S.–Iran negotiations and why the goalposts keep moving from nukes to missiles to proxy forces. With Israel, Turkey, and U.S. military power all in play, we dig into whether this is real diplomacy—or a setup for the next Middle East war.Andy's article: https://warontherocks.com/2026/01/gaza-and-the-conduct-of-urban-war-civilian-harm-risk-and-responsibility/Montana Security Conference ⬇️https://mi1.suitsandspooks.com/Support the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseSubscribe to our new newsletter!!!!https://teamhousepodcast.kit.com/joinNew merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comCheck out Mick's new podcast here:⬇️Apple Podcasts:https://podcasts.apple.com/at/podcast/pub-and-porch-applied-stoicism/id1836955475Spotify:https://open.spotify.com/show/1k3QPmkAMwnGJxMLDwUSSd?si=n6piIu8XRcag1Z0K43A3bQYoutube:https://www.youtube.com/@UCd0Hq6QFk8CoTu5j-VU0Ong Find Mick Mulroy here: Fogbow ⬇️https://fogbow.com/Lobo Institute ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/Twitter ⬇️https://x.com/mickmulroy?s=21&t=-Ze3F_Ix2vlJ18KFvORTCALinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/Bluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.socialMick’s publications ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/publications/publications-of-michael-mick-patrick-mulroy/Find Andy Milburn here: Twitter ⬇️https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023Substack ⬇️https://amilburn.substack.com/Andy’s book ⬇️https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-OperationsBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.socialFind Jason Lyons here: LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?uBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.social"Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio"00:00 Start01:30 Iran Negotiations and Military Posturing06:42 Key Players in the Iran Negotiations11:47 The Nuclear Deal Dilemma15:05 The Role of Turkey in Regional Dynamics20:32 Kurdish Perspectives and U.S. Relations25:35 The Future of Iran's Leadership29:57 Syria's Complex Landscape36:42 Conclusion and Final ThoughtsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey, what's up guys? This is Dee. Do us a favor and check out our Patreon page. It's Patreon.com slash the Teamhouse. You get both Teamhouse episodes and Ozzon Geopolitics episodes completely ad-free. You get them early too. You can ask us questions. You can also watch the Team House episodes live as we shoot them.

And you help support the show and support what we're doing here. It's Patreon.com slash the Teamhouse. Those links are in the description. Or if you're listening, it's in the show notes down below. You can click it real quick and easy. And it helps us keep the lights on. So we appreciate it. And we appreciate you guys listening.

Thanks a bunch. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Aizond Geopolics. I'm here with Andy Milburn. Mick Mulroy, Jason Lyons may be joining us. May not be having some technical issues on his end, but we will think about him the whole time. A lot happening as usual.

First things first, let's do some house cleaning. Mick Scott, they have a security conference, intelligence conference happening in Whitefield. Fish in April, beginning of April. That link is in the description. Check it out. There's some great speakers that are going to be there. And Whitefish is an all-around great place to go.

Andy Milburn, the man, the myth, the legend, stirring up trouble, as usual. His book, When the Tempest gathers, that link is in the description as well. His substack, too. You can check out his new article on War on the Rocks, too. He's getting a lot of guff online for it. but I don't think it's not rightfully so because I think Andy's right about it. So check that out. It's a really good article.

Yeah, by the way, on that point, there's a War on the Rock's podcast coming out this week with me as a guest. I sometimes stooped to do other podcasts where I discuss kind of a rebuttal to the rebuttals to that argument. Just very quickly because there's a lot of fallacious information. That's not a crude word, D false information flying around. around and especially with the comparison with Mosul. People love throwing out numbers of Mosul. I have no bearing in fact. Okay, that is all.

It's off my chest. Go ahead, Dee. Yeah, check out the article. It's a really, really good article. And stay tuned and keep your eye out for that podcast coming out with Warren the Rocks. All right. A lot happening as usual. We had, you know, the U.S. and Iran had discussions over the last few days.

Initially, last week, they were going to have. They had to set up a meeting. The meeting went to shit. And then if like six hours or eight hours later, the meeting was back on, a lot going on. It seems like to me at least, like what it's coming out is we want Iran to get rid of their nuclear program, get rid of their ballistic missiles and get rid of their support of proxies. As a lame and I don't, I mean, the Iranian regime is actually is bad news, obviously. But like, if you're Iran, how do you get rid of your ballistic missiles? When we talked about it last week, it's like a super important part of their integrated defense network.

Yes, that's true. So greetings from still in Bozeman, Montana, where we're doing winter warfare training, although it was 60 degrees yesterday. That's problematic if you're wondering for winter warfare training. But, yes, so coverage this week was primarily on the Iranian negotiations. I think it's important to point out that the situation in Iran is dire and getting worse. So the prediction of the World Bank is that the economy will actually contract in Iran by 3% this year. They're already about between 30% and 40% inflation rates. To put it in perspective, we're about 2.7, I think.

I looked it up, so I sound like I know I was talking about. But obviously, their currency is lost half of its value in a year. And it's predicted to get far worse. And there's additional sanctions that are going to be placed on companies and essentially pressure for financial institutions not to deal with Iran. So it's going to get worse. So there's a, it's bad and it's going, it's getting worse. So there's a lot of incentive, I think, by the Iranian regime, which is under incredible protests still. They've incarcerated over 50,000 people, over 10,000 people to have these negotiations.

So the United States, I think, from a diplomatic perspective, has an upper hand and the huge inflow of military power. you know, aircraft carrier strike groups already there. I think another one's on the way. There's eight or nine destroyers. There's multiple squadrons. I think it's eclipsed the amount of firepower we've had prior to the 12-day conflict. So that's, and I think that was purposeful, right? And there was, during these negotiations, they actually had Admiral Cooper in them,

which the Iranians made a big deal about. generally speaking that from a diplomatic perspective, it's not normal. But I think they're just highlighting that this is either going to go into a diplomatic solution that we agree with, or it's going down the military path. And I think that is, in fact, what's going to happen. So a few more points and then toss it over to you, Annie. It was originally scheduled to be in Ankara, Turkey. The Iranians wanted it move to Muscat Oman.

I think they do like the Omanis being the mediators more so than the Turks, but it was viewed originally by the Americans as delaying tactic. Like this, okay, here we go. It's going to be a lot of delaying tactics just to avoid the military strikes. They both came out of the meeting positive. It took the U.S. a little bit longer to have a positive statement, probably because it was Mr. Whitkoff and Kushner there, and they needed to brief the president,

and president make his own determination of whether it was positive. But they almost always say they're positive. So I wouldn't read too much into that. Unless there's another date set for continued the negotiations, this could easily slip into the military confrontation phase. And I do think this also allows the United States, last point, to get the theater, air and missile defense systems

that they need out there. you know, the Thad, the Patriots, there's a lot of concern about the retaliation that's coming from the Iranians once strikes, if strikes happen. So that should be done here fairly shortly, and then we'll see whether this is going to end in a negotiated new agreement. And we can talk about the ballistic missiles and the support to proxies that the U.S. is demanding be part of this, or at least is wanting it to be part of this. I don't think Iran will agree to that. Anyway, that's where we are right now, Andy. Yeah, you know, I'm going to take just a step back, guys, because someone, you know how I pay such close attention to all the input we get off for every show.

But some of that's hard to adhere to actually, like, get rid of Andy. but I've got a constructive argument, constructive comment the other day, just saying, hey, look, before you start talking, but, you know, using all these names, can you just explain who's who, all right? So I'll leave out the obvious ones. We assume everyone knows who Donald Trump is, President of the United States, Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel. Abbas, hopefully not butcher his name, Abashir, who is the Iran's foreign,

Minister. He's, you know, and I'll say just a line or two about them. I mean, he's signaling openness, but in practice he's drawing hard red lines. And we talked about that. And the hard red lines primarily have to do with Iran's ballistic missile defense, but also to a lesser extent, proxies. We often talk to Iran's supreme leader, and I got a question about that. That's Ayatollah al-Hamini. And his role on all of this is to threaten, continuously threaten regional war, right, just to keep the stakes up. Steve Wickoff is Trump's envoy, who, along with Jared Kushner, representing the United States. Sean-in-law.

Yeah. And Admiral Cooper. I'm sorry, Admiral Bradley Cooper. Admiral Bradley. Sorry. There is an Admiral Bradley, but Bradley Cooper is a Sincolk. And he's a beloved actor. Yeah.

Sorry, Bradley Cooper. Yeah, I was thinking it was so comp commander. My apologies. I funded that one into this and answer. Anyway, Bradley Cooper, who is there, is unusual to have a military leader at a talk such as this. Hence the Iranians comments about that. And last of all, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is the president of Turkey. And he's a big player in these talks.

Trump the other day called him, I'm laughing, there's a problem solver, all right? Now, Mick and I know Erdogan in the role of problem maker. So it's quite unusual to hear him referred to in these terms. And he credits Odoin with bringing peace to Syria, right, overthrow of Assad. He credits Odoğan with forcing compromise between the government of Syria and the SDF. And now he says that Odoğan is the guy, voted the guy most likely to bring about peace through negotiation in the police. And Odoğan is doing his best to do so, reaching out to the Iranians.

But, you know, the U.S. and Iran are certainly talking, but they're kind of talking past each other, right? And it's going to be very interesting to see whether they can agree to some kind of compromise. I don't think the nuclear piece is a massive nuclear issue. I think Iran's willing to compromise. They've already talked about, I don't know, Iranians haven't agreed to this yet, But Erdogan's suggesting that anything over 3%, any uranium that's enriched beyond 3% is exported to Turkey and held and safekeeping there. Similar to, remember when the Russians offered to do the same back before the Czech power. Iran wants the talks to be exclusively nuclear, and the U.S. is saying right now that's not enough.

You know, Washington wants three things and enter Iran's nuclear program. that limits on ballistic missiles. We haven't made clear what those limits are and also an end to support for proxy militias across the region. Now, that last piece, even if Iran agreed to, would be really difficult to monitor. So while negotiations going underway, you know, obviously President Trump's threatening devastating consequences

if Iran refuses a deal. And those consequences would be not just military, but also economic. I can as Mick talked about, the United States is already. They haven't imposed sanctions yet, but they're threatening to impose sanctions in all countries with dealing with Iran, which would hit China particularly hard. And US forces in the region still continuously, still continue that state of high readiness. And that is all.

Yeah, back to you guys. It's diplomacy with a loaded gun on the table. So on the nuclear issue, I mean, we were talking about this before we started recording. Like, I don't understand the logic of the regime when it comes in it. If they didn't have an aspiration to get a nuclear weapon, they would be under much, I mean, just looking at it from their perspective, they wouldn't be under the same financial economic pressure that they're under, right? So their regime itself wouldn't be in danger of collapse necessarily, at least not from that. which is what polarized the whole population is economics, right?

Everybody's impacted by the fact that they can't buy food for their family, etc. So either give it up and get back into the community of nations or hopefully not, acquire one. But they're in the worst position. They have 441 kilograms of rich uranium up to 60%, which is not needed at all for civilian purposes. So they're right in the middle, right? So I don't think we should ever allow them to acquire a nuclear weapon. They're completely unstable and obviously not even logical, at least from my perspective. So I think they could potentially be willing to do that.

Now, are we going to accept a win? That's the question. Like, it could be more stringent than the JCPOA that Andy just referenced. Like the agreement. The first agreement, the first one, right? So if it's a better agreement politically, not that I worry about political, you know, wins, but politically it would be a win, right? So if you have to include ballistic missiles, you might sink the whole chances of this being successful. In support to proxies, it's almost hard.

It's impossible to. Yeah, just put it in the, put it in the press release and just do it covertly. Like that's, what do we do? We live in the real world. Or get a nuclear agreement. this is the argument that we made in the VOD when we pulled out of the JCPO in the first place. Yes, proxies are a problem. Dis-stabilized Middle East ballistic missile program, obviously not good.

Address them separately. Why not get them to agree never to have a nuclear weapon and take that as a win for the world? And then if there's issues with, you know, using proxy forces to attack our partners, address it. Attack them back. or come up with a new sanction regime. But requiring it all to be in one bill, unless we intend to mow the grass literally, which costs billions of dollars,

to send all this military power over there and risk, obviously, the lives of the servicemen and women that are carrying this out, on a regular basis, why not actually get an agreement that is better for us, better than the JCPOA if you care about that and better for the region. So hopefully that's where this ends up. We'll have to see. The Iranians get a vote. But I don't know, quite frankly, what is acceptable to the U.S. right now, whether they'll live with just a better version of the

JCPOA. Well, so President Trump was on his plane and he was asked about it. And he, I don't know if he misspoke or what, but he did mention about like the nuclear program. and being the number one thing. Not so much proxies, not so much ballistic missiles. So he has a meeting this week, too. B.B. Nanyahu's coming to Washington again for like the seventh time, I think it is, to talk about this. So I have a feeling that after that meeting will be, you know,

there'll be an Axios piece, you know, detailing what went down and where we stand exactly with this. But it kind of feels like we're moving the goal point. post a little bit, like we don't want a deal to happen and we really want to bomb these guys and it's like that's a win. If they're down for like, you know, legitimately denuclearizing,

getting rid of their uranium that's enriched to 60% inspectors coming in, you know, like a real deal actual thing. I mean, that's as big of a diplomatic win that the administration is going to like hope to get. Yeah. I am. I mean,

I, of course, who knows what happening. But I would disagree with the fact that we, that the, the impact seems to be that there will be a war. I think that's unknown. But I think, I think some of the messaging coming from the administration is that Trump would be quite happy with a narrow nuclear deal combined with sanctions relief. He can paint that as a war without firing a shot. Iran could sell it as survival under pressure and the only unhappy party would be Israel because Israel is going to think that negotiations successful negotiations will rescue the regime in Tehran when it looked weakened. It's kind of a 180 for Israel in the last month. You remember Netanyahu, when the talk

was backing the protests, Netanyahu commented in an interview with the economists that revolutions are better undertaken or more likely to be successful if managed from within was, you know, paraphrasing his quote. But he was worried about regional instability. But now that it looks as though negotiations might be something that the U.S. is open to, keeping it narrow to just the nuclear issue, then Israel is getting certainly very nervous, hence Netanyahu's planned visit here to the United States. Well, like, listen. It's not the first time, of course, he's made an effort to change American policy by talking directly to Congress, for instance, right?

Yeah. Just a fact check myself. So I knew that the USS George Bush carrier strike, aircraft carrier strike crew had left Norfolk. But it's, according to cyber overlords here, it's not known whether it's actually headed to the Middle East. It has left, so maybe it is. That's the other one I was referring to. But we already have two aircraft carrier groups there, right? Aircraft carrier carrier groups.

So you have the USS Abraham Lincoln, which has a company ships. That's in the Gulf. And the other one in the Med, right? Multiple destroyers. Well, which one's in the Med? Oh, man, I can't keep. I can't remember which. But.

No, I have to look at all. Got to give factual information. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, listen, like there was the JCPOA number, the first one. You know, that kind of looked. It seems like at least it dealt with the Erincioram issue, you know, pretty relatively well. And Israel and specifically B.B. Netanyahu was dead set against it.

Like he was. Ah, USS Gerald R. Ford. Sorry for interrupting. So that is in the matter. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. No, no, no, no, no, no. Subtaculally left.

Sorry, I should have looked this up prior to this. Oh, it's all. So there's no, the Ford isn't there anymore? To the left, yeah. Okay. So maybe it's getting replaced by the George Bush. Yeah. They haven't announced that.

But there's an aircraft carry strike group and a lot of destroyers and a ton of aircraft there. So it's quite possible. But to Andy's point, so Prime Minister Natanyahu, his. coming to D.C. again, which usually happens whenever he disagrees with what the U.S. is trying to do. And I do think they don't want to see an agreement between the U.S. and Iran. And one thing to point out is if you're following the national security strategy and national defense strategy, which obviously I disagree with, but nobody's asking me, then it would make sense to try to get to an agreement, a nuclear agreement, so you can then focus on the Western Hemisphere and Homeland Defense.

What it actually says, yeah. Yeah. Like if you're going to follow your actual strategy, then you won't want to deploy all the assets we're talking about to the Middle East. It's counter to your own strategy, right? So this is a way to get there. Yeah, we need to keep control. Yeah, we need them off the coast of Canada to keep those fuckers in line.

Well, Cain. Yeah. It's. Yeah. But you're not wrong. Mick, right? Yeah, that whole, I mean, the whole thing is worrying about our regional, whatever, you know. And it's, I also read that there's like a hundred plus, like support aircraft that have been flown over, like C-17s to, you know, refuelers and everything like over 100.

Oh, yeah. So it's like, yeah, this doesn't really seem like the national defense strategy come to life. Seems a little counter to it. Or a lot. So one to me, we haven't really talked about as Turkey's role. You know, I was, I mean, part of it, I think, is you can interpret as the fact that Erdogan likes to be seen as a global figure. I mean, that's another statement, right? That's how he paints himself to his population.

He is kind of the reverse Adeturk, Ataturk took Turkey into the 20th century, and Erdogan wants to take it back to kind of the Ottoman Empire. and in other ways too. But he does, you know, the Turks are very nationalistic. I mean, if you ever been to Turkey, he'll dealt with their military or indeed just waited through Twitter one day. You'll see that there's a lot of Turkish nationalism around. He has a strong base within Turkey and he likes to play to that base by being a player on the world stage.

Yes, that's an element of it. But there's pragmatic reasons, too. I mean, Turkey has a 500-kilometer border with Iran. So a war that involves Iran is not going to do Turkey any good. And if there is such a war, of course, Turkey's likely to be first stop for any refugee flow out of Iran. There's good reasons for Turkey to oppose an attack on Iran. But Oduan's doing it in a smart way.

He's not simply getting on, you know, speaking to the media and saying what a dumb idea it is. He's reaching out to President Trump, which shows how he really knows how to handle him. He lays on praise and then he says, hey, let me, you know, let me see what I can do on this. I think I may be able to reach an agreement that you're happy with. Well, Erdogan's done it before, right, with Trump. I mean, when we, like, bailed out on the, you know, Kurds in Syria. I think it was Trump one, right? Yeah.

You know, and everybody else was shocked. You know, and that was a crazy, you know, it was over one phone call, essentially. It wasn't like a plan strategy as far as I know. I mean, you were there, Mick, you know. That was your A.O, essentially. Yeah, President Erdogan said he could, he would pick up the fight against ISIS. If we pulled out and left the Kurds on their own, that's why Secretary Mattis resigned if you look back at the letter. And, you know, we're still there, right? We're still

there many years later. It's still an issue, though, quite frankly, this issue is, Ken back out with the U.S. potentially leaving and really putting a lot of pressure on the SDF to accept the government in Damascus and integrate with it. So we'll see how that goes. It was the other issue I talked about, not really on the U.S. media, this is the transfer of prisoners out of Syria to Iraq, because I think the U.S. is concerned about the instability of the relationship. And right now, the SDF has been guarding these 7,000 prisoners for years, right? So, yes, but President Erdogan does have the year of President Trump, for sure. I think you're both right that he knows how to talk to him.

but most countries don't want to see an actual conflict again. And they don't want to see even those that don't like the regime, I think probably have a very pragmatic view of what could replace it. And it's probably not a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, right? It's probably the strongest dude in IRGC that's left standing. And it's been believed that the IRGC leadership has been pro, acquiring a nuclear weapon and that it was actually the supreme leader or is the supreme leader that has been the hesitancy so the question for a lot of the individuals that are

assessing what will come next is would it be better or worse for the u.s. perspective to remove the current leadership which it's important to point out the i total is 86 years old so this could happen tomorrow i don't know its health but um without even the U.S. doing anything. So there's a lot of questions, I think, for the U.S. to decide. If they're going to ask for a maximalist actual agreement, not just posturing before the negotiations, then this will probably end up in a military conflict again, because I also don't think politically you can send all this to the Middle East and then not get an agreement and then just turn around and go home. Right. So we've kind of made the choice.

by sending all this, that we're going to use it if we don't get to an agreement, I think. And Mick brought up a good point to the Supreme Leader, Homanie. Even though, you know, he's waxing lyrical across the airwaves about how he's going to punish the United States, his bark has always proven far worse than his bite. And because, and this isn't me praising the Supreme Leader, but he is a pragmatist. He's a rationalist. He understands the game. If he goes, as Mick pointed out, we don't know who comes next.

So by, you know, the Iranian constitution, although I'm sure it's not referred to as that, there's something called the Assembly of Experts, right? That's the first time I've heard that term used outside this podcast. But the Assembly of Experts are, they're 88 clerics, but they're controlled very tightly by guess who the irgc of course you know i mean we're beyond the stage where iran really is a pure theologicy right is that the right word what's the word i'm looking for theocracy yeah so i'm going to get philify for that too along with bradley cooper yeah so we're beyond that stage i mean the irgc pretty much controls everything within the country

It's an immensely powerful organization, and it's not renowned for its middle-of-the-road, moderate views. So, again, taking out Khomeini might not be the best thing to do, if that's even on the table. But also, something not to look forward to is when he does actually pass of natural causes. Yeah, what comes next? Yikes. I mean, I got a question, because I'm sure some people are going to be one. and what, where, you guys mentioned, like, you know, Erdogan and his, his, uh, what he was doing was a pain in the ass for you guys.

Are you guys referring to Syria? No, it's constant. And northern Iraq, the beginning was also a big headache. Like, we went in there early before the war and then we got. Yeah. I mean, it's not very popular among U.S. Special Operations Forces or the agents, I put it that way. Yeah, the Turks had guys in northern Iraq in 2015, 2016, and with good intent to begin with to block ISIS, but they weren't there at the request of the Iranian, I mean, sorry, the Iraqi government. And they were very problematic for us and, of course, in Syria on a number of occasions.

But even on small things like using their jammers to block our GP. Yes, and, you know, during key points of the campaign against ISIS. They sent in their special operations with us when we first went into northern Iraq and they want to follow us around, but we eventually gave them our Xbox. I think it was an Xbox. And then they didn't want to follow us around anymore. Yeah, why? I mean.

Yeah, they're like, oh. Was that on purpose, Mick? You guys wanted to get rid of? Yes. Okay. Yes. And it worked. They were like, yeah, we don't care so much anymore, which you guys.

Yeah. So just to give people some context to see. Syria is like such an absolute cluster fuck. I mean, it still is, but it was really bad. You know, the Turks hate the Kurds, right? Everybody hates ISIS, essentially, even the Iranians. Even the Arcada groups hate ISIS. But, you know, the Turks were supposedly with us.

They would, you know, the Russians hated ISIS supposedly too, but they were backing Assad. I mean, I'm not doing a good job of it because it could be an entire episode in and of itself. But, like, it was such an absolute, like, just a confluence of, like, different. interests and stuff like that, that Syria, like, somebody needs to write a fucking a book about it because it's insane. Yeah, our, you know, the bottom line, our biggest problem with the Turks, it's always centered on the Kurdish piece. And, you know, you can view it from a Turkish point of view that we did.

The SD-SDF, the SDF in practice covered quite a wide spectrum of Kurdish groups. And I'm not just talking about the SDF, I'm talking about groups. you know, that that were aligned with the US government at the time, our foreign policy interest aligned, right, defeat of ISIS. But my point is this, that there were undoubtedly people within the groups that we supported who had previously taken action against Turkey. It's just you'd be unrealistic to think anything otherwise. So that, you know, I'm not justifying what the Turks have done. there being a total pain in the ass if you're crossing. And by the way, you know, the way they treat the Kurds and have treated the Kurds in the past is pretty effing abysmal too.

So no, this isn't a pro-Turkish argument. I'm just saying from their point of view, we have, they will tell you that we have backed a terrorist organization. They're talking specifically about the PKK and they're saying that we have backed them and funneled arms into them, which we have not done directly or by intent, but it may well have been. that personnel and equipment crossed that thin, member-s line between the multitude of Kurdish groups. Do you like that? That fell under the SDF. Yeah. That was a good one.

That was a good one. Yeah, but they were. Sorry. I'm sorry. The Turks have backed Arab militias in Syria and no doubt about it with instructions to go up against and fight the SDF and drive them back to creating a buffer. But it was, at first, the Turks justified this in terms of creating a buffer, but then it became clear that they were after the annihilation of the SDF. There's no doubt about it. They don't want the SDF still in existence. And as we talked about on the show, Mick and I and many others know what the SDF has done to us. It's enabled us to win almost bloodlessly. People are going to quibble with me, but minimal casualties, one of the most important campaigns of the last. 50, 60 years, and that was the fight against the Islamic State. When I say one of, that's probably another statement. I can't think of another. Here, here. Totally agree. And one of our positions of

all, and by the way, they said the same thing about the Iraqi Kurds. It's a, it's a common refrain. Our argument has always been, collectively. So it would be better for us not to be with them. Because if we're with them, I mean, I don't buy that all these, obviously, I'm pro-Kurdish. But if you believed what the Turk said, then our presence would mitigate any threat from them. Because we're there, right? We're with them.

So it never really, especially in the Pentagon, where it's pretty universal as how they view those two groups. It never really held a lot of weight for us because we were like, look, if we're with them and we're providing the weapons and we know how they're using them because we're with them. How was that? So you think you'd be better off for us to leave? Right.

And again, to Andy's point, the SDF did 99% of the fighting and dying to beat the Islamic State and take and destroy the caliphate. But they call the Caliphate, so-called Caliphate. And that's going to be good. That's going to go down in the legions of special operations in their regular warfare. It just is. Also, like, you guys. You mentioned, Andy, like Erdogan and the Turks, you know, complaining that, like, we were supporting the SDF, which was, you know, YPG and the PKK were a part of. I mean, he's not, he wasn't, and Turkey wasn't supporting fucking Al-Nusra or like, Jalani's old outfit or what, you know, H-D-S, like, what are we talking about here?

Certainly, certainly the Turks backed out Jalani. they deny having back Al-Nusra, but certainly they're openly and were supported him in Al-Jolani. And, I mean, at the end of the day, the 3rd I had a good argument for doing so, frankly, a good pragmatic argument. He brought the wall to an end. There's no doubt about it. That was the only group that reasonably could be expected to do it, and the Turks backed it. They went the right place. I mean, you know, give the Turks credit where they do.

I mean, we've blundered. bound and at least backing the wrong groups every time. Odoin, by luck or by design, chose the right group. Okay, that's not an ethical comment about Al Jalani and this band of merry men. It's a comment about the fact that it was the one group that was in position, postured, and could overthrow the Syrian regime, given some backing. So, I mean, yeah, it was successful, vastly successful. The Turks, it was a blow to the.

the Iranians, a blow to the Russians, and a threat to some extent to some of our interests in the region, as we talked about, represented by the SDF, who are kind of our conduit to intelligence and also to potential proxy action against the Islamic State and Syria. But, you know, back to the Turks, they see those Kurdish armed groups. They see the SDF on its borders as an existence. threat. That's no exaggeration. And they view the SDF, and they always will view any Kurdish groups, although the SDF are not exclusively Kurdish, as we talked about here, but they view them through the lens of the PKK insurgency, which continues inside Turkey.

And in a lot of ways, that's just a boogeyman, if you think about it. I mean, how big is the Turkish military? They were really that concerned about, you know, invasion by the SDF? I mean, come on. It's more like, if I need to have a distraction from my own issues with how, you know, he's handling Turkey and the economies, then it's, the Kurds are always the boogeyman, right? We're on the verge of, it's just not. It's like a quick way to, like, spar, like, nationalism up, you know, so they don't have to worry about 30% inflation. But there is, there's something, I agree with all of that, and I'm not saying that, trust me,

I'm a Kurdish fan through and through. I've spent a deployment in 2016 in the autonomous region of Kurdistan backing the Pershmur against the Islamic State. So I'm invested in it. I've written about it. I was very dismayed at talks about U.S. forces pulling out of Syria for all of these reasons. But back to the Turks. So the mainstay of Kurdish presence in the SDF is an organization called the YPG. and the Turks see the PKK and the YPG as being synonymous.

They're not, but as I've said, there's a shaded area in the Venn diagram. Of course there is because all groups up there, especially all Turkish groups, have to coordinate and collaborate to some extent, even groups that hate one another. Yeah, true. Well, I'm in a house that's very pro-curitious. We've got a lot of former Delta folks in here right now, And they did a lot of the heavy lifting out there.

So it's just, it's something that we should recognize. It's cast to do with the way the U.S. treats partners and allies. Shouldn't be disposable, shouldn't be transactional all the time. That's the way it is oftentimes in the Middle East especially. But I think the U.S. should honor its partners and allies in a different way. I got a question. How do you think the, now like

2006, how does how do the Kurds feel about the U.S. now? It's hard. I think the SCEF Kurds are they feel a bit portrayed. I know they are because they're telling me, but I know I know them and they're texting me and they feel a bit portrayed

but they also you know they have endured a lot as a people. So they will persevere, they will succeed, I think. But I think they have rightful concerns about the loyalty of the U.S. government, not the people they work with in the military and agency, who they have lifelong friends with.

But high-level policy, right. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah. A lot of the field betrayed right now, put it that way, especially in the Syrian Kurds. Yeah, for the SDF, I mean, they want to hold on to the territory they have in Syria as an autonomous region in the same way as the Kurds in northern Iraq have an autonomous region. They want continued U.S. protection and specifically guarantees against Turkish attacks,

you know, all of which seems quite reasonable, right? But the problem is the fear that I think a lot of us have, I have if I can speak for other people, is that as Erdogan creeps his way into U.S. good graces, that there's going to be a price to it. And the price he's going to ask for, what is he, what does he want above all else from the US? He wants us just say,

hey, you take Syria. You do what you want there to include against the SDF. That's really, I would argue, whether the one was beyond the regional stability. That'll play in his favor. Yeah. I mean, again, Syria is so fucking insanely intriguing the interests that are going on in there.

it still is. I mean, obviously, you know, we'll see if the guy, if Alistrar wants to be a George Washington or he wants to be Napoleon, right? Yeah, I mean, you know, the bottom line is Washington can never can never satisfy Ankara and the Kurds at the same time. Right. I mean, it's a line that, that U.S. administration is not just this one will always have to walk. but for all the reasons that we have given. I mean, there are ways to keep Turkey on side. They need us too, other than through the Kurds. And there are plenty of reasons, not just emotional. In fact, minority of them emotional, pragmatic.

And then things that have to do with the values of this country to throw up our partners as soon as they cease to be useful to us. It's not a good precedent for when we need partners again. it's undoubtedly we will in future conflicts yeah um that's all i got guys you guys have anything else want to wrap this up you know yeah no that was that was that was not i like this i like this new time that's oh it's an old time for you yeah the time zone well not yeah you're back in the eastern seaboard well you're not really but sort of anyway i want you guys to do me a favor i want you guys to check out mix new podcast the pub

and the poachiaplied stoicism that links in the description description, the Whitefish Security Conference. Sorry, Mick, I keep forgetting the name, but it's April 2nd to the 4th. Go ahead. Yeah, so right now it's called the Montana Intelligence Summit, and it's going to switch to the White Fish Security Summit. That's why you're... There you go, yeah.

That link is in the description as well. And a ton of people, if you see the list of people who are talking at it, it's, you know, Admiral Bill McRaven and a lot more folks. So Andy Milburn. Stan McChrystal is the headline. Sorry, I fucked that up. Jason. Stan McChrystal.

I love it. We love to get McCrave for next year. Yeah. That's someone to hope for it. What's your mix? You said it. You knew I had to say it. You know what I had.

You said it. I know. That's why. It's okay. Andy Milburn, when the tempest gathers, that links in the description, as well as his great new article on the War on the Rocks.

That link is also in the description. And patreon. com slash the team house. You get eyes on. Team House episodes out free and early and you help support the show. All right. I'm out of breath. Thanks, guys.

All right, Phyllis. Thanks. See you. Take care. I want to tell all of you today about a new newsletter that we're launching that encompasses both the Team House podcast, the Eyes on podcast, and the high side news outlet, which I run with Sean Naylor. The newsletter is going to be once a week.

It's going to come into your inbox and you're going to get the most current podcasts on eyes on in the team house and whatever's topical or current on the high side. So it's another way for us to get the information out to you as social media algorithms are pretty iffy and you never really know what you're going to get. So this is a once a week email. It'll slide into your inbox and it will have, you know, the greatest hits of that week. It's really good. Checking it out.

The website for it is teamhousepodcast.com.com slash join. teamhousepodcast.kitt.com slash join. Go there and you enter into your email list or you enter your email into the little thing on the website and you're good to go and that'll be it. So we really appreciate your support and hope you'll consider signing up. Where's the link? The link will also be down in the description if you're looking for it there. And that's teamhousepodcast. dot kit kit kilo india tango.com backslash join