The Team House - Iranian Regime Cracks Down & The Greenland Saga | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: January 19, 2026

In this episode of 'Eyes on Geopolitics,' hosts Dee and Mick Mulroy discuss a range of pressing global issues, starting with the upcoming Montana Intelligence Summit, which aims to bring together experts in national security. The conversation quickly shifts to the ongoing protests in Iran, where Mick highlights the economic factors driving unrest and the potential for regime change. He emphasizes the importance of U.S. support for the Iranian people while cautioning against military intervention, which could lead to worse outcomes. The discussion then transitions to the geopolitical implications of U.S. tariffs on NATO allies and the controversial idea of purchasing Greenland, with both hosts expressing strong disapproval of the latter. They conclude by addressing the situation in Venezuela, advocating for democratic elections and the importance of U.S. influence in the region.U.S. Elite Medical Services ⬇️https://uselitemedicalservices.com/use the code "team20" for 20% offMontana 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 Start05:02 Iran Protests and U.S. Response23:38 The Greenland Controversy42:18 Venezuela's Political LandscapeBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Welcome to another episode of Eisengeopolics. I'm here with Mick Mulroy. We might be joined by Andy Milburn, fingers crossed. I don't know if he's bicep workouts done yet. He's got to get his schedule back in order with his workout schedule. It's getting in the way of things. A lot, a lot, a lot happening in the world. Obviously, as you guys, if you're listening to this podcast, you're paying attention.

But Mick, you got something happening that's coming up near you in Whitefish coming up in April. Let me hear about it. Yes. Yeah, thanks, Dee. So this is a group that throws summits, conferences related to national security all over. They reached out to me and said, hey, would you be interested in a panel? We're going to have one in Montana. They didn't know why I lived in Montana.

And then they asked me about other people. And it turned out most of the people that are asking about we're in Lobo. So it's like, well, two things. Yes, I'd be happy to. one, two, I live in Whitefish where they wanted to have it. And three, everybody mentioned to me is in Lobo. So we've now joined them. So it's called right now the Montana Intelligence Summit.

It's going to be April 2nd and 3rd. And hopefully Brother Andy Milgram is going to come to that as well. And he just joined us. And then it's going to be the intent, because now Lobo Institute's completely paired with this group, is it going to be an annual event in Whitefish? It probably changed times of the year because, you know, sometimes it's fun to come and potentially go skiing when you're not in the conference.

Sometimes it's better to go to Glacier National Park in the summer. But it's going to be in Whitefish. So it's going to be tied to the town like Aspen or Munich or Davos or something. Not saying that we're anything like that, but, you know, we have aspirations. And it's going to be a security summit. So it's going to be more than intelligence. It's going to be diplomatism. intelligence, military, all of it.

So from policy people to warriors to diplomats. And so if you're interested, I think D's going to put the current link in the description. And we hope to see you guys up here in the lovely town of whitefish as we do these things. But thanks for allowing me to plug that and much more to follow. What's the weather like in white fish in April? So that's the end of the ski season. Okay. They picked it without, they picked the time for without asking us because my business partner, Eric O'Lock, I think, would have said, that's, that's an iffy time to ski, right?

It's about to close. Yeah. If those that aren't tracking the, you know, the current situation out here in the Rockies, it's kind of warm. And there's not a lot of snow, which is a problem for us because we do. winter warfare training out here all winter with Socom units. But so April will be still snow, but it be at the end. And if you're lucky enough to be here at the end of the last ski run, uh, is hilarious. Literally people come flying down there and, you know, Bigfoot outfits or just no outfit at all like, like, like nude, uh, drunk as a skunk.

It's crazy. The last run, everybody gets to the top and it's, it's like old school Montana. Not that I'm saying that's a selling point necessarily come to the conference. Anyway, that's where it is in April. But I think people are going to have a great time. It's a, they bill it as an anti-conference conference. Isn't in that, yes, there's panels. Yes, there's engagement.

Of course, that's where you're coming. But there's also, like, events. Like, there's a reason that it's in Montana, right? So there'll be other events that people can join in and do. Again, thanks for a let me put that out there. That sounds awesome. The link will be in the description. So if you guys are interested, it's April 2nd and 3rd. So check that out. The link is down there. Andy, what's up dude? I miss you. I haven't seen you in so long. You're looking buff as ever. I look right. You looking as buff as ever.

What do you need with D? No, no. It's great to be back. Yeah. I'm I've been watching the podcast without me. And as many of the as many of the audience would agree, it's much better without me. been enjoying it. And here I am. Without Jason today. Yeah, Jason's under the weather. Not feeling great. So we'll be back next week.

Yeah, so let's crack right into it. I mean, chaos seems to be happening everywhere you look, not just around the world, but everywhere. Let's kick it off. Like, you could take your pick on what's going on. Like, there's so many things. We'll start off with Iran. Latest estimates.

There are some reports saying up. to 16,500 protesters have died, have been killed by the regime. There was a lot of talk last week about the administration preparing strikes in Iran to see, I don't know, what, you know, decapitation strikes possibly. It's ongoing. Their internet's still out. It's spotty in places you are getting some video. And it doesn't seem to be going great.

You do see, we did see the Ayatollah come out. and like kind of like trying and poke and prod the U.S. a little bit, which I don't know if that's a great idea. You know, because we've seen, you know, reports have suggested that President Trump's thinking, like if you're making fun of him, you know, his big cyclops eye will dig in right on to you if you are.

And we saw what happened with Maduro. So where are we at with that? You guys tell me what you're hearing in terms of the latest. Yeah. So Iran this week, obviously a huge topic. I'll start with the protests themselves because that's what the most important part of this is. There's been other protests. In the past, they've been topical mostly in the sense that important topics, right?

Women's right when Amini was killed for not wearing the proper headgear, if you remember that. There's also been issues, uprisings related to ethnic, inequality in groups in, you know, like Kurds, for example, in Iran. This is economic. So this has brought all of the groups that protest together and they're all affected. So the person who may not have been willing because it's much different in Iran. If you're willing to protest, you're willing to put your life on the line for sure. But this is the currency collapsed, inflation is extreme.

They're having a horrible issue with water. The governance is designed essentially just to keep itself in place, not for the benefit of the people that live there. And I think that has hit the head. So this, I think, is a very real potential to topple the regime on its own. It's organic. It wasn't. You can't fabricate this.

It's just possible. I mean, as much as you want to give the CIA omnipotent powers, you can't fabricate this. So you could help, you could support, but you can't make it out a whole clock. So this is really happening. And then the question now becomes, what can the U.S. do to hopefully enhance rather than hinder what's going on on the ground? So there is obviously covert stuff you can do. You can try to amplify the real messages are coming out. You can try to increase the Internet.

You can use cyber warfare to try to defeat whatever it is using to block the Internet. You can surge potentially these mesh networks like Skylink, if they can, I don't know, to go straight to the cell phone, right? Because that's a capability. It depreciates the bandwidth substantially and the amount of people. But that's on the, in my estimation, that's on the no-brainer side, right? Like, we should be doing that anyway. And then the other question, you know, whether it's more enhanced covert, you know, like

supporting the opposition with, you know, with means to actively resist, all the way up to include direct military action. So I think right now, hopefully, what they're looking at is the intelligence assessment on whether that'll help. And then if it will, what will help? Will it be a symbolic strike on like the IRGC, particularly the besiege element, which is a huge paramilitary element that violently oppresses the people? Would it be a decapitation strike, like you said, D? Or would it be a decapitation strike plus a sustained military campaign to degrade the regime's security apparatus? Right? So that's, and I'll toss it over to hand here.

And the last thing I think they really need to look at is, okay. So if we did that, what comes next? Right. Is it going to be a Nobel Prize winning opposition? Is it going to be Pahlivi, the son of the former Shah? Is there going to be some version of that? Or is it just going to be the IRC? Right.

And then if that's the case, how do we make that not happen? because that's not helping the situation for the Iranians or the stability for the region. So that's another part of this, I would say, we have to consider. Yeah, you know, there's obviously, I mean, one part of me, as there probably is, most people are following this, that wants the U.S. to do something, right? that the rather empty, empty sounding phrase that we need to do something. But, and I, of course, you know, of course, my heart please uranium people, you know, having visited Iran, I can tell you that the people there are just among the kindest, most hospitable, best educated by the way,

in not just the Middle East, but the wall. And trends we've seen from the little that has come out of Iran during these riots, incredibly brave, too. And when there were uprisings and Mick touched on these in 2009, the Green Movement, again in 2022, which was, As Mick pointed out, it was about the suppression of women. I mean, that was the catalyst. The revolts were put down with incredible brutality.

By all accounts, the brutality being used now exceeds that by far, and the number of people killed, even if it's a fraction of the 16,500, is by all accounts way more than were killed in 2009-22. So all that having been said, yes, I mean, I would love to. see an end of the suffering of the Iranian people. And it would be good for the world to see an end of the Iranian regime. It's done nothing but cause instability since the Ayatollah's rise to power back in 1979. So having set the stage for that, there is a big butt. And I understand absolutely why there is a delay, you know, after all this, this very loud posturing about what we're going to do.

few reasons for that that they'll they one of course which the the riots themselves seem to have died down so maybe you know the direct and uh and the regime therefore the regime has stopped killing people in the droves said it was killing them so the direct uh catalyst the kind of the urge the mandate to do something now seems to a slacken a little bit but um you know there are two issues this one is the military problem of what you what exactly do what you go after That's the easiest part of the problem. As Mick pointed out, there's both covert and overt action that can take place working from within the country itself.

And then, you know, an attempt at decapitation strikes to take out the Supreme Leader, the hell of Coots Force, the head of Basij, you know, all the leadership that is helping to, you know, that is, that backs the regime. The problem is that in all of these organizations, to include even the Supreme Leader, this is problem number one, there are people who are going to just slide into place seamlessly. Problem number one, problem number two, there isn't a viable opposition within the country. Mick mentioned Paulievi, the son of the Shah, and this is really ironic, right? If those of you were wrong enough to remember what happened in 1979 and how the intent.

entire country, regardless of whether or not they were religiously inclined, were pretty much behind. I mean, it was a, yes, it was headed by, originally by a group of student Marxists and by, uh, um, is, you know, fundamentalists too. They had an uneasy alliance and of course, we know what happened and who dominated that. But the point is, all the country wanted to get rid of the Shah. And it's, uh, you know, generalization, but no great exaggeration. And now you see people reaching out to him and he's been a voice in media in favor of the protesters.

But the point is, he doesn't have a viable government behind him. There's no movement that's going to slide in seamlessly and take over from the current administration. Right. And that's number one. And number two, which is far more likely, is that something worse will take the place of the supreme leader. You know, the biggest and strongest movement organization within Iran, of course, is the IRGC. And undoubtedly they will take over, whether or not their leadership is taken out in the process.

And they may even have the backing of the army who to this point has not been involved in the down. I mean, this is the, you know, the IOC is, it's hard to underestimate the control that they have in Iran. I mean, it's everything. It's political, it's economic, it's military. And there's just no other viable organization. Okay, so that is probably the most likely scenario. And we're going to end up with the devil that we don't know and the devil that is far worse. And we're going to look at, you know, it's going to take more than covert action. It's going to take more than decapitation strikes to topple the R-A-G-I-R-G-C. And in the meantime, the people are going to suffer even worse, undoubtedly.

Okay, third prospect, and here we've got recent examples of what happened in Iran. Sorry, what happened in Iraq? Remember, after Saddam Hussein was toppled and then eventually executed, I mean, there was a civil war there. And those of us who served there, some of this is forgotten. But remember that just the extreme level of bloodshed across Iran that continued up until indeed of almost 2008, peaking in 2005, 2006. I mean, it was, in most Iraqis, when they talk about the mistake of the U.S. invasion,

and they call it a mistake, have that in their memory, the memory of that civil. war that caused untold suffering for the Iraqi people. And so there's that. There's what happened before that in Yugoslavia after Tito was toppled. Again, those of us old enough to remember that. The most, until the invasion of Ukraine, that was the bloodiest event in Europe that dragged on for four years, the bloodiest events since the Second World. And of course, what happened in Syria, 2011 and afterwards.

I mean, those look like far more likely prospects than either the IRGC takeover or a civil war, far more likely prospects than a smooth transition to another government. You know, you've got Iran is not a homogenous society. And aside from those who support the Ayatollah, I mean, who support the current administration versus the people, You've got Kurdish separatists, you've got Azeri separatists, you've got Baluchis, all of whom want to break away into the separate provinces, all of whom are represented by armed factions who are waiting for an opportunity to go to war, to twin independence for their own states. You throw into that the fact you've got a stockpile of enriched uranium, you've got nuclear scientists and you've got religious extremists, and that is, to say the least, a volatile mix. So I'm glad to see that the U.S. isn't just simply ticking action, dropping bombs, and getting rid of your current administration, because what follows may be far worse.

Thanks to our sponsor today, U.S. Elite Medical Services.com. If you are a veteran and need further medical documentation to help bolster your claims, please check out U.S.elitmedicalservices.com. do they help veterans with medical nexus letters and DBQs, they offer wellness and longevity treatments such as testosterone replacement therapy. Please go and get checked out by one of their providers. We're all just trying to get by and improve our family's life, business, and our own well-being. The veteran population has had enormous amounts of stress that has led to chronic fatigue and much more. The VA is an interesting place and medical evidence is the premise of your claim. You deserve what you fought for. You deserve to

feel better again. More energy, better mood, better recovery, and more. I can also say from my own personal experience that trying to go through VA and file disability claims is incredibly difficult, and there's no way I would have been able to do it without a service such as uselitmedicalservices.com. So please go check them out. And you can use the discount code, Team 20, to get 20% off when you go and use them today. So go check them out. So go to US Elite Medical Services. and use the discount code team 20 to get 20% off today. Yeah, three quick points on that. If I could, going back to the beginning of what Andy said, and I think it's important for

folks to understand, I'm sure many do, but some might not, because you only see the extremist talk when it comes to Iran, right? You only see the zealots, the people that represent the regime, but the Iranian people are very educated, and if they, and very innovative, and if they had the opportunity, and to rejoin the community of nations, economically, everything. They would do very well. I think it's important people understand that, you know, the Ayatollah or any of its, his henchmen aren't what represents the Iranian people.

That's one point. Second point is I've seen the scenario literally played out with the U.S. actually did try to do something like an invasion. we don't want to do that. I mean, if you think the Iraq War was a bad idea, I think Andy just summed that up, this would be 10 times worse. So that's not even on the table.

And it's important to... I mean, I guess it's on the table, but it shouldn't be. I actually don't think it's on the table. So I guess the question really is going to come down to how the Iranian people would get to where they want to be, which is not controlled by a bunch of theocratic, freaking, you know, people who think their sole goal in life is to fight other people and not to take care of their own.

I think what the intelligence community is going to look for, and Andy referenced it, we haven't seen it yet, is defections by the army. That's the biggest indicator that this could change and go into another direction. Don't know that it will, but the best case scenario would be the other large armed factors. in Iran basically saying enough's enough. That would be a big lift, but that is what I think people are going to be looking at very closely to see if there's any change. And I don't think air, I mean, even if we do it, if that's the case, I don't think it's going to make the difference to actually turn this into a revolution, if you will. But that's going to have to be within. So we're going to have to see what the military actually does in that regard.

And then, of course, the other option on the table, even though I think President Trump kind of took it off the table, at least for now, is they start negotiations again. And they capitulate to U.S. demands, which is obviously no nuclear weapons. Limitations are abandonment of their long-range ballistic missile program and cutting off their support to proxy forces. I don't see them agreeing to all that, but quite frankly, it's in Iran's interest. None of that activity helps the people of Iran, and it could lead to substantial sanctions relief, which is one of the reasons why their economy is so bad. So I'll have to see what they do in that regard if those negotiations start back up with any kind of validity. Yeah, and there's, you know, there's something else that I didn't mention, of course, despite this, you know, the recent,

to a 12-day war between Israel and Iran, in which, you know, Iran's, uh, uh, Iran's military capabilities suffered significantly, but they still have a formidable battery of short and long-range missiles and enough to do considerable damage across the Middle East. And, um, you know, there was always the concern for U.S. bases, but I would say that the, the, uh, the biggest concern, uh, I mean, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned about U.S. bases, but they're well protected, let's be honest, and it's more likely the Iranians are going to strike at other countries within the Middle East for a number of reasons, okay, not least the which is to just to strike at U.S. allies, and that's not just Israel,

it's potentially Jordan, it's potentially Saudi Arabia, potentially even UAE, although that's less likely. So there's, you know, there's the threat of regional instability, and this is why you've seen a group of countries in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Turkey being among them, and indeed reportedly Israel, talking to Trump and saying, hey, don't do it. At least don't do it now. Yeah. Yeah, that might have been the reason for the delay, in addition to the fact that they didn't carry out the political prisoner executions. And we are moving assets to the region, according to the region.

The media reports, the USS Abraham Lake and Carrier strike groups moving from South China Sea that direction. And they should get there, I think, around the 20. So a lot of factors. It's unclear. Probably it's all the above for why we haven't struck. But hopefully this is led by the assessment of the intelligence community and whether those are actually be helpful. And it's not just some symbolic thing that just allows the regime.

say look this is all American concocted because that doesn't help the protesters that needs to be an assessment done by people with the information at hand sorry yeah um so obviously keep a close eye on this so it develops in the next few days uh next few weeks um let's move on to uh the shit show that is greenland and i'm editorializing of course and you know i can't wait to have my my winter spot in greenland Montana is going to have some competition, you know, once we take over Greenland. Recently, the Trump administration came out and put on imposing, imposed tariffs on eight of our NATO allies. And I put tariffs in quotations because it feels kind of punitive. It feels kind of like pseudo-sanctions, to be honest, because they don't want us to buy Greenland.

EU last week had deployed a few some assets into Greenland It's kind of incredible what's going on Obviously Denmark is a NATO ally and a close ally of the US for the last Fucking six decades seven decades or whatever Coril Demetrov everyone's favorite Russian guy Tweeted out that you know in response to this that this is a great thing that something that should be talked about at Davos, like the disintegration of the Transatlantic Union. So, you know, when a Russian guy really loves this, who's like Putin's basic mouthpiece,

you know we must be doing something right, guys. On a scale of 1 to 10, I don't make you hate this. How dumb is this Greenland thing? Make you first. I'm super not happy that we're even talking about it, the way we're talking about. And I think we have hit on this, but to be a little bit more repetitive, Everybody should know we have had, I think we have three treaties with Greenland to include the NATO treaty. We have access to 17 bases during the Cold War. We had forces there. We could still have access to these bases.

If it was truly a security concern of the imminent takeover by Russia and China, we would have, our military would be there, right? We have no problem projecting force around the world. We're doing it right now. But they're not there. So that defeats the argument. And ultimately, because of the NATO treaty, we're responsible for protecting it from Russia and China anyway. So that makes up sense. There's also an open door for industry to come in and help exploit the rare earth minerals, which are having, they're more access to them now because of the melting, the climate change, which is happening, whether you believe it or not. We could be doing that, and they're not doing it because it's not economically viable right now. Well, they'd be doing it.

So I think those two reasons just don't hold up as important. If they were, we'd be there. The other issue, of course, is this not taking off the table of use of military force. And the president was pretty clear. We're going to do this either the easy way or the hard way. The easy way would be they agree to be bought by almost a trillion dollars. And if they don't, and they already summarily rejected that. hard way, I assume, everybody assumes, would be my military force. So a quick little note on that.

So under the NATO agreement, we're actually supposed to protect them from threats, not actually be the threat. And that NATO treaty is the Supreme Law of the Land. Under Sixth Amendment, and I used to teach constitutional law a long time ago, the Supremacy Clause, I guess the second clause. The Constitution and treaties are the Supreme Law of the land. So anybody planning to or executing an attack on a NATO ally is going, is an unlawful effort by definition. Everyone's definition. So then you say, okay, what if we get out of the NATO treaty? That would be a terrible idea. But since they're not a list of the Meg Mulroy from Montana,

that is capable under, I think, Article 13, not to be all wakish on you guys, but you can, but that requires a vote of full or supermajority in the Senate to do so, not just the president. It takes a year to get out. And by the way, we're the keeper of that, so we have to notify ourselves that we're getting out. It has to be confirmed by the Senate. And there's a law passed, which was proposed by Secretary Rubio, then Senator Rubio, inside of the NDA from 2024 that says the president can't you know how to get out of NATO. So the chances of getting out of NATO are zero in my estimation.

So it's an unlawful act to take to even really plan for this. So then the question is should we buy it? And they're not for saying. Right. So it's just hurt. It's very much hurting the relationship. on the security front, obviously, with NATO and Europe, and economically. You can see our longtime allies starting to look at the United States not only as an adversary in the economic sense, but as a threat in the physical fit.

And that is not what the United States should want, and it is definitely not in our interest. And to your point, D, that's why Russia is championing this entire discussion. So a 10. Bad idea. Yeah. Really bad idea, even to discuss it. Yeah. You know, I don't, honestly, D, I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time on this topic because we can put it to bed pretty quickly.

You know, for, I mean, for those of us who've worn the uniform and served overseas and, you know, in furthering U.S. foreign policy at the sharp end. There's a reason why we do that, right? It wasn't for the pay for sure. It was because we represent, we believe that our country represents certain values. And those values are broadly speaking, you know, based on a broad, rather broad preference for, you know, alliances, stability and a rules-based order, right, which are things that the United States has represented, has championed for over 100 years. And I'm not just saying over 100 years. You know, you can think right back to the Treaty of Versailles in 19, the aftermath of the First World War, which is really when under Woodrow Wilson, the United States stepped up at the plate and championing.

I'm not going to use the term democracy, but democratic liberal democratic values across the world and have we been looked up to since then you know throughout and that's what pulled us in um yes you know Pearl Harbor happened but but that's not why we got involved in the in the war in Europe um it it was it was the catalyst for that but what the reason why we're fighting for the freedom of Europe um had to do with that had to do with what we stood for and and the follow-on marshal plan where we poured you know billions of dollars into Europe uh was again focused on responsibility and because we align those with U.S. interests and values, both of which are real things. And if you don't believe in all of those things, it's very difficult to argue with you, right?

If you don't believe in those things, what do you believe? What do you believe that our country stands for? And it's certainly, I just, you know, that's not a frame of reference that I'm familiar with. It's not a frame of reference that any of my fellow veterans that I know are familiar with. And again, because we didn't serve our country purely because we enjoyed wearing a uniform and for the money. So I think, you know, probably, and Mick, I'm going to turn this over to you. But I think for someone who's not swayed by those arguments and doesn't care about any of those things, there's a whole avalanche of very bad things that are going to happen to the United States and U.S. interests that are entirely predictable if we were going to try to try to force this issue.

Well, that's right. And I totally agree with everything you just said. And if the U.S. doesn't stand for freedom, then what is the U.S. stand for? Right. I mean, we've modeled ourselves on that and being the beacon of the free world. And now we're talking about not only invading, you know, you hear some of the rhetoric is like, if you can, you, you know, you should. Right. So might make's right. Or, you know, as Thucydides said, the strong do what they will and the weak, you know, what they must. That's not the way. world that the United States is championed and led for, you know, certainly since the end of the second or before it as we went to the aid of democracies in Europe. As far as like the consequences, we'd be booted out of Europe or booted out of NATO essentially. You can't actually do that, but if we're going to get out, it'll be a de facto booting. They'll just form their own. They'll also look at shifting economic tides. They do have, you know, I'm not an economist. So I won't go past my writ, if you will. But Europe could do a lot of damage to the U.S. economy.

And if we're actively fighting them, again, I get Andy's point. Like, maybe we should just stop talking about it because it just adds fuel to this fire. But if we're actively fighting them, then they're going to use every means available, which includes what they can do to our economy. You know, when it comes to the bond market and all of that, it's not going to be America first. It's going to be America alone, and we don't want that. We have built alliances to the benefit of the United States over the last 40 years. We created the world order that we're now apparently against.

I mean, think about consequences for U.S. basing, all right, throughout. 500,000 troops in Europe. Yeah. Think about what's going to happen to U.S. treasuries, 2.3 trillion or whatever it is. Think about what's going to happen to our access to global shipping. most of which is owned within Europe. By the Danes. Mayorsk is in Maersk.

Think about what's going to, how are we going to, how are we going to defend, not defend the United States, protect further U.S. interests. If the airspace of pretty much every country in Europe, not pretty much, well, maybe, maybe not Russia, but every country in Europe, but every country in Europe plus Canada closes their airspace to us. I mean, these are all practical considerations, even if you don't care about what the country stands for. Guys, I think we should be talking about this because it's not like we're adding to the ridiculous rhetoric that's going on. I think guys who have done, worked in U.S. foreign policy like you to for a long.

time should be calling out how dumb of an idea this is full stop because it's a dumb idea it makes no sense i think yeah i think we have you know i mean and we're just scratching the surface right okay all of us know all of us know uh what happens when you occupy our country right i mean it's it it doesn't matter you can have the most powerful military in the world but you are vulnerable when you occupy, when you actually put boots on ground. And, you know, we're making a big assumption that the Greenlanders are going to be happy with this. And you're talking about an environment that is just made for an insurgency, all right? And you're talking about a population that's very highly armed.

You know, think about Russia's experience in Finland or indeed Ukraine. You know, I mean, these are... And it would never be recognized. And if you just look at the history of the United States, there's an election every four years. I mean, think about the absurdity of violating international law, breaking a treaty, sending military forces who would not want to go and would be following an awful order to occupy, as Andy just said, a horrible insurgent-ridden country. And then just to the United States to say, have a new election, and whoever comes in go, that was a terrible election. idea here it hears it back so we would uh gain zero and lose everything our reputation our allies uh and again if it was that big of a concern we would have simply sent troops there which now i'm

sure they're going to be concerned if we say oh now we're going to send all these troops there they're going to think okay this is a slow motion occupation right like what if we were denmark and greenland right? Like, is this like a Trojan horse kind of scenario? So, I mean, now it's even, it's even hurt our, what we were already allowed to do is going to be hindered for good reason. I'm sure they're going to think, okay, now why do they want to send, you know, all these military forces there? And this is, you know, I mean, a traditional Republican Party, this is completely the opposite of a Reagan Republican Party. And so all those that are there that come from that era and believe, they have to show some intellectual integrity and start saying stuff now. If you don't say anything now, then I don't even know what you're doing up there. You know what you stood for, because I mean, a lot of them have been there for 30 years. And this has never been on their bingo card, ever. You know, and again, it gets back to the question why.

I mean, we've got total access to Greenland. Not only that, but Denmark funds all life support on our basis. I mean, it's a similar deal to Al-Adiqa does the same thing for us. You know, the electricity, water, I mean, you name it. We're not paying Denmark. They're enabling us. And, you know, even if you're not swayed by those arguments, and this may certainly influence a number of politicians

as a European friend pointed out, Denmark makes a number of, I won't say medicines, but Don't they make a Zembeck? Yeah, Zempic, yeah. Zempic, Botox. Oh, man. See, Americans are. Right? Yeah, three things that Americans are very dependent on.

Botox, Zempec and insulin. You know what's funny though Like they don't even need to do reciprocal tariffs on that stuff Because it's already fucking impossible to afford in America What is? I can just cut it off Just medical medical anything in America That's my joke

Yeah So that's why people go to Canada right Oh we can't do that anymore Or Greenland apparently Greenland They've got a whole free medical healthcare from Denmark To try to beat that Yeah And education

I mean And you know, the Mark Polymopopolis. Polymopolis, yeah. Polymopolis. Yeah, he will forgive us for slightly mispronouncing his name. Maybe. Because we're going to, we're going to grandstand his views. And, you know, Mark's pointed out that that even talk like this undermines our credibility

in our relationships with intelligence agencies, with UK being among them, with whom we have a long and reciprocal and valuable partnership, valuable for us too. And if we're losing that credibility and cease to be trusted in this exchange of intelligence, that's not good too. These are intangible unseen things,

but they're very real. Mick knows way more about this than I do. Well, that's where it all starts, right? So the sharing of intelligence. If that's not happening, then, and yes, the United States does the majority of collection of intelligence. So all these countries are going to have to start spending their own resources on building their capacity, but they're going to not want to share.

And sometimes, you know, the bulk might come from us, but that exquisite piece of intelligence comes from one of our partners. and we want to know it, right? So we could get to a point where we don't know what we don't know because it's just not being shared and it's at the detriment of the United States. And if that impacts things like counterterrorism sharing, it could really impact the United States.

So also not good. And then, you know, we're going to get to a scenario, ironically, I'd say, where Europe finally wakes up and I would agree with those that said they haven't taken their security as seriously as they should have. But they are now, and they build an army that is integrated, is capable, and an intelligence force, which would be a great partner to have in NATO, yet we've somehow excluded ourselves from NATO. So the very partners, which means we have to spend more on our own, you know, national security apparatus, defense, intelligence, et cetera, because we won't have the partners that we have had.

And they will be capable, more capable they have been in a long time. That's the irony. There's funny something from a French news channel somebody sent to me. Ukraine Intel Services sent full strategic info to U.S. Intel Services and observed that the information had been relayed to Russia and was used by Russian forces. That's from a French news channel. I mean, I don't know if that's true, but if it is, that's like I'm just, I've never served. Yeah, I never served in the CIA or anything. I've served like hot wings when I owned a restaurant.

but uh yeah so my I'm assumption as a layman is that intelligence professionals are inherently pretty suspicious right even with allies right you're very cautious what's been happening over the last year or so

I think it's I would say it's safe to assume that they're already not sharing intelligence with us well I mean if that if that's actually accurate or if there's stuff that we don't see that haven't been reported, it's accurate, then yes. I mean, your intelligence is as good, and at least in human as your asset. And your asset ain't going to trust you if they get compromised.

So it is like rule number one in human intelligence services. You protect your asset at all cost, even if it's, you know, detriment to you, the actual case officer. Right. So if that's the case, they're going to stop sharing information with us. And if it was passed to the Russians, I mean, that is, you want to do a counterintelligence investigation. That should be on top of your list. Again, I don't know if it's true. Sure.

But, you know, hypothetically, so to speak. Mick, I mean, you're, I mean, I feel like you would probably be on a short list to be a deputy director or director of CIA at some point, right? You're a seasoned intelligence professional. If you were running an intelligence agency and a partner was acting like this, would you, you want to share information with them? I wouldn't share. If this is accurate under the hypothetical. No, no, no.

I'm just saying how this is going. Forget the French news report. How it's going generally over the last year or so with this kind of rhetoric? I mean, would you tell your guys be like, yo, you have, like, it should be case by case in terms of like sharing this even more, you know, like, it's probably case by case anyway, but you know the intent's got to be up the issue with intelligence sharing is you generally don't know what you don't know so they don't know what you're not sharing so you could still maintain a relationship with us but still and not share because you see you get my point yeah the other the other is we might be getting tested by other like long term even five eyes you know the the brits might be given us information and then trying to see if it turns up back where they got it you know, is it getting compromised? And if that happens once, it's over.

They're not going to share anymore. I mean, you don't have to have served in the agency to know which you do. It's common sense. And that's a very troubling set of events. It's a very fragile thing, too, isn't it, Mick? Trust is when it comes to intelligence sharing. I mean, think about the aftermath of the Sekwa War. The CIA, you know, depends on what accounts you read,

but they started to deliberately isolate themselves from MI6 because of, I remember there was a whole rash of insiders within MI6. notably four very prominent guys. But that had effects that lasted for decades. And then I imagine too when Aldrich Ames, you know, one of the, I mean, and you're an insider, I've just, you know, I just read about aims from outside. I can't imagine the catastrophic effect that had within the agency, but also within the agency's partnership. with, you know, with allies and to your point that who knows what followed, but undoubtedly

that that left a legacy that the agency is probably just getting over now. You know, these things again, your trust takes forever to build up and it can be destroyed in a nanosecond. And a nanosecond. That's a good rule in life in general, but certainly in the intelligence services. Yeah. Also going back, when, you know, because in Ames is a good topic. because he just died, right? I mean, he did, yeah. The agency isn't going to come out and say, hey, this is how much pain he caused us,

but people were executed, agents disappeared. For years, he was, you know, he was feeding the Russians information about who they were. And so it wasn't just the fact that we lost those agents. It's compounded years of false intelligence that was probably fed to those guys with who knows what, consequences. The ramifications are huge. Just like Hansen, just like Hansen. Remember that guy?

It was a guy that was actually accused of that, turned out to be Hansen, obviously, and had to endure like just a horrible, horrible situation until he was cleared. And a priest friend of mine stuck by him the whole time. And his dad, in the priest's friend of mine, his dad was OSS, made the trade. transition from OSS to CIA. Wow. But he had total faith in him, literally. And as a side note, he got to, and then the agency publicly acknowledged that they

were in. And literally brought him back into the fold. And what a nightmare. My friend, the Padre, as we call him, got to be standing right next to him when they did so. That's an awesome story. Yeah, it destroys, it destroys a lot of faith. It is a, it is a, not just called this called a human intelligence.

It's a very human endeavor. And trust is everything when it comes to the collection of clandestine intelligence. Mick, just to call back to your point about, you know, unlawful orders, like unlawful things. I don't think the administration really gives a fuck about unlawful orders presently going to be, or issuing. unlawful orders. They are in contempt of Congress as we speak right now. There was a bipartisan bill that passed that they have not followed through on. It was called the Epstein Transparency Act.

So I don't think, because there's no mechanism to, like, they're not going to impeach him. They're not going to remove them. Even if they were to go into Greenland, there were some talks that, like, some Republican lawmakers would impeach and convict. It's not happening. So there's no actual check on the executive branch at present. So I don't think they mind about unlawful. Well, legally there is.

Sure. They could do what you just said. And at least from my understanding from media reports, there would be a willingness to cut off all funding for any operation. And that would pass with a supermajority that he could not veto. So there is legal mechanisms in our system. which is based on checks and balances, separation powers, to do that. And of course, the final, I don't think we get here, the final thing was the military refusing.

Yeah. I think they would. I do. It's a Toccan NATO ally? It's great. It's bad shit, yeah. It's... Read the article I posted in chat.

Not now, but... Sure. It's, yeah, I mean, I mean, I... You know, at the end of the day, I mean, we've had, this is a very dark discussion, right, that we have to have. But at the end of the day, you can call me naive, but I believe in the American system of government and checks and balances. And I believe that, you know, the right people will, the right voices will come into prominence. Okay. I believe in the role of the Senate is, you know, the senior chamber and the ultimate check is a,

is a real one. And yes, it comes down to the individual moral courage of each senator, but I think there are enough good people, men and women in that chamber that right will triumph. The common sense will triumph. And then we won't have to get to a point where we're talking about whether or not the military disobeys orders. Yeah, we don't want to get there. This isn't about trying to pit the military against the commander in chief that should never even be a topic of discussion I don't think we'll get there yeah well I mean crazy stuff we'll see what happens you want to touch on Venezuela real quick Machado just popped into the White House this last week gave Trump her

Mobile Peace Prize CIA director visited Venezuela and met with Delci Rodriguez and I'm sure more higher-ups that in the current you know know, amalgamation of the regime. Where do we sit with that? Do you think now we're going to get a endorsement of DELS, of Maria Machado from Trump? Because he got the Nobel Peace Prize. Well, I don't know about the reception of the getting the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, you can't transfer that.

It's just an odd object. It's not the actual prize, right? But I would say from Machado's perspective, she just wants to be allowed to, to to sit for an election and lead to people of Venezuela, which if it was done lawfully in 2024, she'd be there, right? She won the primary, like, by 80%, and then she wasn't allowed to run into generals.

So her stand-in, and Mundo Gonzalez won by, like, 70-some percent. So, and the United States recognizes them as the opposition, as the lawful government, not the remnants of the Maduro regime. I understand the point, like, you can't just parachute Miss Machado into Venezuela. But we do have, as the Secretary of State, I think, rightfully says a lot of influence because we're control of their oil, which is Ily fund the government.

So we can use that same influence to say, you're going to have a transition. You're going to have an election. It's going to be internationally monitored. And the winner is going to be the winner, right? We could use our influence for that to get that. And I think, ultimately, that will be in the interest, obviously, of Venezuela to choose their government, but also in the United States, because a democratically elected government is going to be much more inclined, hopefully, to be partnered with the United States and not China, Russian, or not. And it's going to be much more into the free market, not socialist or whatever version they are of controlling all of the natural resources of their country for their own benefit, government benefit, not the people. allow in private companies. U.S. preferred. That'd be great. So I think the two are actually aligned. I don't know I'd want to keep a government that we used as a reason to get Maduro as it was an illegitimate government,

the legality of getting Maduro, which I think we made a decent case for, and I have no problem but capture Maduro. But if we're going to use the same logic, then we should want to see that his actual regime exit stage left. Understand there has to be a transition to do that, but that should be what the United States uses its influence and leverage over to do. Nothing to add. Mick, worded it beautifully. Thanks, man.

And brought us very, very neatly up to the top of the hour. Yeah. This is what you get. This is what you get when you bring in a professional media personality. See? A professional. Gapper. All right, so we'll see what happens.

I think it's wishful thinking. I think this administration will only go with who gives them the better of deal. Going to be completely frank with you. I would love to see Democratic free elections in Venezuela and everywhere. That'd be great. But, you know, I would also like a lot of things. I'd like to be 50 pounds lighter and six inches taller. Sorry, I know.

I'm a snarking prick. I know. I apologize. height is overrated. I think. Thank you, Andy. You know, that's an interesting point, though. We say height is over.

Mick, how tall are you? I think I peaked at 6'1. I think I'm going the other direction. So, Mick's got genuine height going on. Yeah. Yeah. But, yeah, I've read an article recently that it actually does have a greater influence on your life trajectory than you may think. No question.

That people are definitely. We used to say in the Marine Corps that if you were a big, good-looking guy, you know, and you kept your hair within regs and polished your boots in the days when we had boots, you would make Lieutenant Colonel at least. And it didn't matter how ridiculously stupid you were, you were going to move Lieutenant Colonel. As you repeat it. Yeah. Yeah, I'm fairly convinced if I was 6'3, I'd be a senator.

my alma mater but I've got to say that I've definitely met short guys that do pretty well yeah but yeah for sure when short guys do well it's on the basis of talent right and exactly good point and and I've definitely met guys who are in positions of authority where you're thinking I mean and and they fill that they they meet all those criteria that I just described but they've got nothing else you know they are definitely I mean look at you CRE is not the only organization that promotes them beyond their capability. So they point that way, that's Canada. It's like 40 minutes that way.

So Carney is apparently just talking to somebody that's a pretty small guy, and that guy's crushing it. Yeah. The Prime Minister of Canada right now? Yeah. He's on a world tour, right? Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, I think it, so the flip side of that is that if you,

if you are short, I don't count myself as short. You know, I mean, I've always said average. I can't bring myself to use that term, Sean. But if you are, you know, if you're not getting vertigo from, always having to look down on people from a lofty height, it does, I think it does act as a catalyst, right? Because you've got to prove yourself in other ways. That's my theory on this anyway.

Make doesn't allow me 6-1. Thank you. Thank you for ending this discussion. Mick doesn't know the plight of vertically challenged people. Yeah. Six foot one Count in America All right guys

This is great I want you guys to do me a favor Check out the Intelligence Summit That's going on In White Fish The link is in the description If you're interested

Mick Mulroy's got a great podcast Called the Pub in the Porch Applied Stoicism Check that out Those links are in the description As well Andy Milburn Links are all in the description When the Temp is gathered

Incredible book More stuff coming out soon I'm excited about So keep an eye out for that And the best place to support the show is Patreon Patreon.com slash the teamhouse You get both TeamHouse and IZon episodes Add free and early

And you help support the show Guys, as always a pleasure Thanks, Jets Hey everyone Until next time Yep I want to tell all of you today About a new newsletter that we're launching

That encompasses both the TeamHouse 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 Aizon and the Teamhouse 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, man. Checking it out. The website for it is teamhousepodcast.com slash join.

Teamhousepodcast. Dot kit.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 the description if you're looking for it there. And that's teamhousepodcast. Dot, K-I-T-K-LoIndiaTango.com backslash join.