The Team House - Russia Bombs Civilians in the Sumy Region in Ukraine | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: April 14, 2025

THE BOYS TALK ABOUT THE SUMY BOMBING, HOW TARIFFS ARE CHANGING THE GLOBAL ORDER, AND THE START OF NEDGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN OVER THEIR NUCLEAR PROGRAM IN OMAN.New merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comSupport the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseFind 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?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_appBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.sociBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey guys, there's a new Teamhouse merch store. You can come and check it out. The link is in the description. You can get Team House stickers, Team House patches, which are really cool and really well done. American made. Team House T-shirts, hoodies, mugs. Shout out to that one person that's on a Mug.

Love you. Mouse pads. Camelback. Tote bag. I don't know why we have the tote bag. I'm not a big tote bag guy. If you are, you know, all the more power to you. But yeah, we got a ton of cool stuff.

Stickers American made. Patches American made. T-shirts are also American-made, but I don't fulfill them. I'm actually going to be the one shipping you the patches and the stickers. They're very cool. Check it out. The Teamhouse-shop. Dot 4thwall.com.

That's a crazy URL. We'll change that. But don't worry, the link is in the description. Take a look. And in the show notes, if you're listening to us on audio, we really appreciate it. Thanks for the continued support. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitic.

I'm here with the full crew today. Mick Mulroy, Jason Lyons, Andy Milburn, and myself, Dmitri, Comtacos. Lock cooking, as usual. First and foremost, just broke probably an hour or so ago. The Russians hit the Sumi region in Ukraine. I think they said upwards of 30 plus people killed civilians. It was a civilian target. You know, just seeing the videos coming out of there now,

on Twitter and everywhere else. It's pretty, pretty heinous. A bunch of American, you know, General Kellogg, the ambassador to Ukraine, all came out with like statements, you know, and support and stuff like that. They are getting a bunch of pushback, obviously, from the masses on Twitter. Let's start with Andy. Andy, what are you got for this? Yeah, actually, I'm very familiar with so many rich years from there, as a matter of fact.

Shout out to Richie. Yeah, yeah, he's, it's a, that's my daughter, by the way, for those of your audience who haven't been born. Oh, geez, listeners know about Richie. Yeah, he's more famous than I am. He was on the cover of the New York Times, by the way. So he's, but anyway, he's now, he's now living in Florida. He has full citizenship, so no danger of being deported. But on a serious note, yeah,

Sumi is a town about 20 miles from the Russian border in northeast in Ukraine. This particular attack, and I mean, it's no surprise to me at all, you know, having spent almost a year and a half in Ukraine from the beginning of the war, Russian attacks, ballistic missile attacks, cruise missile attacks. drone attacks on cities are primarily, I mean, you can look this up statistically, are not aimed even at energy infrastructure. I mean, that's one of their side targets, but they primarily target civilian centers. And this one was timed, obviously, for Palm Sunday.

Palm Sunday is the, it's for you, it's the weekend before Easter. And it's particularly a big time in Ukraine. It's a big deal for the Orthodox Church. And since the Russians and the Ukrainians share the much, not exactly the same church, but the Russian Orthodox Church is very popular in Ukraine too, the Russians know what a big deal that it is for the Ukrainian population. That the streets are likely to be packed at that particular time, which was church time, about six hours ago,

six or seven hours ago is when there's six. occurred. So no real surprises. Just a reminder, you know, in light of the fact that we seem to be shifting towards an apparent friendship with Russia, we as a nation that the Russians are no, no business being our friends. And, and again, you know, again, this is statistically backed up. If you look, ever since that disastrous meeting with the Zelensky in the Oval Office, Russian Ukrainian casualties, civilian casualties have mounted. The Russians are making a determined attempt to hit Ukrainian cities, knowing that probably they're going to be vilified less in light of the new U.S. stance on Russia.

And of course, some of you may know that Russia and Belarus were the two global exemptions from U.S. which again seems to be quite extraordinary. So yeah, just, you know, I think, I mean, as we're looking for silver linings again, there's no silver lining for 30 civilian dead, including children. And as a reminder this time last week, they hit the Russians hit Crevy Rig, another town,

and they dropped a Christmas when in the middle of a playground, whether or not they were simply targeting that playground, who knows, but they killed. number of children. So, you know, as I look, though, at European reaction, I mean, this is simply solidifying what they already know, that they, the Russia is the enemy. For those of you, not those of you, but those perhaps even in our audience who keep beating their chest and say, hey, it's a European war, they should step up to the plate, blah, blah,

You know, I've already commented about ridiculous transactional approach to that. It's always, always been part of U.S. strategy and implicit understanding that we pay more than perhaps our fair share financially, but Europe is the battleground. They pay in terms of blood for Russian aggression, and that has been the way since the Marshall Plan back in the late 40s. it's an implicit understanding. And from the U.S. point of view, it makes good sense with the richest nation on earth. But we are, perhaps we are certainly reluctant to put our people in harm's way.

And that's what the Europeans have been doing, we'll be doing. And again, that's, you know, that's the battleground. So that is all we have to send out, over to you guys. Just FYI, Andy, I am Greek Orthodox, so I understand what Palm Sunday is and what it means. and stuff like that. And I'm here with you guys during Palm Sunday. I am. Always sacrifice.

Yeah. I, you know, I simply meant because I know you live in that, that, that bed of inequity and heathenism known as Brooklyn. And so I didn't know how far you'd stray from your

Orthodox. But it's just a reminder. Pretty far, to be honest, but I should be at church. So I'm getting text messages. Like, are you coming?

I'm not, guys. Sorry. Mick, what do you got? Yeah, so I certainly agree with all that. I think it really shows, this attack on Sumi really shows emphatically that the conciliatory, complementary approach to Russia is not the way to go. They did not agree to a ceasefire. Not only are they, and then they ask for specific carve-outs of ceasefire that benefits

them like Black Sea and energy infrastructure, since the, Ukrainians are being very successful in both of those areas. So it shouldn't be a carve-out. It should be a ceasefire. And you shouldn't have to carve out not committing war crimes as part of any carve-out of a ceasefire. That's obviously against the law. They specifically target civilian infrastructures and kill civilians, including children. So I don't know what we need to see to realize that Not only are they not our friends, but we don't want them as our friends. You don't want President Putin and the people who would order these strikes as your friends. So, yes, I do think we should pursue a ceasefire, but the way we're doing it with actually advocating for one side over our traditional historic partner, who is a democracy, who was the agreed party, is not the way to go.

They launched these attacks before Special Envoy Whitkoff left Russia. So that is essentially laughing at you. It really is. Sorry, no, go ahead, Mike. I was just going to chime in. Yeah. So, and then others, just some stats this morning that I was reviewing with a front of mine, over 100 missiles since this so-called C-Sythier, not C-Fire,

happen well over 2,000 drones, mostly from Iran. And if you're following the fighting on the ground closely, about 80% of the casualties now are coming from drones. So Whitkoff went what? He went from Moscow down to Oman to talk to the Iranian. So most of the casually producing effects on the battlefield right now are coming from the Shahid type drones. And then thousands and thousands of other munitions

have been fired by Russia into Ukraine. To Annie's point, this idea that it's, you know, they're paying into this pot of NATO. What that is is you pay a certain percentage you're supposed to of your GDP for your own defense, right? So if Europe spends more money on their own defense collectively, that's better for everybody. But it doesn't necessarily mean we get to spend less. In fact, we're here in reports that we're going to go up to $1 trillion on our own defense budget. So it's not tethered to the GDP percentage of GDP that these countries pay for. And now they're going over that and exceeding it.

So now's the time where we get the biggest benefit. And I do agree they should have been doing it the whole time. But now they are. So we don't want to withdraw from the most significant military alliance in history at the time when it's actually the strongest. Right? When everybody's actually doing their part, that is not against the U.S. national security interests. We should build it. We should participate in it.

And actually, we should lead it because that's what the U.S. has historically done in the world, led the free world, not withdraw from it. And by the way, in case you're wondering, if you go to the hill, because I do often, there's very few people who would disagree with what I just said on either side of the aisle. When the cameras are off, everybody knows Russia is not a friend, everybody that I know. up there, senators, representatives with very few exceptions. So I think we really need to focus on who's the enemy here and who's dragging who along and who's the party that was actually the country that was actually invaded and then really put Russia in a place where they have to come to the table because right now they don't see it. They don't see the benefit for them from perspective of Russia.

They think they can keep getting trained. They are very, you know, the Dunesk, Grecian, they're taking some, you know, they call them settlements or whatever they're terming a small village. But Ukraine is holding their own, and we need to essentially make it so Ukraine is improved in their military position in Russia by the opposite, so that they want to come with some ceasefire that's acceptable to the Ukrainian people, as what I think. We should be pushing that as a way to get to the ceasefire. compliments and, you know, capitulation are only going to make Russia less likely to sign anything

significant and stick with it at all. And there does need to be a deployment of European forces to secure this ceasefire or it's guaranteed that Russia will break it, just like they have every time in the past. That should be non-negotiable. We should support it with error because after all, it's a ceasefire, right? So if Russia doesn't intend to violate it, then what's the concern? Even Prime Minister Maloney from Italy, a very conservative prime minister said that. Russia shouldn't care about European deployment unless they intend to break the ceasefire. So we have, we're a long way from where we need to be here, but the best way to get there is more support to Ukraine and start dictating the terms of a ceasefire once they start

getting the upper hand. You know, this really, this really exhibits against. sometimes the fact that we don't even look at recent history. I mean, there's all this talk about, Zelenskyy should step down. How about making it a term of a condition that Putin steps down? You know, I'm serious. The guy who's not elected. Yeah, he's absolutely not elected.

And history shows us from all this, do you remember all their ridiculous talk about Russian reset, way back under the Obama administration? And, you know, I mean, time and again, time and again, he has laughed at us. when we've reached out of hand. He's doing it now. And you just have to look at the last 30 days what Russia has done.

I'm not talking now about the missile attacks and the civilian targeting. I'm talking about their supposed concessions, right? They're saying, you know, that they want the, that they're willing to let, you know, their, their concession is to allow the Ukrainians to export more from their Black Sea ports, with the Ukrainians have really fought for and won that right by almost obliterating the Russian Black Sea Fleet, right? Yes, absolutely. ...approach.

They already have that. You know, they don't need a Russian concession in order to do that. Right. And so, you know, all these things are just, it's a facade and very sad and it's very embarrassing to watch our negotiators just being, having circles run around. them and let's hope that the same doesn't happen by the way in these with these talks now taking place in oman with with iran and i think uh something that is important and it always has been important is messaging on our part you know um i think if we didn't have the incident like we

have with uh president zolinski in the uh oval office and everything what happened i believe it was two days ago yesterday with Special Envoy Kellogg where he, in an interview, some took what he was saying as that Ukraine post-war could be divided up Berlin style between European zone and a Russian zone. And he had to go back and correct that. And I think if everything before this, our messaging before this had been steady and, you know, then that would have been just seen as a But now it just adds to the Ukrainian people's their outlook on us. You know, that's just one more thing. It's like, oh, are they really going to do that?

You know, divide us up like that. So I think messaging is just more important now than ever. Agreed. It seems like Europe should be playing a much more substantial role in these negotiations. Yeah. Like if I was Ukraine, I'd say, hey, I mean, are we even continuing our support to them? I'm not sure. But Ukraine is, in some cases, quadrupled their support.

So maybe Europe needs to be the one that really leads the advocacy on the side of Ukraine, considering Ukraine's in Europe. I do know the, you know, to some of our discussions earlier about expenditure of, percentage of GDP expenditure on defense. Poland has stepped up to the plate with 4% expenditure. Poland is now a real leader. within NATO. And, you know, we've already talked about Finland and Sweden joining ranks. And NATO is stronger than ever before. And so it's, you know, Mick, to your point, it makes absolutely no sense at all to step away from NATO. You know, we're advocating leadership to, to others. And for those of us who've served in the military and fought for the United States in wars that were less productive,

The bottom line is what I used to tell my Marines was, you know, in the end we're fighting for American values. And as hokey that may sound, if you take that away and you tell me American values are simply about trade deficits and how much we can get other people to pay for contribute to defense, that seems a very, that seems a very shoddy thing to risk your life for. And, you know, I think a lot of these people who are talking this way just don't understand that these things we pay, that we talk about. And again, values are not, it's not just lip service. Yes. I think the polls have saved Europe before, right? Battle Vienna can see Ottomans. Somebody can backjack me on that.

But the polls, yeah, they've totally stepped up. They're like doubling the size of their army, literally doubling, not hyperbole. It's, yeah. And extraordinary. And then if you, you know, if you read the high side, right, which is Jack and Sean Naila, Jack Murphy and Sean Naila's writing, and I know we can't really comment on this, but they'll talk about what Poland has been doing in Russia. And, you know, over the last few years, it's some pretty, pretty ballsy.

stuff. And I know that Green Berets thunt their chest and talk long and endlessly about unconventional warfare, but when it comes down to it, have, I mean, not practiced it, right? It's all, except perhaps, I mean, very isolated incidents. I'm going to be lamp acid for this, aren't I? But let's be honest, all right? It's all very academic, except for, you know, back in 2001. But the poll, are actually doing this stuff and so are the Ukrainians within Russia and we should be learning from them that itself is worth paying a little bit more for their defense having them to yeah having them do that yep and my son's uh he's deployed over there as you guys know he's in the security assistance group ukraine but he's he's going with a lot to a lot of places with

his unit and uh you know although we're there to help train and do that he's learning a lot from them because these folks have a different perspective when you're looking across your border and you're seeing a very aggressive Russia who probably won't stop at Ukraine, right? They're looking at this as in many cases inevitable, not just something that they should be concerned about and prepare for, but in many cases, especially the military commanders, are viewing this as inevitable, the conflict between Russia and the rest of Europe. And we need to start viewing that, lest we be, you know, the appeasers of past that historians will scratch their heads about if we do it again.

Yeah, 1938, Chamberlain, you know, coming back and I can announce to the UK, it's peace in our time. You know, I've spoken to her, Hitler, and at heart he is a reasonable man. You know, all of this, it just sounds familiar, doesn't it? And by the way, Mick, to your point, the Estonians had a considerable contingent in the Mozart group, and they were damn good. And these guys were Estonian military guys who officially or not officially, but kind of took leave of absence, a sabbatical from their own military to come to Ukraine to contribute to the cause there. Some of them joined the legions. Some of them helped out with organizations like ours. and you know you talk to any of them and they will tell you with certainty that they feel that the

Baltics are next and that is why by the way the Estonians have stepped up their 155 artillery production I mean I'm not saying they're putting all of their industry on war footing but they are punching way above their weight when it comes to producing ammunition to support Ukraine and with the intent and not only have they done that, but they're providing leadership within Europe, within NATO and actually across Europe with the goal of replacing the United States as a supplier of ammunition. By the way, the U.S. never really did a good job at providing artillery ammunition because we don't produce enough. We focused all our acquisition on platforms and things that are obsolete as soon as they're churned out. And we, we, we don't produce enough. We focused all our acquisition on platforms and things that are obsolete as soon

is they're churned out. And we forget that wars are, you know, lessons going back to First World War. Wars are won by production, not just the platforms, but munitions too. But the Estonians have realized that the UK, from the beginning of the war, have sent people out.

You know, I don't know if they're working for MI6 or whether they're a physical capacity, buying up stocks of 155 munitions across Europe and in Turkey too, with the goal of supplying Ukraine. So no one can really accuse, you know, this whole thing of Europe needs to really do more since the beginning of the war, European countries, certainly a collection of European countries have been doing a great deal for Ukraine. the United Kingdom for the offensive in June of 23.

I mean, first of all, the UK is training thousands of Ukrainian soldiers in the UK. And they emptied their shelves of all their breaching equipment, all their breaching vehicles gave them to the Ukrainians for the, for the 2023 offensive. Storm shadow missiles. They emptied their shelves again for those things, which are have been approved invaluable while we were dicking around you know trying to decide whether we were going to give them a tackams or not and when we did we piecemeal them out the brits and the yes and the french were the ones who were really giving the ukrainians a long

range precision strike capability are we still uh producing 155 rounds and giving them to ukraine or no well we're producing them not enough i don't know we we've got a good question you One of the things we learned is that if we had gone to war, I mean, really gone to war, say, I don't know, over Taiwan. I mean, forget about all the other things we're talking about. We would have run out of artillery rounds very quickly. Wow. I know there was a, there was a pipeline that was still going of support to Ukraine. I think it's still going.

Yeah. I know we have stepped up to 155, like in Scranton and I think Texas is another factor we have. that's pumping out 155 rounds. But yeah, if you're Ukraine or if you're the EU, you can't really rely on the U.S. anymore. I mean, your future needs to be looking at, like this needs to be a homegrown solution, an EU Ukrainian solution.

Yeah, we are. We're still supporting. Okay. Yes. There was a brief pause. Yeah, so we're still supporting, which is good. And we need to just increase it. moving out.

It's fair to say that, you know, in the law, we have not been consistent in our support of Ukraine, not just under this administration or the previous administration too, right? True. Yes. I mean, that was through Republicans in the House. And it was not specifically, you know, it was about defense funding, right? but we held up supplying Ukraine for months. And you can draw a straight line correlation between that and increased Ukrainian casualties.

So in fairness, we've already shown that we are not dependable partners in the world. And I suppose it's going to take us repeatedly failing to back up on us. which we have done since, you know, since running out on the Kurds in 2017, the debacle of Afghanistan and, of course, now Ukraine, and not alone the financial turmoil that the world is going through now. So I'm wondering, you know, I'm wondering at what stage we do. I'll read the reservoir of trust and the reputation that the United States has, established as defender of the free world does as a you know a bastion of all these values

that we've talked about i i would be surprised if that hasn't already been whittled down to nothing so we the ukraine security assistance initiative has allocated 32 billion since 2022 and it's about to run dry so that that was the what i was confused on So a lot of the equipment that they're getting now was authorized some time ago. And once it's over, that's the question of whether we're going to continue to do that, which obviously everybody on this show advocates for us to do so. But it's probably going to be a need to be increased alongside with the increases of Europe. That would put Ukraine in a better position and make the ceasefire much less, much more likely. Yeah.

So we've been talking about, I mean, we're going to hit on Iran. in the Oman talks, but I want to talk about tariffs just because it feels like there's like a global reordering of like who's who's buds with who now, especially with the tariffs tariffs on China at like 145% as of right now. I mean, it's up to

at some point it's going to change for sure. There was some word today that they're going to exempt electronics and other things. But you see China cozying up with the EU. They talk about China and the EU talking electric cars from China to be imported to the EU. China also, Xi Jinping is planning like an Asian tour

going to go to like different countries in Asia who are historically our allies. And we're cozying up with Russia and talking about annexing Greenland. Like it's this weird like shakeup. Like you just mix it all. It's like a game of risk. You just mix it up and like whatever ends up happening happening

like in terms of allies. So it's Mick, what are your thoughts on like this global reshuffle? Sure. And one more point on Ukraine before I jump to that. They are looking to purchase $50 billion worth of U.S. weapons and munitions. So that would be the biggest purchase in history. So that's very advantageous to the U.S.

And I believe they're purchasing it with money that was provided to them by Europe. So on the tariffs, I mean, we talked about this. last week. I'm not an economist or a financial analyst. I think you really have to look at what I don't understand. So I'm a form of this and oppose this in the formal question is what is our, what is our intent here? Right. So if it's to bring home jobs, okay, we have a really low unemployment rate. We have probably more jobs or close to the amount of jobs open that we have people that are unemployed. And a lot of the jobs that would come are jobs that I think Americans would want. I think putting in China to assemble a iPhone, they get paid $500 a month, right? So I don't think

those are the kind of jobs Americans would even consider. And of course, if they did consider it, they would get paid a lot more than $500 a month, which would mean this would be about a $3,000 to $4,000 phone, right? So maybe that's not the case. If we're trying to bring manufacturing home, okay. I do think we should make more things here just from a security perspective. But if we make deals with everybody and then end up lowering all the tariffs, it'll take away all the incentives to onshore the very manufacturing that we're talking. We say we want. So I'm confused about that. And nobody's going to invest the billions of dollars not knowing whether all the tariffs are going to be gone tomorrow since we're going back and forth with it or that there's

going to be another person in the Oval Office in three and a half years before we even get done with our plan. And then, of course, the whole automation of plan. So I'm confused about that. So to your point specifically, Dee, when it comes to China, I think they have been ripping us off substantially for many, many years. Most people do in the intelligence community. I think we should have some kind of joint task force between the FBI and the CIA to really go after them like full throttle to start throwing people out of the country to start looking at student visas for what the Chinese, you know, intelligence services look at them for as huge opportunities to steal our intellectual property. I think they should do a lot more against China, but we should have done it with the

cooperation of our historic allies, right? So we've picked a tariff war, trade war with everybody. And now you've got, to your point, China's talking to Japan. They're talking to South Korea. They're talking to Europe. What if they all gang up on us? We could have had the opposite. We could have essentially gone to our treatyed allies, right? These are treaty allies. These aren't just partners. And then gone and took in token down China with a lot of clout. So I just don't understand it.

Somebody told me yesterday that this is really a, and maybe somebody in our audience knows this better, but a way to eliminate the income tax by using tariffs as the primary source of governmental revenue. So like almost like a end around to do the fair tax plan if you're familiar with that from I mean if that's the case, I mean it'd probably be best if they just explain it so people understand the plan. I don't know that it can do that, but at least I would understand the purpose. But anyway, so I think that and then of course on top of that, if we would have gone with

our traditional allies, historic allies, our allies against China, I think we would have had a better opportunity. If we actually decouple from China, the chances of a conflict over Taiwan go up substantially. Right. That's one of the biggest governing factors of China, restrictive factors, in other words, of them taking the military step to, you know, to invade and take over Taiwan is because that would have serious ramifications potentially on their economic well-being. unless they're already decoupled from the United States. So this also goes up. And I'm not saying that that means we don't do anything in China.

I am a big advocate for doing a lot more against China. It just seems like there's a better way to go about it. The one not only that, make, but I'm disturbed to see people who should know better talking about the fact or almost saying as much that we would not go to war over Taiwan, right? Let me just explain this because it's not a very straightforward concept. It is true that I think that it's unlikely that we would go to war over Taiwan. But the point is you don't admit that, right? The whole point of ambiguity was that,

you want the Chinese to keep guessing. You don't start saying publicly, hey, we're not going to go to war over Taiwan. I mean, that is another gift to we've already given Xi Chinese Premier. We've already given him enough gifts with the whole terror thing and by alienating most of the world. And now we're telling him, by the way, if you scarf up Taiwan, we're not going to do anything about it despite the fact that our military uses, certainly the rankle, China as a pacing threat and our acquisition programs and our training are all geared to taking on China as a near-peer competitor. And the only real realistic place where that might happen would be over the defense of Taiwan,

or perhaps more realistically, to preempt and then try and win back Taiwan after, you know, after a Chinese fate accompli. No, look, I know it's so tremendously, it's a very, I won't say an impossible, but it's strategically, it is a really tough proposition, politically, it's a tough proposition, you know, trying to justify expending U.S. lives in the defense of Taiwan. But we don't, you know, to talk about that openly, not just on Signal, but openly in the global forum is, to me, it just undermines everything that we, that we have prepared for, should it come, to a potential conflict with China. KJK ambiguity has been our policy there.

Yeah, right on. So Jason mentioned something about like the problem with the messaging with Ukraine. When it comes to Ukraine, there's a problem with the messaging from the administration when it comes to the tariffs as well. There's mixed messaging coming around all over the place. They are really just doing it, you know, by this, you know, they're doing it by the seat of their pants. They're just, there is no plan, Mick, to your.

I'm not an editorialize, so sorry, get over it. Not you guys, the rest of the people. There is no plan. There is no plan whatsoever. Because if there was a plan to get rid of the income tax eventually, I could see that being, you know, messaged and packaged to becoming a positive, it'll be like,

the people in the country would be like, oh, that's great, right? Like, you know, no income tax, like even the poorest of the poor, even though you're getting screwed over with the tariffs. Like, let's be real here. So there is absolutely no messaging going on. I think it's just Trump being Trump. Yeah, there's no 5D chess going on.

At least I don't think so. Yeah, I'm trying to, I fully admit I don't understand all this stuff. That's why I stay in my lane when it comes to the economics and stuff. But one thing that I did see that's funny but not funny to me is that you held up your iPhone before Mick and I was laughing because Apple airlifted like 600 tons of iPhones from India to try to beat the tariffs and all I could think of was like bootleggers running moonshine you know during the prohibition and that it's like is this where we're at you know that shit is is hilarious to me but it's scary at the same time yeah um anything else on the tariffs and like the global reorder last thing I think we can Cool. So last but not least, on Saturday, we had our delegation and the Iranian delegation in Oman to start talks and potential nuclear deal. Steve Wyckoff was leading that, which doesn't really make me confident. But Mick, what do you think about the talks in Oman?

So, I mean, if you go back to when we unilaterally withdrew 2018, the biggest, well, it was one of the arguments was that the nuclear agreement from 2015 did not cover the proxy operations that Iran did, right? So supporting groups like Keselah, Pha, Pha, the Uthes, many others. I thought it was a fair argument. It wasn't a perfect agreement. But when we withdrew, I think to be fair, the proxy force operations and attacks went up substantially. So we never did really address it. And now it looks like we're willing to enter into something that looks similar to the 2015 JCPOA, at least from what's coming out of the comments of the people that were in Amman.

So it's just about militarization of a nuclear program. It's not about getting rid of the nuclear program, which, of course, can be used for civilian energy. And there is no discussion on Iranian support to proxy forces or they call their allies. So, okay, so I still think it's important that we get to an agreement that prevents Iran verifiably from getting a nuclear weapon. So I'm not critical of it. But if they end up back in 2015, there's going to be a lot. What was that all about? Because we could have been doing that the whole time.

They are at about 60% in Richmond. It can get quickly to 90, which is weapons grade. So that's the big concern. I don't think Israel is too happy about our negotiations here. They were the ones that pushed us to get out in 2018, pretty strong. We, of course, made our own decision. But I do think, you know, it is a better route forward diplomatic route forward than necessarily the military strikes which i would not take off the

table i think if we have to um that is that is an option but i would be uh i think we need to be fair to say that it's not a like pull the trigger and it's all done right i don't know how successful it would be and i think once we start doing that it's going to have to be like we used to call CT operations mowing along we might have to keep doing it and doing it doing it because Iran and I do a lot of these foreign interviews with with Iranians so there it's actually I learn a lot listening to them because they're obviously repeating what the regime says they don't get to see whatever they want if if we take the strike everybody that I've been on with says that Iran's going to go for a nuclear weapon all out like all out no matter what

they have to do buy one get one build one in a secret facility they will go all out. And I know that's partly as messaging. But we have to be just, I think, fair. Again, I'm not against that as an option, but it's not an option that's 100%. It could into a massive regional conflict. The Iranians could seamine the Straits of Hormouth, for example,

which would be incredibly difficult, even for the U.S. Navy to clear. And then commercial entities have to accept that it's clear and insurance companies and all that. It is a place we don't want to necessarily go down. And trust me, our regional partners absolutely don't want to go down that route. So I do wish the folks that are in this negotiation well. And I think if we get something close to, maybe an improved version of the 2015, then okay.

And I would say, just like the Department of Defense said back then, is we'll just address the proxy forces separately. You know. But anyway, so wish them luck. It's a better path to go down than the military path. We should not take the military path off the table in summary, but we just have to accept that it's not as clear cut as we pull the trigger and this thing's over. I have a quick question.

You may not know the answer to this, but I watched a video just before we came on where he was a former senior defense intelligence official said that with Iran being at 60% in Richmond, that it's only a matter of like two weeks before they can get to 90? Is that true? Close to those. Close to that. Yes.

And that's my knowledge from public reporting. Then they have to get the triggering mechanism. Right? So you have the amount of material, but I don't know, maybe they can purchase that from North Korea. The concern is that all this stuff could be sped up by, contributions from North Korea or Russia.

And then delivery, yes, they have a ballistic missile program. That's where we're so concerned about it. But they could also put it on a Dow. They can put it on a tunnel. They can put it on, there's a lot of ways to deliver. It's the excellent, and we all know

what will happen, you know, the difference between Kim Jong-un and, you know, Colonel Gaddafi. You know, so there is an actual incentive of countries to acquire nuclear weapons, but it would trigger you know a race a nuclear arms race in the middle east Saudi would get one the Emirates other countries

and then we'd have all these nuclear armed countries around the world which isn't good for you know world stability and certainly not an orange and Israel's going to take you they're not going to just sit there right so I mean you saw that in your hands they're going to go they're going to go yeah they did not look happy about like Trump saying yeah we're going to meet up on Saturday And like, yeah.

So. The thing is, the thing is too, and I, you know, I'd be the first to say, I mean, credit to credit where credits due, the, these talks and they continue next Saturday, I know, but they, you know, they ended on a pragmatic note. And clearly both sides, both us and the Iranians are keen to avoid war in the Middle East. the fact that Whitkoff came clearly with the goal, well, not clearly, but it came out during discussions, apparently that the goal, you know, is not to close us down Iran's nuclear program completely, but prevent Iran from being able to produce nuclear weapon.

And so that's a more pragmatic approach. I would like to see support for the Houthis rolled into the whole deal, because that is, you know, That is immediate near-term, perhaps definitely a more contentious issue. You know, I recognize, of course, I mean, that Iran is, we talk about 60% in Richmond. It's relatively easy to break out to upgrade that to weapons. There's Mick pointed out the missing pieces, the triggering mechanism, and also the weaponization piece of being able to combine that. with a delivery system.

So it's not quite as dire as it looks. Sometimes for the Iranian nuclear program as far as imminency. However, what is of concern, you know, if you're looking at recent comments in open source and the media and, you know, they absolutely, and let's just call them opinion. right, but they're informed opinions that actually the U.S. is no longer in a position for a number of reasons where it could actually shut the program down, as Mick said. It would be mowing the grass and setting the program back. And some experts have said by as little as six months. So the move ahead, the incremental raising of sanctions with Iran, you know, opening up to weapons inspections and signing agreements. saying that they will not enrich uranium beyond the current level.

Those are definite positive steps, and it benefits Iran to take a very incremental approach. You know, they want to see a deal that lasts, and they want to see a commitment to lifting sanctions. So those are the two things that they want to get out of it. I would say from the U.S. point of view, aside from preventing Iran from being able to make a nuclear weapon, And yes, as we talked about, also curtailing their support for the Houthis would be a very useful outcome. And Netanyahu, it's always good to see him stymied. But, you know, the Israelis, I think the Israelis had the ability to go after the nuclear, Iran's nuclear program, they would have done so. And I think, you know, he's probably hearing from his intelligence guys.

Of course, the Israelis don't necessarily know what our capability is, but the Israelis, we talked about this a number of times. Yes, they've got, they've overcome a number of obstacles that were in a way before, like being able to, you know, the refueling piece. They wiped the table clean of Iranian, of really the effectiveness of Iranian IAD's integrated air defense systems. But the program is, Possibly, probably now, I'm talking about the Iranian nuclear program, buried so deep that even our bunker busters cannot reach them. That is a possibility. I'm just speculating here. That's all. And or if they can, they can't guarantee, we cannot guarantee wiping the program out. That's, that's what I'm perhaps thinking. So anyway, positive science, cautiously optimistic.

Yeah. Mick, I know, do you have to take off? Yep, I got to jump on. All right, get the hell out of here. It's always a pleasure. Give us a shout out on this show. I will, absolutely. Thanks, Mick.

That's Mick Mill, Mulroy, of course. Two more important things. Of course, check out Mick Mulroy. All the links are in the description. Just to finish this off. Mick mentioned, like, you know, it looks like the parameters of the nuclear gear are going to look a lot like the 2015 one that Trump and the Trump administration has

lambasted and got us out of in 2018. Is it just so like Trump can make a deal and take credit for it? I know this is like, because if it's the same exact deal are very similar, well, benefit. Well, they, I mean, it's a good question. The one thing that Jake Poehre gave us, you know, it did fall short and not addressing the proxies and Iran's malign influence throughout the Middle East, which arguably was more of an immediate threat at the time to U.S. interests. And it does indeed not look as though this

potential deal or the approach by negotiation is addressing the proxies. But perhaps it's recognition that the one thing that Jig Poet did give us was the right to inspect, right? So we could monitor and I understand all the potential shortfalls in these agreements, the Iranians can hide things, etc. But we did have access. And so I think probably there's an element of admission here that we do need that kind of access and visibility again now. And perhaps also in understanding that for reasons that we've already talked about here, Iran is in a much weaker position than it was back in 2015 in many ways. No, I'm not, aside from the nuclear program, I mean, the proxies, notably Hamas and Aspola are on the ropes.

The Houthis are getting, they're getting bombed regularly. We've questioned the effectiveness of that, but nevertheless, enough to, you know, they've been quiet since January. So all Iran has left is its nuclear program. And so, and by the way, in the meantime, its economy has really gone deeper in the toilet. And so they are arguably more ready to negotiate. The other piece, too, remember, the Jopoa was, it was, I think, six countries involved, right? These are just bilateral talks, which means perhaps that the talks are a little more effective. And it also kind of plays in with the administration's, I would say, disdain for our European allies.

I don't know. I'm speculating here. Well, I mean, you could speculate. You could just read that signal chat that was released. Right? Yeah. About their thoughts about the European allies. Also, I love to talk about, like, Israel. Like, do you think Israel's going to want a carbon copy of the Jukpola from 2015?

I don't think so. No, I mean, you know, this is not what Netanyahu once at all, Netanyahu would like to see a strike take place. you would like to see the whole question of Iran being able to make a nuclear weapon removed completely. I mean, not make a weapon, but the nuclear program completely eviscerated and destroyed such that it was never a question again. But I think, but again, I think, you know, that I think that's, even if the U.S. supported such a stance, I think that's possibly probably unrealistic. Yeah, I mean, I had it in my note as well about what's going on with Gaza. Like it seems like they've totally cordoned off Rafa or that's Southern.

So, yeah. I'm going to editorialize again. I think what's going on in Israel and what it's going on in Gaza and what Israel's doing is fucking disgusting. It is a war crime. There are, you know, Netanyahu and his war counsel are war criminals. Yeah, I get that like October 7th was horrendous and they needed payback and they needed to smoke Hamas. But we've seen Israel be surgical with their CT and, you know, intelligence services. I think they could have gotten a better result by doing that rather than destroying an entire area and killing 50,000 civilians.

I think, and like just, just a cutoff of aid and stuff like that, it's, it's frankly fucking disgusting. And, you know, the, the, the pull that Israel has on us, both administrations, even, you know, the Biden administration doing the same thing. They, they gave Israel everything they wanted, but they kind of complained about it. You know, the Trump administration, less so in turn, they give them whatever they want, but they don't really complain about it. so man i'm sorry i editorialized but it's fucking disgusting what's going on i got to be completely

honest any thoughts guys yeah i mean i i can't say that i disagree um i think that again and i just had this discussion with someone the other day that you can at what at the same time agree that that israel had every right to retaliate for october seventh absolutely um there is no taking that away, but it's gone way past that as far as I'm concerned. And no one can tell me, you know, I don't care if you're a Middle East expert. You can't tell me that it has not gone beyond retaliation for Hamas and going after Hamas to now going after what seems like all of the Palestinian people. And I just think, yeah, I think enough's enough. I'm not saying it has to completely come to a halt as far as military.

against Hamas, I'm just talking about wholesale against the Palestinian people. It's just enough's enough. Milburn? Yeah, I mean, yeah, we talked about this many times on the on their show. It's, but there's no, you know, there's, there's nothing curbing Netanyahu now. You know, I mean, it's, there's just no, no surprise, basically. Yeah. I don't know what to tell you that.

On that note, you to jump out, fellas. All right, get out of here. I'm not evading the topic. You guys, you guys get out of here. I'll finish up. I'll finish up. Be safe. And you run.

Later, Andy. Guys, do us all a favor. Like and subscribe. If you're listening to us on audio, subscribe there. Give it five stars. Best thing also you could do is share it with your friends. Even if they don't want to hear about it,

share it with them. They'll thank you later. All the guys' links are in the description. Andy Milvern's book, When the Tempest Gathers, link is in the description. Jason Lyons, link is in the description. Mick Mulroy, Fogbo, Lobo Institute. They're doing great work.

Links are in the description as well. And if you'd like to support the show and get this show ad free, as well as the Teamhouse ad free, you can go to patreon.com slash the teamhouse. That link is in the description as well. Guys, thank you. Thank you. I'll talk to you for a moment about how you can support the show. if you've been watching it, enjoying it,

but you'd like to get a little bit more involved and help us continue to do this. You can check out our Patreon. It is patreon.com slash the Teamhouse. And for $5 a month, you can get access to all of these episodes of the Team House ad-free. The same goes with our affiliated podcast,

Eyes On, with Andy Milburn, Jason Lyons, Mick Mulroy. That one, you will also get all of those episodes ad-free. and you support the channel and the show, and we really appreciate it. The Patreon members are literally what has helped this company, this small business, survive, especially during our early years, and you are what continues to help this thing going, even as we navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising.

So we really appreciate all of you guys. There's going to be a link down in the description to that Patreon page, and there is also going to be a link. link to our new merch shop. So if you guys want to go and get some Team House merchandise, we got stickers, and we also have patches. And I should mention, if you sign up for Patreon at $10 a month, we will mail you this patch as well. So we really appreciate that. But they're also for sale on the merch shop. And additionally, they got T-shirts up there, water bottles, tote bag, coffee mugs, all that good stuff. So please go and check them out. And so, please go and check them out.

support the show. We really appreciate it, guys. Thank you.