The Team House - Senator Mark Kelly on Ukraine Weapons, NATO & Iran | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: July 14, 2025

In this episode, Senator Mark Kelly discusses a range of pressing geopolitical issues, including the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the role of NATO, U.S. defense policy, and the humanitarian implications of foreign aid. He emphasizes the interconnectedness of global threats, particularly in relation to Iran's nuclear ambitions and the situation in the Middle East. The conversation also touches on the future of warfare, the importance of military technology, and the need for a cohesive U.S. foreign policy that supports allies and addresses emerging threats.Support the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseNew merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comFind Mick Mulroy here: Fogbow ⬇️https://fogbow.com/Lobo Institute ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/Twitter ⬇️https://x.com/mickmulroy?s=21&t=-Ze3F_Ix2vlJ18KFvORTCALinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/Bluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.socialMick’s publications ⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/publications/publications-of-michael-mick-patrick-mulroy/Find Andy Milburn here: Twitter ⬇️https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023Substack ⬇️https://amilburn.substack.com/Andy’s book ⬇️https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-OperationsBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.socialFind Jason Lyons here: LinkedIn ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_appBluesky ⬇️https://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.socialChapters00:00 Introduction to Senator Mark Kelly03:00 The Ukraine Conflict: Analyzing U.S. Support05:57 Military Strategy and Intelligence in Ukraine08:53 Sanctions and Economic Measures Against Russia11:54 NATO's Role and Global Defense Spending15:09 Leadership and Decision-Making in the Pentagon18:06 The Importance of Soft Power and Humanitarian Aid21:14 The Situation in Gaza: Israel and Hamas24:10 Rebuilding Gaza and Regional Stability27:04 The Broader Middle East Dynamics and Iran39:04 The JCPOA Withdrawal and Its Consequences41:07 Iran's Nuclear Ambitions and Military Strategy49:04 The Future of Warfare and Technological Advancements01:01:13 Geopolitical Interconnections: China, Russia, and TaiwanBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey guys, welcome to another episode of Aisong Geopolitics. Very special on today. We have Senator Mark Kelly from Arizona with us. If you guys don't know him, I mean, you should if you listen to this show. Former Naval Officer, former NASA astronaut, and I believe you're the senior senator from Arizona, correct? Yeah, now I am. Yeah. Yeah.

So, and of course, we're joined with Mick Mulroy, Jason Lyons, and myself, Dimitio Contacos. We have a lot going on. let's just rock into it. I mean, Mick, Mick sent over a bunch of questions, Mick, so you can rip it, rock and roll if you want. First of all, thank you very much for joining us, Senator. I believe your junior senator is a former Marine. Am I right about that?

He is. Yeah, Ruben. Good guys. Excellent. Really enjoy serving with Rubin. So we speak the same language. I bet you do. So I'd like to start with Ukraine, if that's all right.

Obviously, a big topic right now. Essentially, starting from the beginning and then moving up to today, you know, hindsight is 2020. But I always thought that since we had such good intelligence on the fact that Russia was going to invade Ukraine, that we would have been better off telling President Putin, if you do, we're going to support them 100 percent, not to survive, but to win. And made the decision theirs, whether that we would be providing them with F-16s and Abram tanks and High Mars and everything else. So if there's any criticism I'd have of the past administration would be that incremental approach to approval on these key weapon systems. And then jumping into this administration, I would say my criticism, to the extent anybody cares, would be we went way further down in our support from Ukraine, cutting off intelligence, cutting off critical security assistance to a partner who would be guaranteed security to back in the 90s. at a time when they're completely under assault. So Ukraine has agreed to our proposal, you know, the ceasefire back in March.

Russia has not. Russia has escalated substantially. They're now producing around 5,000 drones a month. And they're launching, I think last night was the second largest attack since the beginning of the invasion. And they're going directly after civilians, right? Infrastructure and civilians themselves. So it does look like Senator that the administration has gotten the message, we'll see, that Russia has no interest in a ceasefire and that it hopefully understands that it's in our interest, not charity, to support Ukraine and defeating Russia.

So my question is, where do you think we should go from here, specifically when it comes to the Sanctioning Russia Act, to the frozen funds that both the United States and Europe, and other allies have of Russia around the world. And just generally, where do you think we can go to get to a point where Ukraine can actually win this? Because we all know they've been fighting the fight for over three years. Most people gave them three weeks, and they're still in the fight. But they really do rely on not just our European NATO partners, but the United States specifically to be the leader of the free will. So what's your thoughts on where we should go? Yeah, well, Nick, let me start back at the beginning because you mentioned, You know, what happened back in, I guess, February now, 22, when they invaded.

We knew they were going to invade. And as you know, guys that work in the agency were really good at gathering intelligence. We're somewhat good about predicting, like, what's going to happen maybe tomorrow or the next day. I think predicting the future and how any conflict is going to unfold is really, really hard. You know, we thought the Russians were going to make it to Kiev in a matter of days. they haven't gotten there in years. We thought the Afghans, it would take, I think, something like nine months to take Kabul. It took nine days, right?

So sometimes predicting what's going to happen can be really, really challenging. And in the case of this conflict, yeah, I mean, we got it wrong. We thought the Russians were going to perform much better on the battlefield. field. I always had my questions about them. I've flown in space with Russians on multiple occasions. I knew some of these guys who served in the Russian Air Force and just their culture in their military. They're a different breed. You know, they're not motivated like Americans are. You know, we are all generally, I would say, almost every American that works for the government is motivated by mission success. You want to complete the job. That's like the top.

thing, top of the list. That's not true for Russians. For Russians, it's probably how you're going to rip off your employer first. What can you steal? And then maybe second after that is just like the appearance that you're in charge or maybe who to blame. I've seen that with the cosmonauts. And so, yeah, they've got cultural problems. You talk about, you know, maybe what we could have given them stuff early. I think that's fair. I think that's a very, I think that's a very fair observation. I mean, if we knew then what we know now, and if you're going to give them to pick them rounds, artillery rounds, the cluster munitions for 155 millimeter artillery, which I advocated for, if you're ever going to give it to them, you might as well give it to them as early

as possible. The F-16s, which on the other hand, I thought would be a difficult ramp-up for them. It has proven to be difficult. And I wanted to make sure they were ready before we start shipping F-16s over to the Ukrainian Air Force that in the beginning of this conflict were in no way ready to accept them and use them effectively in any kind of operation. They've gotten a lot better. We could talk about that some more later. Attack them's rounds. It took us a long time to get there. I was an advocate of giving them attack them's rounds and then let them use them against military targets,

even when those targets were inside of Russia. Would have been better if we would have done that quickly. But, you know, you can't put the ship back in the donkey, right? And we're at a place now. We can't go back in time. I think we've got to be, you know, flexible and extremely motivated to, help the Ukrainians because this fight is not just about Russia and Ukraine. I mean, this could expand to Romania where I was a couple weeks ago, the politics where I was last year, Estonia, Latvia,

Lithuania, they all feel like they might be next. Poland thinks it could be next. Finland thinks it could be next. and Putin's designs on Europe and his, you know, willingness to try to bring back the Soviet Empire is a real thing. I am under no illusion that if he's successful in Ukraine, that he's going to stop, and I don't think anybody should. But what do we, you know, what do we do now? I think we've got to do a better job providing the munitions. missions that the Ukrainians need to defend themselves and ultimately push Russia out of their country. And we can do a better job of it. What happened earlier in the week, cutting off security assistance, the SECF cutting it off, the White House not knowing about it, not signing off on that decision, shows a certain level of dysfunction. We've got to get our shit together here. And we've got to be more

forceful. You mentioned the sanctions. It's really a tariff bill. I mean, it's sanctions, but it raises tariffs up to 500 percent for any country that buys Russia, oil and gas. I mean, that's pointing, you know, basically at two main countries, right? China and India, who buy a lot of oil and gas. If they want to continue to do that, you're going to suffer some significant tariffs. I in general have not supported this president's tariff policy. But when tariffs are targeted for a very specific reason, they can often make a lot of sense. And I think this does make sense to get this legislation passed and sign into law, to give the president another tool to hit the Russians where it is going to really hurt on.

And that's in their pocketbook. I sit in John McCain's, you know, Senate seat. And, you know, he said once or maybe multiple times, I love the quote. So I'm going to use it here. John McCain used to say that Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country. And, you know, that's what it is. And if we can, if we can, you know, stop the revenue from their giant gas station, you know, Putin's going to find himself in a really challenging position.

He's an unpredictable guy. We don't know what that's going to lead to. But you also mentioned the money that they have in Europe. And I've been an advocate of taking it. I mean, just think about how this thing could unfold. We could wind up, let's say the Russians were to win and take Ukraine. Russia's not getting that money back. Let's say they lose and Ukraine is, you know, mostly destroyed.

they're not getting the money back. So we might as well use that revenue, those resources now to help Ukraine in this war. You mentioned the Russians building 5,000 drones a month. Ukrainians are building a lot of drones too. I've been to one of these underground drone factories. And it's quite remarkable. This one factory was making two kinds, two different.

kinds. One was longer range, obviously. That could range upwards of, I think, over about a thousand miles with a pretty decent size payload. If I remember correctly, maybe up to about, I don't know, like 40, 50 kilograms. And they were cranking these things out, you know, fast. But they are up against a much larger country with more financial resources and more manpower that they can continue.

continue to throw at this. So we've got to do a better job helping them. And I think there are some things we can do. Jay, got anything? Yeah. Yeah, Senator, I just wanted to get your opinion on as far as everything you just spoke about as NATO. Do you believe, in your opinion, that they have stepped up or are stepping up to mind the gap, if, you know, to fill the gap, if, you know, God forbid, we completely pull out, you know, our support. of Ukraine. What's your opinion on where they're at right now?

I think, you know what they said about many of the countries? I think Spain was an exception, but going to 5% GDP on defense is a good step. They've got to follow through. And spending it on defense, in my view, doesn't mean you're going to build a new highway between, you know, Rome and Naples, right? That's not defense. So where are they going to spend the money, what systems are they going to purchase. So the details really, really matter in this. And I don't think it's so much as a response to them feeling like, you know, we're going to exit the arena. I think it's more about the pressure. And, you know, I think it's fair to get the administration some credit here. They've been, you know, putting the pressure, you know, on them,

on this issue for a while now, and it has had a positive effect. They have, and you have to give them credit for that. And, of course, every president has, right? Right. Yeah, we always ask, you know, Donald Trump asks a lot and has made this an issue, and they say they're going to do 5%. Let's see what actually happens. I'm cautiously optimistic.

You know, I think these folks realize that if Putin attacks a nation, country, and we wind up all of us collectively with an Article 5 obligation to defend the Baltics or Poland, this is going to get a lot more expensive and costly in, you know, treasure and lives very quickly. That's right. So either help Ukraine win or potential that the U.S. gets dragged into a war. Yeah, Mick, I think it's just cheaper. I mean, I think it's the cheaper, and it's the way to do this that has,

the, you know, fewer downsides for us and our other. Senator question, when Secretary Heggsets paused the weapon shipments that were already in Poland and other places, obviously unilaterally. How unprecedented is something like that? Well, I think in a conflict like this, you know, major war in Europe between our ally and one of our adversaries, it might be unprecedented. I haven't gone back to look. I mean, I think at times, you know, being the Secretary of Defense is a really hard job.

I voted against Pete Higsepp. I don't think he's equipped to do this. He wasn't when we had his nomination hearing. I don't think he's equipped now. Some of my Republican colleagues now feel the same way. Some of them who voted for him said recently, if the vote was today, they wouldn't vote for him. I think at least one, maybe, maybe somebody else said that as well. So I don't think he's, you know, suited for this role. I think he would have been a very effective

Pentagon spokesperson. He's got the experience to do that. He's really good in front of a camera. He's good at answering questions. He is not equipped to manage a $900 billion a year enterprise. And we're seeing, you know, some of the problems. because he's in this position. So, yeah, he did this, and seemingly without the knowledge of the White House, and it sends a message to the Russians that, you know, we're not totally committed and that we are sort of in, you know, disarray

between the relationship between the Pentagon and the White House and, you know, who's running the, you know, who's running the show, who's the commander in chief, who's making the big decisions. This is a really big decision. There are a lot of decisions that the SEC DEF needs to make on a daily basis that does not involve the White House. This was not one of all. And Senator, that's, it brings up another point. At least, you know, when I was there, there was a process when it came to policy decisions, right? So not just when I was there, obviously, since we've made policy in the United States, right?

and the National Security Council staff with people from all agencies, the National Security Advisor, decisions like this were never made internal to the Pentagon, you know, to cut off a partner during a conflict with key defensive weapon systems, right? So what's your thought on the fact that so many have been let go of the NAC? There was a big purge there, right? Now the Secretary of State is ostensibly also the National Security Advisor.

and from my perspective, that's impossible. We can't be in two places at once. And that you'd actually have a Secretary of Defense who would make this decision about even informing either the Secretary of State or obviously the President of the United States. So as a broader issue,

certainly disagree with cutting off aid to Ukraine, but as a broader issue when it comes to the status of policymaking inside the executive branch right now, which are... Well, SECDF also fired a couple of his senior people and a couple others quit. So who is giving him advice at this point?

He doesn't have the staff he needs to do this job if he was capable. And when you consider the fact that, in my view, the guy's not capable to do the job, and then he's got a vacuum of leadership in the front office, he's got some challenges he's going to face, and I think things are going to get worse before they get better. And I think the president should let him go. and put somebody in there that has a lifetime of experience, or at least some more experience in either like coming up with policy,

executing policy, experience. People don't like the revolving door, but there's something to be said for somebody who understands these systems. And you guys know, if you serve, you know, a short period of time in the military in one area, as a junior officer, that does not make you qualified to be the Secretary of Defense. And I don't think anybody has, is going to check every box. I don't think you can find a person out there that does that.

But you want somebody that he at least checks a few of them. And so you combine the situation at the Pentagon with what is going on at the State Department, which you alluded to is Marco Rubio, who I believe is a capable professional, but nobody is capable of being the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor at the same time. And now he's going to lay off maybe up to 2,000 or 3,000 state department professionals

who we need to manage these relationships with our allies and our adversaries. And who knows who's going to be. gone. We don't know yet. We're going to find out here in a couple days. Unrelated to national defense, you have the president just said the Secretary of Transportation is also going to be the NAFTA administrator. Makes no sense. NASA has a 20% budget cut. They got to figure out who goes, what programs to shut down, and they're going to have a guy there that's part-time. So, you know, I just see, you know, one thing after the next is making the management and the cohesiveness and the effectiveness of our national security apparatus.

It's starting to fray significantly. And I really worry about at some point does the whole thing crumble. and I you know we're going to you know in my job in the Senate we're going to keep trying to you know hold the administration accountable and you know meet with we have the DNI in front of the Intelligence Committee this week I think with all the stuff going on out there and all the problems I'd say that hearing I felt actually went pretty well um but there's a lot I mean there's a lot that we are trying to deal with in the United States Senate and the House and the administration has made this more challenging. So speaking of crumbling, if I could just add to that because it's a good, it's a good segue. And I mentioned, you know, we're, we're, I'm in a group of veterans that does, you know, humanitarian and able to them around the world. With a demise of USAID, it seems to me that we have kind of tossed away a lot of Americans. American soft power, which is going to be immediately filled by our most significant adversaries,

specifically China and the Beltin Initiative and, you know, Russia to the extent with their military diplomacy, if you will. What's your thoughts on how this, because now it's under the State Department, and there's some friends that I had in the State Department, many over the years that would have agreed with that actually. Certainly not agree with eliminating the USAID itself and the capacity of what it does well, right? So feeding people that are starving should be a moral, I think, obligation to any country. The United States has been, I think, exceptional at that until right now. And then developing countries.

So they don't become, you know, this nonstop need for international aid. I would agree with some of the criticism that get a little far off track at times on what they're funding. But their core mission, I think, I would hope, most Americans would agree with. So now that it seems to have been gone, and I don't know of the actual plan to restart it, even under the State Department, what's your thoughts on what that does it large to the U.S. influence overseas? At a time, you also mentioned Senator, we're having purges in the State Department, right? What does that do to U.S. soft power?

Where is diplomacy and this, you know, aid and development part of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus going to go from here? And what's the consequences if we don't get it back on track? Well, I think the soft power is as important as the hard power. Jim Mattis recognized that. You know, I think I said this earlier, that if the fund the State Department or a got to buy more ammunition. The soft power stops some conflicts from starting. You know, starving people want to leave, want to migrate. You wind up with significant problems with worldwide migration.

We don't want to see kids dying. I've been in refugee camps in the Congo where there are starving children. There is nothing worth than a starving kid. And what parents having to watch their children starve to. I remember seeing one kid who was seriously malnourished. And I remember saying to the, I think it was a UNICEF or UN physician, well, that's great. The kid's here. You guys have food for the kid.

The kid's going to be fine. And the doctor said, not that kid. That kid's going to die. And it was like a three or four year old. Too late. I mean, at some point, it doesn't matter if you get to the, you know, the. food assistance. For some children, it's just too late. And now others will survive because of the generosity of the United States of America. And we've always been in that country to try to help people.

And it's in our best interest to do it. I was talking to Cindy McCain on the train up to New York City the other day. We both happened to be on the same train. And this is John McCain's wife. And she's now the head of the World Food Program for the UN. And she's having to make decisions about which kids die and which get food. Because her budget was cut because we ended this assistance through USAID. So her budget went down like 40%. And most of her budget goes to buy food for children. And she's having to make these horrible decisions.

Did the kids in Sudan die? Did the kids in Gaza die or the kids in Afghanistan or in other people? places in the world. We didn't have to do this. I mean, I get it that, yeah, there were things that U.S. AID were funding that was just dumb. I mean, Sesame Street in Baghdad, did we have to do that? No. But food assistance and PEPFAR, last year I went with, you know, some of my other fellow senators, Lindy Graham, Martin Heinrich, Chris Van Hollen, a couple others. We went down to South Africa. So take a close look at PEPFAR, how's this working? PEPFAR was George Bush's program,

the president's emergency plan for AIDS Relief. That program started under President Bush 43W, saved the lives of like 25 million people. And we provide just medication. Pretty simple. It's a medication called PrEP, and there's one called PEP. And if you come in and you ask for an HIV test, they know you're maybe susceptible. So they put you on this medication.

Well, we stop paying for the medication. And what is happening right now is I think the number is, I think about every week in sub-Saharan African, Africa, you wind up with about 1,000 kids being born HIV positive because of this. A thousand children. I mean, the epidemic of AIDS is going to explode in sub-Saharan Africa. Now, yeah, we stopped doing this. Chinese are like, what can we do to help? You know, they want to become the partner of these other countries.

And I know there's people out there. There might be people watching the podcast. You know, I see this stuff online that say, well, we shouldn't be. U.S. taxpayer money shouldn't be, you know, feeding children around the world. we should be spending that money here. Ultimately, especially over a long period of time, a more stable world, a more stable planet, is in the best interest of all of us,

including every single U.S. taxpayer. If we can prevent a conflict from happening or stabilize a certain part of the world, provide some food, make sure you don't have millions of people dying in sub-Saharan Africa and the instability that causes. That in the long term benefits us. The world is a volatile and chaotic and dangerous place.

And we, the United States, as the leaders of the free world and leading all of our allied countries, we've done a pretty effective job. You know, we don't get everything right. I get it. And in programs like USAID, you know, there's waste. So let's clean up the waste. And if there's fraud, let's prosecute people. But if I shutting the entire thing down, I mean, there are, there are, I don't know what the estimate is on the numbers.

But I imagine there are tens of thousands of children around the world that have died because of the decisions that this administration has. I think that's a fair point. And I think you made a really good point. In addition to being just the right thing to do, it's in our own interest. without this, we're going to have mass unregulated migration, which obviously people don't want to see, and we're going to have the new form of some diseases that are going to pop up and almost instantaneously spread around the world. Nothing's contained anymore, right? So those are, I think, two really good points when it comes to why it's in our interest,

in addition to the fact that it's just, I think, a moral obligation for countries that have the amount of wealth that we actually do. Yeah, Senator, like I guess we can kind of dovetail this a little bit into what's going on in the Middle East, like broader, specifically Gaza. What's happening there, whether it's going to be, there's going to be a ceasefire, there's not. I mean, there's a ton of back and forth in the press going on. Obviously, it's still a holding pattern, more or less. What do you make of just the entire situation between, Israel and Hamas and what's happening in Gaza? Well, it's tragic.

I mean, the whole thing, going all the way back to October, a year and a half ago, October, November. He was November 7th. Is that right? October 7th. October 7. I was there a week later, meeting with family members of hostages, some of which are now deceased, some released, meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, you know, his staff,

the head of Shinbat and Mossad and their secretary of defense. And the entire situation is tragic. I think Israel has, like any country, has a right to defend itself. And what Hamas did on that day was just horrific. And they have a right to do their best to try to eliminate this threat. And I'd say the threat is not yet eliminated. At the same time, the people of Palestine who are not members of Hamas, right? Every Palestinian in there is not Hamas.

They're not all terrorists. A lot of them are kids, have suffered, you know, significantly because of this conflict. And at times there were things that the Israelis were doing that I did not support. Naval gunfire is one of them, incredibly inaccurate. right? It's like dropping dumb bombs. You know, I've advocated for giving them precision-guided munitions to, you know, be more accurate. But Hamas doesn't make it easy. You know, they put these, you know, I've seen video and images and, you know, they put, you know, rocket launchers, you know, in the half basements of schools.

You know, you got like half of the basements underground and you got windows, you know, kind of at the top. load them up with these rocket launchers launching you know unguided rockets you know into into Tel Aviv many of which are intercepted but not all of them and it's killing Israelis and they're under threat and they have a right to you know go after

you know these targets but you know there's been some of the stuff that's been rather rather sloppy you know I fought in the first Gulf War there were times that we dropped I dropped unguided munitions. You know, when it was really important to be accurate,

we didn't have J-DAM kits then, but we had laser-guided bombs. And we'd laze the target, usually from the airplane I was flying, but sometimes from the ground. And, you know, we hit where we're aiming at. And that's not always been the case here. So I think the Israelis need to continue to evaluate their operation, to try to eliminate as much as possible civilian casualties. I want to see this thing come to an end.

I think the Israelis do, too, but they're also still focused on what the long-term threat from Hamas is. So hopefully we'll get to a ceasefire. I think there's appetite in the region. I've had this discussion with NBS. I think there's an appetite here for governments to get together and fund the rebuilding of Gaza. I think they're going to want some kind of security assistance from us.

During the first Trump administration, the Abraham Accords was a rather positive thing. I think we can expand upon that. And the big threat in the Middle East is the Iranians, still is. Despite what happened two weeks ago, Iran is the threat. They are the coordinator. They're the bandleader of terrorism threat. out the region. They coordinate the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, militias in Iraq. And they've been set back on their heels a little bit, maybe a lot. As we get more intelligence, we'll have a

better idea as the weeks and months pass what the situation is with them. You know, the Israelis, give them a ton of credit. I mean, it is a lot of our technology, but flying F-35s freely over basically, you know, more than half of the country, pretty incredible. And without, you know, having to deal with any surface-fair missile threats, really, because they destroyed most of them. And, you know, this airplane is, you know, very capable, low, very low signature. I was flying a rather sophisticated F-35 simulator a couple weeks ago against some Chinese fighters

in a simulator. the joint simulation environment at Pax River, and it's a magic plane. I'll tell you. I was in a real airplane in F-16, about a year and a half ago, flying against an F-35, doing some ACM against an F-35, which F-35 doesn't do great in a turn against an F-16, but it is invisible. I mean, I could not see this thing. When I can visually see it, couldn't pick it up on radar.

it is really something. And I think this is the first conflict that we really saw the power of this platform. The Israelis fly in there, F-35s over Iran. That's right. It's like two days they had air dominance, right? Yeah. It was about 48 hours. Yeah.

And I would have to say some of that had to do with the good work of Mossad on the ground with some pretty impressive covert operations. You are absolutely right, Nick. I mean, we can't talk about them on this podcast, but yes, some pretty incredible stuff. Senator, I got a question about the rebuilding of Gaza, hopefully when there is a ceasefire, and that makes sense for everybody. Do you think Israel should kick into that fund to rebuild it, Gaza? You know, I think it's in Israel's best interest to do what it can, what it can afford.

to try to bring stability to the region and to the Palestinians. Yeah, I would like to see them involved in it. You know, I think, you know, we might be involved. The Saudis certainly and the Emirates are, you know, certainly options. I've had this discussion with MBS, you know, one-on-one in a tent in the middle of Saudi Arabia. And, you know, he seemed rather open to it. but I do think I think there would be some upside for the Israelis to do that.

Would MBS be open to sending a couple, you know, 10, 20,000 guys there for security assistance as well or just write a check? You know, if we had a security agreement that included the Saudis, Israel, Emirates, us, I think there's all kinds of options that the Saudis would be open to. I mean, did you ever think, like, if you went back like five or ten years ago, did you ever think that the Saudis would intercept missiles shot by the Houthis at the Israelis? I mean, that's something I never thought we'd see.

And they do it. Their relationship with, you know, Israel is, I mean, it's solid for, a number of reasons, it always could be better. But I think there is a lot of room to, right now, to dramatically improve the securityist situation for us and our allies in the Middle East. Absolutely. Indeed, makes a good point, Senator, because ultimately Israel is not going to leave a Gaza where Hamas has any real influence or,

of course to strike it again. So there has to be some security presence that replaces the IDF for them to withdraw. There seems to be a lot of comments, obviously, from countries in the region, but there's not a lot of solutions that I see popping up about, okay, so who's going to train, you know, a vetted, trusted Palestinian force or who's going to send an intermediate multinational force? Because the answer is just mum. Yeah. I mean, sometimes people think, well, maybe it's the PA, the Palestinian.

any authority that does it, but I don't know. I mean, that's probably not the right answer. But, D, you know, I say I think there's an opportunity here for this to be a better, more secure Middle East. There's also the possibility

this whole thing goes off the rails on us, in a way none of us wanted it and we want to avoid, and that's the Iranians, you know, racing to get a nuclear weapon. That's a big, that's That's the big unknown and the big risk here.

And we may not know, right? The IAEA, they've been tossed. That's where we got a lot of our insight, not all of it, but that's where a lot of our insight came from. So on that, so on that note, to kind of go back a bit and then catch up, So when I was in the Pentagon and we were talking about potential withdrawal of the U.S. from the JCPOA, the Pentagon was actually against it. Not that we thought it was a great bill, but we thought that the criticism, you know, it didn't address the proxy support, support to terrorist organizations.

It didn't support a lot of the, didn't address a lot of ballistic missile concerns, right? The delivery system. Our position was, you're right, it didn't. So why don't we just sanction them for doing that instead of getting out of the actual bill, that keeps them at 3.67% in Richmond. Obviously, we didn't win that argument. My point being is we got out of it. They've now got up to 60% since we withdrew.

I'm sure, you know, you need 90% to basically get weapons grade, and then you've got to get a detonation mechanism and all that. But essentially, and then our proxy force operations went through the roof, right? I mean, since then, they attacked Israel, Hamas. They've attacked, you know, the Houthis have let loose. But we are where we are. Hindsight's 2020. So going forward, I would commend the administration for taking that strike.

I thought it was the right time because of which you already said. Israel had essentially done a lot of the heavy work, not taking anything away from the guys in the B2. but the biggest issue for that operation was the air defense, right? And they had eliminated it. But I give them a lot of credit for taking that pretty bold step. And I do think it had significant, and you would know more, I don't, not the government anymore, significant damage against the facilities. But what are we going to need to do to ensure, because Iran has told us 100 times and told us once,

if you attack our nuclear facilities, we will go toward a nuclear weapon. We will try to acquire a nuclear weapon. So I think we need to take them for their word and assume that's what they're trying to do. So is this going to be a need for constant strikes to degrade their capability? Should we really try to entice them into a JCPOA part two that is more restrictions on them? What's your thoughts on where we go from here? Because I don't think, to your point, this is over. I don't think this is a one and done event and that we can just put that behind us.

Yeah, well, Nick, one thing I would, you know, disagree with you a little bit on is I don't think we were at the point where we had to do the B2 strike on the day. We did it or even on the week or maybe even on the month that month. And it probably could have waited and we could have tried to exhaust all diplomatic options before we come in with the big hammer. Now, the big hammer was rather effective. I'll give them that. Didn't do what the president did when he went to the podium, the night of the strike. I thought that was a mistake. I think it's always a mistake for a president before he's got the intelligence to say stuff like that.

I mean, you shouldn't do that. And it put them in a bad position. So now they've got to defend the president's words against the actual intelligence. I will say, those guys hit the target. I mean, and GPU 57, pretty big hammer, effective, very effective weapon designed for this, I mean, for these targets. And from what we can tell, it did serious damage, significant damage. But we don't know how much U-235 is remaining where it is. and you know only time's going to tell as we get more intelligence from you know what we can gather what the sod can gather

at some point we'll have a better idea about how long it will take them to reconstitute an enrichment capability now if they decide to race to get a nuclear weapon they will take that program completely black and they'll try to make sure we have no insight into it. So that's the risk we took by doing this. And only time is going to tell. I mean, if they develop a nuclear weapon, I think you can clearly say, well, that was a mistake. If they don't, and they come to the table,

maybe you could say, well, that was probably the right thing to do at the right time. And I think only time is going to be able to tell. We'll get more updated intelligence. I think right now we, you know, continue to stress to them, like, you can have a peaceful nuclear power capability. We will help you with this. But you have to abandon the enrichment of uranium, and you got to give it all up. You know, anything that's more than, you know, less than 4%.

You got to give it up. And you got to, you can't do this anymore. And we got to keep pushing them. But I'll tell you this, if we find out that they get to the point where they're getting really, really close to actually having a functioning, you know, weapon. And we got it. I think this president or any other president would be in the right to take action. Again, we can't let the Iranians get a nuclear weapon.

They're unlike other countries. I mean, they have said they, you know, they want to wipe Israel off the map. I mean, even the North Koreans don't say stuff like this. But the situation this has put a lot of other countries. And right now, would they rather be North Korea or would they rather be Iran? You know, some countries would rather be North Korea, right? You know, have a capability and, you know, have a nuclear weapons capability in a delivery system, right? They don't want to be the Iranian.

So just think overall this has put the world in a really, really challenging time. Are we going to accelerate? And before we know it, we're going to wake up a morning and there's going to be 20 countries of nuclear weapons. that's going to be a really dangerous place, and it's going to be hard for us and others to just navigate it. That's essentially what happened if Iran got a nuclear weapon, right? It would be nuclear arms race. There's no way Saudi in any country that can actually afford it

are just going to let Iran have a nuclear weapon, and they're going to be defenseless. So this is a big, broad consequences to... Yes, Saudis, Emirates. You know, they... I was in when I was in Romania, I was at an Aegis ashore site in southern Romania. The only reason that thing exists is to protect Europe from a nuclear weapon launched by the Iranians.

That's it. You know, it's not there for Russia. There's another one in Poland. It's there for the Iranian, you know, threat. The Iranians, you know, they think anybody who's not a Shia Muslim should be, you know, converted or dead, including Sunnis, including the Saudis. I mean, the biggest threat to Saudi Arabia, it's not, you know, some people might, I mean, if you went out on the street and randomly asked an American, they might say,

well, it's Israel. It's not Israel. It's the Iranians. Senator. Yeah, you had something. Yeah. Yeah. Really quick, staying in that in the region and capabilities.

What are your thoughts on the recent, I want to believe it was a bill that was introduced? I don't know where it's gotten to possibly give Israel their own B-2s to take on Iran. Who's Bill? Jason, who's Bill was this? It was two congressmen, two congressmen in the House, both a Democrat and a Republican. I mean, who? You know these knuckleheads names? Who are these guys?

I can find it. We can find it. It's ridiculous. I mean, we're not going to do that. I mean, I'm going to look into it next week and, you know, see. Maybe I need to pick up the phone and call these guys and say, what are you guys thinking? I mean, we're not. I think one of there are congressmen from New York, aren't they?

Well, one's from, excuse me, from New Jersey. Okay, so one is from New York. Not great. I'm from New York, Senator. I'm in Jersey. The bill, it's called. I think he could tell, man. I grew up in New Jersey, that's where.

Yeah. It's called the bunker. Buster Act that was proposed to give the B2 bombers and bunker buster bombs to Israel. Sponsors of the bill according to New York Post and Washington Examiner includes Representative Josh Gothheimer from Democrat from New Jersey and Michael Lawler, Republican from New York. Yeah, well, I know I know him both. I know Josh pretty well. I know Lawler too.

Josh just ran for governor in New Jersey, lost in the primary to Mikey Cheryl. I'll have a talk with Josh. We're not, that's, that's a ridiculous idea. We're not going to give anybody B2 bombers, a strategic bomber that could fly halfway around the world and drop bombs. I mean, that's a capability we need to keep for ourselves. Chinese don't have it. Russians don't have it. You know, they're bare and, you know, blackjack bombers cannot do what the B2 can do.

And by the way, we're building the replacement for the B2 right now to B21. B21. That is, you know, for a number of reasons, it's even more capable than the B-2. You know, when one needed to support an ally, the right moment, for the right reason, we've got trained pilots and we can put those planes into action. Exactly. So in a broader question, Senator, especially since you're on the Armed Services Committee, future of warfare, right?

So I've been out of the business for a while, but I talk to my friends and they are absolutely blown away by the level and the speed of which technology is changing the face of the battlefield. Bottom line, drones, cheap, innovative, lethal as hell, blown up, you know, $16 million tanks with, you know, 20,000 or less, you know, worth of drones. Where do you see us going? Are we, are we in the right position that we're balancing, you know, our big ticket items, the legacy type stuff, you know, aircraft carriers, which obviously get a lot of flack nowadays and you might have something to say about that.

But with this also trying to keep up with what a friend called the post-heroic era, of military operation. What he means by that is there aren't going to be people involved, right? We're going to see first wave of drones. We're going to see house clearings and compound clearings with nothing but drones, which is already getting close to that. Where do you think, one, this is going? And then as your role as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, kind of looking at the future of American national security, are we in the right place? Obviously, we're spending a lot of money, what, 1.1 trillion now with the supplemental and all that. Yeah.

But are we spending it on the right, in the right way? I guess it's my old. So let me start by saying as a naval aviator, you know, guy flew off the aircraft carrier. I've got like 375 carrier landings and a lot of flight time. I feel very fortunate to having lived between Orbel and Wilbur and whoever that last pilot is. and that last guy, that last fighter pilot. It's possible that person's born already today? Probably not.

But they're coming. You know, eventually we will get to the point where we can do what we can now with man fighters, with unmanned systems. I don't think we're there yet. And I think it's, there's a lot of lessons we have learned from what has gone on between Russia and Ukraine and a lot of innovation on the battlefield that we've seen.

And it's helped us plan ahead for future warfare. But I think it's also important that we keep in mind if it was our fight against the Russians in Europe, it would not look the same as the Ukrainians against the Russians. We would have very early on worked really hard to suppress the enemy air defenses to get air superiority. I think you'd see something more like Israel around if it was our fight in the eastern part of Ukraine. So I don't think, you know what, remember when Elon must say, we should get rid of the F-35? Well, in hindsight, that looks pretty ridiculous. I said at the time, that's ridiculous.

We shouldn't get rid of the F-35. And after closely looking at the problem in the Western Pacific, against the Chinese. I think it's the right thing right now to continue and build NGAD, the F-47. We need an asymmetric capability to penetrate the A2AB bubble, the anti-axis aerial denial bubble that the Chinese have created in the Western Pacific. And unless you have complete control over the electromagnetic spectrum, complete control, and you have artificial intelligence that we don't have today, you're not going to do this with unmanned systems against that kind of threat.

The nice thing about the guy in the box is when things go to shit and they really start to fall apart, you got a dude in there that can figure it out and still like maybe get the bombs on the target. And we need that. And I think we're going to need that for maybe another decade or two. But eventually we'll see more unmanned systems. Now, the drone thing, are we doing what we need to do? I think we are. The Army has a program called Project Replicator to get us to where we can get up to being able to build like 20,000 drones in a year.

I think that might be the number. Do we need to build 20,000 drones in a month? No. Because in a conflict where we might need those drones five years from now, the technology five years from now is going to be so much better, we're not going to want five-year-old drones, right? We're going to want the newest thing with the latest stuff and the latest munitions and the latest artificial intelligence and electronic warfare capabilities. That's what we're going to want.

Now, talking about our budget, it's challenging to figure out where to spend the money. Depends on the threat, right? And we have pivoted to, well, let's be prepared if we ever had to go to, to war with China. And that's a little bit different than Russia. You know, you've got to figure out what's the, you know, Marine Corps and Army and how do their roles change. The Marine Corps, you guys are Marines, designed to be amphibious force, but for the last 20

years, the Marine Corps has basically been a ground army. So how do we get back to the amphibious capability that the Marine Corps, you know, once had? So we have to build amphibs. It's a big thing by Dan Sullivan, Senator from Alaska's. Often talking about the amphibs, and we need to build more amphibs. But we also need longer-range missiles and some hypersonic missile capability. I often have to remind my colleagues in the Senate that, because they get sometimes wrapped around this idea of these hypersonic missiles that they have and we don't have and their missiles go faster than ours.

There's a little bit to be said for that. But the bottom line is the thing that matters the most is the probability of killing the target, the P-S-K of the weapon system. So we've got to make some hard decisions. Sometimes I think we're doing things that we shouldn't be doing. You know, one of my big pet peeves is we're marching along with this administration. It started in Trump 1 to build a tactical nuclear weapon, the slickum. sea launch cruise missile, a nuclear version for Virginia-class submarines. The Virginia-class submarine is the best submarine in the world, and if we wind up in a conflict

with China in the Western Pacific, we're going to need every torpedo that we can possibly cram into that submarine with a high probability that we're going to use the entire magazine. And if you load it up with a few nukes and you've got to put the Marines on board to guard them, maybe, like we normally do, and you're still probably not going to use the tactical nuclear weapon. So it's going to reduce the capability of the submarine. So there's an example of a program I would like to see go away. So when we do the, like we just had the markup of the defense bill, and we're in there trying to figure out some of these like, you know, where should our priorities be? It's all about priorities.

And, you know, there's often hard decisions to make and we don't have an unlimited defense budget. We've got a big defense budget. Part of the time, I think, I mean, when you consider the debt load we're operating under, we should figure out how to constrain the spending sum and get rid of programs that we clearly don't need. I could probably come up with a list of stuff we could just, you know, toss out. The four of us, maybe a couple of your buddies and a couple of my buddies, we could go through like an afternoon and talk about some things and say, well, we probably don't need that. We don't need that.

Why don't we toss these out? Why don't we? But that's not how Congress works. And then you have all the defense lobbyists out there. So we've got challenges ahead, confident we can get through this. And then, you know, ultimately what I would like to see is somebody who's, you know, fought in combat. You guys have been involved in these kind of things is we got to make choices, you know, that are in the best interest of our country and our allies to some extent.

and also try to stay out of conflicts. I don't want to see us going to war against China. We go to war against China. There's no winner. It's like a knife fight. Everybody's a loser. Everybody's a loser. Yeah.

Everybody's a loser. Senator, I have a question about the defense budget that was just passed. Was there anything in there allocated towards like base security and stuff like that? Because we saw what happened with Operation Spider Web and stuff like that where, you know, an enemy with a lot less means and resources. was able to cause of, you know, tens of billions of dollars worth of damage, irreplaceable damage too, right? Like how are they going to replace those bombers and those, oh, my God. The ones with the satellite dish on the top, I can't remember.

Their version of AWACs, yeah. Yeah, the AWACs, yes, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, we're, especially with regards to drone technology, which is, you know, just all over the place. So we're trying to invest more money and counter UAS systems. And we are. We have these systems already.

It's just, you know, a matter of making them more capable. And to be able to deal with swarms of drones, that's when it gets really challenging. You might need to do it with a big, like, microwave system that can, you know, point in a big direction. You flip a switch. and electronics are fried. So we're working on things like this.

Senator, sorry. Jay, go ahead. Go ahead, Jay. Oh, sorry. Senator, I know, well, these guys know, I'm a huge aviation, military aviation geek. So all this is really, really awesome. So you just mentioned AWACS,

airborne early warning and control. I'm sure you're familiar with the E7 platform that the Pentagon, on is now looking to cancel. Do you think that that's a mistake? It's not something I'm tracking closely with regards to the capability. You know, the fact that you bring it up, I'm going to look into it. And we need an early, you know, warning, you know, system.

We need a big picture of the, you know, the air picture is, you know, incredibly important in any conflict. You know, some of that stuff we're trying to, we're figuring out how to do different ways. So that factors into their decision. We're also looking at the, you know, the wedge tail from the Australians. But, yeah, that's something I haven't been tracking closely enough, but I should. From what I, well, from what I've read, Air Force is looking as an option to the E7 was using 5E2.

Hawkeyes, which I know you're familiar with. As a stopgat. Yeah, I think the D is the latest. Am I right on that? Yeah, the D is much more capable than the E2C, which is the one that was flying out the aircraft carrier when I was doing that stuff. Yeah.

Yeah, it's pretty capable. The radar appears to work well, which didn't always on the E2C. So you did bring up China. which we were missed for not bringing up one of our most significant adversaries. But what I would say to my friends who focus almost exclusively on the threat to China, and I'm not saying that they're wrong in that, but that it's all connected. So I'd like to hear your thoughts on this because we're constantly hearing, shift everything to the Indo-Pacific.

It's, you know, the Europeans can deal with Russia. My argument is, look, if we let Russia beat Ukraine, the chances of something bad happening into Pacific, the potential blockade or invasion of Taiwan goes up significantly because it shows that we're a really shitty partner. Yeah. And when it comes when it actually comes down to it, you can't rely on us. So every time you say that, you're basically enhancing the very threat that you claim to be the most. I'm going to get a lot of crap for this.

But this is what I hear almost every day. So I'd like to hear your thoughts from, again, the committees are on and the positions you're in. Washington when it comes to the interconnectedness, because I do think China and Russia, all things is connected, but from us to all the threats that we face, you know, to not just us, but our allies around the world, in this case, Japan and South Korea, for example. Yeah, well, after Russia, Ukraine, and us, the country that's looking at this more closely than any other country than whoever the fifth country might be, and it might be North Korea, because they've got troops fighting there now and are benefiting from this.

But it's China. I mean, China is watching everything that goes on as much information as they can get. They've got think tanks throughout China that's evaluating, you know, options and what does this mean? What does it mean for the United States commitment to sovereignty in Taiwan or at least a commitment to abide by our agreement? that we made decades ago, which means we don't recognize them as a country. There's one China. We don't say what China that is.

And we provide some security assistance. That's been the plan. And it's been rather ambiguous. And I think it should stay that way. But if we abandon the Ukrainians and let the alliance that we built fall apart, they're going to think, well, they're not going to be able to hold an alliance together in the Western Pacific between, you know, us, the Australians, the South Koreans, the Japanese, that that would, in time, would come apart too. So I think it would then make it maybe more likely for them to take a run at Taiwan. I don't think it's inevitable that in 2027 that the Chinese attack Taiwan and try to, you know, repatriate the whole country.

I don't think that's necessarily going to happen. I think the best way to keep it from happening is for us to show resolve in other places, including in Ukraine, that we're not going to give up on an ally of ours. And we can build a incredibly strong coalition that the Russians can't break. I think that sends a really strong message. So I think, I think, Mick, you're right that this stuff is interconnected. And I think a lot of ways that, you know, people going about their daily lives don't even pay attention to or understand. And they shouldn't really have to. You know, we should be able to, you know, run a.

effective enough operation. It's been challenging over the last several months, but, you know, as a U.S. government that we can hold these things together, hold our alliances together, support our friends, counter our foes, and do it in a way that is, you know, somewhat affordable to the American taxpayer. Yeah. You guys got anything else? Oh, if we're well done, I got one more thing. Please. For all that. So every once in a while, Senator, I try to impose some IRA. American propaganda in here, so I figured I had to do it today with the Kelly. So I, and I just checked these numbers.

The Irish American population is about 9% of the U.S., according to... More Irish in the United States than in Ireland. That's right. A lot. 32 million, I believe, Irish. What percentage of the Medal of Honors from the United States, from the beginning to now, has gone? to an Irish American. But because you're,

because you're asking, it's going to be high, right? Because you're asking the question, it's high. I'm going to say, yes, 30%. Jay, what's your guy? Yeah, I was going to say about 25%.

Okay. I'm going to say 45. 45%. 58%. Jesus. 58%. So, Senator, use that next St. Patty's Day speech

your ass to give. It's a fact. You can look it up. Irish, they're badasses. He always has to drop in some Irish propaganda. It's genetic, I can't help. Yeah.

It has was told to me about Valor Awards. Great initiative. Questionable judgment. That's funny. Well, guys, I enjoyed being on. Look forward to coming back. Keep doing what you're doing. I hear good things.

I'll start listening. I haven't listened before, but I think I'll tune in now. All right. Good. Very much for the pre. Well, we got an extra subscribe right there you go. Which is great.

Senator, thanks a lot. Senator Mark Kelly, of course. I don't think you need a plug for anything. You can go check him out at Capitol Hill. He's out there fighting the good fight.

Thank you. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, guys, it's Jack.

I just want to talk to you for a moment about how you can support the show if you've been watching it, enjoying it. But you'd like to get a little bit more involved and help us continue. to do this. You can check out our Patreon. It is patreon.com slash the teamhouse. And for $5 a month, you can get access to all of these episodes of the team house ad-free. The same goes with our

affiliated podcast Eyes On with Andy Milburn, Jason Lyons, Mick Mulroy. That one, you will also get all of those episodes ad-free. And you support the channel and the show, and we really appreciate it. The Patreon members are literally what has helped this company, this small business, survive, especially during our early years. And you are what continues to help this thing going even as we navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising. So we really appreciate all of you guys. There's going to be a link down in the description to that Patreon page.

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