The Team House - Tariffs & the National Security Counsel Gets Gutted | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

Episode Date: April 7, 2025

today we talk about the tariffs President Trump placed on most countries, the NSC being gutted, the Houthis hanging around and the possible strike on Iran's nuclear program and whether it will be effective.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, what's up everybody? I want to thank our newest sponsor, The Perfect Gene. They sent us a couple of these, an order of these for everybody last week. And I've been rocking them. And as I figured out, there's a reason why some sponsors don't want to send you stuff,

but these people did. And I've been rocking these jeans. I rocked them a few times this past week. And they're probably the best jeans I've ever worn in my life. I'm not saying that because they're paying us. I tried them out. They are legit. I used to hate, hate, hate, hate wearing regular jeans

because they're just not comfortable, and we all need to admit it. So I went to sweatpants. I was rocking the stretch chinos, which they do have also. I'm going to go back to rocking jeans, I think, with the perfect gene. I bought two other pairs, too, with my own money. We used our promo code, which is House 15 for 15% off. But honestly, it's incredible. There's a part in this video where the guys are doing lunges and the ladies are checking them out.

I don't know if it's because of the gene, but I have found that women were checking me out more and more over the last week. I don't know what that is. Maybe it's the way I carry myself. Maybe it's my gate or maybe it's the perfect gene or maybe it's all combined all three combines. I don't know. But check it out.

We really appreciate them, sponsoring us. For a limited time, our listeners get 15% off their first order plus free shipping at the perfect gene. com. Or you could Google the perfect gene and use the code, House 15. That's House 15% off.

That's 15% off for new customers at the perfect gene. com. NYC with promo code House 15. After your purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Fuck your khakis and get the perfect gene. Guys, thank you for supporting this show. And thank you to Perfect Gene for helping us support the show as well.

We couldn't do it without you guys. Thanks a lot. House 15, 15% off. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Eyes On. on geopolitics. We changed the name up a little bit, so it's better to find on YouTube and everywhere else.

So don't forget to like and subscribe there. I'm joined today with Mick Mulroy, Andy Milburn, a lot of cooking since we last talked. Big news this last, the end of the last week was tariffs, all the tariffs that have been implemented on various countries, a 10% baseline tariff. And then if you were on the list,

everyone had their own little, a little uh everyone had a different number um a little bit about the percentage of how they got to the tariffs is kind of hilarious um it's almost like they just did it on a napkin in the oval office and said let's do this this way i mean i don't know that for sure but that's what i you know seems like um what was i going to say oh the one little thing that i noticed was no russia in a terrace and before everyone says oh we don't really do trade with russia that we do three billion dollars a year in trade with Russia. So still, even while this Ukraine war is going on and sanctions are high. So guys, I know you guys aren't economists, but what are your thoughts on what's

happening with the tariffs? You guys decide first. I'll go first. I'll go for it, Annie. Yeah, yeah, yeah, make, go ahead. All right. Well, I'll start with the fact that I'm not an economist nor a financial analyst. So I'm going to pose my statements in the form of a question because, you know, the old Socratic thing, because they're truly questions. I guess I'd start with tariffs, obviously, ultimately are attacks on somebody, right? Whether it's the manufacturer that's coming in, the company that's, does the importation, or the people that are purchasing it.

So or all the above. So it does seem to me that they could call it what it is, which is the biggest tax, potential tax increase on the American population since, you know, income tax started. So we can at least be honest about what this could be. And we'll find out, like this isn't one of those arguments that's going to go on in perpetuity. We're going to find out if all the cost of goods across the United States goes up. And if it does, that's the tax, the tariff tax, right?

If it doesn't, then we'll know that too. So I think we'd start with that. And then the questions I'd have, if you look back in history, and I know everybody's watched that, you know, the clip from Ferris Bueller, I mean, has this worked in the past and how effective? Apparently that actually causes the Great Depression to get worse, the Snoopholy tariff act or whatever it was called. So I look at past.

I look at what's going to actually happen. And then it sets the stage of whether this is really going to have a massive impact, not just on the upper income, right? Because everybody buys stuff. Right. So this is a tax now all the way down to the lowest income, including people who are on some kind of assistance, because then your assistance buys less.

So it's a tax. And then the question for me is whether it's worth it. So the intent is to bring all these manufacturing jobs back to the United States. my question to the economists, not politicians, because I'd like to know somebody actually spent a lot of time looking at this, is that going to happen? If we on this podcast or audience were collectively looking at whether we're going to invest a couple billion dollars in building a car manufacturing plant in Tennessee, are we going to do that, not knowing that within three and a half years, this entire policy is going out the window? because that's the danger of a president being able to do all this, whichever president it is, because the next president can undo the entire thing,

and then we've just wasted a billion dollars potentially and halfway through a project that we're not going to complete. So that's the second, I guess, question I'd have. And then the third question is, aren't we automating right now? Isn't that the intent of manufacturers right now? Are we going to get to a point where it's not going to increase jobs because we're trying to get to a point where we have these robotic systems that create cars and phones and everything that it can.

And if that's the case, I could still see some potential benefit of bringing that back to the United States, but it's not all about the jobs that we lost back in the 80s. So I'd have, I think, I'd like to hear those questions answered by non-politicians who are not economists on either side of the aisle and start being asked directly to the manufacturing CEOs, to the global economist. And then the last point I'd make is this is one system that we're going to have to address because if this is wrong, this could seriously damage. And we haven't even started talking about the stock market.

Seriously damage our standing in the world, our relationships around the world, our economy, which is actually exceptional. I think we're too hard on ourselves trying to always play that it's not. or do we need to make this more balance, like our whole system's checks and balances, right? So if the president can tariff, the president can take off the tariffs, we could be dramatically going back and forth every four years. So that's what I got in the form of a question.

Hopefully, Andy can answer them all. Over to you. No such luck, Mick. Actually, I've got more questions and answers. But, you know, as to, so, you know, here's the little that I do understand. And of course, you know, everyone who knows me knows that I'm far from being an economist. But here's the little that I understand.

And here are the questions that I would ask. So, you know, as far as the technicalities of trade, my understanding, because the rationale for this was reduced the United States' trade deficit. That was kind of the leading rationale. And yet my understanding is that the trade deficit has nothing to do with tariffs imposed on U.S. exports at all. it has to do with the fact that Americans generally choose to spend more than they invest, right, to include their government. That is what is creating the deficit, and tariffs won't affect that at all,

except arguably perhaps leaving Americans far less to invest or save for that matter. So, you know, I would be interested to hear someone's answer who does know about trade deficits and their connections with protectionist policies to see how they are connected at all. You know, secondly, my very rudimentary understanding of economics and recent history is simply that, I mean, this is undeniable. The United States economy has been so strong

that in the last three decades, it is far outstripped the G7. and even when Europe, you know, in the last year was looking at entering a recession, certainly a significant slowdown, the U.S. economy was booming. So, you know, in the words of the old phrase, if it ain't broke, why fix it? What are we fixing? Okay, so that's my second question. And the third, Mick, relating to, you know, your historical references, it's very difficult, of course, to judge cause and effect. But the truth is, a hundred years ago, when the United States, when most countries had the system of protectionism, high tariffs, the U.S. was nowhere near the lead economically in the world. And the Great Depression coincided with some of the highest tariffs, the highest tariffs in the last hundred years, occurred with in place. immediately preceding the Great Depression.

So whether or not you believe in cause and effect, that's an incredible coincidence, isn't it? And it's only in the last 80 years where repeated rounds of trade talks in the aftermath of the Seguil War have led incrementally to the lowering of tariffs around the world that you've seen the global economy rise. Okay. So whether or not you're interested in proving cause and effect, that's again a remarkable coincidence. So I would ask, why are we ignoring all of this history, right, even for the most basic understanding of economics and history that I have? Those things seem pretty compelling

arguments, and I haven't seen any counter arguments. And in fact, indeed, I think sadly, in the years ahead, we're going to show exactly how disastrous these policies are, unless indeed they are a very incomprehensible negotiating tactic. If they are a negotiating tactic, what exactly are we asking for? Again, with the leading economy in the world, we're doing tremendously. The stock market, I know not everything, the economy and the stock market shouldn't be conflated, but the stock market was at its highest, you know, late last year. Unemployment was low. People generally were by all measures.

pleased with the way things are going. And we, I mean, look at how far the U.S. economy has progressed in the last decade. And it was the quickest to recover in the Western world after the pandemic. So all of these things were going really well. Again, why change that? Yeah. Also, you look at inflation to across the world compared to the U.S. Like, yeah, inflation was tough here, but it's nothing compared to EU, Turkey for another. Like, there's a lot of developed countries that have been hit hard with inflation since COVID. This will obviously add to inflation, right? Because most of the stuff we get is not American made.

And that's just a fact of globalization, market capitalism. And the big hit on Friday was for the stock market was because China announced a 34% reciprocal tariff on the U.S. goods. Yeah, we're going to make China a great again. I mean, this is absolutely. playing into Xi's hands. And he predicted, he predicted a few years ago that, you know, when the argument was always, he was always confronted with the argument, hey, the U.S. is booming, you know,

the American way works and all of this. He said, yes, you're going to see things turned upside down in the next few years. And sure enough, I think that's what we're seeing. Yes, China will be hurt in the near term. Who knows as much as the U.S. economy that China will be hurt. But they're already redirecting the emphasis of their exports. And they've proven to be very flexible in any case. They've bypassed tariffs previously by going through Vietnam.

Of course, that's going to be less effective now that Vietnam is subject to tariffs. But the point is that they can direct trade. The Chinese government can direct the confluence of trade in a way that the United States cannot and will recover. And we'll find a market throughout the world. from all of those countries that we have now alienated, and not just a market for trade, but a market too for all those things that we, for Chinese influence and you name it,

military exports, allowing, allowing basing rights, extending the, you know, the, what's the term I'm trying to remember the cliche about their, you know the the giant

Mick, help me out here, the rail, rails and road and railway. A Belt and Road initiative? Yeah. I mean, all of these things are going to flourish in the face of this.

It's a gift. It's a gift to our adversaries. Yep. I mean, we're even hearing Japan and South Korea talking to China about, you know, trade policy. Talk about realignment. I got to remember. We are.

are the biggest economy in the world, and I agree with Andy, if you look at the stats and I just saw charts, I mean, we have really done well against our most, you know, significant, not competitors, but I guess competitors. Like if you look at the EU, we have gone in 20 years from about equal to double the economy. And our, you know, base, mean salary is the best in the world as far as I could see in those charts, unless a church were inaccurate. So I mean. I mean, to your point, Andy, what is it we're fixing? And then is this going to fix it? Or is this going to essentially alienate?

Because this is all happening at the same time. We're talking about making Canada a 51st state and taking over, you know, territory of a NATO out. It's do it. It's not just trade. It's also. And then questioning the value of NATO and we're going to reorder the world. And right now the world is in our favor. is I guess the question I would have.

So why would we do that? And we could get all the negatives, right, because we did this, and not on the positives, because it's then gone and flips back the other direction in three and a half years, because if a Democrat's elected, they're probably not going to continue on this isolationist policy. And inside the Republican Party, it's traditionally been free trade since World War II. So anybody that gets elected is from the traditional side of the Republican Party, which is most of the senators, right? They could go back to the Reagan approach, which is more free trade than the Democrats. So, and it seems like the only way this would be effective is if it's long term.

And we just don't have the capacity to do long term things. It makes no sense whatsoever. Also, fun fact that I read this week was during the Great Depression, 10% of households had stocks. Today, it's 72% of households have some money or a lot of money in the stock market. So a couple on top of the fact that things are going to get more expensive if these tariffs are sticking around. People that are getting smoked and their 401k and their investment accounts and stuff like that, their retirement. Like it's mind-boggling. And this idea, it's only for wealthy people is totally not true. Right. I mean, we have a very big.

based in our military. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, Andy, I've been retired for a while, but we're even basing a lot of our service members, you know, retirement on the stock market, aren't we? Isn't that what the TSP is? Isn't that invested in the stock market? So we're talking all the way out to the lowest level of soldier is invested in the stock market, and that's intentional by the government. So we do have a responsibility to make sure that we don't do anything to significantly disrupt the stock market, my opinion. So you remember, yeah, remember Reaganomics, you know, taking us out of stackflation in the 70s?

I mean, Reaganomics was based on, I mean, it was called at the time neoliberalism, right, which was about reducing tariffs and trade barriers. I mean, it's just, it's extraordinary. Anyway, a lot of questions. We're going to find out the answers. Yeah. I think.

Hopefully, our informed listenership will be able to chime in in comments on this. Yeah, the economists are going to chime in in on the comments. Good. Can't wait. Let's put those to the top. But, you know, seriously, it gets back to what I've gone on about before is sadly that, and I don't, I can't, you know, I wasn't brought up in the American education system.

So I'm not. Thank God. I'm not, no, I mean, I'm not qualified to talk about it. I mean, you know, but it does seem to me that there is just an incredible blindness towards history, geography too, by the way, but especially history, you know, even recent history. And it seems as though this ignorance has risen to, you know, right to the top, which is certainly concerning.

I don't know how you address that. but that whole cliche about those who don't understand history are condemned to repeat it. Andy, I'll give you a nice anecdote. When I used to do podcasts that were more comedic focused, I used to have my buddies on and I used to give them the citizenship test, just the questions from the citizenship test. That's tough.

Are they, though? I mean, they're not tough at all. And they would fucking fail. And it was hilarious at the time, but it speaks to a broader thing of like, what's wrong with our educational system? You know, I read another thing where like majority of kids are functionally illiterate. Where like they can read obviously, but they like their understanding is by far like way less than what he was, you know, 50 years ago or something like that.

Oh, yeah. And it's scared. Yeah, I think, I mean, and add to that. So absolutely, you know, there. advent of the internet and then the phones are the big thing that i think have stared people away from books and so now you have you remember mark twain you don't remember him but mark mark twain said something along the lines of you know um being uh illiterate is sad but sadder even than that is being literate but choosing not to read and i think that's that encompasses you know

a lot of people sadly in in this country well they read what they want to read and um and it's certainly not history. No. No, I don't think history's winning any, they're not top of the charts. In the meantime, I suppose we're all, you know, stashing dollar bill notes or bars of gold into our mattresses and just hunkering down for the storm.

There's a very sad component to this, and that is, it touches on what Mick was talking about, the promise to return manufacturing, to the United States, you know, then there's so many things that are convoluted with that statement. We are no longer a manufacturing-based industry for a country, you know, for good reason. We've evolved beyond that, and we have the best of both worlds. But this promise to return manufacturing and coupled with lack of education in many of the areas that were the sources of U.S. manufacturing, you know,

promise has been believed, but it's very difficult to imagine, you know, you name it, the steel industry or, I know, not manufacturing, but coal mining, or all of these things coming back to be viable industries within the US simply because we are isolating ourselves from the world. I mean, there doesn't seem to be a logical correlation here. And I think a lot of people are going to be not just disappointed, but really, really hurt financially. Yeah, and if you saw the recent interview with Bill Gates, I mean, this is a guy who obviously knows technology and the potential of how it's going to evolve. And he's talking about just how we're going to automate almost everything we do in society, from building a house to being a physician. So we got to really look at that.

And whether we are trying to get back to a time that doesn't. doesn't exist anymore where people work in factories and we build things by our hands. There's people who know where this is going. I don't think it's a mystery. I think a lot of the automations already occurred. I mean, I was just talking to somebody who was in a Tesla plant. And he's like, they're already building this thing pretty much with robots. So if that's where we're going, you know, that doesn't mean we don't want that to be in the United States, I don't think. But it's still a question of we're trying to get back to a time that, essentially doesn't exist anymore and nor will it.

So we need some economists, we need some futurists, we need some engineers to start weighing in on, I think, policy. Because right now it's people who, and in some cases people who are supporting this that spent their entire, you know, decades and decades long career saying the exact opposite. Reaganomics, right, free trade. I mean, they've been saying, I mean,

most of the people in the Senate have been around for a long time. Yeah, unfortunately. And now they're either not saying anything or they're saying the opposite of what they, what they supported for decades. So it takes, you know, as far as the way I see it, it takes them off of being a person that we should rely on. We should talk to people who actually know the industry, know how it's evolving, and know whether this is going to work, even if it's the best case scenario that it's effective. it's like trying to turn a tanker going 50 knots like completely around like it's not going to happen it's going to cost trillions of dollars to bring manufacturing and build factories and do all that back in the united states how are you going to do that when your stock markets in the shitter

and there's no capital to spend who's going to pay for it the government right overseas right exactly you know they're already i mean you you you You name it. Any country in the world can import things now manufactured elsewhere, a cheaper, cheaper price than we can do in the United States. I mean, it's, yeah. So, you know, even us bumbling novice economists can have pointed to multiple flaws in this. And it makes, you know, last thing I'll say, I don't know if it's last thing. I'll say that's up to, that's up to D. I don't mean to make it sound so fine. But on this topic, and I think it's an important one is, you know, where is the GOP in the Senate, right? I mean, that is, that that is, you know, we even use that term the Senate. It's synonymous with kind of wise advice, right? Something from Roman times. And that is where our elder statesmen are in the positive use of the term.

And they're supposed to be a steady hand, right? therefore and as a constitutional bulwark against the executive perhaps getting out of bounds. And we're still waiting to see any kind of coherent opposition from the Senate, not even opposition guidance. But sadly, some of the prominent names there seem to be more concerned with re-election and holding onto their seats, then with really providing value to the country. You know, it's one of those times where you have to ask,

where is John McCain, for instance, right? And I'm not, you know, I get it. There's probably people out there who hate John McCain, but the point is you could always rely on him, right, to criticize policy that he regarded being dumb, regardless of where it was coming from. Well, there is a bit of, We don't seem to have anyone quite like him, right?

Yeah, the Senate did vote on the Canadian terrorists, like trying to block them. And a couple of Republicans did break ranks, Rand Paul being one and a four others, Mitch McConnell and two and some, a couple other people. But they're well aware that it's not going to go to the House. The House is not going to bring it up for a vote to at least block even the Canadian terrorist. And that's just Canadian terrorists, not tariffs, top the bottom. You're not wrong. Andy and like I'll be real I'm I mean I like John McCain I'm not a huge fan of like the

Senate obviously or like politicians in general but yeah you would think some people would step up because like their constituents are going to feel the crunch whether it's in the markets from their 401ks or to the like the grocery store or when you're ordering something on Amazon whatever the case may be your day a day I mean I saw a thing it's $4,000 a year for an average family. That's real deal of money that they probably don't have. Yep. And a cool fact, or maybe not cool, but a fact, I just looked up because I heard this before. Senate comes from Cinex, which is an old term for old man. So that's apt. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, maybe we'll get an economist on to like, you know, actually give us some like real, real facts. I mean, but it's

doesn't take you don't have to be uh go over to the london school of economics to you know really have a grasp of what's going on um moving on now uh national security council has been a bit of an upheaval some firings and stuff like that uh national security agency director general timothy haw got the boot um you know he was one of the holdovers from the Biden administration everybody generally said he was rock solid guy he used to run cyber command as well for the military um this comes a day after a far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Lumer had a meeting with Trump in the White House running her mouth and going on about people who are disloyal to the president. And then you saw the next day, I think about six people got fired. I don't know the names of the rest of them.

I know the more than that. More than that. What do you guys' thoughts on that? NSA obviously a very important position. when I say NSA, National Security Agency Director. Yes. So a couple of things to point out. The appointments of people to these significant four-star commands isn't supposed to be political at all.

It's supposed to be the opposite. The uniformed military is not supposed to be tied to a political party and certainly not loyal to a politician. That's just from the time you're a private or a lieutenant to your assault major or force or general. You know, I think everybody knows this, but I'll have to say it. It's the loyalty to the Constitution, so fidelity to your oath to the Constitution. So they're picked, in my experience, for their competence as military leaders. And there should remain in place if they were competent. in the first place, regardless of who is the commander chief. Now, yes, as a lot of people point out,

the president gets to pick that. That's true. But having the right to do so and making, and whether it is right is two different things, right. You could fire every, the president and commander chief could fire every officer in the military. And obviously, that's not right. So, and I don't know, General Hope, I would say everything about him. It sounds like he was the right person for the job and was an exceptional officer. So this is, I don't think, um, the kind of moves you'd like to see. And I, and I know obviously a lot of Republicans on the Hill and I, with few exceptions, um, I've heard anybody disagree with that. Uh, the other part of course is the NSC. The NSC is, is supposed to be where the fusion of policy comes together. And there are appointees, they're

political appointees, but there's also detailees, people who simply come from the different agencies and departments because they have to make this work, they have to represent, and they are the continuity. So if everybody switches out in the NSC every time there's a election in four years, then the continuity is damaged substantially. And our long-term policy objectives that don't change because they're the interest of the United States are damaged, at least with the knowledge and how and who and all that stuff. So there's a reason we have detailese at the NSC and that's it. And that's commonly, that's a common belief that this, this consistency with detailese is very beneficial to the long-term U.S. national security objectives. So that's to set it up.

person, I didn't know much about her. I was surprised by what people claim that she had claimed herself. So to the best I looked it up, it does appear that she said pretty blatant supremacist stuff at a white supremacist rally and that she said very anti-Islamic statements and that she denied or she has the theory that the U.S. you know, carried out 9-11 against ourselves, right? Which is not only wholly nonsensical, illogical, it should be offensive to any American that somebody would propose that our government, elected by our people, attacked ourselves and then lost thousands of service men and women and others in the fights that came from it

and you know up to a trillion dollars it's hard to be very confused i just want to say very quickly because that is the argument you used to hear from al-Qaeda yeah yeah who who simultaneously took credit for it and then said we did it on the inside it was you know yes so it's it's hard to believe that that person is then having a significant influence over what has been traditionally non-political positions, right? Not loyal to who, right? And the NSC. People that were picked by the NSC

or the National Security Advisor. So this is seriously undercut the National Security Advisor. It is against all tradition, both sides of the aisle. And it's really hard to believe that somebody who admittedly said these things and has no experience that I could see

in national security has this big of an influence. It's really sure. shocking that more people haven't said the obvious. It's surprising when you talk, I guess it isn't surprising. When you talk to people, because I go brief people on the hill and you say one thing and then the cameras turn off and go, but I don't, I don't know any senior elected official that thinks that the U.S. military should be tied to a political person, but on the basis of loyalty. I'll leave it there. To them.

Andy? Yeah, I've got very little to add to that very articulate defense of, you know, national security apparatus being should be free held above politics. And, you know, I would, it really confuses me when I hear people try to argue otherwise, that it's okay to, for, you know, the military or the national, again, you know, NSA agency to have a political. bias or, you know, to allow political bias to sway decisions to hire or fire people. You know, I mean, I think it goes, should go without saying that if you are, if you're in the

military, you hold a military rank or a rank indeed, you know, aside from the director of these agencies, you know, which of course are political appointees. But beneath that, if you're going to be fired, it should be for a question of performance or a question of conduct, right? Not because someone has said something about your political views. I mean, think about it. That just conjures up the worst images of, you know, the Soviet Union. And people by the way are throwing back and forth the term Orwellian. And as one of the people who's actually read in 1984 several times, I do encourage our literate audience, which Dee tells me as a minority of our audience, but nevertheless, more literate audience to reread that book or watch the

movie because you're going to see some very astounding parallels. Good point. All right. Yeah. Well said. Moving on, Houthi, the campaign. I don't know if you want to call it that. Against the Houthis is continuing since March 15th.

It's been about three weeks. A couple of MQ9s since it began. shot down. I have a couple of questions. Has this slowed down the Houthis at all? It's difficult to say, D, because the Houthis have actually been fairly

quiet since January. Remember, when the cease file was agreed to in Gaza, remember they, you know, they were connecting their attacks, their piracy attacks on ships with what was happening in Gaza, even though

the majority, nearly all of the ships they hit, had nothing to do with Israel. Actually, none of them did. One of them had an Israeli officer on board. But since January, they've been relatively quiet. The strikes, the current strikes started in March. I do want to preface this by saying that, you know, this is kind of the fourth group of strikes. The Saudis were pounding the hoofies for, you know, since 2015. You know, the Israelis have had their shot. I'm not saying this is in chronological order. There's been overlap. Under the Biden administration in 2024, there were a series of strikes.

Largely ineffectual, it's fair to say, because they were few and far between. And now we have since March the 15th this set of strikes. It's difficult at this stage to judge their effectiveness. You know, the Pentagon said very little about, you know, what the targets were. but it is clear that, you know, they've gone off to some of the old targets. Yeah, I mean, if you just have, you're on a group signal chat, a signal chat, you can find out where the target is on. Exactly, yeah. You know, it's clear some of the targets are old targets, military sites.

We've hit before radar stations, missile storage depots. You know, they've mostly been, there's a lot, a lot of the bombings focused in the northern government, Sadar. And, but there's also, you know, there's also. you know, they've been going after mid-level Houthi commanders, and there's a, I forget his name, but there's kind of a Yemeni analyst in one of think tanks in Washington, Mohammed al-Bashar, something. He estimates anyway that, you know, 19 officers,

Houthi officers, if I didn't know if there was such a thing, but 19 Houthi officers have been killed from, you know, around mid-ranking, you know, at the rank of major or above. You know, my point is this, though, bombing alone, we just never really learned this lesson, do we? I mean, the air power theorists again and again confound us, but bombing alone achieves little, and it's going to achieve little, especially against the Yemenis, for all the reasons we talked about on this program, which have to do with terrain, which have to do with just the way the Houthis are structured, and it has to do also with the ready resupply of fresh materials from Iran.

Now, we are putting pressure on Iran, which is good. I would argue, too, though, you do need a combined effort on the ground. I'm not suggesting for a moment we send U.S. troops, and I don't think the government would do that either. But certainly, you know, here's where special forces come into play. I'm not saying that we do that work as special forces, but doing what we do, by with and through, raising or working with existing anti-Houthi Yemeni militias. to follow up on the ground and not just conduct BDA, but go after objectives and targets.

And most of all, the flow of lethal aid that is resupplying the Houthis. Unless we do that, unless it's a comprehensive strategy, imagine that word, then bombing alone is going to accomplish little. And I don't think you're going to see companies, you know, merchant marine companies, around the world having a great deal of confidence with transiting the Red Sea just based on the strikes that have been conducted because all it takes is one of two missiles to be fired for, you know, for any one of these companies to self-catastrophic loss. And I would be amazed if we have prevented that capability with the last round of bombing.

Yeah, so a lot there. I agree with, I agree with you, Andy. I'd say a few things. So last administration, I mean, they obviously had an effort. I don't think it was substantial enough, so I concur with the escalation. I do also concur that we need to start hitting the decision makers, because you can kill, you know, foot soldiers to the end of time, and it's not very effective. I'd also agree that it's largely air campaigns just don't get the, get to the place that we intend most of the time. So we have a very effective, especially honed over the last 20 years, ability to do a regular warfare in the form of, as Andy said, by with and through and partner forces, right? So we, and we have done that in Yemen. I have done that in Yemen. So it's, it is,

it is something that we're very familiar with. Hopefully there's some guys left that are familiar specifically with Yemen and partner force operations, but we could do this. we could actually combine our substantial air effort with working with in their own interest, right, elements on the ground that could challenge the Houthi's position, both in Yemen and their ability to keep carrying out these, which are clearly terrorist attacks, right? You're attacking civilian commercial vessels on arm and it affects the whole world economy. So I think we should look at that. So I applaud for the increase, but I think there's going to be.

going to have to be more done to make it, you know, fully effective. But just us showing up could turn the tides. I read a long time ago, there's a, there's a depiction of the Spartans in Sicily, if you remember back during the Peloponnese, you know, war. They had a lot of partner forces out there, too. Just the Spartans showing up, they only had the ability to send six. And they showed up with the Sicilians on top of the ridge line. And it changed the tide of the battle. even though obviously those six weren't going to add much. But when they saw the Spartans up there, the morale even switched from the Athenians who were there to try to take over that area.

So I agree we should look at partner force operations. Easier said than done, but could be effective in combination with this substantial military expenditure too of resources because they're going to have to ask for increase, because this is really working at the cyclic rate. And of course, all of this is set up for what I think we're talking about next, which is, you know, what influence with this happen or not. I'd say the last part on Yemen is it does appear that a lot of the IRGC-C-C-C-C-C-Cuts-force kind of counterparts are leaving Yemen right now. So they're concerned about just what's going to happen on the ground there. And I think that might be in part not trying to poke the bear that's the United States, but also because they're concerned that this could keep escalating and they could lose yet another significant proxy force.

Yeah. And make it on the head. We are talking about Iran next and the nuclear negotiations. Just came out from Reuters literally 30 minutes ago. that uh let me find it uh iran wants iran wants indirect talks with the u.s and warns regional countries over strikes against it where i'm assuming we have bases whether it's in turkey uh and other areas obviously barrain yep for sure um there was i saw a little thing that there was a little bit of uh the trump administration did kind of seem a little bit receptive to indirect talks, even though that was a red line a couple weeks before that. That's where we're at. What do you guys, what are you guys tracking with that? So the issue with indirect talks is they're slow, right?

They're really slow and there's a lot of miscommun. We can see all this with the negotiations, right, for ceasefire and Gaza. And we've traditionally, we have also used theobonis. They tend to be very effective. when it comes to be in the go between, usually in passing messages, this complex negotiation, I can't see working to get to a new JCPOA or new nuclear agreement that also includes proxy forces, super complicated, very detailed. You have to bring in experts. I'm not sure how this could work entirely through an intermediary. So I think the Trump administration is right. To be effective,

this needs to be face to face. And, um, If they don't want to do that, it's probably going to look to many is that they're just delaying this. So this is going to be then a question of do they go toward a nuclear weapon? If they do, I think the U.S. has at least made it clear that we're willing to take the military steps to mitigate that from becoming a reality, which is a substantial increase in escalation. And it would be pretty destabilizing in the region, especially depending on what Iran. does in retaliation, which could be things like mine the Straits of Homoos, which would seriously disrupt the flow of global trade, including energy, and take months to work out. We would have to do it.

We're the only country in the world that can demine something like that. And then it's up to commercial insurance companies or whether they're going to insure, whether we got all the mines, right? And we won't know. So, I mean, they have a, they have a, and I'm not saying this is a reason. not do it, but we have to look at, you know, what Iran can do in retaliation. But we're, it looks like from our force posture that we are preparing to have that capacity in place by mid-April, including air and missile defenses at these key bases you already referenced,

D, and the lift, the airlift necessary to drop the types of munitions, these massive ordinance penetrators, GPU 57 alphas and Bravo to be able to do this. So we are headed toward that. I think we would all be better off if Iran came to the negotiation table. They're talking about they can't be forced by, you know, bravado. I would just point out that a newspaper in Tehran supported the idea of killing President Trump. So when they want to talk bravado, I don't, I don't think they have a lot to hold on there. I think we should just drop all the bravado and get to a negotiation table and start talking behind the scenes and not doing everything in public, which is mostly posture.

Mick, do you think that we can do anything long term to the, do you think we still have the ability militarily to, to affect the long-term ability of Iran to create nuclear weapons? That's a damn good question, Andy. So we have the only military capability that I think has a chance at Fordow, for example, is mostly underground, mostly defendable, very difficult, but also Nantan's and Asferon. And there's more, right? There's several more. So we have the capacity to do, to degrade it. I think it's, it's essentially going to be setting the program back.

So it's not going to be a one and done. We're not like, oh, it's all done and they're going to do. And this is just the ones we know about. We don't know. We don't know. So we have to be, I think, very upfront with the chances of success, right? Because it's not a guarantee. We're the only ones that I think they can actually have a chance, but it's not a guarantee.

And then the big issue out there is what if they just acquire it from somewhere else, right? And they obviously Russia has it, North Korea has it. they have the know how to do it could they purchase it that would be a big step on those willing to sell them this capability but if it if it it is a big if there's no there's no one pull the trigger and this is not this could be pulled the trigger and we've set it back for another four months we're going to have to do it again so the best best case for us is to get a negotiated verifiable agreement right we so we know that they're not going to toward a nuclear weapon. Why? Because they're going to have major sanctions relief, if not complete

sanctions relief, so that their economy and their people can start joining the rest of the world economy. Hopefully it's still around to go back to our beginning. But that's better for us. If not, we're going to have to continuously have direct military action against a country to keep them from getting that. And they will have the ability to respond. It could have I'm not against. I think if you say it's unacceptable, you have to be willing to use the military option. So I'm not against this.

But I'm also not going to pay to polyanish position. Like we're going to wake up, the B-2s are going to do their things and all this is over. It's not over. It's just started once that happens. And I think we definitely need to like at least talk about the Israel's whole play on this. I mean, they're itching for it.

They want it to happen as soon as possible. I don't think Israel really gives a shit about a agreement or not. I think the quicker they do it, the happier they'll be, frankly. At least that's my opinion. Bibi Netanyahu's going, I believe, to Washington this week to meet with Trump. I think that's about tariffs, but who knows? I mean, it could be about tariffs and also because Israel got hit with 17%. I think it also could be, you know, maybe finalizing or figuring out what to do,

next with Iran's nuclear program. And if it does, like Charles Lister, your colleague from the Middle East Institute last week said that he spoke to somebody in the Pentagon where, yeah, at most it's probably going to knock them back three months, Iran, if we hit them, even with our big boy bunker busters. What does that do? Like, if we do hit him, I mean, we have to just be like, we're going to hit you again and again and again until you come to this negotiation table. I don't know. It's like a self-flicking ice cream cone.

You got to have carrots and sticks. You've got to get both. They've got to be willing to use them. But it's also, there's no clear answer here. We don't control, you know, what the enemy in this case Iran decides to do in retaliation or whether they view regime security so far above the good will of their people or the good outcome of their people that they really don't care about sanctions relief. Because it's funny.

Like, no matter how much you sanctioned, regime always ends up, you know, driving the fancy cars and drinking, you know, Johnny Walker's low, right? They always end up rich no matter what. So anyway, this is a, this is a big, a big step, but I think we got to be ready to do it. We just have to understand that it's not, it's not the answer to all. And sanctions, first of all, you know, much of the sting has been taken out of sanctions. Iran has found ways, around them. And of course, you know, China and Russia as major allies, they're very, you know, Iran has a sizable market or access to markets. So, you know, our ability to impose pain on

Iran through sanctions is not the same as it was, say, 10 years ago. And by the way, now, compared to the rest of the world, we pretty much sanctioned the whole world now. So Iran might be better off than most. I mean, I'm only half joking there. So, yes, Iran's had a really bad year. Iran's being denuded of its IADs, its integrated air defense system, it lost its president, its suffering internal dissensions, its economy is in the shitter.

But on the other hand, it's, it is creating enough enhanced uranium, to make two bombs per year. So in that sense, time is on its side by delaying. And of course, it knows, and the lesson of North Korea is that if you join that nuclear club, you get treated totally differently. Yep. Very true. It's the ultimate regime security.

Is it not? It is. You want to be North Korea or do you want to be Libya? You know, in the Qatari, who's, you know, drug and killed in a country. ditch. That's he gave up, he knowingly gave up his nuclear weapons, ambitions. So. And as did you. Yeah, as did Ukraine.

That's a good point, Andy. Another, another example of the fork in a road in which one a country could take. So we have to be ready. And it's going to trigger a nuclear arms race, obviously. Yeah, I was going to say a Shia bomb is going to trigger a Sunni bomb in Saudi Arabia, right? Saudi Arabia can have that probably done in a year. sure you can pay for it they can pay for absolutely um and maybe that's the move is that the move to like mutually assured destruction on both sides uh we don't want that to happen obviously but it

it worked during the cold war that's a discussion for another day yep but yeah it worked in the cold war and a you know it it was a bipolar that's wrong time to use but you know they the world was divided down two lines, right? And both sides, you could rely on both sides to some extent to make rational decisions based on rational assessments of self-preservation. That is why it worked. I'm not sure you can rely on the same calculus in today's world. All right.

Last bit of news about Fogbo. Yeah. Do you want to announce that? Yeah, I appreciate you guys. Let me say this. So obviously there's a lot of issue around the world for an aid. We're increasing our activities if you don't know what I'm talking about. Fogbo does a humanitarian enablement around the world.

Our model is, you know, for the most part, veterans, but also diplomats, intelligence folks, and people, of course, who did a lot of work with NGOs, charity. So we're looking at potential expansion pretty substantially because of the, you know, the vacuum that's out there. For the folks that have those backgrounds, would love for you guys to send me your resume. If you're interested, you can just go to Fogbo, the website, and go through there.

Just put my name, Mick, if you want mine, so they'll kick it over to me and I'll review it. I'd also point out that our new advisor, our most senior advisor on our board, is David Beasley, former governor of South Carolina, more importantly, the former director of the World Food Program. And he was a director when they were nominated and received the Nobel Peace Prize. So we're super lucky to have them.

We're moving out as fast as we can to get to cover down on all these areas around the world. But ultimately, we need more people. So please, if you're interested in that kind of work, again, we're primarily veterans, but we really need people who have spent a lot of time in austere. environments to include conflict zones that want to help get critical food aid, medical aid to the people in need. So thanks for a meet. Of course.

Yeah. And the link for that is in the description for Fogbo. Always in the description. So check it out both in the video description and the show notes. So hit that link if you want to shoot over your resume to mix organization. I mean, I'm assuming there's probably a lot of aid workers out there who are experienced who are out of a job now, right? So 14,000 at USA, so.

So check them out, Fogbo. They do great work. Andy Milburn, Andy Reginald Milburn, to be exact, when the Tempest gathers, an incredible book. You could check out all of his publications, the substack, his Twitter, LinkedIn, everything is in the description as well. Jason Lyons, too. Do us a favor.

If you like this show and you want to get it to ad free, both this show and the team So two shows for the price of one. Go to our Patreon. Patreon.com slash the Teamhouse. Any and all the information that I just said is in the description of the show notes. Check them out there. As always, guys, this is great. I really appreciate it.

Have a great. 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 team. Team House. 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, McMulroy. 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

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