The Team House - Trumps Foreign Policy: What Can We Expect? | EYES ON PODCAST

Episode Date: November 12, 2024

Subscribe to the new EYES ON  YouTube channel.⬇️https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJytcQbSOEKLGyhNwkqpd3AToday we discuss President-elect Trump's possible foreign policy objectives for his second term. And a happy birthday to the US Marine Corps.Support the show on Patreon:⬇️https://www.patreon.com/TheTeamHouseFind Andy Milburn here:⬇️https://twitter.com/i/flow/login?redirect_after_login=%2Fandymilburn8https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewmilburn2023https://amilburn.substack.com/https://www.amazon.com/When-Tempest-Gathers-Mogadishu-OperationsFind Mick Mulroy here:⬇️https://www.loboinstitute.org/https://x.com/MickMulroy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthorhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/#trump #israel #iranBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

Hey everyone, Andy here. I just want to put in a quick plug for the new channel, Eyes On. Previously, we fell under Team House and we shared subscribers. And what we're doing here is branching off, still within the Team House franchise. But it is important that we build up Steam with our own subscription base. So please, cost you nothing. Click on the subscribe button. Thank you. Hello, everyone.

Welcome to another episode of Eyes On. I'm Andy Morburn. I'm Jason Lyons. I'm Demich on tacos. Mick, who are you? You're Mick Mulroy. And I'm Mick Mulroy. Yeah, you know, I didn't introduce you.

It's the first time I did that part. That's okay. You're one of us now. Yeah, you're one of the hosts. We're very delighted to have Mick on as a weekly regular and with a focus on, again, discussing current affairs. Mick, you know, I've introduced him many times, but he also, his secondary job when he's not on Aizan is to appear on ABC as a he's going to hate me of saying this an expert in all things

all things uh geopolitics so we are delighted to have them on Mick please remember that that now is your secondary duty um you're probably being here eyes on comes first yeah first I listen everyone trumping all news no pun intended is the fact that today is the Marine Corps birthday which one is it 2409. 49. 49. And since three out of four of us are Marines here, we have to begin with that. And Mick, what does the Marine Corps birthday mean to you?

I mean, does it still mean something? Oh, yeah, absolutely. First of all, happy birthday to you guys. And happy birthday of my son who's a former Marine and my brother-in-law who was a former Marine. And as you would guess, a shit ton of my friends who are a former Marine. So what is it? I mean, you know, it's, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's, In a way, it means a lot of different things, right?

It's mostly about, to be frank, the brotherhood and sisterhood that the Marine Corps stands for. Right. So, you know, to me, it's just a time to remember that, right? It was like most Marines, both when I enlisted and got commissioned, it was a time that I'll never forget. And I certainly don't want to forget. And it really just means just absolutely committed to, a cause larger than ourselves, right? And there's a lot of groups like that, but, you know, I don't think any group is more like that than the United States Marine Corps. So I'm biased as hell,

but, and I always will be, but it's just a time to remember that and be with my fellow Marines. That's what to see about. Jason, what about you? So I'd wanted to be a Marine since I was six years old and never lost sight of that. And even though I got the chance to serve at the agency and do some other things, I will say my time in the Marine Corps has meant the most to me. It was started out as like, hey, I really love their uniforms and I was a little kid, then their historic prowess. And then as I got older, it became, I want to do something bigger than myself and made some of the best friends I've ever had in my life along the way. And those things will always stick with me. It set the foundation for everything else I did in my life.

That was beautifully put, both of you. And, you know, for me, as a first-generation immigrant, I grew up not really knowing a lot about the Marine Corps. Some of you may laugh about this because it's so dated now. But I read a book called Battle Cry called Leon by a guy named Leon Uris. I highly recommend it if it's still in print. It's Leon Uris enlisted in the Marine Corps. He's 17, you know, Jewish kid from... I think from New York, actually.

But anyway, his, the book's a book of fiction, but it's a great book. It's the best fiction work I've read about the Marine Corps other than Fields of Fire. I think both, you know, a very kind of different approach is Fields of Fire. Of course, is James Webb written about Vietnam, which is a tremendous book I recommend it too. But I read Battle Cry. I must have read it two or three times. I loved it. And then I read Goodbye Darkness by William Manchester, which is another great one.

The landfills are fire, and I was hurted. I knew nothing practically about the Marine Corps. I had just been rejected by the British Army because of a rugby injury. And I had U.S. citizenship as a dual national growing up in the UK. And Paras Island was my first taste of the United States. And I was there 37 years ago today, as a matter of fact, this is my first Marine Corps birthday out in the field. And I remember that. And that was, you know, like all of you, I mean, the Marine Corps birthdays subsequently meant a great deal.

And I loved, you know, going to the balls and all of that. But the two that stand out in my mind with that initial one in boot camp and just feeling, it's difficult to describe, but, you know, just a sense of belonging, a real strong sense of belonging. And I can still remember the talk that our battalion, sarah major, guys. named P's gave a sound in the field. He was a grunt and, you know, I paraphrase it, but he said, hey, listen, you're going to have many Marine Corps birthdays ahead of you, but I want this one to be special for you. And they brought out a cake, can you believe this, in 1987 in the field and Third Battalion, which, Thumping Third, which was not renowned for its compassionate gestures. And that meant a lot and I remember it and I remember the feeling. And the other Marine Corps birthday

that stands out of my mind was 20 years ago exactly today in Fallujah. I was an advisor with, God, that's a horrible word, attached to a Marine, and I'm sorry, I was attached to a Marine battalion, which was First Battalion, Third Marines, Lava Dogs, which by coincidence I subsequently commanded a few years later. But at the time, I was a lowly major in charge, and I used that term very, loosely of an Iraqi company attached to the battalion. And I remember the Sarajejo, whose name I forget, actually had a formation in Fallujah.

Well, we tried to. It was interrupted by mortar fire and machine guns, but it meant a lot because we had gone into the city three days earlier at night. And we'd had a rough time on the, on the line of departure, the suicide bomb, it hit the company I was attached to and killed, I think, nine Marines wounded a number of others. So even before we went into the battle, we were pretty shaken up. And, you know, you can look at this up, but one three lost in the course

of that deployment, 60-something Marines, okay, in a three-month period. But they were part of 31st view they were offloaded into the Battle of Flujia and then subsequently fought in Anbar province. I left the battalion after Flujan and went on to Moses Hall, but the battalion had a really rough ride. And I know that because we had a Flujer Memorial outside my office when I was battalion commander and there was 60 something dog tags. I can remember the exact number, but it was over 60, which is a lot dead, not casualties dead. There's maybe two, 300 casualties. A third of that battalion became casualties in what was less than half a deployment back then. I do believe that's the highest number.

I know 2-4 had a rough time in Romani, but in terms of numbers, I think that took the record. So anyway, we were all, I was pretty shaken for one. We'd lost one of our advisors the night before we'd been shot in the back of the head, which was rather disturbing at short range, we think, by one of the guys. we were advising, which is never good. And we thought it was bullshit that we were being hauled out. We're all dirty, unshaven for this formation for the Marine Corps birthday. But I remember just standing there on those brief moments before, you know,

mortifiers that are coming in and just feeling, you know, that same sense of belonging, that feeling coming back. And I can tell you that it overcame everything. It overcame the tiredness, the fear, the lack of sleep, the sense of isolation, because remember, I was with Iraqis. And it kept me going in a way that I can't think of anything else can. So I always think that, you know, there's a lot of rah-rah bullshit propaganda. We are great propagandists in the Marine Corps. I think Eleanor Roosevelt said that we have a better propaganda machine than the KGB, and she has a point.

But it is an all propaganda, and you guys, I think, will agree. there is a stamp on our hearts, as corny though it may sound, that remains with us the rest of our lives. And fast forward, 2016, not quite on rankful birthday, but close to it. I'm 2015, I'm sorry, I'm in Iraq and commanding the Special Operations Task Force as a multinational task force. and General O'Neillard, the Commandant, came out to visit us, and we gave him, you know, I mean, and this is really an eye-open. By then I'd been with Soft for a few years, and I, although my experience was an infantry battalion commander now is with special operations, and the difference was huge. I'm not talking about the caliber of guy, you know, but I'm talking about just the amount of intelligence and the things that we could do with that intelligence, you know, and I was showing the Commandant. And I could tell he was really impressed, you know, there.

it and taking notes. But afterwards, you pull me aside and say, Andy, when you're coming back to the Marine Corps, and that really hurt me. You know, first of all, what's coming from the Commodon? Well, first of all, I thought, well, you tell me. But second, I'm going to say, hey, I've never left the Marine Corps. I've always been a Marine.

I may be working with soft, but, you know, this is part of me. That's, you know, and so the sense of that involvement is so important to us that when we feel perhaps that it's being questioned and it becomes a very emotional issue. Sorry, that was an over-lengthening answer. Back to you. To send you back on track. Yeah, so happy birthday of the Marines.

Thanks, sir. Yeah, many more. All right. I mean, the big news, obviously, is Trump elected president. And I think a lot of foreign policies pretty much everyone's angling and trying to figure out what's going to happen next.

the big thing that stepped that jumped out at me this week a couple of days ago was Qatar booting Hamas officials out of Qatar and I know I read somewhere where it was they were planning on doing this right after the latest like round of like

negotiations kind of failed the timing is interesting where like they start you know to announce it after the election so yeah I don't mean I'm wondering your thoughts on that, all your guys' thoughts on that. Well, my question is, do we know or do we think that Hamas knew ahead of time that this was coming? Or was it, you know, hey, you know, let's look at ABC News.

What the hell were being kicked out? You know, what do you do you think make that they knew ahead of time? So I do think because they rejected this very minor concession of like a four-day, ceasefire. It was a very limited duration and it was very limited in how many hostages would come out. I think it was like four. I might be getting the numbers wrong. And they said no, that it was to a point where all of the mediators, so the United States, Qatar, Egypt are like, what the hell are we doing here? We're launching our, you know, head of the CIA every Tuesday to go talk to these folks and they're not even serious at all.

Right? So I think, and this is my speculation, I have had nobody tell me that. I think that was basically the last draw. And then from there, you know, Qatar being, being one of the main mediators is like, well, you guys are not dealing a good face with us. We don't know why we're giving you this level of protection being in Doha, which I think does give him protection. I don't think Israel would say go after these leaders. because they're in Doha. And I think also Qatar is tired of being tied to them, right? So they get

criticized for supporting them, even though it was approved by the United States and Israel to provide financial support into Gaza. And I think they're probably also looking to kind of remove that, that perception, which is not really correct because we, again, ask them to do that. But I think that's probably why they told them to get out. I think we the U.S. said they need to get out. Where to now, mate? What do you think they're going to set up shop? Well, the places have been named Turkey. I don't think the United States would be good with that, obviously, in NATO ally. It's a good question. You know, where do they go? Are they going to end up going to Iran? That's probably the likely. Of course, they realize that that doesn't make them necessarily

safe if you look at is Malhinea. But I don't know many other countries that would want to take them unless there was general approval that these folks need to go somewhere. And they're requested to do that. If I was a country that was being considered, I'd certainly want a top cover from folks. And I'd also want to know from Israel that I'm not going to worry about, you know, an assassination in my country. Right. So there's a lot of issues with. with these individuals. And at the end of the day, they're terrorists. They just happen to be the ones doing the mediation.

And unfortunately, when you have a situation like this, you have to deal with them. But if they're not going to be even close to an honest broker in these negotiations, then, you know, you make your choices and you deal with the consequences. And so I think it's indicative of how those ceasefire negotiations went. And I, although I agree with you, D, I think this happened before the election. election, and we'll talk about it, but the incoming administration, if they're going to be hawkish anywhere, it's going to be on Iran. And I think that's one of the things that's factoring into Iran's response or lack thereof against Israel that's going on right now.

Yeah, I saw in Twitterland that one of the members of the Hamas Pulip Bureau, who was previously in Qatar, still is based in Qatar, showed up in Mauritania. of all places. You know, didn't try and disguise his presence there, but it did speak to a group of local journalists about Mauritania being a, you know,

a supporter and friend, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, I'm not, obviously there are people drawing conclusions from that. Perhaps, again, wouldn't be, I mean, it's like, it's like giving a home to,

you know, someone to a plague patient. It may seem. like a good idea at the time, compassionate, but there's more to lose for any country, as you point out. But on the topic of Iran, I think that's a great way to start about, you know, we have so far avoided speculation about the administration, you know, the new administration's policies, but I think it's a good topic of discussion to start with Iran. You know, what, What are your feelings, what are your thoughts now?

So obviously when I was at the Pentagon, we withdrew from the JCPOA. The Pentagon collectively was not entirely with that idea. And I think it's pretty widely known. Not that it was a good agreement. It wasn't a very good agreement, but no agreements like that are, you know, because you're dealing with such an adversary. but the issue was how are we going to really try to keep that from going toward a nuclear weapon if we're not in the agreement that kept them from going toward a nuclear weapon?

The big issue, at least a channel of communication that we don't have now. Right, and it did give them incentive, incentivize them to be more open in us ensuring that they're not going for nuclear weapon because, you know, trust would verify. The idea was that the agreement did not address the malign activities that they were doing with the proxy forces, which is obviously something they never gave up. The criticism of getting out is the malign activities went up exponentially. The positive, I would say, is that it did limit the resources that the IRGC had to do the malign activity. So it was a maximum pressure campaign. Significant financial restrictions, sanctions were placed on them, and it did cut down the actual resources that were available for Iran.

I think that is a positive of the Trump administration's first ones policy toward Iran. They were also pretty hawkish toward Iran. Brian Hook, for inside policy folks might know them like me. I know him pretty well. He is in charge of the transition right now for the Trump team and at the State Department. He was the special envoy for Iran when I was there. So he's a pretty hawkish on that. So I think that is an indicator of where they're going as he is in charge of the State Department's transition.

So I think we could be looking for, and that's to carry this forward and some of the criticism on the Biden administration, is they've reduced a lot of these sanctions. And it has given, I think, Iran a feeling that they can essentially have their cake and eat it too. And they are close to being able to have a breakout moment to get enough nuclear material, and rich uranium, to make a nuclear weapon. They, of course, have to weaponize it. So it's two steps. But they're closer now than they have ever been.

I think the Biden administration to say, well, that's because you get out of the JCP. and then the incoming Trump administration is because you reduce sanctions and you basically has given them no consequences, significant consequences to the action that they can. So those are the two sides to that. But I do think the Trump administration is going to come in and really look at what they can do to respond to everything that's been going on with Iran in the last year, especially. Isn't it also the case, Mick, that our range of options have been reduced, you know, I mean, and the problems run across administrations as we comment.

But certainly under the Biden administration and this, you know, we're just stating facts here. There wasn't a clear eye on enforcing those sanctions. In fact, you know, rather than loopholes gaping, massive black holes appeared in them. And not all the administration's fault, you know, in fairness, but, you know, front companies have popped up over the world, particularly in, you know, places like UAE, that are potential allies that makes it problematic.

Tankers get reflagged. The, you know, the agreements between the Chinese and the Iranians and the Russians, Iranians, that involve the purchase of oil. All of these things mean that sanctions are, even now, you know, even if we wanted to go back and enforce them, we just, we don't, we're kind of on the ropes and being able to do that. in a way that makes sense. Yes. Actions avoidance has become a cottage energy.

Yeah, a global one. Yeah. You know, I think probably playing in our favor, it's a really good point. I like what you said about because I, you know, of course, you lived at a much high level than me, but I was at Sox Center at the time and Iran was a big problem for us. But the one of the issue, and it was all about the proxies and the funding that went to the proxies. So now we're in a different world where, paradoxically, those proxies, the threat of that, I mean, Iran's options have been reduced too. His boller is on the ropes. It's probably not down

and out forever, but certainly on the ropes. I think everyone can agree that. They've lost a wide sweep of their leadership. However, however they are structured, they've lost a very charismatic leader that held them together. And they've lost, you know, estimates vary, but a huge bulk, most of their weapons that we were most concerned about. And similarly, of course, with Hamas.

So Iran's options have been reduced. But my question is what, you know, that kind of, it's not good for us either because the only option to them now is the nuclear option to go ahead and really, you know, push

for the bomb. And I would argue, of course they take a big risk in doing that if Israel has indeed removed that you know as Israel claims there are you know the S300 radar but the the the restrictions on Israel to go after the nuclear program I kind of gone too so I guess what I'm saying is a much more unstable situation than it was during the first Trump administration or indeed during the last administration. How do you feel? I mean, are you confident about our ability, let's say our ability, not this administration's

ability to handle this? So, I mean, one part, I mean, every administration has said that Iran having nuclear weapon is unacceptable. So the question then becomes, what do that mean, right? Because it's easy to say that. So what it means to me, being a kind of matter of fact guy, is you've got to be, willing to do something militarily about it if they're going to go to it if not then it's just empty rhetoric and i think right now to your point any which is a good one is iran has seen that they cannot

stand up to to israel period not let alone us right conventionally they had ballistic missiles that's what they have they don't have an air force just to speak of they don't have a very uh strong conventional military force period ballistic missiles is it and we've shown collectively the Israel and the United States, that that isn't at all. Like, we can shoot them down. And if we, if we go full retaliatory mode, we can take out their air missile defense. We can take, I mean, Israel, I think, has already proved that. And they realize that. So then the question, if we were them, right? Oh, crap. I mean, now the whole world knows that we are, we cannot even compare to Israel, let alone Israel in the United States on a conventional military front.

So what is our options? nuclear, right? Which makes it more likely that they'll try to get to a point where they have nuclear weapons that they can't then can, you know, for regime protection and all the reasons that, for example, North Korea went that direction. The question is, are we willing to do something prevent them for getting there? I think our intelligence is good enough that we'll know. I think I don't have access to it anymore, but I don't want access because I, you know, gap so much on TV. but I think we will know. So then the question will come down, likely to the next administration,

are we going to participate? Because without getting into details, the U.S. participation in that exponentially increases the chances of success. So Israel is going to do it, I think. I firmly believe that if they think they're on the verge of a nuclear weapon, they're not going to ask permission. They're going to do it with what they have and hope for the best. And the question is going to come down to the U.S.

It's going to be viewed the same way, even if it's not successful. Are we going to step in and participate and make it successful? We have diminutions necessary. I think we could be successful. And that's a big question for the incoming administration. Nobody knows, so I don't want to pretend like I do. But I think they will be inclined to listen to the argument from Israel that we need to support them. because if we do this, we need to do it in a manner that sets back the nuclear program substantially,

not just destroys the entry point, they have to dig it out and all this stuff. I'm talking like, you know, when it's all open source stuff, what, GBU 57, the 29,000 pound bomb, that according to open source, penetrates 200 feet below the ground before it detonates. Like, that's a munition that is hard to replicate, and to my knowledge, no other country in the war has it. So that's a little bit long-winded, but I do think this is going to be an issue that it goes from one of the mini to, oh, man, Iran's on the verge of a nuclear weapon. What are we going to do about it? Was our rhetoric for the last four administrations just that? Or are we willing to essentially do something to stop it for the benefit of the world, quite frankly?

But it could trigger a larger scale conflict. Yes, certainly for Israel, the decision doesn't seem to be a very high bar at all. I mean, you know, previously, the Israel's biggest concern was proxy retaliation. I mean, and that was a significant concern when Hezbollah was, you know, on their doorstep so heavily armed. But that is no longer here. And, you know, his reminder, I mean, Israel destroyed Iraq's nascent nuclear program back in 1981 and hit, I believe, a Syrian person. a Syrian program, what, 2006? You know, so they, I'm sorry, go ahead.

You're right, 2006, that wasn't. You know, so they, so the precedent is there. It's not a, it's not a, it's not a tough decision for the Israelis, but, but certainly for us. I think, too, and we're not, you know, I'm not a nuclear, I'm far from being nuclear expediention by my thinking else, but, you know, the weapons enrichment is one thing, that, uranium enrichment, weapons grade enrichment is one thing that can be done fairly quickly if they put their mind to it. I mean, we're talking weeks to months, but the weaponizing of the bomb itself is the hard part. But what is disturbing is that the news coming from experts saying that that could happen,

and I'm just quoting from Twitterland, in as little as six months, which is. But the positive part of that is, as Nick, as you pointed out, that there are going to be indications, and warnings that that is happening. That is why I think we're relying on. And the question is, do we have the political resolve or indeed the intent to go after it? I agree. And the other part of that is do they get assistance, right? So when they're talking about preventing Iran from, it also should include discussions

when it comes to Russia and North Korea in particular. Are they buying the technology or are they trading, you know, to supporting Russia's war in Ukraine? Do they get technology? this could of course speed up the timeline required to weaponize and potentially deliver. They could essentially get the technology. So this is all going to be part of the discussion with the incoming administration. Who is, I want to say inheriting, that's an overused world. The world is what it is.

But there is a very, there's a lot of going on. There's a lot going to have to address immediately. There's not going to be much of lag time. That's a very disturbing part of this you just brought up. as Russia's playing in this. And, you know, for those of those who are still clinging on to the myth that Russia may adhere to some kind of international norms this week. And indeed, the last two, three months, as we talked about on the show,

Russia's been doing a lot of stuff in Europe, kinetic and non-kinetic, to, you know, undermine stability, among other things. But, I mean, seriously. And it turned through trying to plant incendiaries or plant. testing test incendiaries attempting to on airliners transatlantic airliners yeah you know fairly harmless incendiary and airliner in the same yeah you're really you're in trouble um and and you know this is no can i ask why are they doing that like what kind of message they trying to send because that's a pretty crazy one yeah if if i if a plane going from europe to uh

America blows up and we trace it back to Russia. Like, that's, people will freak out. I don't, the message may not even be for us. It may be for our partners. Like, yeah, we might not be able to smack the U.S. with these, but we can certainly get to you. You know, I'm not saying that they're, you know, over in Europe, that their security measures or any, you know, more lax than ours or less than ours. But that the message may not be for us.

It may be that they're starting high saying if we can get them on a U.S., you know, air carrier, then we could certainly get it on, you know, some other countries. So that's, that's just my thinking on it. Yeah, to be fair, I mean, these were kind of high school science experiment looking in centuries. I mean, you know, the whole thing, when you expose, what is that when you expose magnesium to where, you know, it flares up, you know, so simply when you open the package, it was going to flare up. But nevertheless, as I said, it looked, maybe it was a test run. maybe they were meant to be found. Who knows?

But the point is this, that we are in a disturbing new world. And Mick brought up the Iranian-Russian kind of deal. In Russia is giving Iran something in return for Shahid drones. And we know that, you know, a head defense system is one thing to worry about. Another maybe nuclear thing. And then the North Koreans, yes, you know, we know the Russians are giving them a shitload of Rice, actually, that's a bad phrase to use in conjunction with rice. A lot of rice and, you know, money and this and that.

But space and nuclear technology is doubtless something that the North Koreans have asked for and something we should worry about. Which gets this back to Russia, right? You know, I mean, that they're in the room is literally the fact that there is concern perhaps that Trump is not as hard on, going to be as hard on Putin as he is, for instance, on Xi, you know, the Chinese leader. And Mick, I know I think you posted in our group chat, the discussion, just some details from the discussion about with Elon Musk or, you know, the potential proposal for a peace proposal. Do you want to talk about that a little bit?

Sure. And I'd start with this, because, I mean, I wasn't a Russia person. I mean, I wasn't a Russia person. I mean, most of us all focused on CT when we're doing our thing, right? Because it was the time. But I did have an engagement with a Russian general once that was so surprising that it had me rethink the way we deal with Russia. And what it was is we, for some reason, this guy would talk to me at diplomatic receptions, even though I was like designated the chief of my former organization, which I found to be kind of interesting. And he invited us to play volleyball because they were really good and I like to be the United States and stuff. We, of course, being the United States,

went and found every good volleyball player in the embassy and beat their ass. So I'll take that. Yes, we sack the team. But anyway, other than that, and I'll try to make this story short, but it has an impact. He's telling me that the Americans don't understand

the Russians at all. I'm like, what do you mean? I mean, we're all people, you know, I mean, can't we, there's got to be something that we see eye to eye. And he goes, well, let me tell you the story. So Russian fable, there's fishermen out to sea,

then it's long but again I'll cut it down and it's about to go in and he hasn't got any fish has got any fish yet so he throws his last cast boom pulls it in pulls it off the hook and it's it's a magic fish right

it's talking to them says you know I will give you any wish but just know this whatever you wish for your neighbor will get doubled okay I'm thinking it's a joke right

and so I'm waiting for the punchline and then he goes, the Russians thought about it for a long time. And then his answer was, I wish to be blinded in one eye. Jesus. You know, and I'm like, that's demented, man.

Right? I mean, most Americans would say, okay, I'll take a million dollars in my neighbor get two. Whatever. So everybody wins, right? You know, I mean, what his, and I literally had to sit there and think like,

well, that wasn't a joke. And is he really saying that that, sums up to him, a Russian general, what Russians are like. And then the answer was yes. I mean, obviously. So when I, you know, I wrote it up, of course, as we all do. And I ask people and I go, no, oftentimes in their folklore, they root for the bad guy. And it's just, it was so odd to me. Because even people that I know are not good people still would say they vote for the good guy. right and these guys and you know i'm not i'm not this is not anti-russian like the ethnic group but to have a russian explain that to me and then i found out from russian experts like oh no this is

this is common the black hats are you know that's who they're so i'd start off with that i know it's it's a more of a broad but when i found out that this is actually the case they have no problem being the bad guys so that's why they leave their calling car they can trace the you you know, the radioactive material into killing somebody in England, they're okay with that. They'll be the bad guy. They'll embrace it. So I think that's one of the things that people have to think about when they talk about the Russians. The government, right?

I'm not saying all Russians are bad. Okay. So what do they got to look at? There's big concerns, you know, those that support Ukraine, both from a moral perspective. You know, it's a democracy fighting an autocracy, which happens to be our, one of our biggest adversaries. And it's in our own national security entries, in my opinion. I mean, your strength, our strength, collective strength, the United States, is relative to our adversaries. If we have a partner who is diminishing their military capability substantially,

take away the moral, ethical, all that stuff, leader of the free world, it's still in our interest to do it. They are becoming weaker, so we are becoming relatively stronger. We don't have any soldier, sailors, airmen, and marines, a marine on the ground, unless someone's volunteer, but not officially. They're doing the fighting. All we're doing is a supporting. To try to cut that off to me would be like, you know, Chamberlain, you know, in World War II. Appeasement is going to work. Don't buy it. You don't know who you're dealing with. So I'd start with that. And hopefully, I know a lot of people, you know, I'm nonpartisan, but I know people on both. both parties. And I know there's people in the Republican Party who firmly believe what I just said. And I hope they can get that perspective in front of those making this proposal, as you said, Andy.

And on the proposal, you know, this idea, we're going to have a line of demarcation. And, you know, I've seen that, you know, they're going to ask European forces to enforce it in the U.S. There's going to be this big pause in their ability to join NATO. 20 years, right? 20 years, which means it's so far in the future that it's not a political reality right now, right? The issue, I think, is, of course, Ukraine, who won't want to concede 20% of their territory, I don't think. But the obvious issue is Russia. Like, did Russia do this to gain 20% of largely unusable terrain now?

I mean, it's so mined and so destroyed that from their perspective, if they think they're going to, they could win, and they obviously still think they can, especially if we cut off support to the Ukrainians, why would they agree to this? They might agree to it, but why would they adhere to it? That's what concerns me. We're trusting Putin to agree to the agreement that is not in his interest.

At all. It's mature, you know, it's... Yeah, how does this work? If he then sees us cut off, so again, it's easier said than done. So I think negotiations are fine as long as Ukraine is leading them, and we're not telling them what to do. But it's still in our interest to support Ukraine to the hilt. One, if we do want Putin to have an agreement that he actually adheres to, you got to put him in a position where he thinks it's advantageous.

He's losing. So, you know, not that they'll listen to me, I would suggest to the current administration remove all the restrictions right now. remove all the restrictions there's about 200 major military targets within the range rather of our weapon system we provide them so that when it gets to these negotiations if they're going to happen

they're on the ropes they're on the ropes yeah like Churchill said you don't negotiate with a lion when your head's in his mouth yes exactly and that's a good that's a perfect so they did allow

they're allowing like contractors in now to go and hike I guess maintain I know. My point is it's like it's been very incremental in terms of like what the help they get. Like it's like you're not getting F-16s, but then you are. You're not getting attack them's. Then you are. It's like either shit or get off the pot for a, you know, we have true way of saying it. Absolutely. This absurd, absurd fear of escalation shows we don't understand Putin. And we played his game. And we've, we've meted out our support. We gave them, we gave him a handful of High Mars, right?

And until the Russians learned how to adapt, right? They, you know, they adjusted their supply lines, their systems, they moved their, command and control centers out of range. And they developed a means to block the Gimlas, you know, the GPS in High Mars because they could do so, because they were never overwhelmed. We hemmed and hold about attack them's, right? I mean, it's just not, if you, I would argue, you know, if you, I would argue, you know, you bring the mentality and make that you just outlined, we've got to. We can't keep mirror imaging

and being scared of our shadows when it comes to escalation. But there is something I want to talk about here. There may be a positive aspect of this talk of negotiation. It has scared European leaders. Macron today, and don't get me wrong, I mean, Europeans listening to this. It's not that I like seeing Europeans scared. I'm half of me as well. British, not European. It's totally different. But anyway, I empathize with you people. But, you know, I mean, Macron warned on Thursday about naive, I think, you know, talking about negotiation talks, naive transatlanticism. He spoke to European leaders gathered in Budapest. But he did say, look, Trump's been elected by the American people and he would offend

American interests, which is legitimate and a good thing. The question is whether we are ready to defend the interests of Europeans. This is the only question. And to his point, the Baltic states and Poland, to a lesser extent and less important, the Czech Republic, have stepped up to the plate hugely with a view to the fact that Ukraine may not be getting the help that it has from the United States and everything from reduction of 155 millimeter shells, which was a big issue, to just enhancing their own military's capability to rebuff the Russians. To, you know, the cyber thing, the polls are becoming very, very good at them. And, you know, we also know polls are doing other things.

So there is an, I think there's a really useful aspect of this perception that this administration coming in may not be as supportive. But, Mick, I agree with you 100%. It's, you know, what are we spending? We're spending money. I mean, the whole, as horrible as so, the Ukraine conflict has been, a god as I know, you know, firsthand. And I would love to see the killing stop. It's, it's just horrific what is happening on both sides. You know, the manpower, the young generations of both countries, but of course, my sympathies are with Ukraine being just torn up in this charnel house and and it breaks my heart but but like you i i think the solution is to go out to scare russia to really put them on the ropes and then negotiate not talk about peace

beforehand for what it's worth on that on that on that on that shiny topic um hey what about um you know the the pacific um We, last time when we were talking, we talked about that we thought neither the administration would go to the defense of Taiwan. I know Trump, you know, coming in has always been a hawk on China. And I saw today in the news that there's been some rejoicing in the Philippines in particular. We talk about allies who, you know, are happy. And the Philippines just made a declaration about their stakes in the South China Sea, which is, doubtless, I think, in anticipation of getting more support. But also at the same time,

there's a lot of fear in Taiwan from some of what Trump's been saying about the chip market. And, you know, what do you see? Do you see changes in policy vis-à-vis, and I mean, are we finally going to see a pivot to the Pacific? Well, to start with, I hope they don't use the word, because it's done every administration. going to pivot from the Middle East, pivot from that, and then something happens, and it's not the case. So not that it shouldn't be prioritized in the national security strategy as the most important, but I hope they don't act as if it's either or, right? We have a national security capability that's designed to be worldwide. So let's just accept the fact that we're going to be,

yes, in the Indo-Pacific, yes, in the Middle East, in Africa, obviously Europe, et cetera, we're designed in South America. We are designed to be global. Let's not do the typical D.C. argument to make it either or women. You know, one of the things I saw that I think a lot of politicians comes in their, the policymaking community, which looks at things in a specific way, not necessarily economic, right? A lot of us can come from business backgrounds.

President Trump obviously did. So one of the consistent things is he looks at things, I think primarily the economics first, and then legacy things like alliances and such potentially second. I'm not diminishing the importance of alliances at all. I'm just looking at it from his perspective. One of the things he really doesn't like is when he feels like the United States is getting ripped off. I think that's a business view. It's like, we're putting money into this.

You're not yet you benefit from us like NATO. I don't know that I think sometimes people make it more complicated than that. And I don't know that it is. So one of the biggest things NATO can do is all meet their obligations. They should have done that without the threat. Every president has requested it. I think President Trump has just made it more of an important point. And that's also what he said when he was in office, the first,

time to Japan and South Korea, if you recall. It's like, why are we doing all this paying for all your defense and you're just, you know, not contributing, at least in his perspective, but not. So one of the first things that are partners and allies, Japan, South Korea, and obviously is to get to where they're supposed to be in the first place. So you can take that argument off the table or go in willing to contribute to your own defense more so than you have in your past. So I think that is an idea. And when it comes to China, the question is, if it's legit, like you said, Andy, we talked about it the last time,

Americans really willing to fight and die for Taiwan. I don't know. I think no. I mean, I think if the election is a clear indication of, you know, interventionism and isolationism, I just think even the ones in the center are going to say, no, I think we should support them 100%. We have a law that requires, you know,

of all that, but the law doesn't require us to send, you know, the entire Marine Corps to defend Thailand, or Taiwan, sorry. Maybe Thailand, though. I mean, there's, yeah, maybe Thailand. Yeah, going back to the Marine Corps birthday. Yeah. Yeah. But, yeah, but. Many Marines would fight to save Thailand. Yeah, right. But Taiwan, but that, but there are a lot of hawks coming in, right, that are on the team. And I know, you know, you know, I know for sure on China. So I think, I think from President Trump's, or soon to be President Trump, foreign President Trump right now, is going to look at a lot of it economically.

That's why you're talking sanctions, and I'm not an economist. Probably having economist onics, why now that's going to work. But it's going to be mostly aligned with that, trying to get the U.S. more competitive with China, taking them head on. And hopefully that does translate into supporting our allies

and partners in the region, right? Because I think we are much better off with alliances and try to do anything so long. And they know it too, right? That's why they're trying to go out and start the, you know, their version of all these things as well, they being, you know, Russia, China, etc. So I hope that that part gets through.

I hope that people take into account the way President Trump views many of these issues around the world and when it comes to, you know, you know, even Stephen when it comes to the defense. If not, that it could be, it could, it could be pretty damn, Bobby. Because, you know, I'm seeing an obvious point here. There's no equivalent to NATO in the Pacific.

So it would, you know, arguably involve building up a network of bilateral alliances. And to do that, I think, you know, the incoming president has announced his skepticism of alliances, but that doesn't necessarily mean that, you know, his, the people coming in with him may understand the importance of, this and be able to persuade them, look, this may cost us money, but it's not going to cost us lives. And that's it, the key issue. And that, I think, if nothing else, would piss off the Chinese nicely. And I think, you know, I get it. Economists get very afraid of tariffs, but in the end, tariffs are one thing. The Chinese are really afraid. They hate the prospect of that. they are worried by it. And so that may too be a strong disincentive in our hand as a tool,

short of conflict, which I agree with you, you know. I mean, I get it, you know, and I'm not blaspheming the Marine Corps' plans here on their birthday, but the thought of, you know, Marines being committed to seize the first island chain under a bombardment of Russian, I mean, sorry, Chinese missiles is just too far-fetched for me to, to subscribe to really is. I just don't, I don't see that happening. All right.

So I got one more question. We had reports the other day of, not reports, confirm reports that Trump had a phone call with Zelensky and Elon Musk happened to be on that phone call. I know that's definitely a rare thing that we don't hear about where like some billionaire is on a phone call with a president-elect with a president of another country.

So what are your guys thoughts on that? Anyone can take it. whoever wants it first could take it. I can start. I mean, I've been on, so a lot of those official, this is an official, right? So he's in transition. Yes, he's going to be the president, but this isn't an official head of state to head of state yet.

So these calls are mostly, you know, congratulations on your success and look forward to working with you. And I might touch on some topics. And then once you are the president, for those that don't know, oftentimes people are listening into the conversation. Sure. You know, if you're responsible, like when President Trump was talking Middle East, obviously the sect deaf is going to be invited to be on the call. And by on the call, it doesn't mean they're a participant. Is they're listening in? Why? Because that's when policy can

get made, right? The president says something. They agree. Somebody's got to write that down. right um and so even you know at my level was uh as d i'd be on the call listen right um again taking notes and if something was agreed to in in in the past to be honest they were much more boilerplate like we would write the talking points for the president the president in the most part would go down the talking points what do we need to hit they can't keep track of every nuance of every relationship around the world you know and then he'd go down the talking points and if they agreed, then it was followed up by the team. Okay, they agreed to this, right? So that's the traditional way to it. President Trump, you know, doesn't follow scripts,

at least the ones that, a lot of the ones that we get, right? So it's, it's, he tends to go and talk about that's his prerogative, right? He's president. I think that's going to be the same going forward. So it's going to be more of less, like, suggesting and more just keeping track with the president's agreeing to with these world leaders. So, you know, I think is it... Mick, I'm sorry. I don't want to cut you off. I'm sorry.

But like, that's staff. That's not the richest guy in the world who just spent the front of money. Yeah, I mean, it's a bit different, like, degrees to this. Yeah, I agree. So I'm just kind of, you know, kind of explaining the way... Sure, sure. We might not know. For him to be on the call is a little...

It's definitely unorthodox. It really puts somebody who's a civilian to your... point, who was a big financial donor to the Trump campaign, into a position where, at least from Zelensky's, President Zelensky's perspective, he's thinking, is this guy going to be helping draft U.S. Ukrainian policy? Why would he be able to call? Yeah. Right. So that would, that's unorthodox for sure. He's not in a position yet. So yeah, it's, it's, but we, we can expect So we know he's an unorthodox leader. And so this is this is going to be something that we could probably talk about every episode.

I mean, yeah, I'm reminded of another phone call that was perfect with Zelensky, too, that, you know, wasn't exactly orthodox. I mean, I'm not defending any stance here. But I think, too, perhaps Zelensky was kind of the known party, right? I mean, not Zelensky, Musk. You know, I mean, Musk has a prior relationship with Zelensky. Selensky's expressed, yes, I know what happened with Starlink. I'm intimately familiar with the shortcomings of Starling, not the system itself, but Musk's subsequent change of mind about how it could be used.

But nevertheless, you know, for a considerable course of the war during some critical time, And Starlink was a really important, I would say, a critical communications. No, it was a game changer. And so doubtless, Zelensky feels some sense of, some, you know, memory of that. And perhaps Trump wanted him there as to kind of soften what he was going to say. Look, we, you know, to say, hey, look, I've got a guy here who obviously has your interest at heart, you know, bear that in mind when you listen to what we have to say. That's just my thought.

And I have listened to the alternate views, the concern that we're drifting into an oligarchy. But the second piece, D, you know, he doesn't have a staff yet. So it doesn't really matter who he picked. Anyone he picked would have been it would have been unconventional, call it what you will. It would have been Joe Blow. Yeah, but even when a president-elect is having a phone call with another head of state who's congratulating him, And it's a lot of like small talk bullshit. You're going to have staff on the call, right?

You're going to have people listening in, I'm assuming, right? Like there's not, you know, you're going to have your possible chief of staff of whoever your national security advisor was while you were running and stuff like that, your foreign policy guy or girl. You know, it's concerning only because Musk is a civilian and he has a relationship with Putin, too. Like he's been talking to Putin as well. I'm not a see. I never was a CIA guy.

if I'm a CIA guy, I'm like, what the fuck is going on? Right? Keep it as plain as possible. I'm sorry, Matt. I'm sorry. The agency has said that repeatedly. Go on, Jay. Jay, Jay had something. Jay, what were you going to say?

No, I was just going to say, and this is not in defense of him at all because I'm not in his head. Thank God. But Mick knows this as well, too. When we're writing our reports, we go to a meeting, you know, with an asset, whatever. You're writing a report. You're writing a report. parts. There's the what was said in the meeting and then why it you believe it was said. So there's two different things. You're not going to put your opinion in the what was said. You're going to put your

opinion in the, you know, why it was said portion of it. And so it could be because he has a past relationship, Musk with Zelensky, it could be that when the phone call was over, you know, Trump or his people said, okay, this is why we think he said it. Elon, what do you think? Because you would want someone who is close to that person, that source or whatever it is to be able to say, you know what? Yeah, he said this, but he's angry right now. Or he's got a sick child right now. And that might have just been emotion or whatever it is. It could very well be that.

And it also could be Trump foreshadowing. Hey, world, get ready. Because Elon Musk is going to be on a lot of these calls for whatever reason. As far as foreign as that is to us, you know. Right. Yeah, hey, Mick Cole, what do you know? I know you've talked on ABC about this, so we forgive you for talking to them first. Just don't go in.

But, you know, speculation about who he's going to bring in. I saw the tweet about Pompeo is out. Nikki Haley is out. He thanked them magnanimously for their support during previous administration. But I know Pompeo that was talking about. him coming in to take to be sectef right he's off the list and and then healy's off who what are you hearing sectef's probably the most the one that I care about most that I just is the agency too sure and you know caveat with this is you know and again

unconventional I really just get the impression Trump team likes the the sweepstakes aspect of this, right? So who's in, who's out? And, you know, fine. So I've seen lists that just switched, you know, completely overnight. So I'm just caveating that with, you know, if we wake up tomorrow and everybody I suggest is smell like, sorry. And I think the conventional wisdom was that Pompeo was going to be the odds-up favor for Secretary of Defense. You know, he's been the T-CIA, it's been Secretary of State. So who I'm hearing, and this is internal to the media swirl and not just ABC, but people who bounce stuff off from me, for Secretary of State, Robert O'Brien, the former national security

advisor, is really well liked by President Trump and respected by the team as a whole. And, you know, I think has the qualifications. Grinnell, former ambassador to Germany. Can I remember his first, Robert, maybe. Richard. Richard, Richard, yeah, you go. I know Robert O'Brien for it's worth, and he is a, he's easy to work with, you know, all things.

He was the, before the National Security Advisor, he was special envoy for hostages and such. And since a lot of hostages who were in the Middle East, you know, me and him engaged quite a bit. I don't know Mr. Grinnell, but he's the two top ones that I've heard consistently for Secretary of State. I've also heard Senator Rubio, which I haven't heard as much lately. I don't know if it's an issue of wanting to use a senator that, you know, that's a political decision. On the DoD, now that Pompeo is obviously not in the mix, I've heard Representative Waltz, former Green Beret, Mike Wells.

I believe it is. His name, I've heard, come up for Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor. The other name for Secretary of Defense after Pompeo. Cotton pulled himself out. Yeah. Yeah, he backed up. Yeah. So that was another name.

I heard a lot that if he pulled himself up, he said he wasn't interested in. So. Yeah, he's angling for a leadership position in the Senate. there you go yeah so that i'm i don't know i i'll hear you or tomorrow right it's it's sunday but uh tomorrow i'll hear with the other names because i doubt they will just settle on one that quick just because the others pulled out i think they'll want to review and talk to folks um and then the national security advisor i have heard uh waltz and uh ratcliffe Radcliffe was the DNI under the first Trump.

And then for CIA director, I've heard Radcliffe. Or Walsh. So there's a lot of names that are getting at least discussed openly from multiple positions. Well, I mean, you know, I'm looking at silver linings. I mean, a good thing is that they all are experienced with the exception of Rubio. They have some experience. Yeah, I mean, okay, you can say being a low level, yes, but. well no whilst hasn't had experience i guess but it

but regardless um i i'm not i think yeah yeah i'm just trying to cling on to to good things here too i mean positive no not cling on but i did look at uh some of the positive aspects of this and you know i mean change is painful but change is often good so we will we will see yes it's the yeah we'll see American people. I mean, the American people have spoken. Dee, do you have anything?

No, that's it. We hit it all. We figured out the world's problems. A very quick shout out. Please. I promised a Marine Corps birthday. In Nashville, Tennessee right now is 81mm mortar platoon from 1992 from the landing in Somalia. They've been blowing on my phone up during this discussion. I was there. long-suffering platoon commander back then. And I just want to say, happy birthday, fellas. You know, truly, that was my, that was my happiest command as a lieutenant.

And I hope you're having a good time and I hope you're staying out of trouble. But happy birthday to you and happy birthday to all Marines, four Marines and their families out there. God bless you all. Sound for five. Bye, everybody. boys don't remember don't forget and girls don't forget to like and subscribe the new channel is very important uh check out mick of course all the links will be in the description check out andy his book when the tempest gathers and patreon dot com slash the team house it's the best way to support the show thank you