The Team House - Ukraine Not Invited to Saudi Arabia for Peace Deal w/ Russia | EYES ON PODCAST

Episode Date: February 16, 2025

today we spoke about the ongoing discussions about what peace would look like in Ukraine and the need for a European Military to step up, we also touch on Syria's new president capturing ISIS commanders in Syria, and what an airstrike by Israel on Iran's nuclear program would look likeNew merch, patches, and stickers! ⬇️https://theteamhouse-shop.fourthwall.comSupport 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-Operationshttps://bsky.app/profile/andy-milburn.bsky.socialhttps://open.substack.com/pub/amilburn/p/journal-of-a-plague-year?utm_source=app-post-stats-page&r=emo6q&utm_medium=iosFind Mick Mulroy here: ⬇️https://fogbow.com/https://www.loboinstitute.org/https://x.com/MickMulroy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthorhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-patrick-mulroy-31198b52/https://bsky.app/profile/mickmulroy.bsky.socialFind Jason Lyons here: ⬇️https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-lyons-666873316?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_apphttps://bsky.app/profile/bgsilverback73.bsky.sociBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-team-house--5960890/support.

of Aizan. Hey, everybody. Welcome to another episode of Aizan. Almost a full career here. We have Mick Mulroy, Jason Lyons, and myself, Andy Milburn. It's out and about. Kind of a busy week going on. A lot happening between Ukraine and Russia and potential talks for a potential peace deal.

You had the Secretary of Defense and the vice president in Europe. Was it a NATO? It was a Brussels in Brussels, right? And so you had the Munich security conference and then you had the, you know, the NATO sync in Brussels. Yeah. And the interesting thing is as we're recording right now at 12 p.m. Eastern, Zelensky was doing a press conference and was asked if he was invited to the U.S. Russia meeting in Saudi Arabia or the potential meeting to discuss parameters of a peace talk. And Ukraine said that they were not, Zelensky said that Ukraine was not invited, which. I think it's probably not great.

Make, what are you thinking? Yeah, well, first of all, greetings from the snowy mountains of Montana, where it's snowed, I think, for a lot of two days straight. There's a lot of backs being thrown out across a great state. I tell you. So, I mean, to back up a bit,

if you really look at it, and you haven't heard General Kellogg's name a lot in this, although he's in all these meetings, and he's a special envoy to carry out this. effort to in the fighting in Ukraine, which I think everybody would agree would be a good thing. His plan is reasonable, I think. It is, and it's reasonable for the Ukrainians. It is essentially a pause in the fighting, a demilitarized zone that's monitored by NATO forces, European forces. It does essentially freeze the conflict. It doesn't require Ukraine to cede any of its territory politically.

it just recognizes that it would be extraordinarily difficult for them to take it back militarily, but they certainly could pursue that in the international community should have never recognized any of that territory taken by Russia as theirs, Krukramia. And it does give the Ukrainians chance to refit and re-ar. And essentially, us to move in a lot of air and missile defense to build up their capabilities to, you know, recruit more fighters and provide some kind of security. security assistance, which is what the big issue is when it comes to some NATO membership. So for my perspective, as long as that's still what they're talking about, and it's good for

Ukraine and more important than me, President Zelensky is shown an interest in it for a reason. I think he realizes that that is, that would be a good thing if it's agreed to by Russia. And that's the big if, right? Russia has showed no interest in it so far. And I think some of the criticism that came out because of Secretary Haguestaff's comments on, you know, there's two main comments that got criticism. One, that at the end of this negotiated settlement, there wouldn't be Ukraine and NATO. Okay. I think Ukraine should be in NATO eventually, but I also think it's just pointing out the obvious that if it's a negotiated settlement, that means Russia has to agree. and they're never going to agree to that, right?

I mean, so the criticism, I think, was fair in the sense that you might not want to say that out loud before negotiations, but I think he was also just pointing out the obvious. The other part is he's talking about conceding terrain. I think what he means is that right now they're recognizing militarily, they're not going to be able to take it back. So if there's a freeze, I would call it seating. So I think it could be articulated if that's what he meant. But to be fair to both issues, it seems to me like he's just pointing out something that it's just a fact. And perhaps he should not have said that before the negotiations, right?

And then Vice President Bance did say that they would be willing to look at more significant sanctions against Russia, which we should all do. And then there's the other part which we can get into, which is the discussion with our NATO partners on what they should be doing to enhance the situation. of all. But on Ukraine, I think, you know, this is worth pursuing. But to your point, D, it definitely should include Ukraine, who if they don't agree with this, all the rest is just irrelevant almost. I mean, if we're just going to come up with an agreement between us and Russia on the future of Ukraine, I mean, that would set a incredibly bad precedent. And we do have an example of that, and that is the withdrawal of Afghanistan. where we decided to not even include the government that we had hoped would survive past the

withdrawal in the discussions on the withdraw. So it's not a perfect analogy, but it is evidence that you need to include the country who was the offended country, the one that was in the discussions on any possible agreement because there's only two countries that really are at the core of that agreement, Russia. yeah um man i hope i hope something happens where they uh where it's equitable well i mean equitable for ukraine if i'm being honest i mean i don't give a shit about russia uh no we should and frankly like you like how uh vice president advanced mentioned about sanctioning russia the fact that we don't have 100% as much uh pressure in terms of sanctions on russia now

after three years of this war, it's kind of crazy. It's crazy. And that goes back to the Biden administration, too. It's like the piecemeal kind of effort that it takes. Like, you know, sanctions, it's not money for us that we're giving up, like we're not giving money or equipment to Ukraine. It's really probably the one move that doesn't drain any of our cofers or anything like that where people have a really big problem about.

So it's kind of shocking to me that there aren't like max pressure sanctions on Russia. at this point. Yeah. Yeah. And one of the, one of the ideas for helping support Ukraine is to use all these seized assets to Russia around the world, right? If there's enough, I think it should all go to Ukraine. But if we were going to get into the issue of making sure that, you know, there is some

kind of payback for the support the U.S. gave, why not take the Russian seized assets? Yeah. Right. I mean, I understand the idea of coming into agreement with, you know, key mineral rights in key metals in Ukraine, but we could also just take the Russian and basically we could just give it straight to them, right? We don't need to take it. It should just go to Ukraine to defend the unlawful, unprovoked assault on their country by Russia. I mean, it seems to be that the world could look at this and it could be pretty

quick to decide who's right and who's wrong and how we can go about correcting that. But The number one thing is to maintain our support for Ukraine and to really push our European partners to do the same and potentially step up to. You like the I'm sure like the Europeans definitely don't put enough money into NATO like whether they don't hit their benchmark that they're supposed to at least most of them. But like the European countries have definitely put up some equipment and money into Ukraine specifically. So like they've kind of stepped up with like getting like the major fallout right like their their energy prices are skyrocketing and stuff like that they had to figure out a different way to get gas. And I mean, listen, understandably so they should be paying that more or as much as the US because it's their backyard, right? It's their it's their neighbors, right, that are going at this. And what's next if like if Russia was able to bulldoze through Ukraine in two weeks who knows.

is where else they'd be now, right? So, um, yeah, they have. It's a point out. I mean, I'm trying to look at the exact numbers right now,

but I don't know if these are, they're accurate. I thought the units is a little higher than yeah. And the European Union, but they need to, it shouldn't always be the United States trying to get them to do. That's right. Right.

I know they'd say, well, that's us to you. Uh, well, if we, if we put more money into Ukraine, uh, than them,

then I would argue that they need to match it at least. Yeah. Because, I mean, Russia's right next to them. It's right next to them. And to your point, D, they haven't met a lot. Most countries, I think, as of right now, and we could chat GPT this to find out where they're right, have not met their obligation under the NATO treaty.

Countries like Poland are a model, right? They're over it. Greece, too. All right. Let me some Greece. This shouldn't be the U.S. And this has not just been President Trump. This has been President Biden, President,

every president, Obama, Bush, every president has said, step up, guys, you promised to get to 2% and you're not. And they shouldn't have to have this beaten over their head. They should do it because they obligated themselves to it. And it's in their own damn interest. Yeah. You know, they should be going over 3%, 4%. They need to integrate the European military.

You know, they can't have, you know, 30 different armies. You know, we tried that for a long time, and, you know, we figured out that was a terrible idea. They need to have an integrated ground air, maritime military that is completely integrated and can fight as a cohesive unit and basically secure the bejeet out instead of just relying on the United States. I think the United States should be a wholehearted leader in NATO. It's been the best military alliance in history. But that doesn't mean that all these countries haven't in many ways use the United States. States has their own security blanket without really contributing fully to the alliance. Both can be true.

Totally. So going back to NATO as far as Ukraine joining, I wonder if they agreed to say, hey, we won't join, you know, during the talks. And then later on, what would stop them from joining and maybe that would be the pause that Russia needs to not come back into Ukraine. Like they say, okay, we won't join now, but not, you know, agree to never joining and then later on join. And maybe that would be enough now that they're in the fold to keep Russia from more, from future aggression. It's a good point, Jay. So what I would say, it either is going to have a term, like within 10 years or something,

or what they might want to do is say they won't join NATO unless they're attacked by Russia, in which case, they'll immediately join NATO. I mean, ultimately, the reason for joining NATO is to get that security blanket. So if they have it, essentially, and there is a component of the Kellogg plan, which I'll call, by the way, General Kellogg, I'm coming to D.C. if you want to talk about this, let me know. I'll be there next week. Happy to contribute where I can. but that might might essentially do the same thing.

Like you don't need to be a NATO if you have the instant protection from the only one that's really a bad actor in that area, Russia. Right. So, or you could even add Belarus or something like that as essentially a proxy for Russia. But that could be the case, Jay, or you could do it for 10 years or what happened. I don't think they should, Ukraine should agree to never joining NATO. Yeah, I don't either. That's about it. So General Kellogg's plan in terms of like for the demilitarized zone and stuff like that that should be patrolled by like either probably a European, hopefully a European army or military.

Is there will for Europe from European countries to do that? And is that something Russia's down with like having a NATO-aligned European type of amalgamated countries put together running around in their? backyard? That's a good question because what does that actually do? If you put one up, that's one of the reasons why we need to do a lot of stuff closed door vice, you know, public discussions, find out whether they're interested and willing to do this because if not, then part of the plan, it's not going to work. If they are and they go there, then if Russia violates it, they're attacking NATO. NATO. That's the way you have a buffer zone. If you have German and French and, you know, go down the list soldiers there and you attack them you're attacking germany and france which means

nato which means article five so um that's why i'm saying this could work but i don't i don't know the willingness of our european partners they obviously should be included i don't know if the article says that they're included in the saudi talks if not that would be um important crazy yeah yeah and then uh obviously ukraine needs to agree to yeah yeah they should be there as a primary, you know, for sure. Hey, guys, there's a new Team House merch store. You can come and check it out. The link is in the description.

You can get Team House stickers, Team House patches, which are really cool and really well done, American made. Team House T-shirts, hoodies, mugs. Shout out to that one person that both the eyes-on mug. Love you. Mouse pads, camelback, tote bag. I don't know why we have the tote bag. a big tote bag guy if you are you know all the more power to you but yeah we got a ton of cool

stuff stickers american made patches american made t-shirts are also american made but i don't fulfill them i'm actually going to be the one shipping you the patches and the stickers they're very cool check it out the team house dash shop dot fourth wall dot com that's a crazy URL we'll change that but don't worry the link is in the description take a look and in the show notes if you're listening to us on audio we really appreciate it thanks for the continue support. I worry about, you know, the U.S. and Russia having talks in Saudi with nobody without the EU or NATO, other countries and Ukraine specifically. And they just come out with like deal points of like, and that becomes the narrative at that point. I don't know how that's productive.

I don't either. Yeah. I think it would just be an empty effort if they don't have Ukraine there and don't have the Europeans there to represent what they're willing or not willing to do. Unless the components of the plan has changed. But I'm going off of, I call it the Kellogg Plan because he's the one that clearly articulated, but so did Mike Wells, the National Security Advisor. So that's what I'm going after. I assume that's still the plan. I think it's a viable plan, but let's bring everybody together and see if we can make it work

because it's obviously something to everybody's interest to see a stop in the fighting. So this is about 15 minutes ago. Donald Trump's special envoy, Keith Kellogg, says the European countries will not participate in peace talks about Ukraine. I mean. All right. I don't understand that. I'm not a negotiator. So my background is obviously intel military.

But I can't see how excluding them because we're asking them to support Ukraine. We're also asking, there's a component of this where there's a defense. Like, we'll come to their defense. If you think the United States is talking about doing that via air, that's what I've seen in several places and what I've heard. I think the ground component of that defense is Europe. So, which also is dicey, considering Europe is NATO. So obviously, if we're rogering them up to, A, pay more to Ukraine and in their national

treasure, B, patrol the buffer zone or the demilitarized zone, and C, be the ground component of a defense to Ukraine after the cessation of hostilities. Seems like they should be there. Yeah, because who's going to run that? We're not going to go for U.S. troops there, right? Like, no shop. Yeah. Also, like Emmanuel Macron is just called an emergency EU summit in Paris for tomorrow.

So it seems to be going great. What's going to. Yeah, but to play both sides, it's time for Europe to step up. You know, they don't need, they need less summits, more action. They need to integrate their military. And I think Macron's actually the one advocating for that. So he might be saying, well, that's what I'm doing. Good.

Do it. Do it. It's in your interest. It's in the U.S. interests. And it's the last thing Russia wants to see. So that should put it on the top of your priority list. What would it look like having to integrate, you know, fucking 30 countries, militaries into one force or at least have some subsection where everyone puts a little

bit of like military power and people power basically into like a European force? It would be one, they'd have to do a common language. They'd have to do common technology, communications, weapons systems that are compatible integrated training, right? So if you're... Which they do. I mean, most of these countries do train together exercise-wise and all that, but never on a scale like this, they would never.

Exactly. So they need to, they basically need to look at us as a model to be honest. And say, they did it. I mean, we used to have, you know, militaries from every state. If you go back to World War I, right? The fight in 69th, you know, as an Irish American, And I think I've heard about that my entire life, right? It used to be just the Army from New York, right?

Or one of the regiments, I should say. Now it's part of the National Guard. But the Army, the U.S. Army is not state-specific, obviously. I don't even tell you anybody in our audience this. But it is in that, in a certain way, that way in Europe, right? And some of them are really good. And some of them are really not. And they need to standardize the training.

if you're an infantry officer, you need to be an infantry officer at the same standard and the same across the board or a fighter pilot, all that stuff. And they need to have combined arms, integrated. I mean, they can see the model, which is us. I know I'm obviously pious, but, and we can help them because it's in our interest. You know, we should be over there helping them integrate, build a united army component, air component and maritime component, hopefully with a robust Marine Corps, you know, because, you know, if you're cool, you got to have a Marine Corps.

But that should be, that should be one of the efforts of the United States. We can help them for sure. And they have to, of course, put the money behind the effort. Yeah. Which means well above 2%. Sorry, it's just a fact of life right now. They need to get that fact verified. All they got to do is look east.

Does the EU kind of look at. NATO sort of kind of as that in some ways, or am I off on that? They look at us as part of NATO. Right. I think it's a fair criticism. They look at us and said, well, we got the biggest big brother on the block. So I'm going to go ahead and spend money on something else. And, you know, if Russia ever attacks us, they've got to deal with the United States.

Yeah. And that's what's rubbed many presidents, Democrat and Republican alike. it's just that the current president, President Trump, has been more vocal about it. And maybe not diplomatic in the sense that they're used to. But the facts still remain that they, many of them haven't met their obligations. And they need to go beyond it without being forced. They just need to do it. And you would think that they would take the example of what's happening in Asia with Taiwan and China.

Like we still have not come out and said that we will 100% come to their defense. if China invades. And so you'd think in Europe, they'd be like, well, that could be us. You know, so let's do what we're supposed to do. Absolutely. Jay. And the other thing is, you know, they can see there's big splits in our foreign policy between parties.

They used to not be the case. So if you're China, if we were China right now, you know, a Communist Party over there, we'd say, well, let's just wait until we get somebody who explicitly states, they're not going to do anything if we invade Taiwan and then invade Taiwan. right so we need to have more consistency but also our partners need to be quite frankly better partners and allies they should go into the game or the war wanting to be an equal partner in the success of the outcome and not just basically hide by in the United States because that helps them in the end anyway if if and when you know this thing is over it helps you at the negotiating table to

say, you know, we did our part. We, you know, we put up our money. We put up our equipment and our men and women. So now we have an equal say in what said rather than, no, we did it. US, we are the ones that did it. So now we're going to tell you what you're going to do, which is basically what's happening right now. Right. Yeah, a good point. It might be from Russia's perspective. They only feel like they need to talk to the United States. Right. So I think we should make sure they're included, but they should also make sure they're included. And one of that is like, hey, we got a lot to say on this because, you know, we have a substantial stake in it, which they do.

We don't even know if they're agreed to serve as this observation force in the demilitarized zone. I haven't seen that. Maybe I missed it. But, I mean, we've seen a lot of comments about them criticizing the vice president's speech, but I haven't seen a lot of comments specifically from European leaders. And maybe we'll hear today because of this conference that President Macron's calling. But it'd be really good to hear more from them about what their plans are to contribute to this peace agreement.

Yeah, you would think something like that would leak, you know, after they get upset about what Vance said, something like that would leak to be like, hey, we are actually pretty serious and we should be part of the negotiations and stuff like that. at least I'm thinking like optics wise and PR wise, you know, instead of like complaining. Yeah. I would hope we're doing a lot more behind the scenes discussions and then we have our stuff in one sock before we go in and talk to the Russians. And if Ukraine and Europe is all right for the United States representing them, I doubt it. But if they are, okay.

But we need to get our stuff in, you know, like so we know what we're willing to do and not do. And what Ukraine's willing to give up, because ultimately they should be the ones deciding the future of their country, or not. It seems clear to me. Or we might get into a point

where we have these long discussions and then we go back to them and Europe says, well, we're not going to the military zone. And Ukraine says, we're not conceding any territory, period. And then the United States can decide, you know, here's the thing.

If we're going to take this on as just U.S. and Russia, and then we stop supporting Ukraine, the U.S. lost the war in Ukraine. Yeah. Right. The U.S. lost the war in Ukraine, right? So we got to do it that way. We're not impartial, you know, mediators here. We are taking on the responsibility to be the counterpoint to Russia. And if we seize funding, which many, it gets a lot of support on both sides of the aisle, especially in the Senate, we're the be the ones that lost to Russia and conceded to Russia, which would not be morally right. It would not be international security. interest ever and it would be it would put us back substantially and it would essentially tell Russia okay that was a good idea let's let's let's see if we can go on to another country maybe a

NATO country maybe another non-NATO country first that we're not going to be willing to defend and then starts to land grab it's already going on um yeah we got some broader breaking news too you guys want to hear it this is good news I guess from Charles Lister who's been on the show, check out that episode. Yeah, Syria's interim government, GSS has captured senior ISIS commander Abu al-Harith al-Iraqi in a targeted raid. His capture is linked to the U.S. intel sharing with Damascus.

Oh. Yeah. So, yes, and I would put a plug for Charles, why I recommend it coming on our show. You want to really know what's going on, he's a good person to listen to. I think he just got back from there because he's, I'm on a policy board with him.

So that's obviously good whenever an ISIS leader is caught. It's interesting about the intelligence sharing, if that's accurate. Yeah. That we're already sharing intel. I think it's probably the case. And it might be a test, you know, right? Have they really split from the jihadist roots? I don't know.

Let's tell them where jihadist. number four is and see if they apprehend them, right? Yeah. So speculation or I don't know or I wouldn't say it. That could be the case. It could be one to see if the government of Jalani or Akman, it depends on how you view them of what you call them is really what they say they are. So Jalani is like jihadian?

El Shara is his real name. His name be Gore was Jalani as a jihadist. So if you hear people talking and they call him Jalani, they don't believe he's a reformist. If they do, and they think potentially. More from Charles Lister. When in Damascus,

I was told of eight ISIS plots that have been foiled by Syria's internal ministry, GSS4, since January 1st, all tied directly or indirectly to U.S. Intel tip-offs. Good. If true, that sounds good. Now, the question for us is whether we withdraw our forces. Our supports at the SDF, I think, has been one of the bigger successes of the global war and terror. We're still going on that.

Period. I mean, we don't have that many forces out there. We have a lot of, we have some conventional. We have, you know, obviously some Intel folks and some special operations folks. And the SDF is doing most of the heavy lifting in fighting. And unfortunately, the dying, but they have defeated ISIS and they have kept it from return. with a very small footprint of the United States. In my opinion, it's been one of the successes that we've had in a model

in many ways of how to conduct proxy force operations. So hats off to the, especially the Army Special Operations component and my former colleagues, Jason's former colleagues, and the agency doing that. Yeah, I mean, it seems like, I don't remember his good guy name, but Jalani really wants those sanctions taken away. You know what I mean? Like he's playing ball, which is good.

Yep. Good for Syria. Al-Shara. Al-Shara. His real name. So the big thing on sanctions, I was just talking to a friend who's a mutual friend of the guy that was referred to as Caesar. Caesar was, I think it was an intel officer. I've met him several times, but he's the one that testified in Congress with a ball of clobon and a hoodie.

Because he smuggled all his pick. pictures of just this horrible torture that the Assad regime was committing. So that led to the Caesar sanctions, which was against the Assad regime. So obviously, you can make a good case for those to go away because Assad's, you know, sitting in Moscow right now. So, and then the question is other sanctions that might be on HTS, designation as a terrorist organization, when do they fall off? And I think people are reviewing it now.

See if he's, if he is what he says. he is. And if he's willing to have elections and he's willing to be inclusive in its government in Syria, which includes all parts of Syria, or it'll just be a fragmented country and a rump state of Damascus says it. And that wouldn't be good for the region, it would be good for the Syrian people. So hopefully he is what he says he is and we can work with him and we can get Syria as a place focused on enhancing life of their people and not allowing Russia and Iran and all that to use

it as a launch pad against our friends in the region. Did you see that interview he did with the rest of his politics guys? By any chance, Mick? You got talking about Alshara? Yeah. I've seen a couple. Is there one specific?

Yeah, he did like a longer form, probably 45 minute interview with the rest this politics guy, the Rory Campbell, And Alisher Campbell and Rory, yeah. I don't know that I saw that. I mean, he came off pretty, you know, trying to say the right things, kind of, you know, more statesmeny rather than jihadi and stuff. But, I mean, you're trying to be the president, right?

So, I mean, you're not going to come out and be like a death to America and Israel, right? That's like not something you say out of the gate. Yeah, that's good. That's good. I mean, he's saying the right things, you know, so we should criticize them for saying the right thing. Absolutely. He's a very, like, educated background. Yeah, upper middle class.

Yeah. Physicians and political figures in his. So he wasn't, you know, completely self-made, you know, he, which is not criticize it. He knows how to play that part. And that's good. That's good. Because that's what people want to see and with the way I'm here. And more importantly, want to see played out.

Yeah. Listen, I can understand people's apprehension, right? Like, this is a guy who we imprisoned in Iraq. and he joined al-Qaeda in Iraq and stuff like that. So it's very interesting, like, looking at the global war on terror 20 plus years later. And it's like the people that we really wanted to go after and take out are shaping up to be like people we're trying to do business with. I mean, that's just the way of the world and stuff. It's just an interesting.

It's interesting is what I could see. It's like the Operation Paper Club. right after the, you know, World War II. You know, we were killing Nazis. And next thing, you know, a couple of years later, we're throwing a lab coat on them saying, hey, help us build these rockets. Yeah.

So I'm not saying it's right or I necessarily agree with it. I'm just saying it's just sometimes you work with the people that you really don't like the most, you know. Yeah, that's true. That's part of the, you know, the way the world is. if we excluded everybody that we disagreed with a lot we would exclude a lot of our current partners yeah right I mean let's be like to be blunt

and all that would do is hand them over to our adversary's right so I certainly like to use saudi for example I certainly understand obviously the criticism of you know many of their actions in the past and their human rights record but ultimately if the United States says okay we're not going to talk to me more because we don't like the human rights record and we're just open the door for China and Russian

And you could just take that down the road. It doesn't mean we should, you know, not promote our values of individual rights and human rights and all that. But we just have to be realistic that if we stand on that to a point of excluding talking to people in the world that it's probably not going to be not only to not our benefit, not to the benefits of the very ideals we propose. Because if they don't have any influence of the United States and it's just Russia, I mean, believe me, they wouldn't be getting any lectures on human rights. not to pick on Saudi, but, you know, any of these countries that aren't, you know, in the same freedom of outstanding as we are. Last bit going to Israel and Iran has been reports that Israel is spinning up to eventually hit Iran's nuclear program and probably try and take it out completely. What are your guys' thoughts on that? You want to start to tell you on me?

No, I'm going to let you. Yeah, this is something I spell on talking about. So, I mean, it's, the issue is this. They have realized from Iranian point of view, right? So I think it's always better to look at everybody's point of view. I mean, you have to agree to it. They have seen their proxies get decimated. So Hezbollah has been substantially degraded, well done by the Mossad and obviously the IDF.

And they've seen Hamas, who, no matter how you look at this, has taken a substantial. substantial defeat in Gaza, the Houthis, you know, we could do a lot more there, but they certainly have taken a big hit on the proxies. Their exchange between Iran and Israel has shown that Iran has no real teeth there, right? They launched, you know, 100 bottle rockets at them and they shut down 99% of them. So missiles, rockets, all that stuff. Some landed, but not effective. Israel responds and takes that almost the entirety of their air missile defense system. So I I think from the Iranian regime perspective, which is only really cares about the Iranian regime, they're like, wow, we really cannot match Israel, period, and let alone if the U.S. is on their side.

So our only way forward to protect the regime is nuclear weapons. They can look at North Korea as an example, twice Libya, you know, under Qaddafi, as the flip side of that example. Give them up and you've got presidential love letters coming or you're dead in a ditch literally or keep them and brag about them and you got presidential love letters coming your way. So we have to look at it, that perspective. They are close to 60% according to the IAEA. The issue with that is getting to 90% really quick, which is a weapons grade uranium. From there, they have to come up with the apparatus that actually detonates that weapons grade uranium.

I'm told that from reading, not from classified stuff, that could be between seven months to like 14 months, right? So unless somebody gives it to them, then all bets are off. Right. They have to have a way to deliver it, but that delivery can be multiple means, not just ballisticness. So as this intel comes out to those that get it, they're going to know how close they are. And then Israel, when they think they're too close, they're going to ask for the U.S. to participate because that'll increase. the chances of success. If we won't, they certainly will ask for the munitions that are necessary, these massive ordinance penetrators that can go a couple hundred feet in the ground before they

detonate and then just to actually have an effect on a subterranean nuclear facility from us. And if we provide it, you know, we essentially might as well be part of it to make sure it's successful. So this is, it's a very real possibility, I think. It's a very real possibility that Israel will not accept the nuclear armed around. That's an existential threat that they can't accept. And that Iran thinks they have to get to that point to maintain their grip on power. So we have two diametrically opposed views coming here

that could lead to an actual strike and whether the United States gets involved or not. Okay. The hell am I supposed to add to that? No, that was perfect. I mean, I agree, though, that both of them are at that point where it's like Israel is saying there ain't no way and Iran is saying well we have to you know it's like we have to go buy that gun to keep the bully off our you know

doorstep although not necessarily calling Israel bully but they both feel like as Mick has pointed out if you look at it from both their points of view they don't have a choice and I know that the U.S. has a part to play in this whether that providing munitions or participating, but I don't even think Israel, in my humble opinion, that they would even wait for that. They would go with whatever they had

if the U.S. hemmed and hauled, and it was like, oh, shit, they're about to use this on us. They're just going to go with what they got. I think that's a fair point. I think if we say something like we don't want to participate where you might not be successful, we don't, they say, well, we'll see.

Yeah. It's very Israel. Yeah. Well, we'll see. You know, so, and if you look at it, like they did, some strikes in Yemen, right, where they had to basically use the same package, the air package that they would do if they did, you could argue about whether those aircraft are capable of

carrying the munitions necessary. But the actual air side of it, it was further to strike Houdadea, for example, in Yemen than it would be to Nantan's, I think, in Iran. At least it's comparable. So I think they have been preparing this to be done, and it would likely lead with suppression of the air defense if they had managed to get any back and uh serious strikes on the facility and we'll have to see you know iran sees this coming they just recently said if you do this we'll just rebuild them okay that's okay and then they'll strike them again so i think they understand that this could happen that's why they're saying it and that it could be successful if they're acknowledging that they would have to rebuild it yeah and thinking about what you were just saying

Mick, and I probably should know this because I'm an airplane geek. Israel doesn't have any long-range bombers, do they? I don't think so. And there's certain, you can, this is public, but I think it's the 84, I'm choking it up right now, MK84, mop. Let me see if that's it. That's a bomb, right? Yeah.

The MK84, General Perk, no, there's. a bigger one. Yes. I was going to say a massive ordinance penetrator is a 30,000 pound bob. Yeah. I don't know that they have anything that can carry that. That's just me thinking off the cut. I don't think so.

Well, maybe a C-1-30s, I think, right? I don't know. I mean, I'm a ground maritime guy, so if folks are listening to us, if this gets closer, I mean, if there's a... Alex. Yeah, we'll get Alex. All right. We'll get Alex Hollings on. Pretty positive.

We pushed one out of a C-130, AC-130, in the beginning stages of Enduring Freedom, I think. And I know Israel has C-130. So that's the only thing I can think of. I don't. We might end up with, oh, it's 57, GBU 57. Is the 30,000 pound. Bonka-Buster. Yep.

It's B-2, B-52 is with this. Yeah, they definitely don't have those. No. So, and, you know, again, we should have an Air Force expert on here to help. But in order to use those type of aircraft, you really got to suppress the hell out of stuff. Yeah, which they could, they do have the means to do that. It's just, you know, carrying the big boy in is the issue. I'll do it.

They pay me in, though. Carried on my back. Yeah, I mean, so how do they, how do they get it delivered besides maybe, like Jay said, I don't know. They don't have those munitions either. Yeah. They do have some pretty significant additions. And I just saw that we approved more.

But those are more around the, not anywhere near the 30,000. I think the Biden administration was holding back on some stuff. And then when Trump's admin came in, they okayed the bigger stuff, but not the big boy. Yeah. Right. The MK57 is. Yeah. No, if it does happen, definitely.

We'll get Alex Hollings on from Air Power at Sandbox News. to break it all down because he's encyclopedic knowledge of what's what's what with aviation and it's pretty impressive. Yeah. Yeah, it's going to be a very interesting next few months. I'll say that. So guys, maybe make sure you stay tuned to AISON for every breaking news story. Anything else, guys? Yeah, well, you mentioned the other day something about some eyes on swag. What is it? Coffee cups. Is that what it is? Yeah. So we have, we just started a new team house, Ison merch store, which the link is in the

description if you're interested. And we have Eyes on Mugs. I'm going to get eyes on T-shirts and hoodies too on the store soon. So yeah, somebody bought the Aizon Mug. So shout out. Right on. Yeah. I'm not listening in it. I guess another thing to look for in the near future is when when the effort to come off or cut out fraud, waste, and abuse hits the DOD. Like this, we all know it's going to be like, oh, man, moly.

So, and I'm all about, you know, cutting fraud, waste, and abuse of the government, right? But I think we're going to see a lot, a lot of improvement. Not with the uniform folks. I mean, the uniform folks, I think, are very frugal and actually, you know, do more than most companies to make sure they're not blowing stuff. But the overall industry itself, I think we'll wait to see. We'll wait to see, but I think there'll be stuff to talk about there. For sure.

I'm going to be skeptical, skeptical because I feel like their first move is going to be to get rid of folks rather than look into like procurement stuff. And like maybe we don't need 17 different six-generation fighter programs or something like maybe four is good instead of 16, you know. And I hope that doesn't happen, to be honest. I think the savings going to come from the programs. I hope you're right. They save much in personnel, to be frank. They're going to save a lot on programs.

And most of those, for the folks that aren't familiar, oftentimes the military is just told, like, you're going to have this because it benefits, you know, 15 different states and the senators agree, and you're going to have it whether you want it or not. So that's why I'm saying it's an bias, obviously, but

I'm saying most of the issues in my experience have not been with the uniform military, which is what most people think of when they think of the military. It has been programs that are forced on, you know, the Navy and the Air Force particularly, that are very expensive because they benefit the people in the United States. I get the point, but it's probably where most of the savings are going to come up, duplicate programs, programs that are outdated, programs that can be, you know, I think it's called Assassin's Mates, the Chinese concept, you know, let them build a $5 billion,

you know, whatever. And we'll find a $100,000. dollar whatever to kill it right um we need to be we need to be leading this by the war fighters and by the war planners of the future not just what is something we already do or even if it benefits states we need to ultimately end up with the most effective military the most lethal military in the world not just a jobs program yeah totally all right guys all right guys all the links are in the description. Fogbo, Longgo, new sweet hoodies from Pogwell that are not available.

Sorry. Not yet anyway. Jason Lyons, his links are all in the description as well. Andy Milburn, when the Tempest gathers, his great book is in the description. And the best way to support the show if you don't want to buy the merch is patreon.com slash the teamhouse.

And yeah, this is great. I appreciate it, guys. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks, thanks, thanks, thanks, everybody. Great rest of your day. Thank you.