The Houthis Have Entered the Chat - Week 5 (Iran War) | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

starts a shopping trip.

I'll tell you when the shopping trip is already the first day.

And the platform makes me no problem. I have many problems, but the platform is not one of them. I have the feeling that shopping trip is made of continually optimized. Everything is super integrated and balanced. And the time and the money that I can't invest in there is no other way around.

For everything in vaccination. Now, there are costs tests on Shopify.de. With the check-out of the world for the best conversion. The check-out of the world for the best conversion. The legendary check-out of Shopify is actually on their website,

which is for social media and for everyone. That's the music for your ears. The video is also released on Wednesday with Shopify.

It consists of an instant hip band, started on test-not-holed to tune in and out of Shopify.de.

Let's record it. Hey everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopilot. I'm here with Jonathan Hack. It's McMolleroy myself. Mark P. Shibby joining, so Shibby two Marines versus two Greeks.

I like those odds. A lot happening. I mean, you guys have been monitoring the situations, as much as we have. I mean, we're going to begin.

One of the muses close, right? Right about to get to the AO. We'll see where they, and I don't know where they're going to position themselves and stuff. I'd love to get into that. A lot happening.

The hoothies have entered the chat.

Jonathan had mentioned last couple weeks. If you guys really want to know what's going to happen before you see what's going to happen on Twitter, you just watch and listen to the Eyes on Geopilot's podcast, because we know what's going to happen before everybody else does.

“That's what I've been noticing the last month or so.”

It's like we say something a week later, people are breaking it. Like it's some new, like it's brand. It's breaking news. Sorry, right over. What else?

Our base in Saudi Arabia, we got hit with drones. Pretty badly. I would say 10 plus people, 10 plus servicemen injured. I think a couple of seriously. We lost like four KC 135s or five on KC 135s and S3.

E3 Sanctuary, sorry. So not insignificant loss of equipment either, like that's pretty bad. I'd love to also get into that where like what the fuck are we doing in terms of like knocking these drones out of the air, you know what I mean? Like, or not even putting our shit into like hardened bunkers or hiding them.

Gamma nets. I don't know. I'm not a strategic guy, but I'm sure there are people there that know what they're doing. Another thing I'd love to also get into is the fact that over the last 40 years of war between Russia and Ukraine seeing the development of drone warfare, how we are now

prepared for what's been going on is ridiculous as a layman looking at this. So yeah, tonne going on, you guys start where you want to start, make you take it away. Well, there is a tonne going on and there's a tonne about to happen, um, where to start.

“So I think we're at a crossroads, essentially.”

We've met a lot of our military objectives. We talked about this a lot on the show. And I think we've actually taken and we being a combined US Israeli, we've taken some strikes to degrade the nuclear program. Right?

So they have a water plant, the, I don't know what you call it, but it converts uranium or into a nuclear plant. So we're making headways. We're also, of course, plating their ballistic missile storage facility on sites, manufacturing sites, their military.

Yes, all that has been done. I do think the US should have been more clear about what our objectives were. And of course, minus the idea that we can change the regime is not going to happen. Also, that we could essentially clay, uh, declare a scenario a lot of overseas far. And I think if we would have done that, and I guess we still could, uh, it would have given

us the ability to negotiate, because I don't think Iran's going to negotiate under fire. And it would give us the ability to talk to allies in a way that's different than, I know we didn't talk to you about the war that we're going to start by choice, but now that we started it, we want you to participate.

“So I think we would add a better discussion, or we would have a better discussion with”

them if we stopped bombing Iran. And then said, look, the street is still closed. We think it's a collective issue. We like your assistance in opening it, diplomatically and militarily of necessary. But the way we are now, it seems like to everybody that we have no intent of a ceasefire.

We don't send, you know, the, uh, immediate response force of the A to second error, if you're

really planning to have a ceasefire and stop the air campaign, nor the two views, we can get into those and details. So I would advocate for us to announce that we have better objectives if we have. And look for our, for a diplomatically, it's going to be a challenge with the Iranians. Uh, I obviously have no love loss for the regime.

“I think they would be far better off if they all just went away.”

But ultimately, they're not going to trust negotiations because we were in the mental negotiations last time when we will launch the war first place. So we're going to have to get in a place where they trust what we say. And then, you know, what the Iranians have that is really given them, uh, I think a big advantage, especially in the economic aspect of this conflict is obviously the straight.

So do we want to try to force that open ourselves?

Do we want to get a coalition that could also help negotiate an opening to the straight? And obviously, we need to come in with some, uh, benefits to the regime, if you will, uh, for opening it. But anyway, that's, I know, there's a lot to discuss, but I got we got two more guys that can nothing really provide more detailed insight, but that's where I think we should be

looking right now is how to find an offer amp, uh, in an offer amp that could lead to building a larger coalition when it, uh, and regards to the straight itself. Yeah, and I think with the negotiations piece, if you're the regime, you've been thrice wronged in these negotiations where you've been hoodwinked essentially, you know, twice with Iran negotiations, and then once with the Venezuelan stuff where it looked

like the US was doing one thing in the diplomatic track. In fact, there were other plans going on behind the scenes using those negotiations as a ruse to achieve a different objective or a different outcome. And it's possible that that's happening right now, and it looks like the pieces are moving on the board in that direction, and if you're an Iranian negotiator, you're going to be

very cautious about what the US promises, what the US is willing to give.

“And I think that's actually kind of being reflected in what we see in the public space”

about what's going on in negotiations. You see Iran asking for a lot of things that are pretty extreme, trying to force the US to come to that best negotiated alternative, because neither the size of the table right now have terms that are possible. So what they're going to have to do is kind of come toward the center.

I think what the Iranian negotiators are doing is kind of testing to see how much good faith is there in this process and the way they're doing that is by using extreme positions to see where is the US willing to concede in the short period of time. And I think they're going to probably start measuring those concessions to see how realistic are these concessions, and should we trust them or not?

And I don't think that they're going to stop fighting while they're negotiating. They're going to continue fighting just like we're continuing to fight. I saw that yesterday, the last 24 hours were the most intense period of strikes since the war began. We've done 11,000 strikes since February 28th and 6% of those strikes alone were yesterday.

And pretty intense across the country, not only against military targets, but also against the defense industrial base. There's a steel plant in Iran that was completely shut down about 10,000 people working that steel plant. They're not able to work now because it's been attacked.

So the US is clearly working through the target deck while they're negotiating with the regime and the regime is going to have to consider how much are we willing to trust the United States as we negotiate because not only are military targets being threatened, but are civilian infrastructures being put at risk because there's a lot of dual use, civilian infrastructure that produces steel for factories and trucks, but also does, I see the

M construction perhaps in the future if they could do that. So they're trying to think through what's the risk and trade off of us trusting the United States in this moment.

“And if the US does reneg, how much have we lost while waiting to move forward?”

Hey, I was late. Did you give me a hard time? I miss my form in window, which anyway, the espionage, lingo there. But where are we right now? I guess that was one of the questions.

I don't think that there's been a decision made in terms of ground force and we always

talk about signal versus noise. The signal certainly is the arrival of the Mew and all the other kind of moves. Certainly, SETCOM is planning for some type of ground operation. There's no doubt. Sir President Trump has made the decision on that.

But if you take a look at the signals and the diplomatic back and forth, I don't know if there's any kind of seriousness to that. I mean, there is a question on whether the Iranians are willing to actually have a meeting or not. But I think Jonathan, you're right, there's no trust at all.

The last, every time we negotiate with the Iranians, we end up attacking them afterwards.

This is like kindergarten math. Okay, every time we sit down with you, you attack us. And when you say there's progress, literally the next day, there's aircraft in the air. And so I'm not sure there's any trust there.

“I think the, what, a couple of things we're kind of interesting to me, one is all the reports”

that Trump is getting bored and I think that's probably true because this is hard now. The idea that this was not going to be hard, again, that's a separate discussion I definitely want to have today because as I kind of alluded to last time, I think we're, we are, you know, piling all the blame on where we are on Trump and the civilian leadership in the White House and maybe even Hegseth, but I think we have to take a look at St. Com as well.

And I know that might make people, I've been listening to this uncomfortable, but whether it's Dan K in the chairman or Admiral Cooper, I mean, things that are happening now are so incredibly predictable and yet we seem to be reactive on everything. We've wargamed around Nick, you did this for a living and Jonathan, you practiced it for a living.

But we seem to be reactive on everything. So there's, there is a part of it, which I think that, and this is, you know, and I love what you said, Nick, last week when he said, you know, you're on team America when it's sent out a tweet today on that, I love that.

“We always are, but I think the military leadership can be blamed a little bit here, too.”

This is not just kind of incompetence at the secretary level in DOD or whatever national security apparatus even exists. And so, you know, and don't forget, John Racklet, the CI director, actually said, and then open here and he talks to Trump several times a day. So it's, you know, so where is the intelligence community, where he's sent come on, where

we are kind of now on this mess? In terms of, you know, one thing that, that I found interesting, it seems to me, you know, in terms of the straight-of-war moves, there also is this kind of undercurrent of trying to dump this on our NATO partners who want no part of it, but are going to be forced to, perhaps.

And particularly the UK. And I think, I mean, you know, we, we kind of, we start this war, you know, you guys alluded to it.

We start this war and now we're saying, hey, we need some help, even though Trump then a second

later says, I don't give a shit about NATO and you guys are horrible and you all suck. But behind the scenes, we're asking them, you know, are we going to walk away and leave this big pile of shit, the straight-of-war moves to some kind of NATO, you know, UK-led mission. I don't know. And so, you know, that, that to me is a, it's certainly interesting.

And I think the last piece on this is, you know, again, what I've said last week was this, you know, that we have this, this romance of the military math. I mean, I don't give a shit how many fucking targets we've hit, 10,000 means nothing to me, 15,000 means nothing to me because they just launched ballistic missiles and took out an A-wax in Saudi Arabia, they're pounding these Israel non-stop.

And so, I mean, it's important we continue on, but we're romance by all of these, you know, the, the data on the strikes and all these brave things and we think it means something. And it, it, it maybe it does, if you're talking about a committed war effort in the United States over time, you know, can we beat Iran, of course, we can. But if, if we have such limited time span, attention span, you know, literally three,

four days ago, there was people were talking about the, you know, ballistic missile inventory of Iranians were almost, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, we're almost finished.

Yeah, then, and until Report League, that no, actually, they have a third of it left.

And then, they start hitting our Air Base in Saudi Arabia and the Israelis. Um, and so, you know, this is, and this is not, to say, I mean, you know, if you were going

“to launch a war in Iran, you have to build all these in.”

It's going to be hard. It's going to take months. There's going to be significant US casualties and you do that. You walk in knowing that, um, but I think we want, you know, we want this to be a call a duty game. Um, and, you know, I'm definitely getting into, you know, the military analysis fear, which is I'm not an expert on, but on the Intel side of things, I'm going to just

everything that I see that's happening just seems to be so predictable. I mean, my goodness, both of you guys spend so much of your career, you know, working in this game, you know, all the plans and, well, how are we surprised at some, and by the way, the, the last piece, sorry, now I'm going to go on my rant. How are we, how are we not having hardened any kind of hardened shelter shelters at our bases in the Middle East, our

aircraft are in wide open. Do we not learn from everything that happened to Ukraine? What was sent come doing is they were traveling around the Middle East, thinking about a future war with Iran. The ship's wide open, and it's getting hit. Um, did we not see what, what drones and, and, and, and, and, you know, and a blistering missiles could do in Ukraine, and that is something that I wanted to raise with both of you guys in particular, because it seems

to me, um, and there, there was a little bit of that in social media today, some, some military

commentators were saying, oh, you know, wait, wait a second, why is this happening here? Why

is everything on the open? That's my two cents. Well, said, because I said a lot of that, too, am I opening, right? All right. Yeah. Go ahead, Jeff. It's the green mine melt. Yeah, we're just angry. We're just the default angry. I'm going to go and move today. I'm going to angry, Greek today. I'm probably making actually meaningful on something yesterday in our, in our little

That's fine. Any comments on what I just said? Sorry, I raised a couple points for you all.

I was very interested in your takes. I've been actually talked about it a bit. Go ahead, Jonathan. I was just going to mention about nine months ago. Me and D were the two of us on a little video here. And the title is, we are gearing up for war where they're on. And there was a comment in the comment section of that video. And someone said, are we seriously considering comparing Iraq and nation building to targeted strikes on nuclear sites? Because in that video, nine months ago,

I said, what we're doing here are these are pieces moving toward an eventual attack on Iran. And there was a lot of pushback from the public at that time, including in the comments of that video saying, like, there's no way we're going to do that. We're just talking about targeting

nuclear strikes and hitting Isphahan and Ford out and all this. And I said, that's not what

this is. This isn't kind of, that's not how it's going to end. Especially if you look at how pieces are moving even back last summer, even before June, before the June strikes. And when you're talking about predictability, like you just mentioned Mark, the signal is there. You know, if you just look at this in a rational way, you can kind of see, okay, there are these players in this game, these players have these capabilities. They're doing these things right now when they put the

these capabilities in play. Typically, this is what happens next. It's not a fantasy or some kind of crazy thing to say that if you take our island, for example, this is not the end of the game. There are further moves that will occur and must occur, whether one player wants it or the other player wants it, there will be these outcomes most likely. Like, there, there is a predictable series of events that occur after one event happens. And I think a lot of times observers look at

this and they say, well, because I don't think that that's possible. I can't think beyond what happens next because I don't think that's possible. And that's not how you look at this. You have to critically analyze, well, what if it did happen? What's next? Okay, and what if that happens?

“What about those three things that happen after that? And that's how you have to rationally”

approaches. I'm only mentioning that for some of the viewers who might think, well, we don't want ground troops, so we can't think beyond the ground troops option, but you have to. And I think that's what might be missing also in the White House is there might be some of this lack of creative future predictability on what could happen even if you don't want it to happen. What if that does happen? And I think that's a very important thing. So in my experience, and I don't think this changes

for administration, whether it's the joint chiefs of staff or the, you know, the combat and

commanders and their staff, like, said, come, they're always planning for this. They, they're

not like, I mean, they're the same people, generally, whether you're in the Trump administration button administration or wherever comes next. My concern, and I'm just, I'm going off of media reports, but we've all seen them, is there's a disconnect, and because the National Security Council is where policy coordination happens. And it is the interface between, you know, whether rubber hits the road, which in this case is US military and policy makers. And if it's not functioning

“the way it usually does, and that's what the reporting is, essentially nothing's going on there.”

And the idea that you have the Secretary of State is also the National Security Advisor, goes to that. And there's also another report that this was all planned out by five people, which I don't think has happened in the history of the United States, right? Even if you go back to World War II, when the whole government was essentially in the executive office building, where the NSC is now, they still had a coordination of this. They ran a world war from there.

Now, we seem to go on the other direction, and what I'm concerned about, and it's not just that I'm sticking out for people that I know that are, you know, for military, is I know they're the same people, and I know they're as smart or smarter than I am, or any of us are, in their thinking about all this stuff. They didn't just decide not to think about it. So I think what the issue is, is they don't know which direction we're going.

So it's hard to plan the pitfalls on the way if you're following my analogy. If you don't know, we're going that way, right? So, and then we turn around to that way.

“So I think my concern is that they need to restart that. It is existed in every administration,”

and actually listen to folks, and then package the decisions that we have to make as they go up, that everything's already thought out. So if you go this way, this is what we have to be concerned about. This is contingency planning, etc., etc., here's the pros, here's the cons. And the military intelligence community does that. And, you know, both of those groups don't do policy. They inform policy. But I don't know that they're playing that traditional role.

I think, but Dan came in John Ratcliffe and to some extent, I have a Cooper, already in the room.

“So Chairman, do you know Chiefs? Is the principal advisor to the president on military affairs?”

He is in the room, yes. And so he's the only uniform military personnel. So I think we're absolving him of some of what is going on now, as we see the dysfunction. And that was on my only point. I don't know that we know what he's saying. So if he goes into the room and says, I think it's a terrible idea to interject ground troops, which there are reporting that he did say that. And they go, thanks General.

Now, let's talk about injecting ground troops. What is he supposed to do? Well Jim, but Jim Mattis is Secretary of Defense, a little bit different role, but in the Trump-

What do you mean? Different role, but Jim. What's he supposed to do? Manus was very, very

openly pushing back on Trump's crazy ideas. That's my only thing. I think, you know, according to the reporting results General did push back. Threatening to resign, I mean, look, if everybody did that, the entire chain of command of the military would fall apart. It's not a thing. In my world, it's not a thing. You don't go in there thinking that you are, you can so influence policy, that you just quit when you don't like it.

If it's a lawful order, you fall of the order, or the entire chain of command of a military falls apart. But don't you think resigning, though, actually, that would argue against that. That would just mean you bring someone else in. It would be more exactly the same thing. All you're doing is compounding

“the problem and hand it over your deputy. But I think it's a chance. I mean, I have the ability to say”

your advice. But what do you mean by resisting? No, I'm saying that you follow lawful orders. There's no such thing as resisting. That's where it would be really bad. It would be more honorable saying that I can't go ahead and do this. You know, if you, if you, if that's a lawful orders and you're in your, you swore to follow the Constitution, it's constitutionally a lawful order. I don't see the purpose of resigning. No, no, I think it's heroic. It's actually a

dereliction and a duty. And if you do a lot of things, all the course of that resign are the ones that are left behind are the ones that all agree with that exact issue. So you haven't fixed the problem. You've only grown the issue. It's an end. It comes all about you. It comes all about you. You've just totally screwed over your deputy and all the way down on a chain of command. But that would argue that you've made a, you can go on TV and talk about how you resigned.

But then, then the, in the Vietnam War when terrible decisions were made and people did not do so. Then you perpetuate a war that just is going to go on forever. I mean, at some point, is there a place as a public servant when you say, I can't do this? If you disagree with the war, you can, you can retire and go on the speaking circuit. But if you're, if you're the one responsible for carrying out a lawful order, then yeah, I think quitting

is a dereliction of dude. We just see it differently. I don't know. I mean, maybe it's a marine view. But most Marines would say, hey, I took the job. I'm in command. I got a lawful order.

“The only thing I'm doing by quitting is screwing over everybody below me and making it all about me.”

We're all replaceable. I think, too, in a military, like on the institutional perspective of carrying out lawful orders, even if you disagree with the policy, in the military, you're a policy executor. It's very pure. You're not a policy maker. And you're not there to influence policy. You're there to advise on it at the most. And in many cases, you're not even there to do that, depending on where you are in the institution. And I think that's different than a lot of other places

in government where there is more room, like some, some given the joint,

basically to actually say, like, I disagree with that or here's like a state department, for example,

has a dissent channel. The military doesn't have anything like that. You know, like the kind of telegram, the long telegram that he wrote about, you know, the Cold War and Russian, all that. There's no mechanism like that in the military. And in fact, the military designed to resist that type of mechanism. Because, like, as you said, the moment people became questioning policy at the execution level, the system starts to fall apart. The reason that it's effective

is because that thing's not there. That could be for better or worse, you know, this philosophical debate about should it be that way, and maybe it should or shouldn't, but if you want the system to function well, you can't, you can't change that aspect of it. I think in the way that it's designed right now in the military, at least. I would, I was just very, very mad as was a civilian, though, when you're making that example. Yeah. He's a civilian that was responsible for defense policy.

So they'd, just because he was a former general that put, he's in a different space. That's right. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yeah, he's a senior uniform member, but he's a uniform number. His job is not, it's to, it's to advise the best military advice. It isn't to promote

with it, and you then quit. And part of it, too, is how do you present those options as the

advisor? Because there is, there is some persuasion there when you're giving these, you know, three choices like, hey, there's car island, there's these other stuff. If you do a really good job of problem framing to the decision maker, you might persuade them to pick your option. You know,

“and I think Colin Powell did that in 1991 when he advocated the Powell doctrine, and there was the”

Weinberger doctrine, which is very similar to that, showing for these limited strikes with limited objectives, a very quick use of a specific amount of resources. There were other policy makers that were influencing Bush at the time to choose different outcomes, and Powell did a good job of presenting his case in a way that the president chose to go in. And I think that's really where that policy can be influenced, is how do you frame this problem in a way that's really

the best option to the person working at many options from state, from NSC, from other, from other inputs? I still think that the, the, the, the, the, the two positions we're talking about the chairman, and then the same com she do have a political role in a policy making role. I guess that's where we differ a little bit on this. There's so senior, they, you know, they are, they are not only senior military officers, they're also diplomats, and so I, I think they do actually influence

policy and help drive policy as well. And so I, I hear what you guys are saying, and there's honor in what you're saying, but I do think that at those levels, at the can and Cooper level, they have more, they, they certainly do have talk about policy, because there's been a long, kind of, you know, that there has, there's certainly been, again, this is just from what I remember hearing, you know, it, for example, on the GCPOA, and you, I mean, you saw, you were a civilian in

the, in DOD, but DOD was actually in favor of that, at that time. Now, maybe that was the DOD civilian side that was in favor of it, but I also would imagine that there was input from the

“senior uniform, certainly from Sancom as well on that, but voila, I think, I just think this is an”

interesting debate, and particularly, if we end up going into kind of the morass of a never-ending

war, I don't know if it's going to get to that place or not. But, you know, what was the descent on this, and you guys made a good point that there is, there's actually, there's no descent channels, even available right now, because the national security process does mean work. I mean, ordinarily, there would be a flight in the NSC, so a national security council meeting would be, you know, you have, you have the chiefs or deputy cabinet, or if it goes down to

lower levels, everyone's kind of fighting stuff out. But as you noted, that doesn't even occur. And so, who knows how they're making this kind of policy right here? Hey, what's up, guys? This is the, uh, do us a favor and check out our Patreon page. It's patreon.com/to-teamhouse. You get both team-outs episodes and eyes-on geopolitics episodes. Completely ad-free. You get them early too. You can ask us questions. You can also watch a team-outs episodes live as we shoot them.

So, uh, and you help support the show on support, what we're doing here, um, it's patreon.com/to-teamhouse.

“Those links are in the description, or if you're listening, it's in the show notes down below,”

so you can click it real quick and easy, and it helps us keep the lights on. So, we appreciate it, and we appreciate you guys listening. Thanks a bunch. I have a lot of problems, but the platform is not one of them. I have the feeling that Shopify has their platform continuously optimized. Everything is super, simply integrated and connected.

And the time and the money that I can't invest in there is nothing else. Everything is in the box. Now, the cost list is on Shopify.de. It's time to share your passion with Shopify. And to be precise, with the check-out of the world, the best version.

That's right, the check-out of the world is the best version of the world. The legendary check-out of Shopify is just the shop on your website. It's a bit too social media, and it's everywhere. That's a music for your ears. Videos are also available with Shopify.

It's possible to get a real help. Start your tests today for one of your problems. On Shopify.de, let's record it. I'm Theresa and my experience in all entrepreneurs, started with Shopify erfolgreich through.

I'm sure that Shopify has already been the first day.

And the platform makes me no problem. I have a lot of problems, but the platform is not a step forward. I have the feeling that Shopify is a platform that can continue to optimize everything. Everything is super simple, integration and balance. And the time and the money that I can't invest in there.

For everything in the box. Now, the cost list is on Shopify.de. Watch an operation to snatch your anium from nuclear sites.

You will take weeks. Obviously, the Marines got to go to Cargallon and hold Cargallon right until the negotiate until we squeeze them enough where they are like, yeah, let's make a deal. So you're talking weeks, probably. Like, are these soldiers and Marines supposed to just take incoming fire

“until that ends or until they dig out all the uranium and get out of there?”

Because it's not a two hour event as well in capture mission, right? It's weeks and weeks at a time. So, I mean, what does that look like for the guys on the ground during those weeks, if or not?

I think we're going to have to take the straight first.

I don't know exactly, but I mean, if I was looking at this militarily, I wouldn't want to launch all these Marines to take Cargallon like 400 miles up the Persian Gulf and still have the straight itself locked. Because there's a good chance that we take Cargallon and like you just said, the our Marines and potentially paratroopers attack nonstop and the uranium's go, we're still not open on the straight.

That's really the point. I mean, if we wanted to actually take their ability to use the island away, we could just want it. So I'm concerned we get there. We take Cargallon to these, which is likely, I mean, there's a CNN report that they've been

preparing for this for some time. And then we keep taking Cargallon to these and it doesn't

strategically advantage us. So then I would say, well, why not just focus on the actually straight itself. Huge decision, big political decision. And I don't have the information available to know the weather week militarily unblock the straight. Because there's two parts to it. We've talked about it before. There's where the military says, it's good to go. You can, you can go through.

And then there's a commercial vessels going, I don't think so, right? So it's not just, it's not just us declaring it. It's also the commercial vessels, the tankers, and they're insurers saying, yeah, we believe you, right? And it's going to be really quick to see mine the straight. So it could be matter hours as these slow motion troops arrive, they just start

dropping all their naval mines. So that's one aspect to this. I, again, would say we would be

better off if we had a ceasefire, even if Iran doesn't. And then start talking to our allies. I know this is backwards, but you can't undo the past about how we're going to strip open the straight. Because there's countries all around the world that are hurt because of this. And then the

“other potential ground force operation is recovery of the highly enriched uranium. I think that might,”

I don't know, I like to hear from Jonathan too, but I think that might be the most complicated special operations mission in history, if that goes down. I mean, this could last weeks. And it, we could be, you know, completely enveloped by tens of thousands of Iranians, willing to lose their life trying to get to the, uh, to the troops that are carrying this out. So it's very far inland and it's, it's well beyond, like you mentioned,

already, do this, uh, then is where the App Ranch an operation. This could take every move on equipment. And also, it the complications are immense. That, that will be a huge decision. I certainly understand why we would want to. It's one of our primary objectives. So they don't get a nuclear bomb. I would imagine they are, but I would really be pushing for them to come up with an alternative to, uh, putting any of the entire force at risk, which I think is

clearly a possibility. I think they can do it. But again, just because they can do it, just like the marine stake in the islands, we really should look at whether they should do it.

“Yeah, and I think taking Carg Island is important to separate from the nuclear mission”

because these aren't really related militarily. Exactly. Taking Carg Island is kind of like patching a pinhole leak on a vessel that has a large hole on the other side of the vessel. And it's like, why would you just take this island exactly like you said, Mac, you have to stop the actual flow of the thing you're trying to affect rather than just taking a piece of physical terrain. And even on the Carg Island aspect, yes, you keep hearing this quotation that would 90%

of their oils can pass through there, et cetera. Well, where is the oil coming from? You know, you want to go upstream in the oil process. It's coming from Abadhan, which is right across the border of Iraq and Kuwait, which is physically accessible by ground forces from watch from Iraq and Kuwait. You don't need to take Carg Island to stop the production of Abadhan. You know, there's a whole different, you know, entanglement here going on where you're

looking at what are you trying to actually do militarily on Carg Island? And if it's to stop the flow of oil, you don't need to even touch Carg Island. You could put the Abadhan at risk elsewhere. Look, it just happened with a steel plant with 10,000 employees, a few air strikes and 24 hours stop the steel manufacturing in that plant, same thing at Abadhan. And Abadhan has been there for a very long time.

the AIOC. It's been there for over a hundred years. We are very familiar with Abadhan. And there are

ways to prevent that from happening. We did that in eastern Syria with the mission support sites, with the Connecophilips and other oil companies to stop the flow of oil out of Syria for ISIS and through the Syrian government. I mean, we've done this before recently with special operations forces, obviously, you know, less risky situation than we have right now. And there are other islands in the Gulf that have to be secured before Carg Island is actually safe from other

literal threats, you know, you bet, Keshem Island, which is the entire length of Keshem Island.

“It's huge. It's the length of Okenau. And if you remember back to our World War II, strategic lessons,”

there are one of the reasons we use nuclear bombs in Japan was because after the Battle of Okenau, after the amount of losses we had there, and we thought about how many losses we have in the mainland, we will not sustain those losses. We have to use a nuclear weapon. That was the calculus back then. And this island is the same size as Okenau, right? And the people are, I mean, you could probably equate the level of military fanaticism with the IRGC and the Japanese army back then,

where they were willing to die to the last man in Guadalcanal. You know, I had a family member that has a sword, a katana, from one of the last survivors of the, of the enemy force that the Marines killed all of them because they wouldn't stop fighting. And you'll see exactly the same thing here in Iran. And right now, actually yesterday, there was a country-wide SMS, you know, text message sent out to every cell phone in the country that said, join the John Fata, which is a volunteer

sacrificing life, brigades, which are martyr brigades, to fight with knives and whatever weapons you

have available in case the US forces invade. So they sent this to almost 90 million people. Of course,

many people don't agree with that or accept that, but they are blasting this message out and saying, we're going to fight to the last man. They're not saying that to the US. They're saying that to their own people, right? In Farsi. Let's think about the internal messaging going on right now. When they're looking at, what is the US going to do next? Are they taking question? Are they taking card? Are they going to take our nuclear material, which is an existential threat to the regime? Because it's the last

“negotiating piece they have had for many years. So we need to think about what is, what is the adversary?”

Thinking about and how far are they willing to go? Because if we look at it like, okay, we're going to take these islands. What's the response going to be? How existential of a threat is that to the regime? And it's a high threat, which means we need to be prepared to resist that threat beyond or conventional military response. You guys think that, and again, both you have been involved in this kind of the planning at the same time level for such operations. Are there casualty estimates that go into this,

between Carg Island, between, you know, going in and trying to secure the HEU, would there be internal

estimates on, okay, how, you know, because I think there's always going to be the notion of we

can do this. I mean, we can beat the Iranians. It could be extremely bloody and take a long time, but are there actual estimates that go into these things? And then would they, in a normal situation, get presented to the policymaker? Yes, and actually there will be estimates not only on casualties like wounded action, but types of casualties, types of blood needed, how far

“will that blood be from the actual front line from the foreign line of troops? What type of hospitals?”

What role of hospital level? We need to actually have in the theater, how many types of, you know, black hawks we need to go and fly in and out. What level of risk are those helicopters willing to accept when they actually take casualties in and out? Is it going to be ground metavak primary or air metavak primary? All this will be planned in there in addition to detainee handling, which is a very closely attached to casualty handling, because a lot of the

same rear area handling that has to happen for casualties is similar to what happens with detainee as far as, you know, the infrastructure needed in the rear area to actually support moving from the forward area back to the rear and then the placing the new waves of troops that needed. Yeah, so everything Jonathan just said from the point of view of military planning and then, yes, Mark, to your question on policy makers, they usually ask to and it's already ready

like what's the risk to force, what kind of casualties we think we're going to take is, I mean, one, I mean human should care about other humans, right? But the other thing is this political, I mean, if they go, oh yeah, we expect to take 40% casualties and we take our island. I mean, that's a, they realize, oh, I mean, the America people don't even support the war, and we're going to tell them we took 40% casualties on a island that I can't haven't even articulated

why we should take, I mean, you want to talk about the bottom fall on out of support for this whole conflict. Yeah, I mean, that's an important point. I'm sure the military is going to be like, yeah, this is what we expect. And oftentimes they, because they have to plan for the high end, right? Because if you plan for the low end, then you're not really planning. So they're going to present probably a high end. So these policy makers, you know, I don't know how the process is

working, but whoever is this is going to be presented to is going to have a good idea of what they're deciding to do. I wonder what consequences. If those kind of estimates would, again,

it's political now. And I guess the question for you all, then it made you alluded to the American people prepared for this, because to meet our war objectives, purely in the military sense, not the diplomatic sense. If, you know, pigs fly tomorrow and the Iranians agreed to give up their entire new program, this is a great victory. But assuming that there is, and removing the actual nuclear threat in the H.E. H.E.U. is, is a military objective that President Trump says here,

“we have to do this. Do you think the American people are prepared for those type of casualties?”

I don't. I mean, we've seen the, just their, their, um, their support for the war, the air campaign, right, has been underwater. And I think the longer it goes on and the more we're talking about

insertion of ground troops and both sides and both sides of the aisle. Ultimately,

well, I think we could all agree that Congress has kind of been absent from a lot of things that they're supposed to be doing, but eventually they're going to wake up and go, because it's going to start affecting them, especially the people that are looking at the midterms coming up. Right. And there go on, because not only is this causing a lot of economic strain that we chose to do, but if you start adding, you know, casualties, a lot of casualties coming

back, then what they can do is they can cut off the funding. Let me ask you a question on that. This is, this was actually the, the first thing I had in mind when I was preparing for the for the show today was you know there is this you know echo

system of kind of the military vet bro podcast world and you know team house and this kind of

lives a little bit in it watch it but what's that I said watch it not because it's a really

“dedicated audience but and it's not because I think what we're doing here is having a debate and you”

can disagree but you know I was just on Andy's dump show if you watch Sean Ryan I mean they are visceral reactions to this in this campaign there is I mean and it's not positive and so if you think you know in the age of social media and throw it I don't know what Joe Rogan is thinking these days but these are this is the social media world the podcast world which actually really has a pretty significant following um not just on the right in the back of movement but in the veteran community and then again

think about or they show Sean Ryan and he stumped others but there's a lot of opposition to this you know what do you what is your sense from your kind of uh uh your tribe um as you talk to people and I know both you guys have friends who are from the left in the right so there's no kind of one uniform but you know what are they thinking on uh on Iran because actually I do think it matters look you know veterans people have been in combat you know do command a lot of uh respect in the United

States and when you have a lot of people saying hold on a second because because ordinarily these

think there's a rally around the flag um uh kind of concept here and and everyone's going to think of the men and women you know you know uh uh uh uh uh on the ground everyone's going to support them but but again the overall war effort I just don't I see kind of that this military vet bro

“echo system is not being particularly supportive am I reading that right or no?”

a lot of the guys I grew up with you know they were there during the invasion and then shortly after that and they remember the the transition from fighting Iraqi forces in 2003-4-5-ish to the introduction of Quds Force into that fight when the explosively foreign penetrators started appearing everywhere and how that changed casualties and it was those penetrators are not designed they do kill people but the primary purpose is to injure and main people because they wanted to send a visceral message

to this democracy fighting a war domestically back home to damage public sentiment back home in the United States and they did very effectively when you see people coming home with no legs and no arms and you know all kinds of horrific injuries not only that on the same time a lot of people especially in the right that want to reduce government spending and and complain about how much money the VA is spending well you're about to have a whole new group of VA people that need VA benefits

for the rest of their lives from injuries in this war injuries design specifically to cause that high cost domestically inside the United States these are not going to be injuries that Iran is carefully targeting and killing Americans it's going to be how much can we injure and name Americans in this war to dramatically affect domestic politics back home and I think that's what a lot of my colleagues more friends in that world are seeing and thinking about is we know

what comes next because we were there or in those early years I've a friend from Delta Force I was just talking to recently and he's he's very conservative and even in the conversation we were having you could hear him kind of debating with himself about like I don't like the regime and I don't like the people there at the same time you know like I remember my friends that had been injured and killed

what happened back then I'm looking at a lot of there's a lot of correlation between back then and now what do you think yeah I'm flared hot and he's podcast about 10 minutes down the road of the way right what is a big state but the concentration of veterans near why I am is is pretty pretty dense put it down when I went out of his podcast I check with the do you said I could do it he wasn't upset with me so no not at all I like it it was actually I mean if we had a

great chat it's good yeah it's good it's good it's good podcast man it's a lot like what Jonathan just said so I think I think there's no love loss obviously for the regime for all the reason we already said this goes back to the 80s right when I killed all the Marines and they tortured our chief of

station and basically skin them alive and all the issues with rock and I mean me personally I would

like to do a lot of what we do against the regime in the backgrounds to put it to put it simply and you know I should say this is historic but I'm all for revenge

“well if somebody kills my friend I will never forget it and I will track him down and I”

might sun tracks him down if I wasn't able to get to him so I'll just admit that up front but I think hesitation is the same vets and obviously I don't speak for him I'm just kind of explaining what I think that sentiment is they also look for the out for the next generation of vets right they look at their war and said you know we just kept going and going because policy makers couldn't make a decision and they didn't want to like declare it over for whatever political reasons so they just kept going

we kept spending more money we kept losing more people and there was no purpose you know think about

by the time we were uh or nor did they actually try to do anything to preserve what we fought for right at the end it was just like ask or let's just get out right it was like really because we only have 5,000 people there we're pretty much off the front lines we're not losing anybody but we're still maintaining what but they didn't you know so I think a lot of the end people were like what was out you know we we all look at our social media feeds

“and non stop remember this person remember this person remember this person and you have to”

you have to stop and remember that person you I mean I don't know I'm speaking for myself I feel guilty when I don't go I'm going to repost this person because he's not going to get

forgot right and I don't think they want to see that again and now they're into something

they're in a place that they could do something about it because they're out of the military where they can't say something right before you know we already had this discussion your job is to follow orders but now you're civilian I just think of it in a way to be inherently suspicious of US government it's actually and I think that's a good I mean again we live in a democracy we have to have this debate it's actually really good there's no kind of monolithic

you know national security or veteran community arguing one way or another on this issue and that's a good thing and you know one of the things that I don't know if you guys struggle with I literally it's not changed my mind but their days I wake up and think about my entire career and you know

“all of us work against the Iranians in some place and some fashion at some point and then I think”

of course if Iraq and Afghanistan places where I was not in the military but I went to both places you guys you guys know that the friends were killed there and so then you do start thinking okay you know what was all that for so I'm all over the place in this thing and you could probably tell because I get accused all the time they said you know last week you refer to this whole thing and this week you're against it and I was like because I really struggle with that I think a

lot of the things you guys were just talking about is that the Iranians are a bad actor no doubt and you know whether it's the the embassy bombing the many barracks bombing or station chief getting getting killed copar towers I mean we can go on and on EFP's on and on and on and on you know the rent is due and by the way the same people who were I mean the the Iranian regime at the nature of it and the age of some of these leaders some have been killed were involved in all those things

this is not just revenge in theory I mean the competition strikes killed a lot of people who are responsible for those events but then again there's a side of it says are you know what are we doing so I'm all over the place on this I don't know if you guys have ever kind of wake up and kind of scratch your head and say I'm not even sure what I'm arguing today well I agree with the overall objectives it's the issue it's how we do it that's that's got the issues like if we were to gone in and

in taking the strikes on the nuclear facilities taken even the decadent decapitation strike reduce their strategic capabilities and then said okay we're good now and understand we there were only one side of the equation or I could say well we're not good but it's now our choice

States I don't see that it being a real strategic purpose I think if we stop and go to our allies

this isn't going to happen but I do think we we'd be better off starting with the Mia Copa one NATO doesn't suck NATO has come to our defense two NATO's a defensive organization they don't have a requirement to come into a war of choice sorry about that and then three it's in everybody answers to open the straight so help us diplomatically help us militarily by the way and I've talked to some senior naval officers who say they have a very capable naval force they can help with

“actually minesweep like very capable we need them right and it's going to be a different I think”

operation when when we have a coalition of countries most of which other the United States initial can say look I had nothing to do with that but you're going to open this damn straight because you don't get to control the world's economy right it's a different discussion coming from France or Japan or you know fill in the blank so I do think there's a way and you mentioned this early up in team America like I want to win I want to win strategically and my criticism is more

geared toward not losing strategically I don't know I don't do the politics part so that is where I think the U.S. should focus and hopefully you know cooler heads prevail we start having a process it thinks or so yeah at law school we talk about x ante and x post positions on issues which means like how do you look at it before it happens versus how do you look at it after it happens so you know in the veteran community especially like you're talking about mark like there were opinions about

should we go to war and that was largely negative like we should not look work well now we have gone to war so now what how do we look at it now like you can't go and like turn back time and say

well I wish we had never gone to war I'm so upset about that's like okay I get that and now we

need to talk about what what do we do now and next because it's already in place the wheels are moving so next what happens and that's where maybe we mistakenly plan the war in a certain way that it wasn't great well now we need to work toward solving this problem regardless of who created the

“problem how do we solve the problem now and I think that's a helpful way to think through you know”

especially in the veteran community how do we how do we look at this yes we can pine about the past but we have to also think about the future if you keep looking in the rearview mirror you're going to miss the windshield and you're going to crash because you're only looking at the past and it's helpful to be informed with the past but there is a future ahead of the future as much longer than the length of the past all right so what do we need to look out for in the next coming few weeks

anything specific I mean clearly what the hoothies are going to do if they really do put a strangle hold on there on the red sea also they did shoot a couple of missiles that is real that got intercepted and stuff like that and they made some press conference like you know it was ridiculous but you know they're in the game now right and I have heard that our rainians were kind of giving them kind of pressuring them to get into this now

where do you guys see this going in the next few weeks with the hoothies I see them this is like a probing action although they've declared that they've entered I think what they're actually doing is seeing what would the response be like if we did enter so I think they haven't actually decided

yet to go full force against the region I think they probably launched those to see first of all

what's the military response to that and it was that Israel successfully intercepted almost everything that went over and it wasn't a lot and second what's the political and regional response you know

“in the social media and media world of two us entering and I think that's what they're kind of testing”

for and looking at what like a litmus test and the other thing to look at for is what about the hoast to shabby or popular mobilization forces in Iraq there was a video to think two days ago that came out of these this quote-unquote convoy of public mobilization forces moving into Iran but if you watch the video it's 39 high-lux trucks with cardboard boxes in the beds and no weapons which is a very interesting difference compared to how the hoast to shabby videos look

against ISIS when you see these guys with headbands and automatic weapons that got discous mounted in the high-lux you know they look like they're going to war back in 2016 versus what do they look like right now it looks like Iran needs medical supplies ammunition beans bullets and band aids which they're probably running low on and it looks like that's what the PMF is supplying and that's important to look out for too is how much more can the regime use

its sustainment capability we're not just talking about missiles and drones we're also talking about medical aid we're also talking about batteries equipment, cereal, rear support, mechanical things that they're you know either using they're getting degraded they're getting destroyed they're

of Iran versus what are the military capabilities of Iran because right now we're so focused like

you said mark on the military math but behind that military math there's a huge huge component of logistics and sustainment that we need to be analyzing carefully because that's where you can actually weaken the regimes by attacking those things and I think that popular mobilization forces video is a great indicator that they are in fact suffering logistically and in the sustainment space and the hoothees are again as we've mentioned on their own program they're going to determine their

own their own way do we enter this full force or not and I think in the next two to three days probably they're going to see how is Israel responding to their strikes because remember back after October 7 the hoothees did enter the chat and Israel went and struck a bunch of targets for a sustained period of time against the hoothees and that was not good for the hoothees

and I think they're thinking about that like how much are we willing to sacrifice right now

for this war that we actually don't want to be a part of because it's going to threaten our

“our home turf which is the thing that's important to them so I think looking at the hoothees measuring”

this in the future next two weeks and then looking at what's what's the Iraqi response going to be from the shea militia groups in Iraq inside of Iran. I think one thing on their job and you know the problem that these really have of course is their fight already fighting in two fronts and we have touched on it but the you know the wars kind of fall on in Lebanon now these railways were hitting targets in southern Lebanon there's certainly there's talks of a grand

invasion they're going to go all the way up to Latani River along with the operational tempo being at its highest against Iran so throwing the hoothees in and I'm sure this is part of the hoothe calculation as well so sure they don't want to get thumped again but you know are these railways you know going to start having issues with you know how much can they do and same thing with the United States and look you know we have a I would imagine we have a limited

capacity with the US Navy already deployed there to then deal with and essentially another front opening so that and but I go back to what I said originally how is this I mean you would hope that we have taken this into account in our planning the idea of the hoothees coming entering the phrase got to be in the top four or five things that would work her so I hope we went that the other thing I'm looking for is just and you know it's a I don't have a lot of faith in it but there's

the diplomatic track you know various foreign ministries foreign ministers or kind of coalescing in this longer than Pakistan now to try to talk about any kind of potential off ramp you know

“I think this is Pakistan and Turkey leading the charge on this and you know it's clear that the”

US is interested I mean I think you know Trump is interested in an off ramp whatever that may be even though the conditions you know between the two sides or so we're so great I think the bigger question though is what are the Iranians thinking because that the conventional wisdom now is that the action the Iranians think they're winning and so you know do they really you know is this is this is something that they want to see come to an end now clearly they don't want

to get bomb getting more but they're also not going to give up their nuclear program and so if you interesting to see the diplomatic track and and then we'll go down the road of yet another kind of deadline when does Trump lose patience what do Jared Kushner and Steve Woodcoff or you know on voice to the entire planet on every issue you know what do they report also like when the market opens and stuff like that to make announcements with billions of dollars

when the tank last week and Trump really cares about that and so there's you know so that's that

“so the market too is interesting I mean that you know it's funny I go back and there's a good”

friend of mine who's convinced that Trump acts based on the market I never believed him and now

I actually do absolutely does. If if Trump could he would wage this war on the weekends when the market's closed. Yeah so I heard a funny funny podcast like what stage of capitalism is that like when you're just fighting wars on on on on the weekends because the market's fucking closed. Well I mean we don't have I mean our capitalist system is now it's not even that we have it's an oligarch oligarchy here I mean you know there's so much government interference and everything

that that this administration or this administration is interfering in the markets all over the place but yeah so it's another kind of big week ahead it'll be interesting and so never a dull moment that is for sure and and you know the the muse there I mean you know we were waiting for them to arrive in the at least the the the first contingent has arrived and so I would imagine there's a in terms of the planning cycle and whatever send-com is planning they will be reporting to the

president you know the degree in which they're ready to act or not and we're probably closer to that that time period yeah and also the pressure from as you mentioned Pakistan Turkey Egypt Saudi Arabia I was reading that Egypt's natural gas prices tripled in the last week and a lot of people there that's their primary method of cooking you're talking about tens of millions of people that can't afford to cook their own food right now huge amount of pressure domestically on the Egyptian government

a Suez Canal and the whole Mediterranean for stuff they don't have the natural gas they need and so that

“over the next seven to ten days this could be a huge amount of pressure exerted not just from Egypt”

but also Saudi Arabia Qatar Bahrain you know these these countries heavily dependent on the movement of for their own domestic people of desalinated water natural gas and other things that are not oil that they need in their countries that's going to then translate onto pressure to the

United States I did see that Qatar basically stopped their all their LNG flow and it's like 20

percent of the world supply essentially and not only the world supply but Southeast Asia almost almost all of their LNG comes solely from Qatar that's China that's Thailand Indonesia Malaysia huge amount of dependence on just Qatar and LNG yes one more quick thing what's up with us not being able to fucking protect our assets in the Saudi Arabian base well that goes back to my criticism of yeah you're a military leadership have we not we don't agree with me on but I still stand

that I still I'm not is I I don't think that you know criticizing cane or Admiral Cooper is off limits at all and so I mean listen on the build up towards the Iran war I mean the joint chief so office somebody was leaking about like us not having enough munitions and stuff like that like somebody was leaking right that was strategic in nature to kind of get the press up against

to fight up and bump up against the Iranian attacks and stuff like that it was a cane I don't

know but like somebody was but this this is this is more of lessons learned I mean if you just stared at the Ukraine conflict Russia Ukraine the idea of us not having any kind of you know hardened shelters in the Middle East I just don't understand that but Jonathan what are your comments on that I mean you know again with all the work in the Iranians have the sheeds and they have ballistic missiles yet our aircraft is in in the open I guess we lost one a wax one of 16 that we have

which seems rather significant so I know is our accountability on that like who in the military thought it was a good idea to leave everything on the open or is it just inevitable and we've been learning this lesson since World War II I mean that was a huge thing in Europe was how do you disperse aircraft and still be able to use them operationally despite their dispersion or their disguise and we saw this successfully in Ukraine where there was a lot of deception

operations going on you know painting things on the airfield to make it look like an aircraft but it's not an aircraft and a lot of creativity and how to confuse the enemy in terms of attacking

“your on the ground assets that are typically in the air and I think the U.S. is good at military”

deception in some ways and in other ways we kind of resist using Mildeck and I think this is a place where Mildeck is probably very valuable that we haven't been applying it there's some inefficiency also I'll put it that diplomatically there's some inefficiency and how we're applying military deception with our ground-based air assets right now in the Gulf and I think that we've had kind of this feeling over the last 25 years that our adversaries do not have night vision

they don't have air capability like there's a lot of these things that we've just trained and trained and then operated against for 25 years that have now become part of our military culture in the acute term where we think like we just don't think about that that our adversaries can actually attack the things that had been kind of off limits for 25 years which are our ability to attack at night and our ability to attack from the air that's not the same right now you know and I

think we're we're learning that we're you know assembling the aircraft in flight as it were right now we're realizing like the enemy actually can attack us in our own base now we were so used to that not being true for a long time but Russia Ukraine was a lab experiment for the U.S. military and we seem to and and people were coming back saying we all these lessons learned we seem to just fail

this massively that's the thing I don't understand well there's always been the question of how do you

integrate lessons learn to the actual forces that need those lessons because we have like the Institute for lessons learned and all these you know really great pieces of institutional framework to help gather all that and special operations community we have so-dars which are these reports that you every team writes when they come back from a deployment you know talking about their partner how efficient they were how proficient they were how did how's their marksmanship how much are they

paying you know all this stuff but if you don't read the so-dars or you don't read the lesson learned that operational unit doesn't get it and there's and I'm only mentioning it as like a preface to institutionally we are bad at learning lessons I mean we can just look at that from you know from Vietnam to Afghanistan that at learning lessons right or Iraq to Afghanistan if Afghanistan where you know whatever we're just bad at it then the units themselves don't even have the ability

to access that and there's not a way to trickle it down to change what we do because the way our doctor is designed it's so tradition based like if you look at the Navy for example which is playing a huge part in this war right now the Navy that have officer country on the ship we're enlisted are not allowed to enter you know so if you had an enlisted guy with a good idea he's not even

“allowed to be in the room the people that are making plant I mean that's if that's how your military”

is designed you're gonna be hamstrung from the beginning which is I think leading up to your

into our military it's the opposite it's the military industrial complex that tells the military what to build for the tell congress what to pay for which then tells us what to build it's not guys in the ground some lands corporal who's like you know what the way we're getting attacked that's crazy I have an idea to stop that that's not how this works instead it's Lockheed Martin saying I can build your really expensive anti aircraft weapon that can only work in this environment

it's very sensitive to moisture and it will definitely fail if it's fire during the day you know

“here it's $500 million and you know that's that's how it works exactly but I guess I guess”

for the non military folks like DNI I'm like like I mean you look at this you're like this is just absurd I mean it's just kind of common sense what's that I mean I that's I mean I think the American people are now gonna be asked to pay another $200 billion for you know for I don't know

this to me this there should be some accountability on this and but it seems like that never that never

happens well yeah with the E3 for example you know you said there's 16 of them I mean this this is a cold war platform that we've just kept on the books for a very long time it's a triited down quite a bit in the last 20 years there's the new E7 wedge tail which is supposed to replace it if you've seen pictures of it that's a gigantic like massive aircraft way bigger than the AWax and a $700 million per hour just not stand a price 700 mil that's not counting maintenance

in lifetime you know price tag which is a separate calculation which is in the billions obviously

“well if this thing's even bigger and slower and more expensive we didn't solve any of the”

problem that we just saw with the E3 getting struck on an airfield we just made it more expensive and damaging to ourselves if it gets hit you know so like we were like solving the wrong problem

from the beginning damn it man I never feel good after these episodes is so annoying good

you know it's funny because we've had we had a defense tech CEO we spoke to where he makes encounter drone systems and you know just by using lasers super inexpensive I don't understand why there isn't like a place in the DOD that's like quick procurement like where we need something fixed right away let's get it fixed right away well we got to have an animation unit which is supposed to be that what have they do are they on vacation so first of all it's staffed by

reservists it's not an active duty post and there's no there's no pipeline for like if you're the Lance Corp nut on the ground with a shoulder fired weapon and you're like I have an idea to take out this drone there isn't a way for him to talk to the defense innovation unit I'm sure that the defense innovation unit we'll say yes there is there's a portal blah blah blah blah blah blah let's go talk to Joe Shmo on the ground actually ask and do you know that that thing exists I guarantee you

he doesn't I mean he doesn't even have a computer right so I mean there's a lot of the stuff at the top where they think like oh we have all these systems are very expensive and exquisite then the actual person hitting the button on the ground doesn't even know those things exist yeah this you know frankly like as a dummy like me I a four million dollar patriot missile taking out shades that cost fifty grain at most doesn't really sound like a good doesn't really

sound like a good ROI on that at all you know and the fact that like one mark said we have it learned from what's happened in Ukraine is frankly unacceptable as just a citizen it's a joke we're supposed to be the best military in the world like are we though because even our aircraft carriers are fucking we backed a fuck up we're not in the Persian Gulf or in the oh my and Gulf of Oman and we're backed up we're not really got close right so what are the and it's a ran

it's not China with our hypersonic and all the scary stuff it's a ran what are we doing is it like it doesn't seem that peachy and an amazing to be frank my rant's over you guys have anything else to say all right I want everyone to do us a favor I want you guys to check out John's books links are in the description he has shown the books John right there ran shadow weapons in the theory of a regular war great books mark p links are in the description for his twitter and all that

stuff make of course the whitefish security summit is happening this week coming up so check that out that link is in the description as well we're going to have a couple interviews from there you so that's exciting um and what else are you guys going to know but we have a cool we have a Macristal interview we're doing for teamhouse and we have an interview with Eric Ulrich and Scott I

“don't remember his last name about the future of warfare they're going to be there so it's going to be”

exciting check that out the link is in the description of course patreon.com/theteamhouse helps support to show you get eyes on in teamhouse ad free and early and you help support to show them keep

the lights on guys a pleasure as always it's been Teresa and mine and felon and ala entrepreneur

started a choppy fire at full price through I recommend choppy fires on the first day and the

have the feeling that choppy fire is a platform that can only be obtained everything is super

“simple, integrated and balanced and the time and the money that I can't find out at all”

on the other side I will invest in for all of you in Vaxtum. If you go and subscribe it's totally free and what it will do is aggregate all of our data all of our content that we put out

the things that are on the teamhouse on our geopolitics podcast eyes on things that are right

journalistically with Sean Naylor on the high side anything else that we have going on

“books we recommend upcoming guests that we have coming on the show and also you know filtering”

in some fun stuff and there as well if you go and check it out we send it out just once a week we don't want to spam you guys it's just a kind of roll-up of all of our content on a weekly basis you can find our newsletter at teamhousepodcast.kit.com/join again the website for that is teamhousepodcast.kit.com/join I'm Teresa and my experience in all entrepreneurs started a choppy fire at full price through

“I know choppy fire has already been the first day and the platform makes me no problem. I have a lot of problems”

but the platform is no one from me. I have the feeling that choppy fire has its platform continually optimized everything is super simple, integrative and convenient and the time and the money that I can't invest in there because of all of them in Vaxtum. Now take a look at the test of choppy fire.de so we hope to see you there no incubidian description. I'm Teresa and my experience in all entrepreneurs started a choppy fire at full price through

I know choppy fire has already been the first day and the platform makes me no problem.

I have a lot of problems but the platform is no one from me. I have the feeling that choppy fire has its platform continually optimized everything is super simple, integrative and convenient and the time and the money that I can't invest in there because of all of them in Vaxtum. Now take a look at the test of choppy fire.de. I can't invest in there because of all of them in Vaxtum.

you