¶ Ceasefire in Syria: A Fragile Peace
I'm sorry, Hey, everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics. I'm here with Mick Molroy, Jason Lyons, and I'm Dmitic on Tacos. A lot happening as usual. The big stuff that popped off was Israel baumb Syria.
Last week.
The hit the Ministry of Defense, hit the Presidential Palace or in and around the Presidential Palace.
Uh.
Since then, Syria and Israel have come to a ceasefire that's been supported by Turkey, Jordan and the US. Obviously. Uh, you know, a lot happening there. That was like a quick one second thing. But you know, obviously to go from bombing a country to ceasefire within three or four days is pretty pretty dramatic. So Mick, what are you what are you tracking with that?
Well, first of all, it's a good thing. There's a The last thing the Syrian people need is another civil war. They've been through over a decade. They've lost over three hundred thousand people, displaced millions of people. It's a good thing that Turkey, Jordan, the US did broker to cease fars. Just to catch people up, there's a group, a minority religious group called the Drews. They are in Syria, predominantly in Soweyda Province, which is in the southern part of Syria.
There's about seven hundred thousand of them. They're also in Lebanon. I think there's like three hundred thousand and Lebanon, and there's around one hundred and fifty thousand Drews in Israel. And they are, they are, many of them are in the Idea in senior positions. They are. And I'm a expert on Drews, and obviously I did know about him quite frank before this incident. But basically, they split from Shia Islam a long time ago, like ten, ten seventeen
or something like that. They're very distinct. They have their own religion and it's not open to conversion, and it hasn't been for a long long time. It's very secretive, but it has like a mixture of a form of Islam, and it really does have a component of Greek philosophy, which obviously you know, as somebody who falls stoicism is kind of interesting to me. But they're very distinct. And I bring this up because there are groups that consider
them heretics. You know, Muslim groups, particularly the group that supports or did support now is ostensibly part of the Syrih military, Islamic jihadists right HTS, former Al Qaeda in Syria, Al News for Front and the like, So there is
a natural conflict there. Unfortunately, the DRUS do not support the government in Damascus of the transitional government led by the interim president akmedel Shara, So that's one component, and they were fighting with although they are Arabs, they were fighting with Bedouin Arabs in the southern part partly because of territory. Partly I think some would say because they compete for economic trade, even illicit drugs trade. I'm not saying they do or they don't, but that's one of
the accusations. It gets at least a part of them. But they don't want the government forces of Achman el Shara, who they consider hostile to them. In Shaweda, Okay, after this started and people started dying, we saw a lot of the stuff posted. The government sent forces in there, they said to quell the violence. There's apparently a misconception by the part of the al Sharak government that that wouldn't be a red line for Israel. Obviously that was
a misconception. I think it's kind of hard for me to believe they didn't know that, since Israel has made it very clear that they don't. They also don't trust al Shara's government, who they still refer to as Jalani his name to gur as a member of the news for Afront and formerly a member of al Qaeda in Iraq, and they don't want them on their border. That's why they struck all they could of the Syrian military capacity
right when Asad fled and Shara took over. That said, I would point out that Israel, if you were just protecting the DRUS, there wouldn't really be a reason to strike and destroy, you know, the Ministure of Defense in Damascus, or strike around the presidential palace. So from Israel perspective, yes, they have a historical connection to the DRUS. They have a lot of DRUS with influence in Israel, but there's also a much broader strategic issue here with Israel not
wanting any government forces near their border. So that's at least my summary of what's happening. This is very precarious. If this were to kick off again, if Israel and the government and Damascus were to go head to head one, it wouldn't be much of a fight, but this could kick off other conflicts.
You know.
We obviously have the Kurds who have an agreement with the government, but that's not going that well. We could see essentially a breakdown. The international community is doing what they can. I think we have cut sanctions Europe. Also there's we're looking at investments in the infrastructure, development, humanitarian assistants that would support this government. That we need to stay until it has an opportunity for a full vote. It's supposed to be five years, so the Syrian people
can choose who they want to represent them. Because even with the reformation talks of Sharra, he is not an elected leader. There will be parliamentmentary elections in August, so we're starting to take a step towards that. But I think it's important that people know that this is still a very tenuous situation and it's not only in the interest obviously the Syrian people, but the region not to
¶ The Druze Community: History and Current Dynamics
have yet another complete breakdown of Syria, which destabilizes the region and could send another wave of you know, refugees into Europe, which is obviously not something the Europeans want to see kind of a long win.
It's ow rate, but no, it's pretty good.
It was a good one. Yeah, I'll be honest with you. I completely forgot that the Druis, other than in the IDF, were a major part of Israeli culture, except for when I did started hearing about this incident. It reminded me back when I was a kid teenager and correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't there a big incident in Lebanon involving the drus, a massacre at a refugee camp or something like that.
Yeah, that was the first.
Time I remember hearing about them, right, So they are definitely a persecuted minority group.
You know, I don't want to act like I'm some other religious scholar here, but they have different interpretations of the prophet Mohammed's status. I don't believe they think he is a prophet, but it's very difficult to learn about their religion because they they're pretty closed. But I bring that up again because there is a conflict between those who would view them as non believers and then you know, obviously the extremest elements of that would try to take
violence against them for it. So they've been protecting themselves for a long time. They've existed. They fled from Egypt into the mountains of Syria Prime predominantly and they still they're still there, and I think Israel views them somewhat is a you know, a natural ally and also because
they do have influence in Israel. I mean, I know several very senior IDF officers who are who are Drews, right, so they have and in Israel doesn't want to see you know, one hundred and fifty thousand drus flee into not flee, but go into southern Syria to defend themselves, which they will, and they started doing. It's started out, yes, yeah, it's right there, right, so it's not that far. And
then then you've got Israeli. Israeli's in there, and it's the best thing is you know, I think not that they're asking me as a government to mask is focus on international development, getting food to the people, and moving toward a government that represents the people. And what I mean by represents they actually chose right, And if they're if they're good, and they do all these things right,
then maybe they'll be the ones they choose. If they don't, if they if they focus all their efforts on uh, you know, military activities against the minority groups. Well, obviously those minority groups aren't going to vote for you. So that's something I think the US can assist with. We obviously want to see a stable Syria and it might just need some diplomatic coaching.
Right now, I have a question about like the history of the Jews and in Israel, and correct me if I'm wrong. In nineteen sixty seven when that went down and Sirius took the Golan Heights, isn't that when like the majority of the Jews population was joined joined in Israel, when they like annexed the Golan Heights.
Yeah, I think they. I think they're predominantly for the Goat from the go On Heights. I don't want to like go pass my level of expertise on the Druis. I read a lot about him, my guess because I talked about it on ABC quite a bit this week, but I knew no several but I don't want to. I do believe they're predominantly in the Golan Heights.
Yes, yeah, absolutely, And there was some uh there's talk of not talk, it's happening. Israel's moving to two divisions up towards there. Uh, and they're looking like they are going to go into uh what's the area called Swaeheda.
I don't want to Swa. It's yeah province, the southern province.
Yeah, yeah, I mean, bro, I'm the cynical guy, right, I'm gonna be honest.
It's a languad. I'm gonna say what.
I think it's the lang graand by Israel and they could they could, you know, because I had Jack Murphy on it. But the other day and he made a good point. It's like, how can you pick and choose what minority groups you give a ship about.
M hmm, well we do, yeah, throwing it out there.
I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that either. Yeah, that's fucked too.
I think.
I mean, it's a fair point. It's a fair point. You could in Israel has basically made it a no go for the for the uh, the government, the transitional government. Right, So in a way you could say that it's a land grab in the sense that they won't they just won't accept them down on their border. But the but the Yeah, it's more than just protecting a minority. It's also the strategic interests of Israel. Yeah, I don't think
anybody think that's not true. Another factor that's complicated this is there's no one voice for the Druz in Sweita, right, so you get like three leaders to say okay, yes he's fire. And then you got this guy hick Mott that is head of the Syrian mil not the Syrian
the Sueda military Council. Another factor, if you if to put in a little bit of the perspective of the government Damascus, is they think a lot of the Assad regime fled and is in Sueda, right they couldn't get out of the country, and they believe that this Sweda Military Council has many of the members or former regime members who they obviously strongly oppose. And then the government of Damascus would also point out that they believe that a lot of the illicit drug trade happens down there.
But they of course want to on the flip side of that, they want to control all of Syria. But let's go back to the legitimacy history, right, so there needs to be a stable government in Damascus. They're it.
¶ The Role of the International Community in Syria
I think that's why the US government is supporting them. I'm not opposed to that. But let's also point out that they didn't get elected to be in Damascus. They just took over by force, right, So the Jeffersonian democracy speak about them is a little overstated. I would say, to be fair on all sides, we have to see what they do. They're saying a lot of the right thing, but there's also a lot of jih hoists that are in that government, and that is I think the legitimate
concern of Israel. Does it necessitate taking strikes inside Damascus? Probably not, But I mean, let's be fair at all sides and let the you know, let the listeners make their opinion.
Andy Milburn, Hey, how are you, sir? That's a professor to see you guys?
Now, I can't see it because I got the wrong layout. Oh shit, I don't even know you were there.
Yeah, Andy just joined us of course, Andy Milburn, Uh, what do you told? What are you tracking with the whole Syria Israel? You know now with the ceasefire.
Well I came in on the on the tail end of mix mixed talk there, but I so a knowing Mick. I will say right up front that everything he said was right, and I agree with him. One hundred percent, and I don't want to add anything but be redundant. No, I but I will say a couple of things perhaps that are you know, not just for the sake of being controversial. Mike, I agreed that Algilani's the Algilani sponsored government or broken government or initiated government there in Damascus
is not a democratic government. But you know, I sometimes wonder if we aren't too wedded to the concept of democracy. It hasn't worked well for us and hasn't worked well generally in the Middle East, you know, a leap to so called democracy. Think about Okay, I know a month and ice here, but I think I think, you know, I think we have to put I think we have to expect that there is going to be a sorry, I think we have to expect that there's going to
be an interim period government that doesn't look democratic. And I think that may not be a bad thing. I mean, think about our own experiences in Iraq, you know, with a democratic government actually brought around Isis because it was democratic in the sense that it represented a sheer majority, but they they were heavily punitive on the Sunni minority and ultimately resulted in bad things. So, you know, in order to have a functioning I'm pausing here for a
moment because I'm wondering about our own model. In order to have a functioning, effective democratic government, you need a broadly educated middle class, and that right now that middle class is no longer existent in Syria. Everyone who could escape has escaped, and so this may be, this may be the best that we can hope for.
So I assume you mean like promoting democracies overseas, not our democracy, right Annie, Yes, you know, yeah, No, I get what you're saying. Man, it's it's totally I do concede that the idea that we can just go around the world make and everybody democracy is it's just not going to happen. I think we should promote it. I mean, that's what we are. Uh, But to your point, not
every country is ready for it. All I'm saying is, if you don't want minorities to fight back, claiming your legitimate government in Damascus because you took it by force is not a good argument for why another group can't try to take your position by force, right, So there is no there's no there's no moral right there. So all I'm saying is they need to prove that they want to lead the country. Ultimately that should be the choice of the people or it's going to stay fractured
the entire time. Because if they're going to try to dominate the minority, the minorities who is all armed. This is the Middle East, right, and the SDF is of course armed by us, They're they're going to say, Okay, well, I guess Mike. Mike's right, so I'm gonna I'm gonna take you on the battlefield. And I don't think that's in the uh in the interest of anybody in Saria.
They have a lot they should focus on developing the country, building up any kind of economy, because you're right, I think eighty percent of the populations below the poverty limit. And then you know humanitarian assistance and that, and then hopefully they prove that they should be run the country. And then because there is elections coming up, so a form in August for the parliament. So they're trying to move that way, which I think is good. But that's
what I think. What it does. In addition to promoting democracy, which has been part of a foreign policy, it also gives people buy into the government right long term. They had a vote win or lose, just like us. It's you know that it's buy into the government. If not the government says, hey, I'm the government because I took over from the last jackass that tried to tell you what to do by the tip of a gun, then they don't have any buying. It's just going to be fractured.
And you know, yeah, I agree with that one hundred percent. And you know there is there's so many more things. I mean, so far, so good, though I have to say that there's so many things that could have gone cataclysmically wrong in Syria. I mean, you think about all
¶ Iran's Nuclear Ambitions and Regional Stability
the turn going on there. You've got the Alo Whites who now feel threatened. You've got a population the majority of whom are extremely angry at the Allo Whites and associate that sect with aside and the previous regime and all the horrific things that went on. And yes there have been there has been retribution that you know, there has been fighting between al Jilani's mob and the Alo Whites, but it's not as bad. It hasn't turned into a wholesale masco the way people thought about You think about
the SDF the Kurds and the Turks. The fact that back to how Jelani, you'd think also another potential would be out and out civil war between the Turkish backed Arab groups and the Kurds, and that has been fighting, but it hasn't broken into a whole scale.
War yet, you know.
So there are goodness, Yeah, I mean there are a lot of a lot of really bad things that could have happened that that have not yet happened, and that do seem, I will say this, regardless of Jolani's background, that do seem to be some really mature, sensible voices in the administration, in the regime that has taken over now at least they're saying the right things. So all of these are positive indications.
Yeah, And we've had you know, I've had direct contact with a lot of them, and I think they are, at least the ones I've talked to mostly about humanitarian stuff. Do you have the interest of the people throughout Syria and mind So I'd have to give them that, and I'd have to give the administration ours a credit, Secretary of Rubio for moving pretty quick on this and and getting this getting this stop. Like you said, this could have been far worse. It could have kept escalating and
it could have turned. It could have turned even worse than it was, way worse.
Than it was.
I think we're so sorry, Mick. Let me ask you US aside and Israel aside, what role do you guys think that Turkey will play in Syria moving forward? Or do they only care about the north northwest? Is that it? Or will they get involved wholehearted?
Well, they're involved whole art They're they they they supported uh the interim president, they supported his efforts throughout, and I think that's that's the other dan not danger? Why not danger?
Now?
So you get a lot of tension between Turkey and Israel if I'm not saying that that could happen, but if it did happen, it would be dire consequence. If there was actually a conflict between a NATO ally and Turkey, who's obviously a very modern advanced military, and Israel, who's obviously a very modern and advanced military, that would be
like a nightmare scenario. And I'm not saying it's likely to happen, but it's like the worst case scenario if because they support Jilani, I mean Elshirah in Israel does not. They do not buy into the reformist UH idea of what Joani and in the US does. So the US does. We've we've removed the sanctions part the sanctions that that can be removed by the president, so the executive action UH sanctions, not the congressionally passed ones. And it looks
like we're really moving to normalized relations. So the United States is kind of right there in the middle. But to Andy's point, this could have been far worse. Let's make sure diplomatically it doesn't get far worse.
Yeah, we had a Charles Lister on Middle East Institute before he wrote a couple of days ago that Israel's like essentially positioned was ever since Alsha took over was light regime change. And that's what they were like, which I don't know what that means, which is what they were lobbying the US government for.
Sorry, Andy, I cut you off.
Yeah, No, The only thing I was going to say is that both Turkey and Israel, you know, there are they are rational actors in the sense that they are not going to come to blows against one another. You know, they remember the I mean, they've they've gone through periods
of having bad relations. Remember that the incident when was that back in two thousand and nine or to rather twenty and ten where that Turkish broke the Mamaris broke the blockade in Gaza and f Littel of thirteen intercepted it and they came to blows there but in the air. But you know, again Eron talked about then deterior ending situation, possible conflict, but it's it's just not going to happen between those two. They continue a dialogue, at least their
militaries continue dialogues, actually their respective air forces. They know that that would be bad for both countries to you know, they're by no means friends, but they are both they understand the rational actors in the same way that Israel and Egypt are. But yes, there is definitely a divergence of interest there, and there's some divergence of interest frankly
between the United States and Turkey and Syria. We just haven't got you know, we've seen that in the past and when we were back in the SDF, and I think we're likely to see it again going ahead. I mean, we're walking a fine line. I think it was a good decision by the administration to lift the sanctions and give this government a chance, because anything is better than
what has been happening to Sirius since twenty eleven. But in the end, we've got to bear in mind that the Turks have an agenda in that part of the world that is not always it's not always aligned with our own interests.
Yes, very true. And there was an Israelian minister I don't remember which one they called for assassination of President l Charva. So yeah, that's obviously Charles is super smart on Syria. I go to him to get information for sure, but there, Yeah, there's a lot of tension in Israel when it comes to that government, at least from that minister. It's beyond just a soft regime change, right, it's.
A direct.
Yeah, so we'll see what goes down. Hopefully this sees fire holds and less people get killed.
Moving on, I would be permits if I didn't comment that I love your haircut.
Thanks. I appreciate that. I'm trying to look like you. That's what I'm going for.
Yeahwaw, it's like a popular haircut now, Yeah, like this is walking around town. I mean this, by the way, this week my town goes from like nine thousand to like forty nine thousand because we have a massive concert. It's like three days of country music. It's awesome. You hear it from my house. But you've seen a lot of new people in town obviously, and there's a lot of the marine haircuts. I don't it's a style now or what.
Yeah, well it's more of a fade rather than like a high insight.
But the style he's even got like the you know, the the lance corporal mustache where you're trying to get away just outside of rags, inside of rags. That's my that's my first. So Mugeant used to say, hey, if you ever looking in the mirror and going damn, that's a fine looking mustache, then it's.
At a rate.
Yeah, so that's why they have like these weird ass like super tight.
Like mm hmmm.
Of course, I mean it makes sense.
No, don't don't diminish from my compliment.
No, please keep keep compliment to me. This could be a show entirely compliment to me. I always yeah, of course, it's like a daily occurrence for me. All right, new battle dodge damage assessments just dropped. We like it's an album uh on Iran and what went down there? They said that Ford now was completely not i mean destroyed or taken back a good amount of time, but isfahan
And what was the other one? Was it in the Tansy Yeah, that they were you know it was basically uh not super It wasn't destroyed, you know, it wasn't No, I wasn't obliterated.
Uh oh.
Well the other thing was Sancom did propose a larger campaign that took may have taken weeks that President Trump said no to. He decided to do this the one night only thing. What do I mean, I don't think is that really shocking that Sancom has a plan about like a multi day air campaign over around like it's been We've been planning this for twenty five years.
Yes, you always have three courses of actions and Andy and Jail tell you, right, you have one that's like really high and they get the one you want it's a medal, and then the one you definitely don't want us at the bottom.
Right.
So you know, I'm sure said comp said we could do this operation for a month. No one that you know, the president is likely going to say no, and then he's gonna go with the second one, right, it's like the Goldilocks effect. You know, we knew this was gonna happen, right, BDA's get better with time, we get more people talking on phones. It wouldn't we get human assets to get access that didn't have it immediately after? Obviously it makes sense.
Or now is where we dropped I think that was the one we dropped twelve you know g W fifty seven's right, So who's designed to destroy subterranean the other ones? Israel hit a lot of surface strikes. I think there was two Atton's, so I think we can expect that.
So it's it's lining up. The only thing I would say is we still control the air over on so this isn't if we have the intelligence they are either rebuilding that I think Israel go ahead and strike or what we don't know is the stuff that's most concerning. It looks like a lot of the highly enricheranium did survive. They could probably move to a black site another ones when we don't know about, and start heading toward it at the time when the IAEA cooperation is now over.
So this is not over. That's what I'm is my point, And I don't think we should view it as Okay, we struck him, and now we're not going to talk about iran nuclear ambitions. Ran probably has a nuclear ambition now, maybe that they didn't have before, you know, the war with Israel and the strikes. Right, they said over and over again that if you ever we ever strike their facilities are definitely going to try to get a nuclear weapon.
So I think we should listen to them and just expect that this might require, you know, mowing the grass, as we used to say, We might have to do this over and over again. Not a good thing. But until Iran comes back to the negotiation table, we get an agreement and they allow the ia AEA back in, I think we can expect this boys Andy.
J Yeah, I no, I mean I agree again with everything Mix said. One day, I'm going to have to find things to argue about with him. But I will say this, I know, and I'm I'm not just saying this again for the purpose of being contra I think that we just have to accept sooner or later, Iran it's going to get a nuclear weapon. It is what it is, you know, and it's not an existential threat to the United States. It's not necessarily in our interests.
It's certainly not in our interests. Sooner or later it's going to happen. More concerning for us is the is the prospect of Iran continuing its malign actions in the Middle East and being a disruptive influence, and that really does is in contravention of our interests. You know, So I guess where I'm heading on this is again this is putting me, I know, way out in left field, but understanding that sooner or later Iran is probably going
to develop a nuclear weapon. With that in mind, you know, I think, I think we drive our hid bargain as far as supporting around, supporting proxies and focus on that side of the equation and not get sucked into too much too. Is Israel's argument about you know, this is an existential threat to Israel, blah blah blah blah. Is it an existential threat to Israel? Israel's got nuclear weapons? You know, remember the Cold War? I mean we were both both your Soviet Union and the United States were
existential threats to each other. But it never came to blows because everyone understood that ran in the end of the day, the Iranian administration. I'm not justifying them. I'm not saying they're good guys, but they're rational actors. And again, I know this flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but I think in the end it's I mean, we
just have to be realist. It's going to happen. It may not be they're not going to have I don't think they're going to have a formidable array of nuclear weapons, but certainly I think they'll get one. But that's not for me. That wouldn't be my biggest concern. My biggest concern would be that they would consider continue to do what they've been doing since the nineteen eighties, which is just fuel a whole region with massive instability, supporting bad things.
And that is what we should be going after. That is what is in opposition to US interests. We don't Our interests don't mirror those of Israel. And yes, the Israelis have since time immemorial the last few decades been banging the drama on, Hey, this is an existential threat to US. I would even argue that it's not. It's not even an existential threat to Israel for the reasons that I have stated, and I think we need to bear all of that in mind, I.
Can't follow up with either of those. Those are those are growth great points.
I mean by all means, by all means, go ahead and motograss yes, But at the same time, we need to be talking to Iran and we needed to be saying behind you know, behind the curtain. We need to be telling them, Hey, whatever happens on this this side, Okay, you know we're against proliferation.
All that shit.
But if you start support groups like the hu Thies, not start continue supporting groups like the Huthis or Hamas or Hezbola again, that's that's really going to get our goat. And that is what's going to piss us off. Or if you start fueling the Syria, if you start opposing the Syrian regime again and fueling the opposition there, that's going to really piss us off. That's when we're going to come down hard on you. Those are the things that we should be concerned about most.
And on that point, I mean, we just or the Yemeni government just sees what seven hundred tons I think was the biggest one yet of very advanced weapons going from or on andy Emen. Right, so they hadn't stopped, right even with all this going on, they haven't stopped. And we just saw last week two commercial ships. I actually knew some of the security guys that were on them. They were sunk, struck, sunk, people killed, you know, civilians killed.
And sure a lot of those weapons systems came directly from Iran. They use this proxy force as some kind of way to skirt responsibility, and to Andy's points, maybe we should just start holding them directly responsible for everything that they especially when they're launching you know, advanced cruise missiles that they obviously didn't make up in Hoofy Land at particularly commercial vessels.
We've kind of been giving them a buy on this. You know, we make a big thing of the nuclear weapons, but think way back in Iraq when US soldiers are being killed by weapons supplied by Iran. You know, we've we've talked about it. We said we brought pressure on them, but we haven't really held that face to the grindstone. To mix my metaphors, right, I mean we haven't. We haven't really made this a red line, and I think it's time to do that.
So let me ask them, if they do get a nuclear weapon, do you think that that would cause them to now bump up what they're doing already, because it's kind of like, you know, what are you gonna do? We have a nuclear weapon now, so now we're really gonna supply the Hoofi's. Now we're really gonna start shitting Syria. Or do you think that they I'm gonna say, I doubt this is probably rhetorical question. Or do you think once they get it, they'll be like, Okay, we're happy now and just back up.
I mean, it's a great point, but I think you know, we call that bluff. I mean, you know, the United States is a nuclear has a vast nuclear array. Of course, Israel has a nuclear array. We think, we speculate that's bound to be far greater than Iran is able to build in the next fifty years. So again we're dealing
with the rational actor. Iran can hold the prospect of nuclear weapons all at once, but in the end, we know they're not going to use them, and we can bring we can bring pressure to bear as though they are not a nuclear nation. I don't. I don't think it changes their calculus, is what I'm saying. And the way that North Korea being a nuclear country changes the
calculus with North Korea. You've got to truly, you know, you've you've got a guy who is totally irrational and doesn't give a shit how many of its population are killed. And at the end, you know, it's not a it's not the same model as the Soviet Union or even Iran, and we have to recognize that that. You know that if we could, if we could go back in time,
that's one thing that we certainly would do. Pakistan is a nuclear nation, and we've seen some we've seen some nott jobs and in charge of Pakistan, but at the end of the day, these are the United States. We're relatively comfortable Pakistans am going to do anything against overtly, overtly against our interests. But there's always a prospect that Pakistan is going to use nuclear weapons against in you know, me walking a fine line across the globe on this topic.
But I just again, I'm just saying from our perspective, from the perspective of US interests, what has really hurt us and will continue to hurt us or Irania is iranium malign action in the Middle East. That is, that is what we really should be focusing on.
Would be interesting to see what the intelligence community said about if if there was a kickoff of nuclear weapons arms race, right, so would that stabilize destabilize the region with everybody? You know, it's kind of like walking into a bar where everybody's armed. People tend to be polite, you know. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that, and you can do that actually a Montana.
But that's that's a good question. I don't even know what the intelligence community is assessment that that would be, would it? You know, because there's a concept during the Cold War, the mutually assured destruct right so mad that it kept it a cold war because it was it was in no country's interest in the US or the Soviet Union to have a hot war when we were both armed to the teeth through with thousands of deliverable
nuclear weapons. I don't know, but it'd be be interesting to see if we could get somebody on the show that has worked in that area of analysis.
And it'd be interesting to see if somebody would actually say that that would be the case, because like I feel like if there is an actual intelligence assessment like that, maybe twenty years ago or whatever, it would ever be released because you know, there are people that don't want a run to have a bomb. They don't want it Saudi's to have a bomb, you know, because if Shia bomb's going to you know, start a Sunni bomb.
Yeah. The other issue is this is that the nuclear confrontations are not regional, right if you see then you can look at this on YouTube, if there was a regional limited exchange nuclear weapons in India Pakistan. I mean
¶ The Risks of Nuclear Confrontation
it dramatically affects the entire world ecosystem, like severely, not like oh it's a little dark today. Now we're talking like crop production goes down fifteen to twenty percent. It's a it's a real global consequence.
And I would say that is we're far greater risk of that happening. Indeed, it's come close to happening back in the late nineties than we are of Iran and Israel really using squaring off and using nuclear weapons. I guess when I'm saying first strike or not on either side, I think both countries in the end are rational enough
not to do that. But I'm not now for the audience, I'm not saying that Pakistan and India are not rational actors, but I'm saying the level of hatred between those two countries take makes them to the point where perhaps they ceased to be objectively rational, you know. And the last thing I'll say on this is, and I remember having a Pakistani brigadier is a very charming guy and you know, brought up in the British tradition. That's probably why he
was charming. You know, played cricket, was drank tea and all of these things. And yet when we started talking about India and we started talking about what was the incident of the late nineties with it kargal Am I pronouncing it right, And he talked about the fact that Pakistan has a policy of first strike, all right, a first strike preemptively, Okay, if they think India is going to drop the bomb, their policy is we're going to do it first, all right. And he was quite open
about this. That is scary. I mean, that really is scary because, as Nick says, that's not going to just
¶ The Path to a New Nuclear Agreement
affect Pakistan in India, that is a constant threat that I think, because it's been around for so long, be kind of underplane. Yeah, I say, is what I'm trying to say again, having a nuclear bomb, I mean, sorry, Iran, having a nuclear bomb while certainly not something that we want, is perhaps not as as a disastrous event as we may all the Israelis betray it.
I think the best course of action, if we could sweeten the pot, if you will, is to get them back in a nuclear agreement, and if they could develop an economy, because they have super intelligent people, they had society very innovative, if we could, and you brought this up earlier, Andy, if we could get them to have a sizable middle class, Right, that's what stabilizes countries. Every country has really poor and really rich people. I don't
not where you go. It's the middle class that stabilizes that. That educated in education, and you know, a sound economic base with people, are you know, comfortable they can secure livelihood for their families. That's that's where they need to go. And I don't think they're going to get there unless they're left let back into the global economy. And that's only going to come with a new nuclear agreement, you know, a new The issue is is regime care about the
regime only? Or do they care at all about the people of Iran?
But Mack, let me, let me let me ask, and Andy and Jay like, let's say they do come together and come back with a new agreement and it's jcpoa two point zero with some like added things or whatever. Right, Yeah, what's the stop is? Yeah, what's the stop Israel from undermining that agreement like they did from two thousand and five twenty fifteen onwards.
I don't think there's anything.
I mean, that's what I'm saying, Like, we can do all this work, this diplomatic work, people grinding for years or decades at a time, and just Forhraser up to be like, you know what, We're going to fucking bomb them again because we feel threatened. I mean, you know, I would argue this is going to accelerate their nuclear program rather than them even nen Yahu's saying they're a year away in his speech right after he bombed them.
I mean, I think the US would have put a lot of pressure obviously, and we do give them a sizeable portion of their defense budget is coming from the US taxpayer. I would like to hear their argument. I don't disagree with your point, D, but I like to hear their argument. And we say, we just got an agreement. President Trump has said no enrichment and Iran and if we feel that we can validate it, and they're not
enriching at all. So they're part of this multinational consortium of you know, they get you know, enrich uranium from outside the country to use for their nuclear program. And let's face it, they have. Energy is not an issue for Iran. So the need for a nuclear program, it's not as high as other places. But if we get to that in Iran, I mean, excuse me, Israel still
tries to I would have to hear their argument. I do think the US could put and would put significant pressure if they got Iran to concede to the no enrichment, which is beyond what the twenty fifteen JCPOA had and at that time was like three point six seven or something. It's enough for energy, but obviously not anywhere close to the ninety percent for enrichment. But it's like, look like they're talking anymore.
Yeah, I think it's to me it's administration dependent. You know, are they willing have they shown a history of actually enforcing what they say as far as hey, we have something in place, keep your hands off of Iran until you know they prove otherwise. But I also think it's Israel dependent as far as telling us ahead of time, Hey, in twenty four hours, we're going to bomb them because we have intel that they're rebuilding or whatever, or are they just going to do it? And then we have to do,
you know, play catch up. So I think maybe they're those factors are also in play.
Yeah.
We seem to be, and have been for a while, in a rather unhealthy position of saying collectively that that any criticism of Israel is Unamerican, and I think we have to remind ourselves of the fact that our again, our interests do not always align absolutely with Israel. And I will remind everyone, not you guys, because you remember this, right, Do you remember Pollard, the whole Pillart case?
All right, you remember that case?
Yeah, Mick, you may not remember this, but when when Pollard was when he was pardoned or let not pardoned or let go. Uh, there was a there was considerable opposition to that within the intelligence community, mainly from the agency but also the NSA. And I'll tell you why. It wasn't simply because he betrayed his country, but it was the nature of the stuff that he was handing to Israel. He threatened, he was handing sources and methods not related to Israel, but stuff that we were doing
against the Soviets. All right. Why did the Israelis want that stuff? Well, they were negotiating getting certain Jews, high level dissonance out of Soviet the Soviet Union at the time, guys with specific scientific expertise. They were in it. They were bargaining with the Soviet government at the time to
get these guys out. And then suddenly they task one of their agents to start collecting stuff that we are collecting on the Soviets to include and I can't mention the program here, but a very highly classified program as a method of US collecting intelligence in a certain spectrum. I think you guys are tracking what I'm saying from the Soviets. Pollard gave that to the Israelis, and we have no doubt that was passed on to the Soviets.
All right.
That is why the Agency was so pissed off when Pollard was released from from jail. It wasn't simply that he was passing. He was letting an ally know what we were doing. Because the second part of this, why would the Israelis want a spy on the United States?
We let them know everything, right, I mean, our our level of intelligence sharing is pretty high level, as you guys know, So the only reason they would want to have a spy within within our you know, within the intelligence community, would be to collect on areas that we wouldn't normally pass to them, again, kind of a counter Soviet operations.
And I bring that.
Up simply as you know, it's not I'm not there againing the Israelis. I'm just pointing out there is a classic case of the fact reminder to all of us that our interests do not neatly overline. The Israelis will always, always, when it comes to a choice like that, They're not going to be affected by emotion. They're going to be affected by their own interests, even if it means japanizing US sources and interests. And that's just the nature of the world. We need to understand that before we get
¶ Criticism of Israeli Policies and U.S. Interests
all weak need and start thinking that it's around the United States are the same entity.
Yeah, and there's nothing un American about I would second Andy's point about criticizing the policies of Israel. There's nothing un American about criticizing the policies of America, right, I mean, that's very American. And there's plenty and I know I have a lot of It'sraeli friends that also do criticize
and disagree with the policy of the current administration. So hopefully that that's just a very weak way to debate, you know, policy issues, just simply claim you're not patriotic because you disagree it's a policy.
Issue, but it's or even anti semitic to people that Yeah, which is kind of wild because like you even saw you know, the former PM of Israel.
Yeah, what's happening after the idea? If people are familiar with the idea, if there they tend to be middle of the road, you know, at least they were, and plenty of them disagree. It doesn't make them right or wrong, but it only doesn't make them anti semitic. Uh, you know a Jewish Israeli IDF soldier.
All Right, Andy's gone, I love Andy, will miss Andy. That's what happened. I don't know, he said he had said in the chat he had to run. Okay, yeah, Uh interesting take. I mean we we what we we had Bill Evanina on on the team hoouse the other day.
Uh just came out. Uh, he's the former director of Countering Intelligence for the d N I and I slipped in a question at the end where I was like, hey, I know, obviously we have like you know, is Iran, Russia, China that are like actively trying to penetrate, you know, us by agencies and spy on us in general. I'm like, out of their allies, which is like the worst acting And I asked that because I knew the answer, right,
and he said it was Israel. I mean, he had a pretty diplomatic answer though, like saying, you know, like we're really close allies, blah blah, we look at this this friendly fire. I'm like, okay, I mean I wasn't the host there, so you know, finally Jack, let me
speak on the teamhouse. But it's interesting, right, like an ally that we do a lot for I mean we do a lot for it still actively and forget the just a Pollard thing right during like that era, but also right now, what's happening, I mean they do it now.
Yeah, I mean we gotta be smart, we gotta be we gotta be realistic. I'm a I support Israel the country for sure, but yeah, there's a there's I mean, a lot of our allies collect on us should we collect a lot of our allies too, right, So I guess when you're in the spy game, you're not as you're more pragmatic. I guess, right, because it's hard to be, you know, flipping out when somebody's spying on us and we're spying on them. So it's it's something that happens and.
A yeah, last bit, there's a lot going on.
Uh.
Barakraavid the reporter from Axios. UH said that the WSHA chief David Barnea visited the White House this week to discuss Israel's plans to transfer the population of Gaza and requested the assistance of the of US, the American in encouraging other countries to absorb hundreds of thousands of pop of people from Gaza. Uh, that's crazy. I'm just saying like that. I know that's not crazy analysis, but that's a fact that's insane. To displace hundreds of thousands of
people from Gaza to other countries, doesn't matter where. Some would say that would constitute a war crime. Myself included, what's gonna how the fuck do we fix Gaza? Make go ahead, tell us.
Right now, Wow, we're gonna have to start over with the hour and I probably still want to come up with a solution. I would say, if you forcibly displace people from their country, that's against international law. Yeah, I mean, I'm not an international lawyer, but I'm pretty confident in that.
¶ Humanitarian Crisis and U.S. Foreign Aid
And uh, I don't know how you practically do that. From a military perspective, I'm sure the idea of head's blowing up, like we're gonna move We're gonna forcibly move
two point two million people. Remember moss Is only was at the beginning only thirty thousand people, Yeah, terrorists, So now they're probably down around ten from the So we're talking ten thousand are terrorists, and we're going to forcibly move two point two million people against their will to countries that don't have the capacity to host some of them, at least the countries I saw listed to take care of their own people. Right, So how are you support?
Yeah?
Right, So the practically, it's the legality is obviously an issue, but also just the practicality is also an issue, Like you're gonna I mean, I don't even know how one would do that, and I don't know what you would do with people once you got there? Is the international community going to fund in perpetuity the housing food expense that you know, these countries, a lot of them are Africa, would need to support their people, these, you know, the Palestinians.
And then what kind of destabilizing issues that caused for those countries. I mean, you just keep going and going, and it's not good. The idea I think, I think the best way to focus is how do we end the conflict. How do we ensure the security concerns of Israel, which obviously are real. How do we reconstruct Gaza so that the Palestinians can live in peace and develop and
have their own future for their families. And then how do we eventually get back on track for a two state solution, which we seem to be very far away from now, much further than we have been in the past. So that is where I think the effort should be. I can't even imagine how the forcible relocation of people out of Gaza.
Would even.
Yeah, I think every country on that list right off the bat to say absolutely not.
No.
The answers no, you know, whatever else we can do to try to help, we'll do, but no, because if you even entertained talks in that you're opening up a You're going down a slippery slope with that. So I would say hell no, and the US should be first and foremost to say no. Not that I'm saying they're coming here, but I'm saying, Israel, take that shit off the board. It's not even a it's a non starter.
Right, and the first step. And I think the US is obviously pushing for this. We saw an announcement I think was it last night, that there was the hostage. But we should all be rooting for the US and in their effort, our effort to get to a ceasefire, the sixty day ceasefire that is, I mean, the hostages need to come out, massive amounts of humanitarian and assistants need to go in. It's a dire situation on both fronts.
So we should be rooting for that. But this this idea that they're going to forcibly relocate millions of.
People, bat shit you. Yeah, it's just a non starter.
I think it's and if we had anything to do with it, but that would be forever.
Black mark on us, exactly.
All right.
Last bit of news, USA IDE officially shut down. They we just burnt five hundred tons of emergency food stores that weren't even in America, I don't think, right, they were already overseas, and we destroyed that stuff five hundred tons of food that's probably already been paid for. Right, It's not like we're gonna bounce on the check.
Right.
Yes. Kind of unbelievable that this is how these things work. Make I mean, you're in a humanitarian space. You tell me, uh, you could use probably five hundred tons of food to for what your you do your endeavors.
Yes, And I think, I mean, this is this is just should happen. Let me just put it that way. To your point, it is overseas because we prepositioned these stores. A lot of them were these emergency biscuits that you know, a kid can eat two of them a day and survive and has all the nutrition and vitamins and all that and minerals and stuff already paid for. I don't know, but it seems to me like we should have we the government should have offered the World Food Program because
it costs money to actually destroy it. Right, So like if we said, hey, World Food Program, come take all this stuff, give it out, right, that's or any of the big angos that have the capacity and potentially the money to move it or pay for the least place that we're don't want to pay for anymore. It just
seems like it's a total total waste there. There's a report out in the Washington Post that came out July first, which is today the USA AID officially shut down, that they predict fourteen million people will starve to death by twenty thirty because of the cuts within foreign aid, not
just the United States, but also what USAID used to do. Now, I get some of the criticism they're paying for stuff that they shouldn't have, but the core mission to contribute to the plight of humanitarian crisises as a country, we've always been very good at that. We should be proud
of it. Why that needs to continue, and then to develop countries so they don't become a perpetual state of need so that they can't eventually join the world economy and maybe even trade with the United States, right, I mean, we're a capitalist society, we should want that. I think that core mission should never have been cut down. And you could talk about pep far. I mean President Bush came out with President Obama on the concern with that.
You know, you in that it's not only horrible for the people in those countries, but that could spread you know, these these international epidemics around the world. Right, it's not just a nothing wrong with helping people just for the sake of helping people, right, but it's also on our own interest. You could have mass migration, you could have you know, the spread of disease that wouldn't be spread if we contained it at its poort at origin. So
there's I think, I think this needs to be returned on. Fine, it's in the it's in the State department. Now, a lot of people on both sides. Aisle used to argue that USA should fall under the State Department anyway, but it needs to be turned back on the US should play a prominent role in I think humanitarian assistance and disaster relief around the world, and right now we're we're not doing it.
Yeah, I mean, very well said. I feel like I don't know how anyone can really disagree about this, because like, even yeah, right, USAID was probably doing some bullshit and wasting money like most probably government programs do. But for the most part they did a good job, and frankly,
their budget was a fucking rounding error in our federal budget. Right, it wasn't like we were spending I love you guys, and I love the military, and I love what it stands for, but like they should get their ship together too, in terms of like an audit and seeing where our money fucking goes there. It's a trillion dollar thing besides the Marines, right, the Marines Marines past their audits.
Yeah, it did.
And I think most mintary members would agree with you. Did you say, you know?
Sure?
They can they can see that a lot of this stuff isn't getting spent correctly. It's not a it's not a slight on the military.
It's interesting, man.
I think there's a lot of stuff that most people will agree on if just you know, because it's.
Yeah, it's kind of human nature.
Like yeah, all right, we see starving kids somewhere, like we want to help them. We think there's waste, frauding abuse somewhere. We should actually look at it and pinpoint it and take the time to figure it out and fix it instead of just chopping it like it's just we're worried about our next earnings call.
Like it's a publicly traded company, it's not how government works.
Yeah, and I just read something yesterday and I'm paraphrasing here speaking of waste something. Basically, this expert said from the moment that these funds were frozen, and that includes like this, this food that was spoiled from the time that that aid stopped the vendor as far as the vendors and the contractors go to distribute it, and all that other stuff. The interest that is accruing on all of that stuff is starting to surpass what is the
supposed savings and ending the program. So it would have been cheaper to, like you said, Mick, give it to another organization and say pass this out or you know, restart part of the program. You know, it'd be worth the money. But we're wasting money trying to save money.
Yep.
And a lot of this would have gone to children, right, Like everybody, everybody that's an adult should care about that. It should be your you know. So yeah, super, I.
Mean even if you don't like kids.
Yeah, like, yeah, you know what I'm saying.
Like, let's feed some starving kids, you know what I mean, Like not be a political thing, right Exactly when I was.
In Somalia, people would you know, joke and you see it in the movie Blackhawk Down. You know, they call the Somali's skinnies, you know, and obviously that's a horrible thing. They're you know, they're they're dying. They were dying and they are dying. But I still saw those same marines while we were out feeding starving children, giving them food or a little bit of water and stuff like that.
So anybody with a heart, you know, and a soul should be all on board with getting this food to where it needs to go and not just food all the aid.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, boys, I want you guys to do us all a favorite. Check out Nick Mulloy's link, check out Andy's links, check out Jason's links. We have a new newsletter for the Teamhouse and eyes On. It aggregates everything that link is in the description as well. And the best way to support the show isreon dot com slash the Teamhouse. You get both eyes On and the Teamhouse ad free and early get early access. And yeah, as usual, guys, this is great.
Awesome, thanks thanks Jent, have a great rest of your weekend.
Take care of me too.
Hey guys, it's Jack. I just want to talk to you for a moment about how you can support the show. If you've been watching it enjoying it, but you'd like to get a little bit more involved and help us continue to do this, you can check out our Patreon. It is patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse, and for five dollars a month you can get access to all
of these episodes of The Teamhouse ad free. The same goes with our affiliated podcast, eyes On with Andy Milburn, Jason Lyons mcmulroy that one, you will also get all of those episodes ad free, and you support the channel and the show, and we really appreciate it. The Patreon members are literally what has helped this company and this small business survive, especially during our early years, and you are what continues to help this thing going even as
we navigate the turbulent world of YouTube advertising. So we really appreciate all of you guys. There's going to be a link down in the description to that Patreon page, and there is also going to be a link to our new merch shop, so if you guys want to go and get some Teamhouse merchandise, we got stickers and we also have patches, and I should mention if you sign up for Patreon at ten dollars a month. We will mail you this patch as well, so we really
appreciate that. But they're also for sale on the merch Shop and additionally they got t shirts up there, water bottles, a tote bag, coffee mugs, all that good stuff, so please go and check them out and support the show.
We really appreciate it, guys.
Thank you,