Hey, everybody, Welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics. I'm here with Nick mulroy, Jason Lyons, and I'm Dmitri con Tacos. Happy Easter to everybody who celebrates a lot cooking as usual, world falling apart at the scenes. It seems like, let's kick off with the Iran negotiations. We're shooting this on Saturday at eleven am, and they just wrapped up maybe an hour an hour and a half ago, and instantly on Iranian state TV that said that the
talks were constructive. It was happening in Rome. There was some confusion last week about like is it happening again? Is it in Rome or is it happening in uh oman h. As long as they're happening, I think it's a good, good thing. I mean, you have seen over the last week or so since like the it's come out where like they're talking about a Jack poet number two point zero, like that's what I see a lot of people talking about it as that it's just crazy,
like we shouldn't do this and stuff. And I get it. Some of my ran hawks are I randhawks, and they're gonna do what they need to do. But Mick, I wanted to ask you because I'm sure you've been in like meetings like this, or at least like seeing this
go down, like how these talks go. Because they're saying that there's two the two parties are in separate rooms, and there's a mediator running between them both and stuff like that, and it seems to me like very odd, like these guys just can't sit in a room together, you know what I mean, Like it just seems like a weird buffer at least.
Anyway, Yes, I can see how that would be the case looking at it, and I think it really stems from when the US assassinated cost some s the money right in Baghdad. The I told her said that they would never sit down with the Americans again, So that's probably a factor in this, got it, I would say, although it makes sense, I guess in the beginning stages of this negotiation to have the Omani's going back and forth.
And this is in the Oman embassy in Rome, and Oman has traditionally played this mediator role between the United States and Iran. But if they really want to get into the weeds of this is a very complicated, very technical type of negotiation. They're going to have to not only be face to face, but they're going to have
to bring in experts as well. They can't just I don't think I have some guy running back and forth talking about, you know, how many central futures are going to allow, or you know, what's the device that's going to be on the Iraq with the ar Ak heavy
water treatment plant. I mean, there's all sorts of and I think it's important you to go back to the twenty fifteen so people understand what that was and then we can see how this is shaping up to either be a two point zero version, be an improvement, or essentially going back into the same agreement. But so that was a P five plus one, so US UK, France, Russia, China, Germany. In the agreement, basically it capped uranium enrichment at three point six something sixty seven, I think, so far less
than it was now. Where right now we're at sixty. I mean the Uranians are at sixty and that's easy easier to get to obviously ninety apparently exponentially easier to
get to ninety, which is weapons grade. The twenty fifteen agreement capped how many centerfuges they could have where they could have those henterfuges, which was that non tons, so that when it came to the IAEA inspecting they anywhere to go, they had to send out the spent fuel from you know, civilian energy to I think it was Russia.
So they didn't have it around the water treatment plant or not treatment, but the heavy water plant at Iraq had this device on it, so they couldn't make plutonium, which is another material you can use to make a nuclear bomb. It had a lot of it, so it's very technical, very there's other there was other oh snapback saying, for example, so if Iran violated the twenty fifteen that sanctions would be automatic that Russia and China couln't veto. There was a specific part of the twenty fifteen. So
that is kind of the framework, if you will. We elected to get out of it twenty eighteen. Now we're looking to get back into some version of it. Hopefully it is improved. But the criticism back in twenty eighteen was it didn't address proxy forces, which Iran apparently is not even talking about now, so it looks like it won't again. And I think to a certain extent, people were concerned that it wasn't transparent enough. So I hope
we get a better agreement. But quite frankly, even if we end up back in the similar agreement, it won't be bad for the US national security interest in the region because it'll prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. So I hope that's the case. I think it's headed that way, although Iran has put at least in reports, put out specifics like they won't dismantle their nuclear anything they've done so far, which is unacceptable. It's way above where it was in twenty fifteen, So hopefully the US
doesn't accept that they have to dismantle it back. Everything should go at least back down to twenty fifteen. Everything in place, then there's one quick step from being able to be a nuclear weapon. And I think the US in this area of foreign policy is on the right track. We're using the threat of legitimate military options as a pushing point for them, and it looks like we're headed toward an agreement that would be beneficial. But last point i'll turn over adjacent to your point, Israel is not
going to like it. They just did. They didn't like the twenty fifteen, they pushed hard get out of twenty eighteen. I'd get it. I am very concerned about Israel's security and pro Israeli, but ultimately the concern is if we do the military option, it will be a continuous thing, so we'll be essentially at war militarily, and Roan has options to retaliate which will not be good to include shutting down the straits of overmoveth, attacking partners in the area,
going you know, grey zone, killing diplomats. I mean, there's issues that we have to at least acknowledge. And again I'm not against the military option. I think it's a viable option, but it's not just to pull the trigger and this thing's over. It could trigger much broader conflict and that's something we have to take into account, including Israel.
Yeah, I agree. I mean, there's not much for me to add to it. The only thing I would add, and you touched on it, is I'm not one of those bomba back into the Stone Age so there's nothing left. And I'm also not one of those let him have whatever they want. We have a nuclear you know, we have nuclear weapons. One of those people I don't believe that they should have it, and I hope they don't get it. But I also don't believe that we should
completely dismantle their program. If when I say program, what I'm saying is their civilian program to be able to generate energy, because there are people are suffering. And even I believe, if I heard it correctly, President Trump during a ceremony for doctor Oz, I don't even know what the hell he was doing for him, but I feel weird even saying doctor Oz, but for him said he mentioned I ran, and he said, I want them to thrive.
I want them to do well. So I'm hoping that that includes leaving the apparatus in place for them to be able to safely produce electricity for their people, but take away dismantle the ability for them and the mechanism for them to have a weapons grade material. So yeah, we'll see. And as far as Israel's concerned, I wholeheartedly agree. I think I would assume that they're going to give us a Hey, your guys are pushing it, and we're going to do this on our own. But I don't
put it past them just doing it. And like you said, I think if that happens, it's going to be a continuous thing because one strike, especially without verification that it took out the intended targets, is not going to be enough. So and and there's also, like you said, we could actually bda that we took out the you know, the intended targets, but like you said, they have other tools in the toolbox. You know, they could go grade zone
and they can do other things. So you know, hopefully it won't get to that point.
Good point. The other issue is if Israel does take a strike, then the negotiations will probably be could put because the way the Iranians will view it is US and Israel are essentially one, so they'll view it as a US trying to get disagreement. At the same time, given that you can not to strike, Yeah, I think you're right. They might do it without our approval. That'd
be a big step for them. But ultimately I think the goal should be preventing Israel from I mean, excuse me, Aron from getting a newclear weapon and if they do comply with the with and I think the Secretary of Rubio and Mike Walts are right on this. They have to be like hardline, especially going into the negotiations and then it gives them some wiggle room to come back closer to the middle and hopefully it's hopefully it's a better agreement than twenty fifteen, but quite frankly, if it's
the same, we'd still be in a better place. And to your point, Jay, they the Iranian people will benefit, right, So the sanctions will come off, and they are very innovative, very educated society. I think they'll do really well in the global economy. The only thing that's hindering them is is the regime because of the sanctions, and they're you know, seemingly analyst desire to destabilize a region of a region
of which they could prosper in. If they would just you know, stop that and let the Iranian people compete on a fair playing field, I think they'll do very well.
Yeah, I think it's good that like, yeah, we're willing, like we're saying we're willing to hit Iran for now. I mean, you gotta do that to bring them to the negotiation table.
Right.
The wild card, like you mentioned, is Israel. Also, there's nobody else involved in these negotiations, right, Like the last one was a multilateral kind of deal. This one's pretty pretty bilateral and like our proxy, for lack of a better term, Israel, which is not our proxy. But you know what I'm saying, can literally destroy it with one with one go of it, right, and if Israel did do that unilaterally, they're probably not destroying it. I mean, we couldn't word is We're not going to be able
to destroy it ourselves. They'll be able to bring it back in three to six months.
Right.
We've spoken about this, so I don't know where it goes besides making a deal of some kind. It's funny though, because like we you know, the whole Trump agenda early on was how the first agreement was bs and we're getting out of it, and like we're back here in the same place where it's probably gonna look, if we're lucky, probably gonna look like the same exact agreement or like
very similar wild same place, same region, Houthi's. We've been bombing the Wothi's for like what seems like an eternity. It's been over thirty days. They're still obviously capable. They shot down another m Q nine drone, fifth since March fifteenth and twentieth since October twenty twenty three, which is kind of a wild that's a lot. It seems like a lot. They obviously seem to still be capable after thirty plus days of US continuously bombing them. What needs
to happen? Is it just gonna be an ongoing thing? Like, I don't what happens now?
Mick, Yeah, so yeah, this I agreed with the need to escalate. I'll start there. I also think it's fair to say that you gotta be realistic about what you can actually do from the air, right. Heir's a major component in any conflict. It has been for many decades, but it's one of those continuously debated, although I don't know why that it can't essentially win a war without any kind of ground component. So again, I think hats off to all the servicemen and women that are out
there carrying this out. It was the right move to escalate, but it is not having the desired effect, at least completely the desired effect, which is removing the Huthi's capacity to attack commercial vessels and military, our military assets and our partner countries if they chose to do so. They'll never stop the desire, But the only thing we can do is keep them from getting the weapons and basically
just dismantling them like the Israelis did to Hesbla. But they also used the ground component, right, so they send in Israeli troops. So then the question becomes what's going to be the ground component. And I don't think anybody has a desire politically to send you know, you know, the Marines or confessional army forces in on the ground to be that ground component, because we're going to fight people who are heavily entrenched in their territory in the mountains,
and we all know where that's going to go. Even though we're we are the most effective military in the world, we will lose a lot of soldiers of Marines. So I don't think that's even in the cards, thank goodness. But there is a sizable Yemeny capability that we've worked with before. There is a legitimate government of Yemen that is not, of course, the Huthi's once ur lah it is. It is a recognized by the UN, the US. They're
they're headquartered out of Aden. There has been a plan for their forces to take who data going all the way back to twenty fifteen. We're the ones that kind of pushed them out to do it. We were concerned about kind of the humanitarian issition. You rightfully concerned. But essentially if the coalition forces took WHO data, they would cut off so and on right and that's where the
Houthis are. So there could be a combination where we have you know, soft forces from both the military and the agency working with this partner force in conjunction with of course intel and air and it would be it would make them very effective, and I think they could actually take the port and that would change the tide.
It would cut off the Hoothis. And on the humanitarian front, the World Food Program just cut off aid going to the Hoothy controlled areas because all the age is being taken by the Hoothis for their fighters, so it's not even going to the people. So that kind of took away that one component of the WHO data operation. So I don't know exactly what they're looking at, but that's what's in the media, and I think it's very doable and it would it would have a big impact on it.
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, 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, 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.
Yeah, agreed from that.
I was thinking about as you were talking about air can't do it all From the time that I was a baby grunt at School of Infantry down at La Zune. You know, we were always taught, hey, it's about you guys. Everything else is supporting arms. You know, you support the
war fighters, so you can bomb all you want. And I think we prove that in in Gulf War one that you know, you can have a one hundred day air campaign all you want, you know, your little the Highway of Death all that stuff, but until you put boots on the ground to hold that, it's kind of
a moot point. So I agree. But I also I also think too on the far end of that, if you cut off the supply from uh Iran, which I don't think is coming anytime soon, when that well dries up, that might have an effect, you know, a positive effect as well. So I know we it's not probably not in the cards for the negotiations, but at some point I think that should be addressed.
Good point. Hopefully it's some kind of sidebar to this. You know, they won't Iron won't put anything like that into an agreement because they view them as their allies. Right, They'll they'll say, well, why don't you cut off support to Israel? Then? But I agree with you, Jason, it
could be a side thing. It's like, we're going to have this agreement, but we're also going to see weapons flow stop from or on to the Hoothy's and Yemen, and we and our intel will know that, or or you don't even have to have intel if there's a web Ranian weapon that's getting shot at you know, the USS, Carl Vincent, there you go. So I hopefully they do include that as kind of subrows or you know, maybe an untalked about portion of that agreement. Yeah.
Yeah, So where Saudi Arabian all this, because Saudi Arabia for a long time is going at the Hoothy's and stuff like that. I know they've had a ceasefire and stuff like that. Where do they do they come in? What intelligence wise? I mean, clearly we're probably going to be flying stuff out of there, but so.
They have excellent intelligence and you're right when I was referring to the twenty fifteen discussion on WHO data, it was a Saudi led coalition that was the air component of the effort against the hoo'sies. Yeah, so we just replaced them, but it was Saudi Arabia UAE was on the ground. They have really effective special operation forces and they're probably the ones that would be fully embedded with perhaps I don't know, but certainly was at the time
the Emen forces that would take CRE data. So I think I think they will be involved, certainly on the intel side and uh and they have a lot of you know capacity there, especially UAE, So I think it would be a combined effort against the Houthis. But it's much needed and it's it's past time they have I mean, think about it. Every shot that they take at a commercial vessel is the International Terrorist Act Terrorism Act, right.
These are civilian, unarmed commercial vessels that have nothing to do with nothing when it comes to you know, the war and GOZ, which of course the Houthis were doing this before the war and Goz even started, So they're just using it as a as a rally and cry now, but it was done far. It's time for them not to be able to take the world hostage in essentially target commercial vessels and international waterways, and everybody should be
for This shouldn't just be a US thing. This should be like where's China this The energy goes of the world comes out of this area and mostly a lot of it goes to China. We don't even need it, right, so yeah, we should get a lot more support. If not military support, it should be political support to do or do it.
I mean, is there any talk like from US talking to China about like, hey, you guys want to help here or as like that doesn't work. We can't talk to China because they're the enemy when it comes down to.
Talk to them. But right now, you know, we're in a trade war with them over the pages, uh, And I know we're going to get to the topic. But now there's Chinese soldiers showing up on the battlefield in Ukraine. So I mean, we think we can split this group, but we have not proven that to be the case, and every step that we see they come closer together. Whether it's you know what I'm talking about, of course
it is China Russia or Iran, North Korea. They're becoming more intertwined, and their relationships seem to be more and obviously are more important to them than any kind of dayton with the West, especially when the West is separated like we are now, you know, talking about share Yeah.
O, God, why don't I never feel better about these conversations, guys Jesus. So moving to Ukraine just happened just now as well? Putin put out a thing where there's gonna be an Eastern truce, I think for I don't know what it was thirty six hours from the nineteenth, that's seven to the twenty first, and then Zelensi came out maybe forty or so minutes later, saying that the Russians are still targeting areas in Kursk and the Belagrad region.
So who knows what's gonna happen with this truce. There have been a number of like some offensives that the Russians have been taken in the last few days that have failed. Maybe that's the move, like to replenish their their lines or whatever. Also in terms of like talking ceasefire and some kind of like stop orn't like stop to the fighting. The US came out a couple of days ago UH saying that they were possibly okay with acknowledging CRIMEA as part of Russia, and UH, help help me,
help me figure this out. When you negotiate in public by just giving the other side more and more shit, doesn't that make I mean, I'm not a business guy, I mean I've owned businesses. But doesn't that make your position of negotiation weaker?
Yes? Especially yes, absolutely, especially with one of the parties not being an honest broker when it comes to negotiations at all. I think it's clear that Russia is not interested in a ceasefire. Last month March in Saudi Arabia, the US offered a ceasefire thirty days Ukraine accepted. Russia did not. Russia continued not only to attack Ukraine, but attack civilian infrastructure and civilians in Ukraine. They are not accepting this because they do not see what's in it
for them. Because the US hasn't put more pressure on Russia to get to that point, we could have secondary sanctions, which means sanctions against China and India for buying Russian oil. That's how they feed their war machine. We could increase our support for Ukraine, so that Russia sees no realistic in state coming to fruition because the support to Ukraine keeps growing, not subsiding. If we don't do that, Russia is just going to keep nodding, winking, take the compliments
and continuing their war. And if they're successful in Ukraine, the chances of them going into another country, particularly European country that is not NATO goes way up because you know, one of the old Russian adages is going back to the Soviet times, when you proceed with bayonets, if you strike steel withdraw, if you strike mush, as they call it,
you proceed, And that's what they're seeing mush. So if we're not going to increase our capacity to arm and supply Ukraine, and apparently we rejected them purchasing patriots, patriots are a defensive weapon, like think about that that is only used to defend yourself against missiles that are flying at your cities. So it might be and I think the US should stay involved. Obviously, I think we should
increase our support. But if the US isn't going to do anything to push Russia into a position where they want to negotiate and support Ukraine and punish Russia the aggressors, that perhaps we don't need to be involved in the ceasefire negotiations because we're not even a neutral party in this, and maybe Europe needs to step up, which is probably going to happen if this keeps going like this, And I mean Secretary of Rubio I think should be leading
the effort, not a Special envoy. But if he's saying that they're going to withdraw, I think the people in Ukraine and Europe are like, fine, I mean, you're doing nothing to actually hold Russia accountable. They claimed they took the ceasefire and did it, and then the next day, before the Special Envoy even left Russia, they were attacking.
So they're making a mockery out of US. So as much as I think the US is on the right track on the Uranian thing, I don't understand how we think this is an effective way to negotiate with Russia and try to get to a ceasfire. We have to we have to actually show Russia consequences to their continuation of their unlawful, unprovoked attack on Ukraine.
Yeah, I think I think you're gonna step up, like you said, I really think they they don't have a choice at this point. And I think Ukraine is gonna not necessarily turn its back on us for support, but it's going to blade away from us and be like, you're you know, what can you guys do for us?
Because as it stands right now, even if we stepped out right now for there's breaking news and we said we're done with the negotiation, we have left Russia in a position of power just by our words, you know, just even even saying we could we consider you know, uh, recognizing this territory as Russia's that's enough, you know.
In that.
In that aspect, all that is just sticks and stones, All that doesn't account because words do count in this, uh in this in this instance, and uh yeah, I think Europe is going to step up. And I just think we're we're digging ourselves into a really bad hole with this, the things that we're saying and doing, as far as Ukraine is concerned, I think as far as Iran is concerned, we're wombing in the right direction basically, But with Ukraine, we're we're digging ourselves in a bad.
Hole worldwide, So yes, absolutely, and it's just to recognize crimea as Russian territory essentially just promotes the idea, if you're strong, you can take territory. Period. I mean it's yeah, of course nobody else will except for Russia. Uh and then uh and then of course in the United States there's always a shift in you know, who's the president who's not, and they'll go back to not recognize it. So it's it's it all not only show a bizarre
deference to Russia, one of our most significant adversaries. It's not gonna last as long. It's not gonna last. It's gonna just uh. And Ukraine's gonna keep fighting and Russia is not gonna be successful in taking over Ukraine. And to Jason's point, the Europeans are definitely going to step up. They are stepping up. They realize like they have to, they have to spend a lot to ensure that Russia loses Ukraine. And I think they're willing to do it, and they have the economies to do it. Yeah.
The interesting thing is like we're we've like bled Russia big time over the last three eight.
Hundred thousand casualties, eight thousand, probably around three hundred thousand dead.
Yeah, Yeah, that's like incredible because like I imagine, imagine a war the US was involved in and we had that kind of casualty count. Yeah, they would be riots in the street. Oh yeah, it would be like this.
Is eight thousand Vietnam, all of Vietnam, fifty eight thousand deaths. Yeah, yeah, over three hundred thousand.
So, and just the blatant dist reguard of Putin and his regime for like Russian people is kind of unfucking believable. It's like biblical. It's World War two number stuff.
Annihilation of a whole generation of young Yeah.
I think I read something of it was like one percent of their male population or something like that has been wiped out.
Yeah, and a lot and a lot more. It's fled.
Who's gonna get who's in the clip Putin? Bro, Let's let's make up, let's do it, Let's let's devise it right now. There's got to be something in the works, like Ukrainian or some kind of like S SBU or whatever trying to figure it out, or the polls. I'm
sure they're they're involved heavily. The scary thing is, I know it's like more speculating, like if that were to happen, like who takes over after pot and is it more of a lunatic which is hard to believe, right, or somebody who would be looking to looking for the off ramp here. I mean, I don't know. It's just unbelievable.
It's a transition for just from the normal you know, life cycle of a leader. And Putin gets to pick him, then it's imagine it's going to be somebody aligned with him or potentially even more fervent if it's a if it's an organic overthrow of the government. Ohs right, who knows, total crap show. I mean, he stayed in power in this long. He's a former KGB colonel, he knows security, he I mean, he knows how to keep his regime in place. So it's, uh, we can't count on change in leadership.
Sure, and I'm sure like probably scared the ship out of him, went down with uh pregosion, right, I'm sure like after that he probably clamped clamped down times ten. Yeah, there seems to be a real schis him in the Trump administration of you know, the wick Coughs, the Rubios, the Rubio's catalogs and the wick Coughs and everybody else. Basically, I honestly don't know how Rubio's doing this, how he wants to do it.
I mean, I would say that there's a traditional Republican view, which of course is Russia is our adversary, the US should lead the free world, you know, kind of the Reagan view, and I think Rubio kind of represents that in the current administration, and so does Mike Wells to a certain extent. So I hope they stick around because it's important, you know, from a person who kind of views them the world that way, that that is represented.
The idea that you can go kowtow as some have to President Putin and somehow that's going to work out well for you. It's just lost on me. It just ignores essentially all of human history, so that especially when dealing with an autocrat, right, they never go, Wow, this guy's really nice. I won't take advantage of them. They go, wow, this guy's really nice. I am definitely gonna take it.
To him, right, yeah, right.
Right, it's I'm sure the Russians are baffled. There's even reporting that they're like it's they're confused, you.
Know, yeah, like, is this a move like what's going on? It's too easy.
Yeah, I mean listen you you hear Steve Waykoff speak and he's a he's a point guy right for this at this point, at this point in time, and it literally like you listen to it and you're like, what is going on?
Like this isn't a real estate deal. This isn't a deal where like everyone could kiss each other's ask because everyone's gonna get rich. This is like real life people living and dying. Uh, Civilians dying like in both Ukrainians and Russians fucking dying too, like and just like the flip it kind of like, yeah, we're all buds. Here is head scratching.
It's head scratching for a lot of reasons. But I can tell you and anybody's ever dealt with Russia knows they don't view us as a friend. They never will. They never will. You could say all that stuff and they'll be like, yeah, yeah, yeah, stud just left the room. They're like at that guy. Yeah, I mean they they they're like part of their existence is to be counter
to whatever the US is. Just it's just how they It's how a lot of autocrats, the autocracies work, right, They build up nationalists sentiment by having an enemy, right, well, were the enemy. They're not not going to change. They'll say things and the piece things and you know, not peace but the conciliatory, but they don't mean it and they never will. And you know, we've had other presidents that you know, have thought this and proven wrong, and
they even acknowledge it. You know, President Bush, what he looked into the eyes, you know, and it's just not the case. It's time to be realistic. Doesn't mean we can't deal with We should deal with everybody world right, we should do everything we can to mitigate another world war, because I think people have forgot just how horrendous a world war is. So I'm certainly not saying that we
should be at fisticuffs with Russia at all times. And we also ought to be smart enough to realize that they have no interest in being conciliatory to the United States in actuality.
And the interesting thing is too, they've done some polling on this too, and like almost sixty percent of the United of American people are like, yeah, we should continue to continue to support Ukraine. Yes, So like the polling's there, obviously, it's number twelve on the list or of whatever. If people things can't care about. But at the same time, there is sentiment in the United States where people are like, yeah, we should continue to help them out.
Yeah. Absolutely, it is in our own interests. It's in our own national security interest. It's not charity, and it's important that we stay as a main leader in the world. This is it. If we pull out of it, that people view it what it is. The US is was drawn for being the leader of the free world.
And who takes over.
Who takes over probably be some European or probably europe in general.
You talk in terms of like in general generality as the leader of the free world, or like the guy a person who takes over the country that takes over, like fills the vacuum there. I think it's China obviously not having it. I think China, even though there have been reports of Chinese fighters on the ground in Ukraine, and there has been a report too of some Chinese officials going over to Ukraine to like observe what's going on or Russia to observe what's going on.
Well, China will try to take it over as the world superpower, right correct, world because they're not even a part of it. But the US is the one who's set up the current system worldwide after World War Two, with US essentially at the helm, which is a good place to be security wise, economic wise, and everything. We don't want that even just looking at if you want to use the term America first. America first would be
to maintain our leadership of the free world. It's in our own interest financially, security, everything, So we don't want to be replaced. But we have to actually do more than just talk. We have to actually act, and we have, but we just need to continue to do so. Humble opinion.
Yeah, we'll see what goes down. Another bit of news coming out from Nicky shared this with us yesterday. Do you want to give a rundown of what went down? It looks like the program to help the folks that helped us in Afghanistan is getting its funding revoked and make if you want to give us some more specifics on that.
So, of course, going back to the horrendous withdrawal of Afghanistan, obviously a lot of people, but certainly veterans, became involved in the evacuation of our partner who fought alongside us
for twenty years. It was quite frankly an embarrassment the way we left it, but a lot of things were put into place to help those that were left behind since it was such a precipitous withdraw Even people with SIVs, which is special immigrant vices to come to the United States weren't didn't come because they didn't get a half a way out, and they've been trying to ever since.
So it looks like the coordinator for the Afghan relocation efforts, which is CARE the acronym for the office, is going to be closed down this month, which would leave people essentially stranded. People who fought alongside US, who met the qualifications for SIV or were very close. Of course, the Taliban doesn't care if you met it or were very close. They're still going to kill you and they have no
place else to go. And would point out that this is one of the most heavily screened populations of any person coming to the United States. They went through extensive background and of course many of them, if not most of them, supported directly US military in the fight against the Talbot. So it would be a horrendous change, in my opinion, and it would be essentially abandoning our promise
to these folks. There's a lot of other veterans and I was involved in a group called the Dunkirk, but a lot of other veteran groups that have stayed and really done a lot to continue this effort. Sean van der Bert was well, I think it's Afghan eMac. Hopefully we can get them on the show and you guys can interview them, but that are still very much attracting. This can go into much more detail, but essentially this
needs to happen. There's a lot of vets left right and center who who think this should happen and are going to be pushing for this and talking to their congress men and women about making sure we don't abandon these partners.
Yeah, and just to note, this was funded through twenty twenty seven. Are supposedly supposed to be funded to through twenty twenty seven, and it's checked my time. It's not twenty twenty seven. Congress funded it, which is how the constitution works, which maybe we should you know, do that, and I think it, you know, the blowback in terms of like what are other allies going to think if we're trying to use a partner force and stuff like that. They're not going to believe a fucking word we say.
I wouldn't, right if I have some CIA guy coming to me like you're gonna fucking abandon me too the minute, like the political will is gone.
Yep. Yeah. And as a guy who spend a lot of my time with partner forces, yeah, it's a big problem.
I mean, at the same time, I'd be like, I'm going to take your money and stuff, but you know, I'm not expecting that much from you guys, if I'm completely honest.
Yeah, yeah, pass this prologue. Man, That's what I would I would be asking the same question if I was in their shoes. Yeah, we're remember the earlier part of this discussion, not that we're going to promise all these Gemini fighters. Uh, you know, s I v S. But we're talking about using a partner force right now, right exactly, and it's gonna that's that's the way of modern warfare. Regular warfare. Partner force operations are a key component for
a reason. We don't like to. Uh, it's a big political decision to put conventional US forces on the ground and arms way again. And after twenty years of fight in Afghanistan.
In the Middle East.
Yeah, it's very unlikely to happen again, or at least it's it's it's less likely. So Parker forces are going to be key going ahead. And if we don't keep our word, it's gonna it's gonna change the the attitude they have towards us.
Yeah, and listen to me as being like a regular hit is that doesn't hasn't done anything, that's just been experiencing the last twenty years and stuff like that, I can kind of get behind, you know, a handful of odas, some a little piece of the rage of regiments and Jaysuck and CIA, you know, facilitating the Yemeny Army into going after the Houthis and stuff like that, Like that I can buy, but not you know, one hundred and fifty thousand, one hundred first airborne guys or marines and
stuff like that going in Like that's that's it. It is a political no go in this country.
Yeah, it should be.
Yeah, exactly, Yeah, I agree one hundred percent.
Not just because my son's an unders right, but I mean, I mean seriously, and when it comes to committing US force on the ground, it has to be an absolute direct US national security interest and no other option. That's what I would that would be my policy until then. Yes, Partner Force Operations, Special Operations, Intel for sure.
Yeah yeah, I mean that's the name of the game. That's that's what they that's what they do best, right, So I'm down with that, you know what I mean. But I don't want it to be another quagmire in Yemen uh where when it's like there's no coalition, really like international coalition, especially what you would think though, an issue like what's going on in the Red Sea with navigation and freedom and navigation should be more likely to
induce a coalition to get together to do something like this. Yeah, because everyone's economically involved and affected by this stuff.
It's a good point because there is a coalition. I don't remember how many countries, but it's it's Operation Prosperity Guardian.
I think make you're an expert. You're an expert, and you couldn't remember because like, what's this fucking coalition actually doing? Yeah right, sorry, I'm getting I'm getting why I'm getting red hot.
And we had that, we had the International Maritime Security Construct when I was at the Pentagon, So it's the same thing. Basically because there's especially it comes a naval power, there's political like hey, we're with you guys, But then there's actually capacity, right, and very very very few countries actually have naval, maritime air capacity, and it's basically the US, the UK, and France.
Right.
So this coalition of I don't know, say, thirty five countries boils down to like three, yeah, and nobody holds the candle to us. So I hope, especially with their European partners, they start realizing that they have to do more. They have to bring more to the game than just you know, what they're doing. And I think you're seeing
that because they're concerned about Russia. But that's why these coalitions sound huge, but you can't remember who's in it because you never see any of them actually doing anything. They'll send staff folks to our jock, right, and that's them participating.
But now you stand there with like a clipboar.
Yeah, and what everybody does. But yeah, and I'm not diminishing it. We need politically, we need other countries. So it's not the US, But when it comes to naval capability, it's there's not a whole lot of countries out there. They can even participate at this level.
Yeah, all right, is there anywhere somebody could go to help out with like maybe putting the screws to the administration about not pulling this funding from Congress.
You already said it. Call your congressman, And there's plenty of veteran congressmen on both sides of the aisle who are and have been very big, staunch advocates of this program. So I think this is this is that is where people should go and have them explain why we're abandoned in our partners after not only promising them then, but promising them after we withdrew and left them. If not, there's gonna be there could be a lot of them are in other countries. I think I read ninety different
countries or and they're on their way here. Again, they are completely vetted, and if they're not vetted, they shouldn't come. But if they are vetted and we're you know, we're confident they are who they said they were, They fought alongside of us, and they're not a threat. Those are the kind of people who want to.
Be American, right, you would think, yeah, I mean.
They already fought for America.
Right, Yeah, they've done more than most most people were citizens of America, so myself included.
So it's like, and I know a lot of them, not that I mean anecdotally. They come and man, they're like a lot of immigrants to the United States. They come, they're driving an uber in the first generation and second generation. They're you know, they.
Own own business or business.
Right, going to fancy paid schools. I mean, they are here to They're not here to mooch. Nope, right, they do. They do really well. They have a very tight knit community. We're tied into him just because people are knew in Afghanistan and they and they look at for each other and they do really well. They are very productive members of society in general. I think everybody knows that.
Yeah, very well said anything else, guys.
We covered a lot.
Yeah, do us a favor. Go and check out the links down in the description. If you want to find Mick on LinkedIn or fog bow Lobo, any of his publications. The links are in the description Jason Lyones. His links are in the description. Andy Millburn great book, When the Tempest Gathers. Sorry he couldn't make it today. He's in the gym. Link is in the description as well. And if you want to help support the show and get the Teamhouse ad free in early access is on Geopolitics.
AD free and early access go to our patreon Patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse, buy some merch you saw make drinking that of the eyes on mug. It looks incredible. And yeah, guys, happy Easter.
Whoever celeb happy, best place to celebrate greeced it out to you man. You ever getting to be there and on Easter, that's the place to be. Yeah, yeah, you'll know what I'm saying once you go there.
And uh, Jason sent me an Instagram story yesterday stereotyping us Greeks, and you know what it was, what goes on during Easter and stuff like that. It was pinpoint perfect. That's literally what's going to be happening tomorrow my aunt's house. Awesome, Thanks guys, Yeah, thank you.
Great rest of your weekend, all right too, Happy Eastern