Hey, what's up everybody. I want to think our newest sponsor to the Perfect Gene. They sent us a couple of these in order of these for everybody last week, and I've been rocking them. And as I figured out, there's a reason why some sponsors don't want to send you stuff, but these people did, and I've been rocking these jeans. I rocked them a few times this past week, and they're probably the best jeans I've ever worn in my life. I'm not saying that because they're paying us.
I tried them out. They are legit. I used to hate wearing regular jeans because like, they're just not comfortable and we all need to admit it. So I went to sweatpants. I was rocking the stretched chinos, which they do have. Also, I'm gonna go back to rocking jeans, I think with the Perfect Gene. I bought two other pairs too, with my own money. We used our promo code, which is how it's fifteen for fifteen percent off. But honestly,
it's incredible. There's a part in this video where the guys are doing lungers and the ladies are checking them out. I don't know if it's because of the gene. But I have found that people were women were checking me out more and more over the last week. I don't know what that is. Maybe it's the way I carry myself, maybe it's my gate, or maybe it's the Perfect Gene, or maybe it's all combined at all three combined. I don't know, but check it out. We really appreciate them sponsoring us.
For a limited time, our listeners get fifteen percent off their first order plus free shipping at the Perfect Gene dot nyc. Or you could google the Perfect Gene and use the code House fifteen. That's House one to five for fifteen percent off. That's fifteen percent off for new customers at the Perfect Gene dot NYC with promo code House fifteen. After your purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them
we sent you. K your khakis and get the Perfect Gene. Guys, thank you for supporting this show, and thank you for Perfect Gene for helping us support the show as well. We couldn't do it without you, guys. Thanks a lot, House fifteen fifteen percent off. Hey, everybody, welcome to another episode of Eyes on Eyes on Geopolitics, we changed the name up a little bit so it's better to find on YouTube and everywhere else, so don't forget to like
and subscribe. There. Joined today with Mick Molroy Andy Milburn a lot of cooking since we last talked big news. This last uh, the end of last week was tariffs, all the tariffs that have been implemented on various countries, a ten percent baseline tariff and then if you were on the list, everyone had their own little little uh. Everyone had a different number. A little bit about the percentage of how they got to the tariffs is kind
of hilarious. It's almost like they just did it on a napkin in the Oval office and said, let's do this this way. I mean, I don't know that for sure, but that's what I you know, it seems like what was I gonna say, Oh, the one little thing that I noticed was no Russia and a tarriffs. And before everyone says, oh, we don't really do trade with Russia, that we do three billion dollars a year in trade with Russia. So still even while this Ukraine war is
going on and sanctions are high. So guys, I know you guys aren't economists, but what are your thoughts on what's happening with the tariffs? Do you guys decide first? Go first?
All right, I'll go for it.
An yeah, yeah, go ahead, all right.
Well, I'll start with the fact that I'm not an economist nor a financial analyst, so I'm gonna pose my my statements in the form of a question, because you know, the old Socratic thing, because they're truly questions.
I guess I'd start with.
Tariffs obviously ultimately are attacks on somebody, right, whether it's the manufacturer that's coming in the company that's does the importation, or the people and the that are purchasing it.
So or all the above.
So it does seem to me that they could call it what it is is, which is the biggest tax potential tax increase on the American population since you know, incompact tax started.
So we can at least be honest.
About what this could be and we'll find out, like this is in one of those arguments that's going to go on in perpetuity.
We're going to find out if.
All the cost of goods across the United States goes up, and if it does, that's the tax, the tariff tax. Right, If it doesn't, then we'll know that too. So I think we start with that, and then the questions I'd have if you look back in history, and I know everybody's watched that. You know the clip from Ferris Bueller, I mean, has this worked in the past, and how effective? Apparently that actually causes a great depression to get work war was the smooth poly ter effact or whatever it
was called. So I look it past, I look at what's going to actually happen, and then it's sets the stage of whether this is really going to have a massive impact, not just on the upper income, right, because everybody buys stuff, So this is a tax now all the way down to the lowest income, including people who are on some kind of assistance, because then your assistance buys less, so it's a tax. And then the question
for me is whether it's worth it. So the intent is to bring all these manufacturing jobs back to the United States. My question to the economists, not politicians, because I'd like to know somebody actually spend a.
Lot of time looking at this. Is that going to happen?
If we on this podcast or audience were collectively looking at whether we're going to invest a couple of billion
dollars in building a car manufacturing plant in Tennessee. Are we going to do that not knowing that within three and a half years, this entire policy's going out the window, because that's the danger of a president being able to do all this, whichever president it is, because the next president can undo the entire thing, and then we've just wasted a billion dollars potentially and halfway through a project that we're not going to complete. So that's the second,
I guess question i'd have. And then the third question is aren't we automating right now? Isn't that the intent
of manufacturers right now? Are we going to get to a point where it's not in going to increase jobs because we're trying to get to a point where we have these robotic systems that create cars and phones and everything that's that it can And if that's the case, I could still see some potential benefit of bringing that back to the United States, But it's not all about, you know, the jobs that we lost back in the eighties.
So i'd have I think I'd like to hear those questions answered by non politicians who are not economists on either side of the aisle and start being asked to
directly to the manufacturing CEOs, to the global economists. And then the last point I'd make is, this is one system that we're going to have to address because if this is wrong, this could could seriously damage and we haven't even started talking about the stock market, seriously damaged, our standing in the world, our relationships around the world,
our economy, which is actually exceptional. I think we're too hard on ourselves try and always play that it's not or do we need to make this more balance like our whole systems checks and balances, right, So if the president can tear up the president can take off the tariffs, we could be dramatically going back and forth every four years. So that's what I got in the form of a question.
Hopefully Andy can answer it all over then.
No such luck. Make Actually I've got more questions and answers, but you know as to so you know that I do understand, and of course you know, everyone who knows me knows that I'm far from being an economist. But here's the little that I understand, and here are the questions that I that I would ask. So you know, as far as the technicalities of trade my understanding because the rationale for this was reduced the United States's trade deficit.
That was kind of the leading rationale. And yet my understanding is that the trade deficit has nothing to do with the tariffs imposed on US exports at all. It has to do with the fact that Americans generally choose to spend more than they invest, right to include their government. That is what is creating the deficit, and tariffs terraffs won't affect that at all, except arguably perhaps leaving Americans with far less to invest or say for that matter.
So you know, I would be interested to hear someone's answer who does know about trade deficits and their connections with protectionist policy, to see how they are connected at all.
You know.
Secondly, my very rudimentary understanding of economics and recent history is simply that, I mean, this is undeniable. The United States economy has been so strong that in the last three decades it is far outstripped the G seven. And even when Europe, you know, in the last year, was looking at entering a recession, certainly a significant slowdown, the US economy was booming. So you know, in the words of the old phrase, if it ain't broke, Why fix it?
What are we fixing? Okay, So that's my second question and the third mecha relating to you know, your historical references. It's very difficult because the judge calls an effect. But the truth is, one hundred years ago when the United States, when most countries had the system of protectionism, high tariffs, the US was nowhere near the lead economically in the world.
And.
The Great Depression coincided with some of the highest tariffs without the highest tariffs in the last hundred years occurred with they're in place immediately preceding the Great Depression. So, whether or not you believe in cause and effect, that's an incredible coincidence, isn't it. And it's only in the last eighty years where repeated rounds of trade talks in the aftermath of the sec World War have led incrementally to the lowering of tariffs around the world that you've
seen the global economy rise. Okay, So whether or not you're interested in proving cause and effect, that's again a remarkable coincidence. So I would ask, why are we ignoring all of this history? All right? Even for the most basic understanding of economics, and history that I have. Those things seem pretty compelling arguments, and I haven't seen any
counter arguments. And in fact, indeed, I think sadly in the years ahead, we're going to show exactly how disastrous these policies are, unless indeed they are a very incomprehensible negotiating tactic. If they are a negotiating tactic, what exactly are we asking for? Again, with the leading economy in the world, we're doing tremendously the stock market. You know, I know, not everything the economy in the stock market shouldn't be conflated, but the stock market was at its highest,
you know late last year. Unemployment was low. People generally were by all measures, please with the way things are going. And we I mean, look at how far the US economy has progressed in the last decade. And it was the quickest to recover in the Western world off the pandemic. So all of these things were going really well. Again, why change that?
Yeah? Also, you look at inflation too across the world compared to the US, Like, yeah, inflation was tough here, but it's nothing compared to EU. Turkey, for another, Like, there's a lot of developed countries that have been hit hard with inflation since COVID. This will obviously add to inflation, right because most of the stuff we get is not American made, and that's just the fact of globalization, market capitalism.
And the big hit on Friday was for the stock market was because China announced a thirty four percent reciprocal tariff on the US goods.
So we're going to make China a great again. I mean, this is absolutely playing into cheese hands. And he predicted. He predicted a few years ago that you know when when the argument was always he was always confronted with the argument, Hey, the US is booming, you know, the American way works and all of this. He said, yes, you're going to see things turned upside down in the next few years. And sure enough, I think that's what we're seeing. Yes, China will be hurt in the near term.
Who knows as much as the US economy. The China will be hurt, but they're already redirecting the emphasis of their exports and they've proven to be very flexible in any case. They bypassed tariffs previously by going through Vietnam. Of course that's going to be less effective now that Vietnam is subject to tariffs. But the point is that they can direct trade. The Chinese government can direct the confluence of trade in a way that the United States cannot.
And we'll recover, and we'll find a market throughout the world from all of those countries that we have now alienated, and not just the market for trade, but a market too for all those things that we for Chinese influence, you name it, military exports, allowing allowing basing rights, uh, extending the you know, the the there with what Cinma trying to remember the cliche about their uh you know, the the Chin to make home me out here, the
rail rails and road and railway road initiative. Yeah, I mean all of the all of these things are going to flourish in the face. It's a gift. It's a gift to our adversaries.
Yep.
I mean we even talking, we're even here in Japan and South Korea talking to China about you know, trade policy, you talk about realignment. Remember, we are the biggest UH
economy in the world. And I agree with Andy. If you look at the stats and I just saw charts, I mean, we have really done well against our most you know, significant not competitors, But I guess competitors like if you look at the EU, we've we or we have gone in twenty years from about equal to double the economy and our you know base mean salary is the best in the world as far as I could
see in TH's charts unless the Church we're inaccurate. So I mean, to your point, Andy, what is it we're fixing? And then is this going to fix it? Or is this gonna essentially alienate the because this has all happened at the same time, we're talking about making Canada fifty first state and taking over, you know, territory of a NATO al it's do it's it's not just trade, it's also and then questioning the value of NATO, and we're going to reorder the world and right now the world
is in our favor. Is I guess the question I would have? So why would we do that? And we could get all the negatives right because we did this and not on the positives, because it's then it's then on and flips back the other direction in three and a half years, because if a Democrat's elected, they're probably not going to continue on.
This isolationist policy.
And inside the Republican Party, it's traditionally been free trade since World War Two. Well, anybody that gets elected is from the traditional side of the Republican Party, which is most of the Senators, right, they could go back to the Reagan approach, which is more free trade than the Democrats. So and it seems like the only way this would be effective is if it's long term, and we just don't have the capacity to do long term things, so.
It makes no sense whatsoever. Also, fun fact that I read this week was during the Great Depression, ten percent of households had stocks. Today it's seventy two percent of households have some money or a lot of money in the stock market. So to coup to multi couple on top of the fact that things are going to get more expensive with these tariffs are sticking around, people are getting smoked in. They're four to one k and their investment accounts and stuff like that. Their retirement Like.
Yeah, everybody mind bodily, and this idea it's only for wealthy people is totally not true, right, I mean, we're based in our military. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong. Uh Andy, I've been retired for a while, but we're even basing a lot of our service members, you know, retirement on the stock market, aren't we isn't that what the TSP is and then invested in the stock market. So we're talking all the way out to the lowest level of soldier is invested in the stock market. And
that's intentional by the government. So we do have a responsibility to make sure that we don't do anything to significantly just rup the stock market.
In my opinion, so remember, uh yeah, remember Reaganomics, you know, taking us out of stackflation in the seminies. I mean, Reaganomics was based on I mean it was cold at the time, illliberalism, right, which was about reducing tariffs and trade paris. I mean, it's just it's extraordinary. Anyway, a lot of questions we're going to answer are informed listenership will be able to chime in in comments on.
Yeah, the economists are going to chime in in the comments.
Can't wait, let's put those to the top.
But you know, you know, seriously, I gets back to what I've I've gone on about before. Is sadly that I and I don't. I don't, I can't you know, I wasn't brought up in the American education system. So I'm not thank god, yeah, I'm not. No, I mean, I'm not qualified to talk about it. I mean, you know, but it does seem to me that there is just an incredible blindness towards history. Geography too, by the way,
but especially history, you know, even recent history. And it seems like as the this this ignorance has has uh has has risen to right to the right to the top, which is certainly concerning. I don't know how you address that, but that whole cliche about those who don't understand history are condemned to repeat it.
Andy, I'll give you a nice anecdote. When I used to do podcasts that were more comedic focused. I used to have my you know, my buddies on and they used to give them the citizens citizenship test, just the questions from the citizenship test.
That's tough, are they though?
I mean, I mean they're not tough at all, and they would fucking fail And it was hilarious at the time. But it speaks to a broader thing of like what's wrong with our educational system? You know. I read another thing where like majority of kids are functionally illiterate, where like they can read obviously, but they like they're understanding, is by far, like way less than what he wants, you know, fifty years ago or something like that, you know, and it's.
Scared, yeah, I think, I mean. And add to that so absolutely, you know, the at vent of the internet and then the phone, so the big thing that I think have steered people away from books. And so now you have you remember Mark Twain, you don't remember him, but Mark Mark Twain said something along the lines of, you know, being illiterate is sad, but sadder even than that,
it is being literate, but choosing not to read. And I think that's that encompasses you know a lot of people sadly in this country or they read what they want to read. And and and it's certainly in not history, No, no.
I don't think histories wouldn't any uh so, and on top of the charts.
In the meantime, I suppose we're all, you know, snashing dollar bill notes or bars of gold into our mattresses and just hunkering down to for this on. There's a very sad component to this, and that is it touches on what Mick was talking about, the promise to return manufacturing to the United States, you know that, and there's so many things that are convoluted with that statement. We are no longer in manufacturing based industry for a country,
you know, for good reason. We've evolved beyond that and
we have the best of both worlds. But this promise to return manufacturing and coupled with lack of education in many of the areas that that were sort that were the sources of US manufacturing, you know, this promise has been believed, but it's it's very difficult to imagine you know, you name it the steel industry, or not manufacturing, but coal mining, or all of these things coming back to be viable industries within the US simply because we are
isolating ourselves from the world. I mean, that doesn't seem to be a logical correlation here, and I think a lot of people are going to be not just disappointed, but really really hurt financially.
Yeah, and if you saw the recent interview with Bill Gates, I mean, this is a guy who obviously knows technology and the potential of how it's going to evolve, and he's talking about just how we're going to automate almost everything we do in society, from building a house to being a physician. So we got to really look at that and whether we are trying to get back to a time that doesn't exist anymore, where people work in factories and we build things by our hands. There's people
who know where this is going. I don't think it's a mystery. I think a lot of the automation has already occurred. I mean, I was just talking to somebody who was in a Tesla plant and he's like, they're already building this thing pretty much with robots. So if that's where we're going, you know, that doesn't mean we don't want that to be in the United States, I don't think. But it's still a question of we're trying to get back to a time that essentially doesn't exist anymore,
and nor will it. So we need some economists, we need some futurists, we need some engineers to start weighing in on I think policy, because right now it's it's people who and in some cases, people who are supporting this that spent their entire you know, decades and decades long career saying the exact opposite Reaganomics, right, free trade, I mean they mean saying, I mean most of the people in the Senate have been around for a long time, unfortunately,
and now they're either not saying anything or they're saying the opposite of what they what they supported for decades. So it takes you know, as far as way I see it, it takes them off of being a person that we should rely on. We should talk to people who actually know the industry, know how it's evolve, and know whether this is going to work. Even if it's the best case scenario that it's effective.
It's like trying to turn a tanker going fifty forty knots like completely around, Like it's not going to happen. It's going to cost trillions of dollars to bring manufacturing and build factories and do all that back in the United States. How are you going to do that when your stock market's and the shitter and there's no capital to spend. Who's going to pay for it?
The market right overseas, right exactly?
You know, they're already pretty I mean, you name it. Any country in the world can import things now manufactured elsewhere cheaper, cheaper price than we can do in the United States. I mean it's yeah, so you know, even us, uh, bumbling novice economists. UH can can have pointed to multiple flaws UH in this and it makes you know a lot of thing out I'll say, I don't know this
last thing. I'll say that's up to UH, that's up to d I don't mean to make it sound so final, but on this topic, and I think it's an important one, is you know, where is the GOP in the Senate?
Right?
I mean that is that that is you know we even use that term the Senate. It's it's synonymous with kind of wise advice, right, something from Roman times. And that is where our elder statesmen are in the positive use of the term. And they's supposed to be a steady hand right there for and and as a constitutional bulwark against the executive perhaps getting out of bounce. And we we're still waiting to see any kind of coherent
opposition from the Senate, not even opposition guidance. But sadly, some of the prominent names there seemed to be more concerned with re election and holding onto their seats than with really providing value to the country. You know, it's one of those times where you have to ask where is where is John McCain, for instance, Right, and I'm not you know, I get it, there's pretty people out
there who hate John McCain. But the point is you could always rely on him right to criticize policy that he regarded being dumb, regardless of where it was coming from.
Well, there is a bit of a.
We don't have anyone quite like him, right.
Yeah, the Senate did vote on the Canadian terrorists like trying to block them, and a couple of Republicans did break ranks, Rand Paul being one, and a few four others, Mitch McConnell in too, and some a couple other people, but they're well aware that it's not going to go to the House. The House is not going to bring it up for a vote to at least block even the Canadian terrorists and not just Canadian terrorists, not to top the bottom. You're not wrong, Andy, And like I'll
be real, I mean, I like John McCain. I'm not a huge fan of like the Senate obviously, or like politicians in general. But yeah, you would think some people would step up because, like their constituents are gonna feel the crunch, whether it's in the markets from their four one ks or to the like the grocery store or when you're ordering something on Amazon, whatever the case may be, your day to day. I mean I saw a thing. It's four thousand dollars a year for an average family.
That's real deal money that they probably don't have.
Yep, and a cool fact or maybe not cool but in fact I just looked up because I heard this before. Senate comes from Senex, which is an old term for old man.
So that's apt.
Yeah there, yeah, yeah.
So I mean, maybe we'll get an economist onto, like you know, actually give us some like real real facts. I mean, but it doesn't take it. You don't have to be uh go over to the London School of Economics to you know, really have a grasp of what's going on. Moving on now, Uh, National Security Council has been a bit of an upheaval, some firings and stuff like that. Uh. National Security Agency Director General Timothy haw got the boot on. You know, he was one of
the hold always from the Biden administration. Everybody generally said he was a rock solid guy. He used to run cyber Command as well for the military. This comes a day after far right conspiracy theorist Laura Lumer had an at a meeting with Trump in the White House, running her mouth and going on about people who are disloyal to the president. And then you saw the next day, I think about six people got fired. I don't know the names of the rest of them. I know more
than that. What are your guys thoughts on that? En It's sake obviously a very important position when I say ans National Security Agency administered agency director.
Yes, So a couple of things to point out. The appointments of people to these significant four star commands isn't supposed to be political at all. It's supposed to be the opposite. Uniform military is not supposed to be tied to a political party and certainly not loyal to a politician. That's just from the time you're a private or a lieutenant to the you're a some major four star general. You know, I think everybody knows this, but I have to say it. It's loyalty to the Constitution, So fidelity
to your oath to the Constitution. So they're picked, in my experience, for their competence as military leaders, and there should remain in place if they were competent in the first place, regardless of who is the commander chief now yes, as a lot of people point out, the president gets to pick that. That's true, but having the right to do so and making and whether it is right is
two different things. Right, you could fire every the president and Commander chief could fire every officer of the military, and obviously that's not right. So and I don't know General Hope. I would say everything about him sounds like he was the right person for the job and was an exceptional officer. So this is I don't think the kind of moves you'd like to see. And I know obviously a lot of Republicans on the Hill, and I with a few exceptions, i've heard anybody disagree with that.
The other part, of course, is the NSC. The NSC is supposed to be where the fusion of policy comes together, and there are appointees. They are political appointees, but there's also details people who simply come from the different agencies and departments because they have to make this work, they
have to represent, and they are the continuity. So if everybody switches out in the NSC every time there's an election in four years, then the continuity is damaged substantially, and our long term policy objectives that don't change because they're interests in the United States are damaged at least with the knowledge and.
How and who and all that stuff. So there's a reason we have detailers at the NSC.
And that's it, and that's commonly, that's a common belief that this consistency with detail ees is very beneficial to the.
Long term US national security objectives.
So that's to set it up. This person, I didn't know much about her. I was surprised by what people claimed that she had claimed herself. So to the best I looked at up, it does appear that she said pretty blatant supremacist stuff at a white supremacist rally, and that she said very anti Islamic.
Statements, and that she.
Denied or she has the theory that the US, you know, carried out Minor eleven against ourself right, which is not only wholly nonsensical illogical. It should be offensive to any American that somebody would propose that our government, elected by our people, attacked ourselves and then lost thousands of service men and women and others in the fights that came from it, and you know, to a trillion dollars.
It's hard to be very confused. I just want to say pretty quickly, because that is the argument used to hit from al Qaeda.
Yeah yeah, who who simultaneously took credit for it and then said we did it. On the inside, it was you know, yes. So it's hard to believe that that person is then having a significant influence over what has been traditionally non political positions.
Right, not loyal to who?
Right, and the NSC people that were picked by the NSC or the National Security Advisor. So this is seriously undercut the National Security Advisor. It is against all traditions, both sides of the aisle. And it's really hard to believe that somebody who admittedly said these things and has no experience that I could see in national security has this big of an influence. It's really shocking that more
people haven't said the obvious. It's surprising when you talk I guess it isn't surprising when you talk to people, because I go brief people on the hill and you say one thing and then the cameras turn off, and God, but I don't know any senior elected official that thinks that the US military should be tied to a political person but on the basis of loyalty.
I'll leave it there to them.
Andy, Yeah, I've got very little to add to that very articulate defense of inter national security apparatus being should be free held above politics, and you know, I would it really confuses me when I hear people try to argue otherwise that it's okay to for you know, the military or the national again you know, NSA agency to have a political bias, or you know, to allow political
bias to sway decisions to hire far people. You know what I mean, I think it goes should go without saying that if if you are if you're in the military, you hold a military rank or a rank indeed, you know, aside from the director of these agencies you know which of course our political appointees. But beneath that, if you're going to be fired, it should be for a question of performance or a question of conduct, right, not because someone has said something about your political views. I mean,
think about it. That that just conjures up the worst images of you know, the Soviet Union, and people are by the way of throwing back and forth the term or welling in and as one of the people who's actually read nineteen eighty four several times, I do encourage our literate audience, which tells me is a minority of our audience, but nevertheless, our literate audience to reread that book or watch the movie because it is you're going to see some very astounding parallels.
Good point.
All right, yeah, well said. Moving on the campaign, I don't know if you want to call it that against the Houthis is continuing since March fifteenth, It's been about three weeks. A couple of MQ nine since it began have been shot down. I have a couple of questions. Has this slowed down the Hoothies at all?
Well, it's difficult to say deep because the Hoothies have actually been fairly quiet since January. Remember when the cease file was agreed too in Gaza, Remember they you know, they were connecting their attacks, the piracy attacks on ships with what was happening in Gaza, even though the majority nearly all of the ships they hit had nothing to do with Israel. Actually none of them did. One of them had an Israeli officer on board. But since January
they've been relatively quiet. The strikes, the current strikes started in March. I do want to preface this by saying that you know this is kind of the fourth group of strikes. The Saudis were pounding the hohofies for you know, since since twenty fifteen, you know, the Israelis have had their shot. I'm not saying this is in chronological order. There's been overlapped. Under the Biden administration. In twenty twenty four,
there were a series of strikes largely ineffectual. It's fair to say, because they were, they were few and far between. And now we have since March the fifteenth, this set of strikes. It's difficult at this stage to judge their effectiveness. You know, the Pentagons said very little about you know, what the targets were, but it is clear that you know, they've gone after some of the old targets. Military.
I mean, if you just have your on a group signature, a signal chare you can find out whether the target exactly.
Yeah, you know, clear, it's clear some of the targets are old targets. Military sites we've hit before, radar stations, missile storage depots. You know, they've they've mostly been there's a lot a lot of the bombings focused in the northern governorate sadark And, but there's also you know, they've
been going after mid level HOOFI commanders. And there's a I forget his name, but there's kind of a Yemen Yemeny analyst in one of think tanks in Washington, al Muhammad al Basha something he estimates anyway that you know, nineteen officers who the officers if I didn't know if there was such a thing, but nineteen hooth the officers have been killed from you know, around mid mid ranking, you know, at the rank of major or above.
You know.
My point is, sis though bombing alone we just never really learned this lesson doing. I mean, the airpower theorists again and again confound us. But bombing alone achieves little, and it's going to achieve little, especially against the Yemeny's for all the reasons we talked about on this program, which have to do with terrain, which have to do with just the way the Hoothies are structured, and has to do also with the ready resupply of fresh materials
from Iran. Now we are putting pressure on Iran, which is good, I would argue too, though you do need, you do need a combined effort on the ground. I'm not suggesting for a moment we send us troops. And I don't think the government would do that either, but certainly,
you know, is where special forces come into play. I'm not saying that we do that work as special forces, but doing what we do buy with and through raising or working with existing anti Houthy Yemeny militias to you know, to follow up on the ground and not just conduct bda but go after objectives and targets and most of all, the lead the flow of lethal weight, that is, you know, resupplying the hoothis unless we do that, unless it's a
comprehensive strategy, imagine that word, than bombing alone is going to accomplish little. And I don't think you're going to see companies, you know, merchant marine companies around the world having a great deal of confidence were transitting the Red Sea just based on the strikes that have being conducted, because all it takes is one of two missiles to be fired for you know, for any one of these
companies to self catastrophic loss. And I would be amazed if we have prevented that capability with the last round of bombing.
Yeah, so a lot there, I agree with I agree with you, Andiot I'd say a few things. So last administration. I mean, they obviously had an effort. I don't think it was substantial enough, So I concur with the escalation. I do can also concur that we need to start hitting the decision makers because you can kill you know, you know, foot soldiers to the end of time and it's not very effective. I'd also agree that it's largely air campaigns just don't get to the place that we
intend most of the time. So we have a very effective, especially honed over the last twenty years, ability to do a regular warfare in the form of as Andy said, by with and through and partner forces, right, and we have done that in Yemen. I have done that in Yemen, so it is something that we're very familiar with. Hopefully there's some guys left that are familiar specifically with Yemen
and partner force operations. But we could do this. We could actually combine our substantial air effort with working with in their own interest right elements on the ground that could challenge to Huthi's position both in Yemen and their ability to keep carrying out these which are clearly terrorist attacks. Right, you're attacking civilian commerce vessels on arm and it affects the whole world economy, so I think we should look
at that. So I plod for the increase, but I think there's going to have to be more done to make it, you know, fully effective. But just us showing up could turn the tides. I read a long time ago there's a depiction of the Spartans in Sicily. If you remember back during the Peloponese you war, they had a lot of partner forces out there too. Just the
Spartans showing up. They only had the ability to send six and they showed up with the Sicilians on top of the ridge line, and it changed the tide of the battle, even though obviously those six weren't going to add much, but when they saw the Spartans up there, it the morale even switched from the Athenians who were there to try to take over that area. So I
agree we should look at partner force operations. Easier said than done, but could be effective in combination with this substantial military expenditure too, of resources, because they're going to have to ask for increase because this is really working at the cyclic rate. And of course all of this is set up for when I think we're talking about next, which is, uh, you know what influence with this Avnora And I'd say the last part on Yemen is it does appear that a lot of the are IRGC cuts
force kind of counterparts are leaving Yemen right now. So they're concerned about just what's going to happen on the ground there. And I think that might be in part not trying to poke the bear that's the United States, but also because they're concerned that this could keep escalating and they could leave, they could lose yet another significant proxy force.
Yeah, and mak it on the head we are talking about. I ran next and the nuclear negotiations just came out from Reuters literally thy minutes ago that uh M, let me find it. Uh, Iran wants Iran wants indirect talks with the US and warns regional countries over strikes against it where I'm assuming we have bases, whether it's in Turkey, uh and other areas obviously rain right, for sure, there was I saw a little thing that there was a
little bit of uh. The Trump administration did kind of seem a little bit receptive to indirect talks, even though that was a red line. A couple of weeks before that. That's where we're at. What do you guys, what are you guys tracking with that?
So the issue with indirect talks is they're slow, right, They're really slow, and there's a lot of miscup. We can see all this with the negotiations right for uh ceasefire and GOSSA, and we've traditionally we have also used ther bodies there. They they tend to be very effective when it comes to being the go between, usually in passing messages. This complex negotiation, I can't see working to get to a new JIGPOA or new nuclear agreement that
also includes proxy forces. Super complicated, very detailed. You have to bring in experts. I'm not sure how this could work entirely through an intermediary. So I think the Trump administration's right is to be effective. This needs to be face to face, and if they don't want to do that, it's probably going to look to many as if they're just delaying this. So this is going to be then a question of do they go toward a nuclear weapon.
If they do, I think the US has at least made it clear that we're willing to take the military military steps to mitigate that from becoming a reality, which is a substantial increase in escalation, and it would be pretty destabilizing in the region, especially on what Iran doesn't retaliation, which could be things like mine the Straits of Homose, which would seriously disrupt the flow of global trade, including energy and take months to work out.
We would have to do it.
We're the only country in the world that can d mind something like that, and then it's up to commercial insurance companies or whether they're going to ensure whether we got all the mines right so and we won't know so, I mean they have they have a and I'm not saying this is the reason I do it, but we have to look at what Iran can do in retaliation.
But we're it looks like from our force posture that we are preparing to have that capacity in place by mid April, including air and missile defenses at these key bases you already reference d and the lift, the airlift necessary to drop the types of munitions these massive ordnance penetrators at GBU fifty seven Alphas and Bravo to be able to do this. So we are headed toward that. I think we would all be better off if Iran came to the negotiation table. They're talking about they can't
be forced by you know, bravado. I would just point out that the newspaper in Tehran supported the idea of killing President Trump. So when they want to talk bravado, I don't. I don't think they have a lot to hold on there. I think we should just drop all the bravado and get to the negotiation table and start talking behind the scenes and not doing everything in public, which is mostly postured.
Nick, Do you think that we can do anything long term to the Do you think we still have the ability militarily to to affect the long term ability of Iran to create nuclear weapons?
That's a damn good question, Andy.
So we have the only military capability that I think has a chance at Fordal for example, is mostly underground, mostly defended, very difficult, but also Menton's and as for On and there's more, right, there's several more. So we have the capacity to do to degrade it. I think it's it's essentially going to be setting the program back, so it's not going to be a one and done. We're not like, oh, it's all done and they're ever going to do and this is just the ones we know about.
We don't know.
We don't know, so we have to be I think, very upfront with the chances of success, right because it's not a guarantee. We're the only ones that I think they can actually have a chance, but it's not a guarantee. And then the big issue out there is what if they just acquire it from somewhere else, right, and they obviously Russia has it, North Korea has it, they have the know how to do it. Could they purchase it? That would be a big step on those willing to
sell them this capability. But if it is a big if there's no one pull the trigger and this is not this could be pulled the trigger and we've set it back for another four months, we're going to have to do it again. So the best best case for us is to get a negotiated, verifiable agreement, right, so we know that they're not going toward a nuclear weapon.
Why because they're going to have major sanctions relief, if not complete sanctions relief, so that their economy and their people can start joining the rest of the world economy.
If it's you know, hopefully it's still still are out to go back to our beginning, but.
That's better for us. If not, we're going to have to continuously have direct military action against the country to keep them from getting that, and they will have the ability to respond it could have I'm not against I think if you say it's unacceptable, you have to be willing to use the military option. So I'm not against this. But I'm also not gonna pay to Polyanner's position, like we're gonna wake up the B two's are gonna do their things at all.
This is sober, it's not over. It's just started.
Once that happens, and I think we definitely need to, like at least to talk about the Israel's whole play on this. I mean, they're itching for it, they want it to happen as soon as possible. I don't think Israel really gives a shit about an agreement or not. I think the quicker they do it, the happier they'll be. Frankly, at least that's my opinion. BB Netna. Who's going, I believe, to Washington this week to meet with Trump. I think
that's about tariffs, but who knows. I mean, it could be about tariffs anoles because Israel got hit with seventeen percent. I think it also could be you know, maybe finalizing or figuring out what to do next with O RAN's nuclear program. And if it it does like Charles Lister, your felt, your colleague from the Middle East Institute last week said that he spoke to somebody in the Pentagon where yeah, at most it's probably gonna not come back
three months Iran. If we hit them, even with our big boy bunker busters, what does that do Like if we do hit him, I mean, we have to just be like, we're gonna hit you again and again and again until you come to this negotiation table. I don't know. It's I got self flick an ice cream cone.
You gotta have carrots and sticks. You gotta get both. They gotta be willing to use them. But it's also
there's no there's no clear answer here. We don't control you know, what the enemy in this case Ron decides to do in retaliation, or whether they view regime security so far above the good will of their people or the good outcome of their people that they really don't care about sanctions really, because it's funny like, no matter how much you sanction, the regime always ends up you know, driving the fancy cars and drinking you know John Walker
blow right, they always end up ridge no matter what. So anyway, this is a this is a big, big, big step, but I think we got to be ready to do it. We just have to understand that it's not it's not they answer at all and sanctions.
First of all, you know, the much of the sting has been taken out of sanctions. Iran has found ways around them. And of course, you know, the China and Russia, as major allies, they very you know, Iran has a sizeable market or access to markets. So you know, our our ability to impose painter in Iran through sanctions is not the same as it was, say ten years ago. And by the way, now, compared to the rest of the world, we pretty much sanctioned the whole world now,
so Iran might be better off than most. I mean, I'm only half joking there. So yes, Ron's in a Rance had a really bad year. Iran's being denuded of its i ADS, it's integrated AD defense system, it lost its president, it's suffering internal dissensions, its economy is in the shitter. But on the other hand, h it's it is you know, it's it's creating enough enhanced uranium to make two bombs per year. So in that sense, time is on its
side by by delaying, and of course it knows. And the lesson of North Korea is that if you join that nuclear club, you get treated totally differently.
Yep, very true.
It's the ultimate regime security, is it not?
It is? You want to be North Korea? Do you want to be Libya? You know? And who's you know? Drug and killed in a ditch? That's key. Give he gave up his nuclear weapons ambitions, so.
As did you?
Yeah, as did Ukraine.
Here's that's a good point and another another example of the fork in the road in which one a country could take. So we have to be ready and it's going to trigger you know, nuclear o's race obviously.
Yeah, I was gonna say, Shia bomb is going to trigger a Sunni bomb in Saudi Arabia, Right, Saudi Arabia can have that probably done in a year.
Sure you can pay for it, they can pay absolutely.
And maybe that's the move, is that the move to like mutually assured destruction on both sides.
We don't want that to happen, obviously, but it.
Worked during the Cold War. That's a discussion for another day, yep.
But yeah, it.
Worked in the Cold War and a you know, it was a if a buying poland that's the wrong time to use. But you know, they the world was divided down two lines, fraight and both sides. You could rely on both sides to some extent to make rational decisions based on rational assessments of self preservation. That is why it worked. I'm not sure you can rely on the same calculus and today as well.
All right, last bit of news about fog Bow.
Now, yeah, guys, let me let me say this. So obviously there's a lot of issue around the world. For an eight, we're increasing our activities. If you don't know what I'm talking about, fog Bow does a humanitarian enablement around the world.
Our model is uh.
You know, for the most part veterans, but also diplomats, intelligence folks and people.
Of course you uh did a lot of work with NGO's charity.
So we're looking at potential expansion pretty substantially because of the uh, you know, the lack the vacuum that's out there for the folks that have those backgrounds. Would love for you guys to send me your resume. If you're interested, you can just go to fog Boa the website and go through there. Just put my name Mick if you in mind, so they'll kick it over to me and I'll review it. I'd also point out that our new advisor, our most senior advisor on our board, is David Beasley,
former governor of South Carolina. More importantly, the former director of the World Food Program, and he was the director when when they were nominated and receive the Nobel Peace Prize. So we're super lucky to have them. We're moving out as fast as we can to get to cover down on all these areas around the world, but ultimately we need more people, so please if you're interested in that
kind of work. Again, we're primarily veterans, but we really need people who spend a lot of time in austere environments to include conflict zones, that want to help get critical food aid medical aid to the people in need.
So thanks for leting me of course.
Yeah, and that the link for that is in the description for Fogbo always in the description, so check it out both in the video description and the show notes. So hit that link if you want to shoot over your resume to mix organization. I mean, I'm assuming there's probably a lot of AID workers out there who are experienced who are out of a job now.
Right, So fourteen thousand at US.
Eight, So check them out. Fog Bo, they do great work. Andy Milburn Andy Reginald Milburn to be exact, when the Tempest gathers an incredible book. You could check out all of his publications as substack is Twitter's LinkedIn. Everything is in the description as well. Jason Lyons too. Do us a favor if you like this show and you want to get an ad free both this show and The Team House. So two shows for the price of one.
Go to our patreon Patreon dot com slash the Teamhouse and all the information that I just said is in a description of the show notes. Check them out there. As always, guys, this is great. I really appreciate it.
I have a great Bison.
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, 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, assass