Why We Can't Beat Iran | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS

of mattress making experience, backed by deep manufacturing expertise. Their approach is straightforward, focus on quality materials, small construction, and a consistency over time, not flashy features or complicated sales tactics. Every Ghostbed mattress is built for long term comfort, using durable foam and proven cooling technology to help regulate temperature while you sleep. It's designed to feel reliable night after night,

not just when it's brand new. And if you're not sure which mattress is right for you, Ghostbed's online mattress quiz helps narrow it down quickly. Whether you're a side sleeper who needs a little plushness or someone who prefers a firmer feel, the quiz matches you with the right option based on how you actually sleep. They also keep pricing grounded Ghostbed mattresses costs up to fifty percent less than comparable brands you could rest easy knowing you're not.

You're getting one of the best values at this quality level. Every mattress comes with a one hundred and one night sleep trial and industry leading warranty and fast free shipping. And as a Teamhouse listener, you can get an extra ten percent off your order. Just go to ghostped dot com slash house and use the promo code House at checkout.

That's go sped dot com slash house code House for an additional ten percent off site wide upgrade your sleep with ghostbed, makers of the coolest beds in the world. Some exclusions apply. Seasite for details. Thank you gosped for sponsoring the show. Thank you guys for helping support the show. Bye, Hey, everybody, Welcome to another episode of Eyes on Jill Politics. I'm here with Mick Moulroy, Jonathan Hackett, and Mark poly Moreopolis.

A lot happening as usual. Ceasefire quote unquote is still happening. A lot's been going on because I'm sure like a lot of like journalists for over the last week have just been twiddling their thumbs a little bit, right. So we saw that Atlantic piece came out where essentially, you know, my perspective of it is jd Vance leaking to the Atlantic that he's not about this, and in meetings he's brought up like, you know, questioning what's going on in

Iran and stuff like that. I think it's political obviously, because I'm a cynical piece of shit, But that's me, you know. We also saw the Center for Strategic and International Studies come out say talking about how we really haven't depleted a lot of Iran's like air force and missiles and ballistic missiles and drones specifically. We also did see from CNN a couple of days ago to kind of like what happened to all of our bases in and around the area, Like they've gotten pretty smoked for

the most part. Another thing I saw which was wild. I mean this was all because the Pentagon is in the administration as a whole, is keeping it as quiet as possible. We saw like an F five of Iran, like bomb the Kuwaiti air and things like that, like just things that it was like right the next day or the next two days after we started bombing, I ran so stuff that we didn't think would be possible, right, Like obviously we knew we'd lose equipment and stuff like that,

and unfortunately we lost you know, servicemen and women. But it's not exactly going as swimmingly as those semi daily or semi weekly Pentagon press briefings are telling us it's going. So I guess let's start there and like, we'll just see where this combo goes. I mean, make you can go first. You worked at a d D. We're a big wig over there.

your complaints are valid. The US military uniform military doesn't make policy, right, so it's not their decision to go to war. It's the it's the civilian policy makers that are either politically elected or politically appointed or making the decisions.

but not be hypocritical. For some reason, that just drives me great. Like, So I think we should all acknowledge that you can disagree with your political leadership and still fully support the men and women in uniform, which I'm sure everybody on this podcast does. And I'm one, you know, I guess I'm on the right side of this podcast. I'm one that supported the you know, the nuclear bombings are the bombings of the nuclear facilities back and twelve

Dy war. I support the military objectives of this war. I just think we're making a lot of mistakes when it comes to how we're presenting it. And I bring that up mostly because I want us to be successful. I want the US to be successful at then this. I want history to judge that this was strategic success by the United States. Because I think that's you know, that's where I am. So the criticism, if any, if it's taken that way, is to so that we don't

come out as a strategic failure in this endeavor. And the first thing is to you know, even though your

mom told you this, honestly, the best policy is to be upfront with what's happening and what's not happening. It's all going to come out. It's all going to come out. We all know it. Historians are going to read the declassified a description of what we did and what we didn't do, what the enemy did and what the enemy

didn't do. It's all going to come out. So you can have your five minutes of your world, which is already being eroded, and you already mentioned all of the media that's coming out, and it's being eroded inside of the administration of the vice president level. So if we didn't reduce their politic missile and suicide drones as much as we're saying we need to fix it, we just need to say it. And if they did a lot of damage to our bases, we need to say it.

It doesn't mean that we're losing necessarily, it doesn't mean we're going to lose whatever the definition of that is. But if once you start telling the truth, people are going to completely dismiss you and they're just going to assume anything you do say after that it's just you know, not accurate. So I would I would start with, let's let's just go with honesty is the best policy, and

it's not really what politicians do. I think not only is that good just ethically, but ultimately it's going to be good politically, and you know, to the extent that we need to review how we're doing. That's important because it's not only important to capture what happened, but we're about to go into we think a new round of kinetic activity. We're about to start the air war again. Right, So if you want people to listen to Okay, now we've depleted this strategic asset to that you're gonna have

to be totally earnest with your numbers. And now we're also hear in addition to what dsaid, that the Air Force wasn't completely destroyed, which I've been saying over and over again, but apparently that's not the case. Because I'm obviously don't have access to classified information. I'm just going

with media reports, so I'd start with that. I know we're going to get into you know, what's going to happen next and all that, but I think since d you kicked it off talking about those really important issues, I'll stop there and throw it to them. My friends here.

the Hill was obnoxious, it was irritating. I think he was lying, and it was insulting because exactly what Nick said, questioning people's patriotism who are saying, hey, what's going on with the war is absolutely bullshit and that's un American, And Mick, you said it perfectly because the entire administration has been lamd basting the never ending wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, and so now we're not allowed as commentators just questioning what's happening, and so that's angry Greek translation.

I cannot imagine a less capable, less competent, more irritating secretary of Defense I've ever seen in my lifetime. And I would imagine you guys don't have to agree or or publicly, but I would imagine the uniform military, especially at the senior levels, feels the same way. Maybe not the more junior folks, maybe not be enlisted. Who likes the idea of a leader being able to bench through fifteen? But come on, now, you know, and I do think

there's a there's a notion of this. You know, as I was watching this, I've turned it off because I do find it insulting. And you guys are gonna laugh when I say this, But you know, so I'm a critic of the Trump administration, work for the agency for twenty six years and went to some really kind of funky places. Look, I'm a patriot. I fly the American flag outside my house. I drive a pickup truck, and I listen to country music and I have guns. Yet somehow like I'm the I'm not a patriot. I mean,

I find that absolutely insulting. In particular, if you have a brain on your head and you realize that, you know, hey, maybe the United States overstretched over the g watt over a rock and Afghanistan, it's okay now to question if this is going to turn into some never ending commitment. So let me just throw that out there. Anyway, Mick, I thought what you said was great. I just wanted to give a little spice.

not necessary to do that. Just tell the truth when you have, you know, the administration coming out, and this is something that we definitely have to talk about, because both Mick and Jonathan are veritable legal wizards or legal beagles. Have talked about the sixty day UH time limit coming up on the War Powers Resolution. Well, it came up and we got some oh, concern from the Republican members of Congress. I'm concerned, this is, this is and by the way, and then we went on vacation for a week.

So then they went home. They're not going to do anything. So we blew past that. And then literally Trump said, well,

if there's a ceasefire, the clock stops ticking.

And then the final piece just to raise is and this goes to a different conflict, is but the US Congress and the administration agreed to allocate four hundred million dollars to Ukraine for assistance, and they didn't do it. They literally broke the law until the Hill called them on it and then they just released it. And so I am at a point in which and I sound like some kind of you know, campus protester, even though

I'm not. As I said, I'm a patriot and very centrist, but I don't trust anything that comes out of this government. And it's terrible to say. Now, d we're talking kind of the in the i's only team room or the

green room. Sorry before that, Yeah, maybe we never should trust the government on anything, but I think this is pretty pretty significant, and that stuff that's coming out from DoD, you do you have to kind of meet with a raised eyebrown, and Nick noted that peace I don't know if it's Axios or New York Times or Washington Post or the Journal, saying that JD vance is not even

trusting that's coming out of a d D two. That's the kind of ponder But you know, big picture, I'm a little distrustful of the administration right now what they're saying about the war.

in sixty days, which is a lot. It's a sixty day resolution that has a ninety day extension, so if the administrator wanted to, they could actually ask Congress for an extension of thirty days asked May first, and instead of doing that, they use what we discussed last time, which is justification, just saying there are no hostilities anyway, so why would we even ask for an extension. And

also it's actually been over for eighteen days. They claim that May first was eighteen days into the cessation of a hostility, so there was actually no need to report to Congress anyway. So it's kind of this concern that maybe there will be this button that they can just continue pressing in the future because there's precedent now that they can say, well, we already stopped fighting yesterday, so

that give me twenty four more hours. Just kind of like what we used to do when we would have our passports and we had to go get a visa reset so we could be in and out of the country on a certain kind of visa. We'd fly to a third country, get our passport reset, get a new stamp, come back in the country. Very similar logic going on right now, where it's like, Okay, we just stopped the war today, we'll restart it tomorrow. Clock starts back to one.

And it seems that Congress, first of all, not only would they not push back on that, second of all, they'd actually pretend there was no need for reporting in the first place, because of how they're beginning to justify not needing to vote on this resolution, which in the green room we were talking about, you know, when the founding fathers, who are all mostly in their twenties, actually sitting around coming up with these ideas, brilliant people thinking

of ways to stop something exactly this from happening. And actually in Federal's paper number ten, it talks about the dangerous of political parties and how that leads to factionalism exactly like we're seeing right now. So even though they were they were super smart and came up with all these things, they knew that it wasn't perfect. And right now we're seeing kind of what happens when it's not perfect in a war type situation. So it's kind of scary to be living in that time.

could always do that. But where because I don't really know, like how has this Supreme Court avoided answering this question definitively all the way till today. I mean, this is the most important thing the government does, whether you, or for the war against the war, or for any of the wars against the war, like this should be clear, like where does Congress's authority start an end? And where

does the President's commander chief start an end? And how come we haven't had a definitive statement by the Supreme Court saying this is the answer to the question of whether this, you know, nineteen seventy three War Powers Act is constitution.

those things. So in order for this act, this law to actually be adjudicated under Marbury v. Madisone, which is judicial review, there needs to be a person or interested party that actually contests this at a lower level.

the way the Supreme Court. Everything's gone through the worst challenges and now it's there, and the Supreme Court's like, you know what, We're only going to argue one of those nine issues or one of those ten issues, and we're going to kick back the other nine to lower courts, or we're just going to say, like we're just going to ignore it in the opinion not even talk about it, which is actually what they've done a few emergency docket

decisions recently where they've done some procedural stuff that was not actually the main question and then just basically gotten rid of the case. So I think thinking through the Supreme Court method is probably not the most effective way to actually get at this problem. Instead, it's through either new legislation or elections that force out the naysayers or bring in people with different ideas to create kind of a conflict of discussion there that's what we actually need

in Congress is not one set of yet is in one set of naves. Instead, we need actual deliberation and discussion and synthesis out of these disagreements, which is something that we're i think missing, and that's the most effective way to actually get at the answer this question about the war powers resolution.

that mean there? And then they go off on break for a week They're going to do nothing. As the idea that that somehow Congress is going to buck the administration on this, I think, even from the Republican side, is fanciful unless maybe, and you know, if if it really does seem to be something drawn out, but at this point I'm not I'm not confident. But on that note,

what about the notion of resumption of military activity. I mean, there was the you know, I thought Admiral Cooper's visit to the USS Tripoli, I think it was pretty significant. You know, we always think about separating signal from noise. You know, noise is a Trump presser on the tarmac, you know, before he jumps on Air Force one and he's just blurt shit out and no one has any idea. But I don't know, I thought that was pretty significant.

I think also there's been some consultations with the Israelis as well that I've gone on, And so what do you guys think? And just let me just kind of caveat this for the last you know, a couple of weeks in the media, I've been saying, look, I really don't think either size wants to resume the military the fight.

But I'm actually changing my mind on this now. I think Trump's getting frustrated and and while you can make a case that we can outlast the Iranians for kind of in the on the economic pain front, this is not his shtick. He likes things to be kind of tidy and neat, and so I think there is a chance that there's going to be some kind of strife. So if you guys agree with that, what would we what would it look like? What's the target set?

last twenty four hours by Iran's foreign minister. Saudi Arabia would not have been on that list in February. For example, Azerbaijan one hundred percent, not because Azerbaijan is seen as a puppet of Israel by the Iranian regime. There's there's no way they would have been calling them and publicizing

these calls. So there's certainly something going on here on the Iran side trying to probably posture or like search around for some kind of support around their borders because they sense or perhaps are planning something same with the United States. With the Emirates withdrawing from OPEC. I mean, this is a massive change, and it's very important to highlight how significant that is because OPEK has since the

nineteen seventies been an unlawful monopoly over oil. If OPEC countries were corporations, we actually have laws that would ban them from selling oil to US because of their non

competitive behavior and colluding on prices. So the fact that the Emirates jumped out of that, they just lost access to this really favorable financial system that they belong to because they're part of the Abraham Accords and they're looking west right now, they're looking at Israel, they're looking at the United States, and they're understanding that their position no

longer depends on other Gulf states. For what's happening inside the Emirates, I think this is kind of a time where the Emirates are seeing themselves kind of growing up in the region and starting to gain a little bit more independence than they have had, especially in the eighties and nineties period when it was dominated by other golf states, in particular Saudi Arabia. And I think that you see that starting to rise up now too.

United States and the Emirates and Israel. The Israel Emirates part a little bit quieter or harder to see in the noise, but certainly.

air strikes, right. I'm told it's going to be mostly infrastructure targets, with the idea that they could cause more pain to the regime as a way to push them

toward the US perspective on the ceasefire and potentially a nuclear agreement. But there's some jostling back and forth. I don't know if that's the right word, but the military obviously has to hit valid military targets. They can't just blow up civilian infrastructure just because it's painful. Fact, that's unlawful.

So they're they're they're designing the target deck. I'm told that it has direct nexus is to military operations, so it might be power plants, but it's one that has a direct connection to UH military operations, so it's a valid military target, including bridges as well. And then there are at least talks about trying to hit the more hard line because they're all hardliners elements within the regime that are completely resistant to any ceasefire and new nuclear agreement.

Ahiti I think is top of the list, and I'm sure he understand. He knows that right, so I wouldn't be standing around Bahidi that much. But you know, you know, we'll see I mean, who were to replace them, Jonathan might not. But it really hasn't helped us that much. I mean, some people would argue we just end up with more hardliners than the people will we replaced, But they're valid targets because they're part of the combative chain of command. So I'm not against it. I just don't

know if it's going to change that much. But and then this is at least the way they're messaging, it's going to be very limited, like a very tight duration, a lot of strikes. They've transferred a lot of our precision strike mindissions out there to do it. But it's not just what the US does, right, because there's going to be a response by the Iranians, and the Iranians

apparently have their target decks. They've been planning this, They've been digging out the you know, the missile cities that have you know, at least been damaged to their entry points to be able to respond likely against the UAE. Right, that's probably going to be prime target number one. And it's right there, it's literally right there for this.

is it going to work? That's the fundamental question. And if you see, if you look at a lot of the Iran experts, and you know, Jonathan, you're one of them, please jump in. You know, the question is okay, you know, that's all we care about. And and so is this just kind of you know, not performed at theater. It's real? But will it have an effect on the negotiations? I think that's the big question. I don't know the answer.

it's it's it's almost an impossible task. But for the US military, they can keep degrading the all the strategic military assets, they can keep hitting leaders, but it's it's I don't see it. I don't see them ever going. You know, no, Moss, we agree to everything you say, and we quit and we're gonna all resign and go home. It's just never gonna happen. So and it's there's no it's nothing against obviously our efforts, because it just doesn't have I mean, we're not gonna put boots on the ground.

That's insane. I mean it's four times size of rock and it's mountainous, and it's just never gonna happen. And it's already like as popular as a Vietnam war, right, So it's just not gonna happen. So we're trying to do all this from the air with the idea that there's gonna be some magic target that changes their perspective. I think we could still do it, like, hey, we've we've with honest numbers, we've done this, this this, We

think that was what we wanted to do. If they start racing towards a nuclear weapon, we'll target them again. But we we see the cost of this going forward is not worth the squeeze. Now the issue is going to be the straits or lose and then you know, how do we make that mopen that back up? So that's the big issue.

that's not going to happen right now. Iran actually has so much oil produced that they're scrambling to find areas to store it because they're actually at overproduction levels right now, right and they have these vessels that are floating out in the ocean or in the sea that they're trying to scramble together to put more oil into it because they have so much production right now. China is absolutely

purchasing oil currently. They had purchased it in advance because it's so oil is paid for through futures contracts that they expect at a future date the oil will cost this much and they pay for it. China gets it at a slight discount, but it's not that much. Right now, Iranian oil is something like ninety to one hundred ten dollars per barrel, which is a lot. I mean that money is going directly to fund the regime. So like that goal, if that's our goal is to make them

yield to economic pressure, it's not working. At least it's neutral. Maybe it's not negative, it's neutral, right, So if we're looking at the blockade on its own as an active war and a military option, we've hit forty eight vessels in twenty days, and I have not seen us do any opposed or non compliant boardings in those forty eight vessels.

Those have all been compliant or at least they have listened to what we've instructed them to do, either turn around, been escorted or something like this to stop going to where they're going. So we haven't actually had any combat

operations on vessels yet. Forty eight of them in twenty days. That's around two per day, right, well slightly more than that too, per day. So that's not stopping anything because their oil is still flowing. It's still moving lots of ship transfers happening off in the seventh Fleet aar so like off the coast of Malaysia straight to Malacca, a lot of Iranian oil going on to other vessels that are then making their way to China and doing exactly

what they were doing before the war. So that's all to say that the military instrument could work if it was layered with other instruments. And I always waved my hands about this, that Grant strategy has other components besides the military. It has a diplomatic component that's typically done in secret, not advertise what's happening on that diplomatic channel, because the success of diplomacy largely has to do with secrecy, because both sides are not embarrassed in the process of

showing what they're willing to concede. It's showing to their own publics what they're willing to concede. This is the problem, and it seems the US is not interested in doing that right now. It seems Iran might be, especially with all these phone calls they're making but not saying what the phone calls are about. That's clearly them trying to use this old lever that other countries are traditionally aware of.

But there's also the economic component, which we've always said, you know, sanctions aim to achieve certain behavioral changes inside of a country. They have not really done that in authoritarian systems like Iran, for example. They've they've had effects, but not the effects that we wished for at the very beginning, right, And so if you want to have that economic stick, you need also an economic carrot for other members of the economy to stop combining with the

bad actors in the economy. That can look like a lot of different things. None of those things are being approached right now. So kind of a long answer to your question, I don't think the military alone is going to achieve a positive outcome for what the US is trying to do there.

don't know where they were. You remember the MH three six or whatever, the Malaysian Airlines crash that happened back in twenty fifteen. We never found where that aircraft went down in the Pacific Ocean, largely because the Pacific Ocean is gigantic, so they're taking advantage exactly as you mentioned. It's just this huge gapped space that if you have your transponder off, if you're using a little bit of operational security, you know, no iridium phone no transponder, no

direct to sell stuff, none of that. You're just you have a compass, a physical compass, and you're just using that and the stars, which is what they have always been doing to gate east and northeast. You're going to make it to that rally point that you had planned in advance, with coordinates that you'd plan in advance. No electronics. You show up, basically, do a brush pass with your oil,

transfer it off. One vessel, empties, one, fills up. Nobody knows where it happened, when it happened until that vessel shows up off the coast of Hong Kong and is ready to go onload, you know. And this is like happening every day many vessels. And again they were doing this way before February. This has been something they've been doing since two thousand and seven when we first sanctioned

their oil system. So they've had a lot of time to develop with a lot of different pressures of different because each administration comes in with different packages of sanctions and they try different things, and the regime has been able to adapt to that. Almost like antibodies or white blood cells, they've been able to actually survive these white

blood cells coming in. So now you have this kind of mutated regime that's super effective at avoiding any of these sanctioned related issues that we have to any of these tools we have to use because we have a kind of limited number of tools to use, and they know what they are. They say, we know that US sanctions by Treasury say company X LLC at this address.

Well we'll just make company why LLC had a different address, and then it will take six months for the US government to catch up and make a new sanction against the exact same company that just change its name and address. You know, it's like they know these very simple tools to get around this stuff. Again, word democracy, they're not. It's faster for them to do this stuff than it is for us.

think he served in the first Trump administration. Mick, I don't know if you know Nick Stuart, but it's an FDD guy. And so, you know, there's a lot of people who really think that that organization, that Think Tank has a lot of undue influence. Clearly they you know, they have the ear of the administration. But have you guys followed this at all? What are your what are your thoughts on that? You know, because one of the things that I thought was interesting is, you know, we've

all criticized the administration for not listening to any Iran experts. Well, they're bringing in an iron expert. We might not like the Iran expert we're bringing. They're bringing the last They're actually bringing in someone who can help. You know, Kushner and wi Cough were completely the most clueless envoys in the history of the US diplomacy. So have you guys followed that at all?

see think tank, especially the ones in DC. When your parties has a White House, you know, they empty out those think tanks and they go work and they become the dazzies, and the dazz d's and all that, and then when your party is not, you go back to the think tanks, right, So, which is not bad, I mean because that means like the people that make policy kind of grow up in that system, right They start as a junior person and they move up and I also go to the Hill and aren't on the Foreign

Relations Committee and stuff, So think tanks hillstaffers, and so it does create a pool of people who are very seasoned and smart on every issue. You might disagree with their stance on it, but that's how it generally works. And we haven't seen it, like we've even seen the Pentagon, at least the leadership of the Pentagon like not even allow fellows, you know, military fellows to go to these think tanks. And that's like, this has historically been part

of our policy system for both sides. So the fact that they're using some and of course it's going to be you know, somebody from their political inkling that's common is a good thing. And I don't know Nick, but it's a good thing that they are. I would hope they would use more of these folks and think tanks.

come and join us at the negotiation table. It's gonna go great.

as it is gonna be now. So, like there's real effects, and like we're barely feeling it in America frankly, you know, a West Coast maybe a little bit more in terms of gas prices, but you know, we're seeing the effects on it. And yeah, like the fake stock market can keep going up. At some point that bottom is gonna

fall out as well if this keeps going. So I don't know if bringing in another hardliner who's not gonna listen to reason is exactly a smart move. I think we need to have grown ups in the room that are gonna make real deal. Uh, just look at what the writing is on the wall, Like, just look at what the reality of the situation is and how we fucked it up so badly.

our weapons. Like there's gonna be reverberations to this, and it ran frankly, I remember me and Mick were talking about it before it went popped off, where like Iran's was at its weak as it's ever been right now, as pretty as strong as they're ever going to get because they're squeezing the straight at hormoos and the money's stopped. It's the money has stopped flowing and that's just the reality of it. So unless we.

so they're getting money. So even if the US stops Iran from exporting oil, Iran is still benefiting because, like you said, the straits have been closed since Feber twenty seventh, early the twenty eighth, So our closure of the straits is actually enriching Iran, which is I think very important for people to like connect these two dots together.

I'm not saying, but there's like detailed stuff on run that you need somebody in the room to actually just answer the question, you know, like is this gonna matter? Like is the regime? Is financial economic hardship of the

regime gonna turn them at all? Even if you want them to turn, even if you agree with the policy, you have to have somebody that actually has a knowledge base to go No, they're still going to be drinking Johnny Walker black, right, and while the other people are outside their you know, palace, are starving at at I mean,

that's the way regimes work, right. I'm not saying that's truth, but you need somebody to be able to know that so that if you try to go down a policy route that you have at least somebody in the room that can tell you where it's going.

a good thing. But let me one thing that.

Iranian and asymmetric warfare. Perhaps obviously we saw them using drones, perhaps there's been cyberactivity we don't know about, but I don't think they seem to have turned off up their terrorist apparatus as globally. So what is what are some of the things you all are looking for, uh if and and again if any, because if we do these kind of infrastructure strikes, I think that is an escalation on the US part. And so how do how do

the Iranians uh reciprocate? Escalate? What do they do? What are some of the things that we haven't seen yet that are kind of in your that you're thinking about.

for Hebola, not a new development in warfare. They've been using that in Ukraine, but the fact that it's now happening in Lebanon indicates to me that someone's testing this out to see how does this work against a similar type of adversary that would be used against the United States.

Because Israel and the US share intelligence, they share air defense information and a lot of other things, so they're probably testing it on the Israelis first to see what is the reaction to this, how do they counter it, what's what to expect. Then when the US comes closer to the regime's shoreline, the regime will probably begin using this. Fifteen kilometers is a long way, right, and it can probably make.

they're already happening. Yes, they're happening without being publicized, because it doesn't look good if we publicize it's happening to us. Second of all, they have certain cyber tools that are extremely advanced. They are a state actor, a state adversary with a lot of very sophisticated things that zero day technology. The moment you use it, it's no longer as effective, but if you wait to the right moment to use it,

it is extremely effective. And they've already shown since two thousand and nine that they've been able to hit targets inside the United States. They took down the entire financial system of the State of Georgia and states once they did that with two guys. They've done some other things that were very over the top, and as Mickey mentioned, I wrote a book about this. But they're very advanced

in a way that we sometimes don't respect enough. You have to respect your enemy to be able to defeat them well, because you have to know exactly how are they willing to use this thing, how far are they willing to go? And we can't look at them and

be like, oh, these guys running around with sticks and shouting, and like, maybe that's true. But if they're really good at using those sticks and really good at shouting, I need to respect that fact figure out a way to stop it from harming us, right, because it can harm us, especially in a democracy where people here affect what happens over there because of how they view things at home. Right, and on the military front, kinetically, we haven't seen them

using artillery, direct fire weapons. We haven't seen them doing any kind of squad, battalion or division level operations yet. Any of these things that forty percent of their military forces are designed around those capabilities, we haven't seen them yet.

The last time we saw those used was twenty sixteen in Syria when they fought against ISIS and defeated large, large pockets of ice as fighters in northern and northwestern Syria at using battalion sized elements partnered up with Syrian partner forces and the National Defense Forces, which was their surrogate force inside of Syria that was a non state force. So we've seen them do that about ten years ago.

A lot of the veterans from that time are now mid level field great officers and the IRGC ground forces who are capable and possibly ready to use these tactics against the United States, especially against our partners. I feel looking at Iraq, you know, we have the Iraqi forces that we trained, counter terrorism forces and regular forces that look a lot like the way that fighters fight in Syria.

So there's the PMF that has over two hundred thousand fighters that are on Iran side that have not really engaged very much in a meaningful way against US. They've done a couple of things, especially Kataid Hezbola, but most of them have not really awakened yet, so to say. So, there's a lot of forces at rest in the area that Iran has not pressed the go button on yet. And I'm sure the Pentagon planners are aware of this obviously, but this is just something for the public to be

looking at. Iran has really actually held back a lot. They've been using mostly a standoff strategy, so is the US. But once one side shifts to a different strategy and more stand in strategy, you're going to see the other side respond to that.

they have some nexus. Do you think the regime would then take those previously unused options that you just described and do them, Like, could we see direct kind of terrorist attacks in the United States based on the fact that we destroyed a bunch of bridges and hit I think there's like three major power plants that would really put the country into darkness. And of course these power plants, I mean everybody understands, like that's also water purification, hospital respirators.

I mean, this is when you take the power out of any modern country, you're killing a lot of people. Yeah, yeah, a lot of civilians. Right, So again I don't expect you know, for sure, do you think that would be to the level what they're going to take some extraordinary steps knowing that it's going to escalate this, but they'll view this as we escalated it first, therefore they're going down there.

rather than some new thing. They've also done to the United States in twenty twenty January when we killed Solmani, then Iran struck all the side airbase, and the way that they did these things was very telegraphed to kind of look, you know, tit for tat. The question is are they going to still operate with that because all

the people that made those decisions to behave that way are dead now, so we're left with with new decision makers and new thinkers, and even the ones that have survived were not the ones that were in those positions previously. You know, Vahiti is a notorious hardliner who's very much against any kind of capitulation at all. He may see this as an opportunity to prove that they have some strength.

There's actually an interesting statement by a field grade IRGC commander in the western part of the country, which is a very important Iraqi border area, mentioning that the US has not used ground forces yet and Iran invites them to use them because the Irunni forces have not shown what they're capable of yet. And I think that's true because as we were mentioning, like forty to sixty percent of their forces have not even been used yet because

they're ground forces. So the way they use them in nineteen eighty to eighty eight was not in a way that we would like, and that is human waves, suicide missions, you know, basically taking the whole building down with them if they're going down. So I'd be very concerned about how they do escalate or if cooler heads will prevail at the Supreme National Security Council, which is where some

of the quote unquote moderates are out. They're not really moderate, but relatively speaking to Bahiti, it depends on who's actually holding the levers right now in Iran, and I think the Iranian government doesn't even know who actually is making those decisions right now.

it still seems like we're going down this path. Does this say that there is no NSC process, which seems possibly to be the case, or who is who has the who is the influential member and the national security team who would argue for such a thing, and presumably that would be Pete hag Seth, the Secretary of Defense.

But again I'm you know, I mean, there are going there is going to be a sit room meeting with the you know, at the Principals Committee level, with probably you know, Ratcliffe, Caine, heg Seth, and Rubio amongst just a couple others. Who's arguing for doing this because you know, again this is just four of us sitting around kind of you know, John about this. But you know, we're smart enough in the national security sphere to kind of

put that those cautionary flags up. But I don't know if anyone's going to have this conversation with the president.

Why And then they tell you, you know, and then you go, hey, let's go let's go this path instead of that path, because and then by the time it gets to the principals level, a lot of these issues have already been worked out because if if everything starts the top, they don't want to hear no, so they say, this is what I think is going to work. Do it, and so then they go down that road a long way before even the principle realizes, oh crap, that didn't work

right if it's if it's staffed the right way. As soon as that's brought up, especially with a you know, a president that's okay with being told, you know, that's the great idea, it's our that they've already come up with the pasts that are most likely to work and the past that mostly an not going to work. And it's done. It's done at a senior level, but you know, compared to the president junior level, right, And that this is how the discussion general.

about like, yeah, let's do it. Why not?

if the leader starts off going this is what I think. Well, even in the most functional administrations, they go, well, shit, I guess he already made his mind up, right, So you don't want or you don't want the leader to lead with this is what I think we're going to do, because then everybody goes, Okay, well, I guess as we're going to do. I'm not I don't know. I'm not

obviously in the room for what's going on now. But the most functional at every level I've seen the leader be is the one that you know, you got two ears in one mouth, right, So that's a story thing. By the good way, it goes way back to say, now, just for those of you that are stoics out there, you got to listen and then and then people are more prone to give you their the straits gooop and then then based on what you hear, then you know, don't make the decision or what. But I don't know

what's going on now, but they need that staffing. They need those professional diplomats, uniform military officers, not just the chairman and of course intelligence officers. Uh, they should all be at the NSC. They should be pushing obviously for the President's policies, but it has to be done in an educated, informed way.

gonna do? I don't know. I don't know what the strategic play is, like why it makes sense or it just makes for a good fucking headline. I don't know. That's right. We're gonna do it.

a military strategic statement. You know, at least that's how I view it.

it is irrelevant. Every so many things flow through several locations in Germany quietly that anyone who then argues, because you now and so people are making the argument we don't need them, that's insane for sent Common Africa, It's I mean, it's preposterous. If you have half a fucking brain, everything goes through these places, including weird shit like fucking relays and satellites and all sorts of ISR stuff like

it's crazy. So you can beat up the Germans all you want, but the idea of potentially pulling out and closing some of these locations makes no sense. That that means that we can't that's that's committing superpower suicide. Now, if you want to make a stupid political statement five thousand, if that's it, whatever, But the idea that because this is based on the notion that we don't need Germany, and that's nuts.

a certification. I was told it's not just the Secretary of Defense that has to although I hurt two different things, but it's going to have to be the commanding general.

So they knew this was going to happen. And this was put in there by Republicans too.

on this. As opposed to the War Powers Resolution. This is a bigger deal just because uh, the kind of the national security normies in the Republican Party and there are still that that was out there on the hill are are you know, certainly don't support this. But the great I mean yeah, I mean the amazing part about well, that's that's Rubio. I mean he also went, yeah, so

Rubio is just this weird enigma. I mean I I you know, he's clearly so much of the things that he does now and says there's not part of his his career had enigma.

But now kind of ironically, maybe mostly because of Russian invasion of Ukraine, they're all standing up, Like I just read something that Germany's gonna add four hundred and sixty six thousand soldiers, right, does anybody think that Germany can't raise an army? We should all know through history they can. So we're gonna The reason why I'm saying this is because we're going to end up with great allies like who are really strong. And we look at Poland right now.

I think Poland could take on Russia and beat them personally, especially if they were with Ukraine. So what I'm saying is we might end up in a situation where the US is trying to pull out of an alliance that's now the most capable has ever been in its history, which is not good for us. That's why we have to spend one point five trillion dollars on our defense.

you about the Team House podcast newsletter. If you go and subscribe, it's totally free, and what it will do is aggregate all of our data, all of our content that we put out, the things that are on The Team House, on our geopolitics podcast, eyes On, things that I write journalistically with Sean Naylor on the high Side, anything else that we have going on books, we recommend upcoming guests that we have coming on the show, and also you know, filtering in some fun stuff in there

as well. If you go and check it out, we send it out just once a week. We don't want to spam you guys. It's just a kind of roll up of all of our content on a weekly basis. You can find our newsletter at teamhouse podcast dot kit dot com slash Join again. The website for that is Teamhouse Podcast, dot kit dot com slash Join, so we hope to see you there.