← The Team House
The Team House
The Houthis Have Entered the Chat - Week 5 (Iran War) | EYES ON GEOPOLITICS
01:10:00
A fast-moving breakdown of the expanding war with Iran, including U.S. and Israeli strikes, the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, and what a possible ground operation could look like. The discussion covers whether tactical military success is...
Loading summary
Transcript254 lines
- [00:00]
Ryan Seacrest
Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway. Are you looking for a refresh this spring? Make sure you take some time for self care with savings on all your
- [00:08]
Jonathan Hackett
favorite hair care essentials.
- [00:09]
Ryan Seacrest
Now through March 31, shop in store or online for participating hair care items from Pantene, Head and Shoulders, Aussie and Old Spice and earn four times points. Points can be redeemed later for discounts
- [00:21]
Jonathan Hackett
on groceries or gas.
- [00:22]
Ryan Seacrest
Offer ends March 31. Restrictions apply. Promotions may vary.
- [00:27]
Sling TV Announcer
Visit albertsons or safeway.com for more details. Want a game changing way to watch college basketball? With a one day pass from Sling, get instant access to the men's and women's tournaments starting at just $4.99. You can catch all the action on TNT, TBS, ESPN and ESPN too. Want even more hoops? Then add an extra pack to your subscription for just $1. No overpaying, no over committing. Just tournaments. So crazy they'd be crazy to miss. Visit sling.com to learn more. Sling lets you do that.
- [01:01]
Mark P
Hey everybody. Welcome to another episode of Eyes on Geopolitics. I'm here with Jonathan Hackett, Mick Mulroy, myself Mark P. Should be joining. So it should be two Marines versus two Greeks. I like those odds. A lot happening. I mean you guys have been monitoring the situation as much as we have. I mean, where to begin? One of the muse is close, right? Right about to get to the ao. We'll see where they end up. I don't know where they're gonna, you know, position themselves and stuff. I'd love to get into that. A lot happening. The Houthis have entered the chat like Jonathan had mentioned last couple weeks. You know, if you guys really want to know what's going to happen before you see what's going to happen on Twitter, you just watch and listen to the Eyes on Geopolitics podcast because we know what's going to happen before everybody else does. That's what I've been noticing the last like month or so. It's like we say something and then a week later people are breaking it like it's some new like it's brand. It's breaking news. Sorry. Ranked over what else. Our base in Saudi Arabia got hit with drones pretty badly. I would say 10 plus people, 10 plus servicemen injured. I think a couple. Seriously. We lost like 4 kc 135s or 5 on kc 135s and an s3e3 sentry. Sorry. So not insignificant loss of equipment either. Like that's pretty bad. I'd love to also get into that where, like, what the are we doing in terms of, like, knocking these drones out of the air, you know what I mean? Like. Or not even putting our into, like, hardened bunkers or hiding them camo nets. I don't know. I'm not a strategic guy, but I'm sure there are people there that know what they're doing. Another thing I'd love to also get into is the fact that over the last four years of war with between Russia and Ukraine, seeing the development of drone warfare, how we are now prepared for what's been going on is ridiculous as a layman looking at this. So, yeah, ton going on. You guys start where you want to start. Mickey, take it. Take it away.
- [03:09]
Mick Mulroy
Well, there is a ton going on and there's a ton about to happen. Where to start? So I think we're at a crossroads, essentially. We've met a lot of our military objectives. We talked about this a lot on the show. And I think we've actually taken. We being a combined US Israeli, we've taken some strikes to degrade the nuclear program further.
- [03:36]
Mark P
Right.
- [03:36]
Mick Mulroy
So the heavy water plant, the. I don't know what you call it, but it converts uranium ore into yellow cake plant. So we are making headways. We're also, of course, depleting their ballistic missile storage facility, launch sites, manufacturing sites, their military. Yes, all that has been done. I do think the US should have been more clear about what our objectives were. And of course, minus the idea that we can change the regime is not going to happen. So that we could essentially declare a unilateral ceasefire. And I think if we would have done that, and I guess we still could, it would have given us the ability to negotiate, because I don't think Iran's going to negotiate under fire. And it would give us the ability to talk to allies in a way that's different than. I know we didn't talk to you about the war that we're going to start by choice, but now that we started it, we want you to participate. So I think we would have had a better discussion or we would have a better discussion with them if we stopped bombing Iran and then said, look, the Strait is still closed. We think it's a collective issue. We'd like your assistance in opening it diplomatically and militarily if necessary. But the way we are now, it seems like to everybody that we have no intent of a ceasefire. We actually have an intent to escalate substantially. You don't send the immediate response force of the 82nd Airborne if you're really planning to have a ceasefire and stop the air campaign, nor the two muse, but we can get into those in details. So I would advocate for us to announce that we have met our objectives. If we have and look for an off ramp. Diplomatically, it's going to be a challenge with the Iranians. They obviously have no love loss for the regime. I think they would be far better off if they all just went away. But ultimately they're not going to trust negotiations because we were in the middle of negotiations last time when we launched the war in the first place. So we're going to have to get in a place where they trust what we say. And then what the Iranians have, that has really given them, I think a big advantage, especially in the economic aspect of this conflict, is obviously the strait. So do we want to try to force that open ourselves? Do we want to get a coalition that could also help negotiate an opening to the strait? And obviously we need to come in with some, some benefits to the regime, if you will, for opening it. But anyway, that's, I know there's a lot to discuss, but I got, we got two more guys that can, I think, really provide more detailed insight. But that's where I think we should be looking right now is how to find an off ramp and an off ramp that could lead to building a larger coalition when it. In regards to the strait itself.
- [06:49]
Jonathan Hackett
Yeah. And I think with the negotiations piece, if you're the regime, you've been thrice wronged in these negotiations where you've been hoodwinked essentially twice with Iran negotiations and then once with the Venezuela stuff where it looked like the US Was doing one thing in the diplomatic track. In fact, there were other plans going on behind the scenes using those negotiations as a ruse to achieve a different objective or a different outcome. And it's possible that that's happening right now. It looks like the pieces are moving on the board in that direction. And if you're an Iranian negotiator, you're going to be very cautious about what the US Promises, what the US Is willing to give. And I think that's actually kind of being reflected in what we see in the public space about what's going on with the negotiations. You see Iran asking for a lot of things that are pretty extreme, trying to force the US to come to that best negotiated alternative, because neither of the sides of the table right now have terms that are possible. So what they're going to have to do is kind of come toward the center and I think what the Iranian negotiators are doing is kind of testing to see how much good faith is there in this process. And the way they're doing that is by using extreme positions to see where is the US Willing to concede in this short period of time. And I think they're going to probably start measuring those concessions to see how realistic are these concessions and should we trust them or not. And I don't think that they're going to stop fighting while they're negotiating. They're going to continue fighting just like we are continuing to fight. I saw that yesterday. The last 24 hours were the most intense period of strikes since the war began. We've done 11,000 strikes since February 28, and 6% of those strikes alone were yesterday. And pretty intense across the country, not only against military targets, but also against the defense industrial base. There's a steel plant in Iran that was completely shut down. About 10,000 people work in that steel plant. They're not able to work now because it's been attacked. So the US Is clearly working through the target deck while they're negotiating with the regime. And the regime is going to have to consider how much are we willing to trust the United States as we negotiate. Because not only are military targets being threatened, but our civilian infrastructure is being put at risk because there's a lot of dual use civilian infrastructure that produces steel for factories and trucks, but also does, you know, ICBM construction, perhaps in the future, if they could do that. So they're trying to think through what's the, what's the risk and trade off of us trusting the United States in this moment. And if the US does renege, how much have we lost while waiting to move forward?
- [09:12]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Hey, everyone, sorry I was late. DE gave me a hard time. I missed my four minute window, which anyway, little espionage lingo there, but, you know, where are we right now? I guess that was the, you know, one of the questions. I don't think that there's been a decision made in terms of ground forces. We always talk about signal versus noise. The signal certainly is, you know, the arrival of the MEW and all the other kind of moves. Certainly CENTCOM is planning for some type of ground operation. There's no doubt. I'm not sure President Trump has made the decision on that, but that's certainly, you know, if you take a look at the signals and, you know, and the kind of the diplomatic back and forth, I don't know if there's any kind of seriousness to that. I mean, there is A question on whether the Iranians are willing to actually have a meeting or not. But I think, Jonathan, you're right. There's no trust at all. I mean, the last. Every time we negotiate with the Iranians, we end up attacking them afterwards. And so, I mean, they just, you know, this is not, you know, advanced PhD level research that you're doing. This is like kindergarten math. Okay? Every time we sit down with you, you attack us, you know, and when you say there's progress, literally the next day there's aircraft in the air. And so I'm not sure there's any trust there. I think a couple things were kind of interesting to me. One is all the reports that Trump is getting bored. And I think that's probably true because this is hard. Now, the idea that this was not going to be hard, again, that's a separate discussion I definitely want to have today because as I kind of alluded to last time, I think we are piling all the blame on where we are, on Trump and the civilian leadership in the White House and maybe even hegseth. But I think we have to take a look at CENTCOM as well. And I know that might make people who listen to this uncomfortable, but whether it's Dan Kane, the chairman, or Admiral Cooper, I mean, things that are happening now are so incredibly predictable, and yet we seem to be reactive on everything. We've war gamed around. Nick, you did this for a living, and Jonathan, you practiced it for a living. But we seem to be reactive on everything. So there's a part of it in which I think that. And this is. And I love what you said, Mick, last week when he said, you're on Team America. I'm going to send out a tweet today on that. I love that. We always are, but I think the military leadership can be blamed a little bit here, too. You know, this is not just kind of incompetence at the secretary level in DoD or whatever national security apparatus even exists. And so, you know, and don't forget John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, actually said in an open hearing, he talks to Trump several times a day. So is, you know, so where is the intelligence community? Where is CENTCOM on where we are kind of now in this message? In terms of one thing that I found interesting, it seems to me, in terms of the Strait of Hormuz, there also is this kind of undercurrent of trying to dump this on our NATO partners who want no part of it, but are going to be forced to, perhaps, and particularly the UK And I think we kind of start this war. You guys alluded to it. We start this war and now we're saying, hey, we need some help. Even though Trump then a second later says, I don't give a shit about NATO and you guys are horrible and you all suck. But behind the scenes, we're asking them, you know, are we going to walk away and leave this big pile of shit, the Strait of Hormuz, to some kind of NATO, you know, you know, UK led mission? I don't know. And so, you know, that, that to me is certainly interesting. And I think the last piece on this is, you know, again, what I said last week was this, you know, that we have this, this romance of the military math. I mean, I don't give a shit how many fucking targets we've hit. 10,000 means nothing to me. 15,000 means nothing to me because they just launched ballistic missiles and took out an AWACS in Saudi Arabia. They're pounding Israel nonstop. And so, I mean, it's important we continue on. But we're romanced by all of these, you know, the data on the strikes and all these briefings. And we think it means something. And maybe it does. If you're talking about a committed war effort in the United States over time, you know, can we beat Iran? Of course we can. But if we have such limited time span, attention span, you know, literally three, four days ago, there was, people were talking about the, you know, the ballistic missile inventory of the Iranians were almost, were almost finished yet. Then an intel report leaked that, no, actually they have a third of it left. And then they start hitting our air base in Saudi Arabia and the Israelis. And so, you know, this is, and this is not to say, I mean, you know, if you were going to launch a war in Iran, you have to build all these in. It's going to be hard. It's going to take months. There's going to be significant U.S. casualties. And you do that, you walk in knowing that. But I think we want, you know, we want this to be a Call of Duty game. And, you know, I'm definitely getting into, you know, the military analysis fear, which is, I'm not an expert on, but on the intel side of things, I mean, I just, everything that I see that's happening just seems to be so predictable. I mean, my goodness, both you guys spent so much of your career, you know, war, gaming this game, you know, all the plans and, well, how are we surprised? And by the way, the last piece, sorry, now I'm gonna go on My rant, how do we not have hardened any kind of hardened shelter shelters at our bases in the Middle East? Our aircraft are wide open. Did we not learn from everything that happened in Ukraine? What was CENTCOM doing as they were traveling around the Middle east thinking about a future war with Iran? Shit's wide open and it's getting hit. Did we not see what drones and ballistic missiles could do in Ukraine? And that is something that I wanted to raise with both of you guys in particular, because it seems to. And that was. There was a little bit of that in social media today. Some, some military commentators were saying, oh, you know, wait a second, why is this happening here? Why is everything out in the open? That's my two cents.
- [14:57]
Mark P
Well said. Because I said a lot of that, too, in my opening rant. All right, yeah, go ahead, Jonathan.
- [15:03]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Greek mind melt.
- [15:04]
Mark P
Yeah, we're just angry. We're just default angry.
- [15:07]
Unidentified Military Analyst
I'm in a good mood today. I'm not an angry Greek today.
- [15:12]
Jonathan Hackett
I was going to mention, actually I
- [15:12]
Unidentified Military Analyst
had an earful on something yesterday in our little chat. Sorry about that. Just about the state of the US Intelligence community. Sorry, Rick.
- [15:22]
Mick Mulroy
That's fine.
- [15:24]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Any comments on what I just said? Sorry. I raised a couple points for you all. I was very interested in your takes.
- [15:29]
Mick Mulroy
I mean, we talked about it a bit. Go ahead, Jonathan.
- [15:34]
Jonathan Hackett
I was just going to mention about nine months ago, me and Dee were the two of us on a little video here, and the title was We Are Gearing up for War with Iran. And there was a comment in the comments section of that video, and someone said, are we seriously considering comparing Iraq and nation building to targeted strikes on nuclear sites? Because in that video nine months ago, I said, what we're doing here are these are pieces moving toward an eventual attack on Iran. And there was a lot of pushback from the public at that time, including in the comments of that video, saying, like, there's no way we're going to do that. We're just talking about targeting nuclear strikes and, you know, hitting Isfahan and Fordow and all this. And I said, that's not what this isn't going to. That's not how it's going to end. Especially if you look at how pieces are moving, even back last summer, even before June, before the June strikes. And when you're talking about predictability, like you just mentioned, Mark, the signal is there. If you just look at this in a rational way, you can kind of see, okay, there are these players in this game, these players have these capabilities. They're doing These things right now, when they put these capabilities in play, typically this is what happens next. It's not a fantasy or some kind of crazy thing to say that if you take Hog island, for example, this is not the end of the game. There are further moves that will occur and must occur whether one player wants it or the other player wants it. There will be these outcomes, most likely. Like there is a predictable series of events that occur after one event happens. And I think a lot of times observers look at this and they say, well, because I don't think that that's possible. I can't think beyond what happens next because I don't think that's possible. And that's not how you look at this. You have to critically analyze, well, what if it did happen? What's next? Okay, and what if that happens? What about those three things that happen after that? And that's how you have to rationally approach this. I'm only mentioning that for some of the viewers who might, you know, think, well, we don't want ground troops, so we can't think beyond the ground troops option, but you have to. And I think that's what might be missing also in the White House is there might be some of this lack of, you know, creative future predictability on what could happen. Even if you don't want it to happen, what if that does happen? And I think that's a very important thing.
- [17:34]
Mick Mulroy
So in my experience, and I don't think this changes per administration, whether it's the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the, you know, the combatant commanders and their staff like centcom, they're always planning for this. It's not like, I mean, they're the same people generally, whether you're in the Trump administration, Biden administration, or whoever comes next. My concern, and I'm going off of media reports, but we've all seen them, is there's a disconnect because the National Security Council is where the policy coordination happens, and it is the interface between where the rubber hits the road, which in this case is the US Military and policymakers. And if it's not functioning the way it usually does, and that's what the reporting is, essentially nothing's going on there. And the idea that you have the Secretary of State, who's also the National Security advisor, goes to that, and there's also another report that this was all planned out by five people, which I don't think has happened in the history of the United States. Even if you go back to World War II, when the whole government was Essentially, in the Executive Office Building where the NSC is now, they still had a coordination process. They ran a world war from there. Now we seem to go in the other direction. And what I'm concerned about, and it's not just that I'm sticking out for people that I know that are uniform military is. I know they're the same people, and I know they're as smart or smarter than I am or any of us are. And they're thinking about all this stuff. They didn't just decide not to think about it. So I think what the issue is, is they don't know which direction we're going. So it's hard to plan the pitfalls on the way, if you're following my analogy, if you don't know we're going that way,
- [19:34]
Dan Morgan
right?
- [19:36]
Mick Mulroy
And then we turn around and go that way. So I think my concern is that they need to restart that it existed in every administration and actually listen to folks and then package the decisions that we have to make as they go up, that everything's already thought out. So if you go this way, this is what we have to be concerned about. This is contingency planning, et cetera, et cetera. Here's the pros, here's the cons, and the military intelligence community does that. And both of those groups don't do policy, they inform policy. But I don't know that they're playing that traditional role. That, I guess, is in a nutshell, that last sentence is what I'm saying,
- [20:19]
Unidentified Military Analyst
trying to say, I think, but isn't. I mean, but Dan Kane and John Ratcliffe and to some extent, Admiral Cooper are in the room, you know, so the chairman of Joint Chiefs is the principal advisor to the president on military affairs.
- [20:32]
Mick Mulroy
He is in the room. Yes. He was the only uniform military person,
- [20:36]
Unidentified Military Analyst
but so I think we're absolving him of some of this, of some of what is going on now as we see the dysfunction. That was my only point.
- [20:45]
Mick Mulroy
I don't know that we know what he's saying. So if he goes into the room and says, I think it's a terrible idea to interject ground troops, which there are reporting that he did say that. And they go, thanks, General. Now let's talk about injecting ground troops. What is he supposed to do?
- [21:02]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Well, Jim, but Jim Mattis is Secretary of Defense a little bit different role, but in the Trump one administration. Different role, but Jim. But he pushed back on all this. Mattis was very, very openly pushing back on Trump's crazy ideas. That's My only thing, I mean, you know, I think, you know, according to
- [21:19]
Mick Mulroy
the reporting, General did push back threatening to resign. I mean, look, if everybody did that, the entire chain of command of the military would fall apart. It's not a thing. In, in my world, it's not a thing. You, you don't go in there thinking that you are, you can so influence policy that you, that you just quit when you don't like it. If it's a lawful order, you follow the order or the entire chain of command of the military falls apart.
- [21:47]
Unidentified Military Analyst
But don't you think resigning, though, actually that would argue against that, that would just mean you bring someone else in. It would be more exactly right.
- [21:54]
Mick Mulroy
All you're doing is compounding the problem and handing it over to your deputy.
- [21:57]
Unidentified Military Analyst
But I think it's resigns. It just hands unlawful. I mean, okay, you have the ability
- [22:03]
Mick Mulroy
to say your advice, but what do you mean by resisting?
- [22:07]
Unidentified Military Analyst
No, I'm saying that you follow lawful orders.
- [22:09]
Mick Mulroy
There's no such thing as resisting a lawful order.
- [22:11]
Unidentified Military Analyst
That's where it would be really bad. It would be more honorable saying that I can't go ahead and do this. You know, if you, if you're, and
- [22:20]
Mick Mulroy
you're, you swore to follow the Constitution, it's constitutionally a lawful order. I don't see the purpose of resigning, nor do I think it's heroic. It's actually a dereliction and a duty.
- [22:34]
Jonathan Hackett
And if you do resign, people, all the people that resign are the ones that are left behind are the ones that all agree with that exact issue. So you haven't fixed the problem. You've only grown the issue.
- [22:44]
Mick Mulroy
It's. Then it becomes all about you. It becomes all about you. You've just totally screwed over your deputy and all the way down the chain of command.
- [22:52]
Unidentified Military Analyst
But that would argue that you've made a.
- [22:53]
Mick Mulroy
You, you can go on TV and talk about how you resigned, but then
- [22:58]
Unidentified Military Analyst
in the Vietnam War when terrible decisions were made and people did not do so, then you perpetuate a war that just is going to go on forever. I mean, at some point, is there a place, as a public servant when you say, I can't do this, if
- [23:10]
Mick Mulroy
you disagree with the war, you can retire and go on the speaking circuit. But if you're the one responsible for carrying out a lawful order, then yeah, I think quitting is a dereliction a dude, we just see it differently. I don't know. I mean, maybe it's a Marine view, but most Marines would say, hey, I took the job, I'm in command, I Got a lawful order. The only thing I'm doing by quitting is screwing over everybody below me and making it all about me. We're all replaceable.
- [23:45]
Jonathan Hackett
I think, too, on the military, like on the institutional perspective of carrying out lawful orders, even if you disagree with the policy in the military, you know, you're a policy executor. It's very pure. You're not a policymaker, and you're not there to influence policy. You're there to advise on it at the most. And in many cases, you're not even there to do that, depending on where you are in the institution. And I think that's different than a lot of other places in government where there is more room, like some, given the joints basically, to actually say, like, I disagree with that. Or here's like State Department, for example, has a dissent channel. The military doesn't have anything like that. Like the Kennan Telegram, the long telegram that he wrote about the Cold War and Russia and all that. There's no mechanism like that in the military. And in fact, the military is designed to resist that type of mechanism because, as you said, Mick, the moment people begin questioning policy at the execution level, the system starts to fall apart. The reason that it's effective is because that thing's not there. That could be for better or worse. There's philosophical debate about should it be that way, and maybe it should or shouldn't. But if you want the system to function well, you can't change that aspect of it, I think, in the way that it's designed right now, in the military, at least.
- [24:53]
Mick Mulroy
Secretary Manus was a civilian, though, when you're making that example, Mark, he's a civilian that was responsible for defense policy. So just because he was a former general, he's in a different space.
- [25:04]
Unidentified Military Analyst
That's right.
- [25:05]
Mick Mulroy
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yeah, he's the most senior uniform member, but he's a uniform member. His job is not. It's to advise the best military advice. It isn't to promote a policy objective, nor necessarily to obstruct it. And you are obstructing it if you disagree with it and you then quit.
- [25:28]
Jonathan Hackett
And part of it, too, is how do you present those options as the advisor? Because there is some persuasion there when you're giving these three choices, like, hey, there's Carg island, there's these other stuff. If you do a really good job of problem framing to the decision maker, you might persuade them to pick your option. And I think Colin Powell did that in 1991. When he advocated the Powell doctrine and there was the Weinberger doctrine, which was very similar to that, showing for these limited strikes with limited objectives, a very quick use of a specific amount of resources. There were other policymakers that were influencing Bush at the time to choose different outcomes. And Powell did a good job of presenting his case in a way that the President chose to go with. And I think that's really where that policy can be influenced is how do you frame this problem in a way that's really the best option. To the person looking at many options from State, from nsc, from other, from other inputs.
- [26:19]
Unidentified Military Analyst
I still think that the two positions we're talking about, the Chairman and then the CENTCOM chief, do have a political role and a policymaking role. I guess that's where we differ a little bit on this. They're so senior, they, you know, they are, they are not only senior military officers, they're also diplomats. And so I think they do actually influence policy and help drive policy as well. And so I hear what you guys are saying and there's honor in what you're saying, but I do think at those levels, at the Kane and Cooper level, they have more, they certainly do have talk about policy because there's been a long kind of, you know, there's certainly been, again, this is just from what I remember hearing, you know, for example, on the jcpoa. And Nick, you, I mean, you saw it, you were a civilian in DoD, but DoD was actually in favor of that at that time. Now maybe that was the DoD civilian side that was in favor. But I also would imagine that there was input from the senior uniformed, certainly from CENTCOM as well on that. But. Well, I think, I just think this is an interesting debate and particularly if we end up going into kind of the morass of a never ending war. I don't know if it's going to get to that place or not. But you know, what was the dissent on this? And you guys made a good point that there is, there's actually, there's no dissent channels even available right now because the national security process doesn't even work. I mean, ordinarily there'd be a fight in the nsc. So a National Security Council meeting would be, you know, you have cabinet, either the chiefs or deputy of cabinet, or if it goes down to lower levels, everyone's kind of fighting stuff out. But as you noted, that doesn't even occur. And so who knows how they're making this kind of policy right here.
- [27:59]
Mark P
Hey, what's up guys? This is D do us a favor and check out our patreon page. It's patreon.com the teamhouse. You get both Teamhouse episodes and Eyes on Geopolitics episodes completely ad free. You get them early too. You can ask us questions. You can also watch the Team Ass episodes live as we shoot them. So and you help support the show and support what we're doing here. It's patreon.com theteamhouse those links are in the description or if you're listening, it's in the show notes down below so you can click it real quick and easy and it helps us keep the lights on. So we appreciate it and we appreciate you guys listening. Thanks a bunch.
- [28:38]
Ryan Seacrest
It's tax season and by now I know we're all a bit tired of numbers, but here's an important one you need to hear $16 billion. That's how much money in refunds the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud. Here's another one in four honest, hard working, taxpaying Americans has been a victim of identity theft. But it's not all grim news. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second for your personal information and alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. If your identity is stolen, LifeLock's US based restoration specialist will fix it, backed by another good number, the million dollar protection package. In fact, restoration is guaranteed or your money back. Don't face identity theft and financial losses alone. There's strength in numbers with Lifelock Identity theft Protection for tax season and beyond. Visit lifelock.com iheart and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% off@lifelock.com iheart terms apply.
- [29:38]
Sling TV Announcer
Want a game changing way to watch college basketball? With a one day pass from Sling, get instant access to the men's and women's tournaments starting at just 499. You can catch all the action on TNT, TBS, ESPN and ESPN too. Want even more hoops? Then add an extra pack to your subscription for just $1. No overpaying, no over committing. Just tournament suit. So crazy they'd be crazy to miss. Visit sling.com to learn more. Sling lets you do that when you
- [30:09]
Health PSA Announcer
manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters, but when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility safe, stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRANGER-GREEGRANGER.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [30:41]
Mark P
All right, let's talk about what happens, you know, if the mute gets there, the other mu gets there. They take Carg island and then we launch an operation to snatch uranium from nuclear sites. We talked about it before. The nuclear sites. You will take weeks. Obviously the marines got to go to Carg island and hold Carg island right? Until the negotiate, until we squeeze them enough where they are. Like, yeah, let's, we'll make a deal. So you're talking weeks probably. Like, are these soldiers and marines supposed to just take incoming fire until that ends or until they dig out all the uranium and get out of there? Because it's not a two hour Venezuelan, you know, capture mission, right? It's, it's weeks and weeks at a time. So I mean, what does that look like for the guys on the ground during those weeks if it were to happen?
- [31:34]
Mick Mulroy
I think we're going to have to take the straight first. I don't know exactly, but I mean if I was looking at this militarily, I wouldn't want to launch all these marines to take Carg island like 400 miles up the Persian Gulf and still have the strait itself locked. Because there's a good chance that we take Carg island and like you just said, d our marines and potentially paratroopers are attacked non stop and the Iranians go, we're still not open in the strait. That's really the point. I mean, if we wanted to actually take their ability to use the island away, we could just bomb it. So I'm concerned we get there, we take take casualties, which is likely. I mean, there's a CNN report that they've been preparing for this for some time. And then we keep taking casualties and it doesn't strategically advantage us. So then I would say, well, why not just focus on the actual strait itself? Huge decision, big political decision. And I don't have the information available to know whether we can militarily unblock the strait because there's two parts to it. We've talked about it before. There's where the military says it's good to go, you can go through. And then there's a commercial vessel's going, I don't think so. Right. So it's not just us declaring it, it's also the commercial vessels, the tankers and their insurers saying, yeah, we believe you. Right. And it's going to be really quick to sea mine the strait. So it could be A matter of hours. As these slow motion troops arrive, they just start dropping all our naval mines. So that's one aspect of this. I again would say we would be better off if we had a ceasefire even if Iran doesn't and then start talking to our allies. I know this is backwards, but you can't undo the past about how are we going to open the straits because there's countries all around the world that are hurting because of this. And then the other potential ground force operation is recovery of the highly enriched uranium. I think that might, I don't know, I'd like to hear from Jonathan too, but I think that might be like the most complicated special operations mission in history. If that goes down. I mean this could last weeks and it, we could be, you know, completely enveloped by tens of thousands of Iranians willing to lose their life trying to get to the, to the troops that are carrying this out. So it's very far inland and it's, it's well beyond like you mentioned already, D this Venezuela apprehension operation. This could take heavy moving equipment also. The complications are immense. That, that will be a huge decision. I certainly understand why we'd want to. It's one of our primary objectives is so they don't get a nuclear bomb. I would imagine they are, but I would really be pushing for them to come up with an alternative to putting the entire force at risk, which I think is clearly a possibility. I think they can do it. But again, just because they can do it, just like the Marines take in the islands, we really should look at whether they should do it.
- [34:53]
Jonathan Hackett
Yeah. And I think taking Kharg island is important to separate from the nuclear mission because these aren't really related militarily.
- [34:59]
Mick Mulroy
Exactly.
- [35:00]
Jonathan Hackett
Taking Kharg island is kind of like patching a pinhole leak on a vessel that has a large hole on the other side of the vessel. And it's like, why would you just take this island? Exactly like you said, Mick, you have to stop the actual flow of the thing you're trying to affect rather than just taking a piece of physical terrain. And even on the Carg island aspect. Yes. You keep hearing this quotation, oh, 90% of their oil can pass through there, etc. Well, where is the oil coming from? You know, you want to go upstream in the oil process. It's coming from Abadan, which is right across the border of Iraq and Kuwait, which is physically accessible by ground forces from launch from Iraq and Kuwait. You don't need to take Carg island to stop the production of Abadan. You know, there's a whole different entanglement here going on where you're looking at, what are you trying to actually do militarily on Carg Island? And if it's to stop the flow of oil, you don't need to even touch Hard Island. You could put the Abadan at risk elsewhere. Look, it just happened with a steel plant with 10,000 employees, a few airstrikes in 24 hours, stop the steel manufacturing in that plant. Same thing at Abadan. And Abadan has been there for a very long time. You know, the Brits put it there when it was the Anglo American or the Anglo Iranian oil company, the AIOC. It's been there for over 100 years. We are very familiar with Abadan, and there are ways to prevent that from happening. We did that in eastern Syria with the mission support sites, with ConocoPhillips and other oil companies to stop the flow of oil out of Syria for ISIS and for the Syrian government. I mean, we've done this before recently with special operations Forces, obviously in a less risky situation than we have right now. And there are other islands in the Gulf that have to be secured before Kager island is actually safe from other littoral threats. You know, you've got Kesham island, which is the entire length of Kesham Island. Huge. It's the length of Okinawa. And if you remember back to our World War II strategic lessons, one of the reasons we use nuclear bombs in Japan was because after the Battle of Okinawa, after the amount of losses we had there, and we thought about how many losses will we have in the mainland? We will not sustain those losses. We have to use a nuclear weapon. That was the calculus back then. And this island is the same size as Okinawa, right? And the people are almost. I mean, you could probably equate the level of military fanaticism with the IRGC and the Japanese army back then, where they were willing to die to the last man in Guadalcanal. You know, I had a family member that has a sword, a katana, from one of the last survivors of the. Of the enemy force that the Marines killed all of them because they wouldn't stop fighting. And you'll see exactly the same thing here in Iran. And right now, actually yesterday there was a countrywide sms, you know, text message sent out to every cell phone in the country that said, join the John Fada, which is volunteer sacrificing life brigades, which are martyr brigades, to fight with knives and whatever weapons you have available in case the US forces invade. So they sent this to almost 90 million people. Of course, many people don't agree with that or accept that, but they are. They are blasting this message out and saying, we're going to fight to the last man. They're not saying that to the U.S. they're saying that to their own people, right in Farsi. Think about, like, the internal messaging going on right now when they're looking at, what is the US Going to do next? Are they taking Kesham? Are they taking Carg? Are they going to take our nuclear material, which is an existential threat to the regime because it's the last negotiating peace they have had for many years. So we need to think about what is the adversary thinking about and how. How far are they willing to go? Because if we look at it like, okay, we're going to take these islands, what's the response going to be? How existential of a threat is that to the regime? And it's a high threat, which means we need to be prepared to resist that threat beyond a conventional military response.
- [38:29]
Unidentified Military Analyst
You guys think that. And again, both of you haven't been involved in this kind of the planning at the CENTCOM level for such operations. Are there casualty estimates that go into this, you know, between Carg island, between, you know, going in and trying to secure the heu? Would there be internal estimates on, okay, how, you know, we can. Because I think there's always going to be the notion of, we can do this. I mean, we can beat the Iranians. It could be extremely bloody and take a long time. But are there actual estimates that go into these things? And then would they, in a normal situation, get presented to the policymaker?
- [39:01]
Jonathan Hackett
Yes, and actually there'll be estimates not only on casualties, like wounded in action, but types of casualties, types of blood needed. How far will that blood be from the actual front line, from the forward line of troops? What type of hospitals, what role of hospital level we need to actually have in the theater? How many types of, you know, Blackhawks we need to go and fly in and out? What level of risk are those helicopters willing to accept when they actually take casualties in and out? Is it going to be ground medevac primary or air medevac primary? All this will be planned in there. In addition to detainee handling, which is very closely attached to casualty handling, because a lot of the same rear area handling that has to happen for casualties is similar to what happens with detainees. As far as, you know, the infrastructure needed in the. In the rear area to actually support moving from the forward area back to the rear and Then replacing. Replacing with new waves of troops if needed.
- [39:52]
Mick Mulroy
Yeah. So everything Jonathan just said, from the point of view of military planning, and then. Yes, Mark, to your question on policymakers, they usually ask too, and it's already ready, like, what's the risk to force? What kind of casualties do we think we're going to take? Because, I mean, one, I mean, humans should care about other humans. Right. But the other thing is it's political. I mean, if they go, oh, yeah, we expect to take 40% casualties and we take Carg Island, I mean, that's a. They realize, oh, I mean, the American people don't even support the war and we're going to tell them we took 40% casualties on an island that I haven't even articulated why we should take. I mean, you want to talk about the bottom falling out of support for this whole conflict? Yeah, I mean, that's an important point. I'm sure the military is going to be like, yeah, this is what we expect. And oftentimes. Because they have to plan for the high end. Right. Because if you plan for the low end, then you're not really planning. So they're going to present probably a high end. So these policymakers, I don't know how the process is working, but whoever this is going to be presented to is going to have a good idea of what they're deciding to do.
- [41:02]
Unidentified Military Analyst
I wonder. And what consequences if those kind of estimates would again, would leak just because it would be so political. And in some ways, everything is political now. And I guess the question for you all then, Mick, you alluded to it. Are the American people prepared for this because to meet our war objectives purely in the military sense, not the diplomatic sense, if pigs fly tomorrow and the Iranians agree to give up their entire nuke program, this is a great victory. But assuming that there is in removing the actual nuclear threat in the heu, is a military objective that President Trump says, yeah, we have to do this. Do you think the American people are prepared for those type of casualties?
- [41:45]
Mick Mulroy
I don't. I mean, we've seen the. Just their support for the war. The air campaign.
- [41:53]
Mark P
Right.
- [41:53]
Mick Mulroy
Has been underwater. And I think the longer it goes on and the more we're talking about insertion of ground troops and both sides, on both sides of the aisle, ultimately, and I think we could all agree that Congress has kind of been absent from a lot of things that they're supposed to be doing, but eventually they're going to wake up and go because it's going to start affecting them, especially the people that are looking at the midterms coming up and they're going. Because not only is this causing a lot of economic strain that we chose to do, but if you start adding casualties, lots of casualties coming back, what they can do is they can cut off the funding.
- [42:36]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Let me ask you a question on that. This was actually the first thing I had in mind when I was preparing for the, for the show today was, you know, there is this, you know, ecosystem of kind of the military vet bro podcast world and you know, team house in this kind of lives a little bit in it.
- [42:53]
Mark P
Watch it.
- [42:55]
Unidentified Military Analyst
But what's that?
- [42:56]
Mark P
I said watch it.
- [42:57]
Unidentified Military Analyst
No, no, no. But it's a good thing because a really dedicated audience. But. And it's not because I think what we're doing here is having a debate and we can, we can disagree. But you know, I was just on Andy Stump show, if you watch Sean Ryan, I mean, there are visceral reactions to this campaign. There is. I mean, and it's not positive. And so do you think in the age of social media and throw it. I don't know what Joe Rogan is thinking these days, but this is the social media world, the podcast world, which actually really has a pretty significant following, not just on the right in the MAGA movement, but in the veteran community. And then again, think about or this show, Sean Ryan, Andy Stumpf and others, where there's a lot of opposition to this. You know, what do you, what is your sense from your kind of your tribe as you talk to people? And I know both you guys have friends who are from the left and the right. And so it's. There's no kind of one uniform. But you know, what are they thinking on Iran? Because actually I do think it matters. Look, you know, veterans, people who've been in combat, you know, do command a lot of respect in the United States. And when you have a lot of people saying, hold on a second. Because. Because ordinarily you think there's a rally around the flag kind of concept here and everyone's going to think of the men and women, you know, on the ground. Everyone's going to support them. But. But again, their overall war effort, I just don't. I see kind of that this military vet bro ecosystem is not being particularly supportive. Am I reading that right or no?
- [44:27]
Jonathan Hackett
A lot of the guys I grew up with, they were there during the invasion and then shortly after that. And they remember the transition from fighting Iraqi forces in 2003, 4, 5 ish to the introduction of Quds Force into that fight when the explosively formed penetrators started appearing everywhere and how that changed casualties. And those penetrators are not designed, they do kill people, but the primary purpose is to injure and maim people because they wanted to send a visceral message to this democracy, fighting a war domestically back home to damage public sentiment back home in the United States. And it did very effectively. When you see people coming home with no legs and no arms and all kinds of horrific injuries, not only that, at the same time, a lot of people, especially in the right, that want to reduce government spending and complain about how much money the VA is spending, well, you're about to have a whole new group of VA people that need VA benefits for the rest of their lives from injuries in this war, injuries designed specifically to cause that high cost domestically inside the United States. These are not going to be injuries that Iran is carefully targeting and killing Americans. It's going to be, how much can we injure and maim Americans in this war to dramatically affect domestic politics back home? And I think that's what a lot of my colleagues, former friends in that world are seeing and thinking about is we know what comes next because we were there in those early years. I have a friend from Delta Force I was just talking to recently, and he's very conservative. And even in the conversation we were having, you could hear him kind of debating with himself about, I don't like the regime and I don't like the people there at the same time. I remember my friends that have been injured and killed, but I'm having a hard time to agree with what's going on, what's coming next, because I knew what happened back then. I'm looking at a lot of. There's a lot of correlation between back then and now.
- [46:16]
Unidentified Military Analyst
What do you think?
- [46:17]
Jonathan Hackett
Yeah.
- [46:18]
Mick Mulroy
And clear it Hot andy's podcast. About 10 minutes down the road, by the way.
- [46:23]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Right, right.
- [46:24]
Mick Mulroy
Montana's a big state, but the concentration of veterans near where I am is pretty, pretty dense. Put it down.
- [46:32]
Unidentified Military Analyst
By the way, when I went on his podcast, I checked with D D said I could do it. He wasn't upset with me, so.
- [46:36]
Mark P
No, not at all.
- [46:38]
Unidentified Military Analyst
It was actually. We had a great chat. It was good.
- [46:40]
Mark P
And he's a good guy.
- [46:41]
Mick Mulroy
Good. Yeah, it's good. It's a good podcast, man. It's a lot like what Jonathan just said. So I think there's no love loss, obviously, for the regime for all the reasons we already said. This goes Back to the 80s, right. When they killed all the Marines and they tortured our chief of station and basically skinned them alive. And then all the issues with Iraq and I mean me personally, I would like to do a lot of what we do against the regime in the back rooms. To put it simply, I should say this is a stoic, but I'm all for revenge. If somebody kills my friend, I will never forget it and I will track him down and I hope my son tracks him down if I wasn't able to get to him. So I'll just admit that up front. But I think the hesitation is these same vets and obviously I don't speak for them, I'm just kind of explaining what I think the sentiment is. They also look out for the next generation of vets. They look at their war and said we just kept going and going and going because policymakers couldn't make a decision and they didn't want to declare it over for whatever political reason. So they just kept going. We kept spending more money, kept losing more people and there was no purpose. Think about by the time we were or nor did they actually try to do anything to preserve what we fought for. Right at the end it was just like, ah, screw it, let's just get out, right? It was like, really? Because we only have 5,000 people there. We're pretty much off the front lines. We're not losing anybody, but we're still maintaining what. But they didn't, you know, so I think a lot at the end people were like, what was that all about? You know, we all look at our social media feeds and non stop, you remember this person, remember this person, remember this person. And you, you have to, you have to stop and remember that person. I mean, I don't know, I'm speaking for myself. I feel guilty when I don't go, I'm going to repost this person because he's not going to get forgotten.
- [48:41]
Mark P
Right?
- [48:42]
Mick Mulroy
And I don't think they want to see that again. And now they're into some, they're in a place that they could do something about it because they're out of the military where they can say something right before, you know, we already had this discussion. Your job is to follow orders, but now you're a civilian.
- [48:57]
Unidentified Military Analyst
I find it a good way to be inherently suspicious of US Government. It's actually, and I think that's a good, I mean, again, we live in a democracy, we have to have this debate. It's actually really good. There's no kind of monolithic national security or veteran community arguing one way or another on this issue, and that's a good thing. One of the things that I don't know if you guys struggle with, I literally, it's not changed my mind, but there are days I wake up and think about my entire career. And, you know, all of us worked against the Iranians in some place, in some fashion at some point. And then I think, of course, of Iraq and Afghanistan, places where I was not in the military, but I went to both places. You guys. You guys know that friends who were killed there. And so then you do start thinking, okay, you know, what was all that for? So I'm all over the place in this thing. And you could probably tell because I get accused all the time. They said, well, you know, last week you refer this whole thing, and this week you're against it. And I was like, because I really struggle with that. I think a lot of the things you guys were just talking about is that, look, the Iranians are a bad actor, no doubt. And, you know, whether it's the embassy bombing, the Marine barracks bombing, our station chief getting killed, Khobar Towers, I mean, we can go on and on, EFPs, on and on and on. You know, the rent is due. And by the way, the same people who were. I mean, the Iranian regime, the nature of it, and the age of some of these leaders, some have been killed, were involved in all those things. This is not just revenge in theory. I mean, the decapitation strikes killed a lot of people who are responsible for those events. But then again, there's a side of me that says, what are we doing? So I'm all over the place on this. I don't know if you guys ever kind of wake up and kind of scratch your head and say, I'm not even sure what I'm arguing today.
- [50:38]
Mick Mulroy
Well, I agree. I agree with the overall objectives is the issue. It's how we do it. That that's got the issues, like, if we would have gone in and taken the strikes on the nuclear facilities, taken even the decapitation strike, reduce their strategic capabilities, and then said, okay, we're good now, and I understand we're only one side of the equation. Iran can say, well, we're not good, but it's now our choice to escalate this by inserting ground forces. And I don't necessarily see the advantage to the United States. I don't see it being a real strategic purpose. I think if we stop and go to our allies, this isn't going to happen. But I do think we'd be better off starting with the mea culpa. One, NATO doesn't suck. NATO has come to our defense. Two, NATO is a defensive organization. They don't have a requirement to come into a war of choice. Sorry about that. And then three, it's in everybody interest to open the strait. So help us diplomatically, help us militarily. And by the way, and I've talked to some senior naval officers who say they have a very capable naval force that can help with actually minesweeping, like very capable. We need them. And it's going to be a different, I think, operation when we have a coalition of countries, most of which other than the United States and neutral, can say, look, I had nothing to do with that, but you're going to open this damn strait because you don't get to control the world's economy. It's a different discussion coming from France or Japan or fill in the blank. So I do think there's a way, and you mentioned this early up Team America. I want to win. I want to win strategically. And my criticism is more geared toward not losing strategically. I don't do the politics part. So that is where I think the US should focus and hopefully cooler heads prevail and we start having a process that thinks this out.
- [52:51]
Jonathan Hackett
Yeah, at law school, we talk about ex ante and ex post positions on issues, which means how do you look at it before it happens versus how do you look at it after it happens? So in the veteran community, especially like you were talking about Mark, there were opinions about should we go to war? And that was largely negative. We should not go to war. Well, now we have gone to war, so now how do we look at it now? You can't go and turn back time and say, well, I wish we had never gone to war. And I'm so upset about that. It's like, okay, I get that. But now we need to talk about what do we do now and next? Because it's already in place, the wheels are moving. So next what happens? And that's where maybe we mistakenly planned the war in a certain way. That wasn't great. Well, now we need to work toward solving this problem, regardless of who created the problem. How do we solve the problem now? And I think that's a helpful way to think through, especially in the veteran community. How do we look at this? Yes, we can pine about the past, but we have to also think about the future. And if you keep looking in the rearview mirror, you're going to miss the windshield and you're going to crash because you're only looking at the past, and it's helpful to be informed with the past. But there is a future ahead, and the future is much longer than the length of the past.
- [53:56]
Mark P
All right, so what do we need to look out for in the next coming few weeks? Anything specific? I mean, clearly what the Houthis are going to do if they really do put a stranglehold on their, on the Red Sea. Also, they did shoot a couple of missiles at Israel that got intercepted and stuff like that. And they made some press conference like, you know, it was ridiculous. But, you know, they're in the game now, right. And I, I have heard that the Iranians were kind of giving them, kind of pressuring them to get in, into this. Now where do you guys see this
- [54:32]
Mick Mulroy
going in the next few weeks with the Houthis?
- [54:34]
Jonathan Hackett
I see them. This is like a probing action. Although they've declared that they've entered, I think what they're actually doing is seeing what would the response be like if we did enter. So I think they haven't actually decided yet to go full force against the region. I think they probably launched those to see, first of all, what's the military response to that? And it was that Israel successfully intercepted almost everything that went over and it wasn't a lot. And second, what's the political and regional response in the social media and media world to us entering? And I think that's what they're kind of testing for and looking at what, like a litmus test. And the other thing to look out for is what about the Hashdasha's or popular mobilization forces in Iraq? There was a video, I think two days ago that came out of this quote unquote convoy of mobilization forces moving into Iran. But if you watch the video, it's 39 Hilux trucks with cardboard boxes in the beds and no weapons, which is a very interesting difference compared to how the Hashtashabi videos look against isis. When you see these guys with headbands and automatic weapons, they've got dishkas mounted in the Hilux. You know, they look like they're going to war back in 2016 versus what do they look like right now? It looks like Iran needs medical supplies, ammunition, beans, bullets and band aids, which they're probably running low on. And it looks like that's what the PMF is supplying. And that's important to look out for too, is how much more can the regime use its sustainment capability. We're not just talking about missiles and drones. We're also talking about medical aid. We're also talking about batteries, equipment, serial rear support, mechanical things that they're either using, they're getting degraded, they're getting destroyed, they're inaccessible. So the next seven to 14 days, we're going to be looking at what are the logistics capabilities of Iran versus what are the military capabilities of Iran? Because right now we're so focused, like you said, Mark, on the military math. But behind that military math, there's a huge, huge component of logistics and sustainment that we need to be analyzing carefully because that's where you can actually weaken the regimes by attacking those things. And I think that popular mobilization forces, video is a great indicator that they are in fact suffering logistically and in the sustainment space. And the Houthis are, again, as we've mentioned, on their own program, they're going to determine their own, their own way, do we enter this full force or not? And I think in the next two to three days, probably they're going to see how is Israel responding to their strikes. Because remember, back after October 7th, the Houthis did enter the chat and Israel went and struck a bunch of targets for a sustained period of time against the Houthis. And that was not good for the Houthis. And I think they're thinking about that, like, how much are we willing to sacrifice right now for this war that we actually don't want to be a part of because it's going to threaten our home turf, which is the thing that's important to them. So I think looking at the Houthis measuring this in the future next two weeks, and then looking at what's the Iraqi response going to be from the Shia militia groups in Iraq, inside of Iran.
- [57:25]
Unidentified Military Analyst
I think one thing on that, Jonathan, the problem with the Israelis have, of course, is they're already fighting in two fronts. We haven't touched on it, but the war is kind of full on in Lebanon. Now Israelis are hitting targets in southern Lebanon. Certainly there's talks of a ground invasion. They're going to go all the way up to Litani river along with the operational tempo being at its highest against Iran. So throwing the Houthis in and I'm sure this is part of the Houthi calculation as well. So sure, they don't want to get thumped again. But, you know, are the Israelis, you know, going to start having issues with, you know, how much can they do? And same thing with the United States. And look there, you know, we have a, I would imagine we have a limited capacity with our, with the US Navy already deployed there to then deal with in essentially another front opening. So that, and, but I go back to what I said originally. How is this, I mean, you would hope that we have taken this into account in our planning. The idea of the Houthis coming, entering the fray has got to be in the top four or five things that would, would occur. So I, I hope we, we went there. The other thing I'm looking for is just, and, you know, you know, it's a, I don't have a lot of faith in it, but there's the diplomatic track. You know, various foreign ministries, foreign ministers are kind of coalescing in Islam in Pakistan now to try to talk about any kind of potential off ramp. You know, I think this is Pakistan and Turkey leading the charge on this. And, you know, it's clear that the US Is interested. I mean, I think, you know, Trump is interested in an off ramp, whatever that may be, even though the conditions, you know, between the two sides are so, were so great. I think the bigger question, though, is what are the Iranians thinking? Because the conventional wisdom now is that the, actually the Iranians think they're winning. And so, you know, do they really, you know, is this, is this something that they want to see come to an end now? Clearly they don't want to get bombed anymore, but they're also not going to give up their nuclear program. And so it'll be interesting to see the diplomatic track and then we'll go down the road of yet another kind of deadline. When does Trump lose patience? What do Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are, you know, envoys to the entire planet on every issue, you know, what
- [59:34]
Mark P
do they report also, like, when the market opens and stuff like that, to make announcements, make.
- [59:39]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Billions of dollars went in the tank last week, and Trump really cares about that. And so there's, you know, so that's, that does. So the market, too, was interesting. I mean, you know, it's funny, I go back and there's a good friend of mine who is convinced that Trump acts based on the market. And I never believed him. And now actually I do.
- [59:54]
Mark P
Absolutely does. If Trump could, he would wage this war on the weekends when the market's closed.
- [60:00]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Yeah.
- [60:00]
Mark P
So I heard a funny, funny podcast like, what stage of capitalism is that? Like, when you're just fighting wars on, on, on the weekends because the market's closed?
- [60:10]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Well, I mean, we don't have, I mean, our capitalist system is now, it's not even that we have. It's an oligarchy. Oligarchy here. I Mean, you know, there's so much government interference and everything that, that this administration or this administration is interfering in the markets all over the place. But yeah, so it's another kind of big week ahead. It'll be interesting. And so never a dull moment, that is for sure. And the MEW is there. I mean, we were waiting for them to arrive and at least the first contingent has arrived. And so I would imagine in terms of the planning cycle and whatever CENTCOM is planning, they will be reporting to the President the degree in which they're ready to act or not. And we're probably closer to that, that time period.
- [60:54]
Jonathan Hackett
Yeah. And also the pressure from, as you mentioned, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. I was reading that Egypt's natural gas price has tripled in the last week. And a lot of people there, that's their primary method of cooking. You're talking about tens of millions of people that can't afford to cook their own food right now. Huge amount of pressure domestically on the Egyptian government to help fix this. Which is why people might ask, why is Egypt so concerned? Egypt has a Suez Canal and the whole Mediterranean for stuff they don't have the natural gas they need. And so that over the next seven to 10 days is going to be a huge amount of pressure exerted not just from Egypt, but also Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain. You know, these, these countries heavily depend on the movement for their own domestic people of desalinated water, natural gas and other things that are not oil that they need in their countries. That's going to then translate onto pressure to the United States.
- [61:43]
Mark P
I did see that Qatar basically stopped their, all their LNG flow. And it's like 20 of the world supply essentially.
- [61:51]
Jonathan Hackett
And not only for the world supply, but Southeast Asia. Almost, almost all of their LNG comes solely from Qatar. That's China, that's Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia. Huge amount of dependence on just Qatari lng.
- [62:06]
Mark P
Yes. One more quick thing. What, what's up with us not being able to protect our assets in the Saudi Arabian base?
- [62:13]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Well, you know, that goes back to my criticism of US Military leadership.
- [62:17]
Mark P
Have we not learned anything?
- [62:18]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Not agree with me on, but I still stand that. I still, I'm not as. I don't think that, you know, criticizing Kane or Admiral Cooper is off limits at all.
- [62:28]
Mark P
I mean, listen, on the build up towards the Iran war, I mean the Joint Chief's office, somebody was leaking about like us not having enough munitions and stuff like that. Like somebody was leaking. Right. That was strategic in nature to kind of get the press up against, to Fight up and bump up against the Iranian attacks and stuff like that. Was it Cain? I don't know, but like somebody was.
- [62:48]
Unidentified Military Analyst
But this is more of lessons learned. I mean, if you just stared at the Ukraine conflict, Russia, Ukraine, the idea of us not having any kind of, you know, hardened shelters in the Middle east ao, I just don't understand that. But Jonathan, what are your comments on that? I mean, you know, again with all the war game and the Iranians have the Shaheeds and they have ballistic missiles, yet our aircraft is in the open. I guess we lost one AWACS, one of 16 that we have, which seems rather significant. So, you know, is there accountability on that? Like, who in the military thought it was a good idea to leave everything out in the open or is it just inevitable?
- [63:22]
Jonathan Hackett
We've been learning this lesson since World War II. I mean, that was a huge thing in Europe was how do you disperse aircraft and still be able to use them operationally despite their dispersion or their disguise. And we saw this successfully in Ukraine where there was a lot of deception operations going on. You know, painting things on the airfield to make it look like an aircraft, but it's not an aircraft. And a lot of creativity in how to confuse the enemy in terms of attacking your on the ground assets that are typically in the air. And I think the US is good at military deception in some ways. And in other ways we kind of resist using Mildec. And I think this is a place where Mildeq is probably very valuable, that we haven't been applying it. There's some inefficiency, I'll put it, that diplomatically there's some inefficiency in how we're applying military deception with our ground based air assets right now in the Gulf. And I think that we've had kind of this feeling over the last 25 years that our adversaries do not have night vision, they don't have air capability. Like there's a lot of these things that we've just trained and trained and then operated against for 25 years that have now become part of our military culture in the acute term, where we think, like we just don't think about that, that our adversaries can actually attack. The things that have been kind of off limits for 25 years, which are our ability to attack at night and our ability to attack from the air. That's not the same right now, you know, and I think we're learning that we're, you know, assembling the aircraft in flight, as it were, right now where we're realizing like, the enemy actually can attack us in our own base. Now, we were so used to that not being true for a long time.
- [64:50]
Unidentified Military Analyst
How can you. But Russia, Ukraine was a lab experiment for the US Military. And we seem to. And people were coming back saying we all these lessons learned, we seem to have just failed this massively. That's the thing I don't understand.
- [65:02]
Jonathan Hackett
Well, there's always been the question of how do you integrate lessons learned to the actual forces that need those lessons? Because we have like the Institute for Lessons Learned and all these, you know, really great pieces of institutional framework to help gather all that. In the special operations community, we have sodars, which are these reports that every team writes when they come back from a deployment, you know, talking about their partner, how efficient they were, how proficient they were, how did, how's their marksmanship, how much are they paying, you know, all this stuff. But if you don't read the sodar or you don't read the lesson learned, that operational unit doesn't get it. And I'm only mentioning it as a preface to institutionally we are bad at learning lessons. I mean, we can just look at that. From Vietnam to Afghanistan, bad at learning lessons, or Iraq to Afghanistan, Afghanistan, whatever. We're just bad at it. Then the units themselves don't even have the ability to access that. And there's not a way to trickle it down to change what we do. Because the way our doctrine is designed is so tradition based. Like if you look at the Navy, for example, which is playing a huge part in this war right now, the Navy, they have officer country on the ship, who are enlisted are not allowed to enter. You know, so if you had an enlisted guy with a good idea, he's not even allowed to be in the room with the people that are making plans. I mean, that's. If that's how your military is designed, you're going to be hamstrung from the beginning. Which is, I think, leading up to your question about why are these aircraft being struck on the ground. Because innovation is not built into our military. It's the opposite. It's the military industrial complex that tells the military what to build, or they tell Congress what to pay for, which then tells us what to build. It's not guys in the ground, some lance corporal who's like, you know what? The way we're getting attacked, that's crazy. I have an idea to stop that. That's not how this works. Instead, it's Lockheed Martin saying, I can build you a really expensive anti aircraft weapon that can only work in this environment. It's very sensitive to moisture and it will definitely fail if it's fired during the day. You know, here is $500 million and you know, that's how our system is designed. Yeah, exactly.
- [66:54]
Unidentified Military Analyst
But I guess for the non military folks like dni, I mean you look at this, you're like, this is just absurd. I mean it's just kind of common sense, I think. And the American people are now going to be asked to pay another $200 billion for. I don't know. To me there should be some accountability on this, but it seems like that never happens.
- [67:16]
Jonathan Hackett
Well, yeah, with the E3 for example, you said there's 16 of them. I mean, this is a cold war platform that we've just kept on the books for a very long time. It's tritted down quite a bit in the last 20 years. There's the new E7 wedgetail, which is supposed to replace it. I don't know if you've seen pictures of it, but it's a gigantic massive aircraft, way bigger than the AWACS and it's $700 million per aircraft.
- [67:36]
Mark P
Yeah, I was just going to say the price. 700 mil.
- [67:39]
Jonathan Hackett
That's not counting maintenance and lifetime, you know, price tag, which is a separate calculation which is in the billions, obviously. Well, if this thing's even bigger and slower and more expensive, we didn't solve any of the problem that we just saw with the E3 getting struck on an airfield. We just made it more expensive and damaging to ourselves if it gets hit, you know, so like we were like solving the wrong problem from the beginning.
- [68:03]
Mark P
Damn it, man. I mean, I never feel good after these episodes. It's so annoying, dude. You know, it's funny because we've had, we had a defense tech CEO we spoke to where he makes counter drone systems and you know, just by using lasers, super inexpensive. I don't understand why there isn't like a place in the DOD that's like quick procurement, like where we need something fixed right away. Let's get it fixed right away.
- [68:34]
Jonathan Hackett
Well, we have the Defense Innovation Unit, which is supposed to be that.
- [68:36]
Mark P
What do they do? Are they on vacation?
- [68:38]
Jonathan Hackett
So first of all, it's staffed by reservists, it's not an active duty post and there's no pipeline for like if you're the lance coconut on the ground with a shoulder fired weapon and you're like, I have an idea to take out this drone, there isn't a way for him to talk to the Defense Innovation Unit. I'm sure that the Defense Innovation Unit will say, yes, there is, there's a portal, blah, blah, blah. Let's go talk to Joe Schmo on the ground. Actually ask him, do you know if that thing exists? I guarantee you he doesn't. I mean he doesn't even have a computer. Right. So I mean there's a lot of stuff at the top where they think like, oh, we have all these systems are very expensive and exquisite. Then the actual person hitting the button on the ground doesn't even know those things exist.
- [69:15]
Mark P
Yeah, because, you know, frankly, like as a dummy like me, a four million dollar patriot missile taking out shaheeds that cost 50 grand at most doesn't really sound like a good. Doesn't really sound like a good ROI on that at all. You know, and the fact that like what Mark said, we haven't learned from what hap. What's happened in Ukraine is frankly unacceptable as just a citizen. It's a joke. We're supposed to be the best military in the world. Like are we though? Because even our aircraft carriers are. We back the up. We're not in the Persian Gulf or in the Omaha and Gulf of Oman. And we're backed up. We're not really that close. Right. So what are the. And it's Iran. It's not China with our hypersonics and all the scary stuff. It's Iran. What are we doing? Is it like. It doesn't seem that peachy and, and amazing. To be frank. My rants over you guys have anything else to say?
- [70:14]
Unidentified Military Analyst
That's it.
- [70:15]
Mark P
All right. I want everyone to do us a favor. I want you guys to check out John's books. Links are in the description. Yeah, show them the books, John. Right there. Rain Shadow Weapons and A Theory of a Regular War. Great books. Mark P. Links are in the description for his Twitter and all that stuff. Mick. Of course. The Whitefish security summit is happening this week coming up. So check that out. That link is in the description as well. We're gonna have a couple interviews from there do so that's exciting. And what else are you guys go.
- [70:45]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Are you guys not.
- [70:47]
Mark P
But we have a cool. We have a McChrystal interview we're doing for Team House.
- [70:50]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Nice.
- [70:51]
Mark P
And we have an interview with Eric Ulrich and Scott, I don't remember his last name, about the future of warfare. They're going to be there. So it's going to be exciting. Check that out. The link is in the Description, of course. Patreon.com TheTeamHouse Help support the show. You get eyes on and teamhouse ad free and early and you help support the show. Keep the lights on guys. A pleasure as always.
- [71:14]
Sling TV Announcer
Want a game changing way to watch college basketball? With a one day pass from Sling, get instant access to the men's and women's stream tournaments starting at just $4.99. You can catch all the action on TNT, TBS, ESPN and ESPN too. Want even more hoops? Then add an extra pack to your subscription for just $1. No overpaying, no over committing. Just tournaments so crazy they'd be crazy to miss. Visit sling.com to learn more. Sling lets you do that.
- [71:44]
Tyler Reddick
Tyler Redick here from 23 XI Racing. Another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Chumba. Jump in@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba.
- [71:54]
Ryan Seacrest
No purchase necessary. BTW Group void work prohibited by law. CTNC21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino Want a
- [72:00]
Sling TV Announcer
game changing way to watch college basketball? With a one day pass from Sling, get instant access to the men's and women's tournaments starting at just $4.99. You can catch all the action on TNT, TBS, ESPN and ESPN2. Want even more hoops? Then add an extra pack to your subscription for just $1. No overpaying, no over committing. Just tournaments so crazy they'd be crazy to miss. Visit sling.com to learn more. Sling lets you do that.
- [72:30]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Take care.
- [72:35]
Jonathan Hackett
Hey guys, I want to take a
- [72:36]
Unidentified Military Analyst
moment to tell you about the Teamhouse Podcast newsletter.
- [72:40]
Jonathan Hackett
If you go and subscribe, it's totally
- [72:42]
Unidentified Military Analyst
free and what it will do is
- [72:44]
Jonathan Hackett
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.
- [73:09]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Well if you'll go and check it out, we send it out just once a week.
- [73:13]
Jonathan Hackett
We don't want to spam you guys. It's just a kind of rollup of all of our content on a weekly basis. You can find our newsletter@teamhousepodcast kit.com join
- [73:26]
Unidentified Military Analyst
again the website for that is teamhousepodcast
- [73:29]
Jonathan Hackett
kit.com join want a game changing way
- [73:33]
Sling TV Announcer
to watch college basketball? With a one day pass from Sling, get instant access to the men's and women's tournaments starting at just $4.99. You can catch all the action on TNT, TBS, ESPN and ESPN too. Want even more hoops? Then add an extra pack to your subscription for just $1. No overpaying, no over committing. Just tournaments so crazy they'd be crazy to miss. Visit sling.com to learn more. Sling lets you do that.
- [74:02]
Tyler Reddick
Tyler redick here from 2311 Racing Victory Lane yeah, it's even better with Chumba by my side. Racetochumbacasino.com let's Chumba no purchase necessary.
- [74:12]
Ryan Seacrest
VTW group void where prohibited by law. CTNCS21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino Want a
- [74:18]
Sling TV Announcer
game changing way to watch college basketball? With a one day pass from Sling, get instant access to the men's and women's tournaments. Starting at just 499. You can get catch all the action on TNT, TBS, ESPN and ESPN too. Want even more hoops? Then add an extra pack to your subscription for just $1. No overpaying, no over committing. Just tournaments so crazy they'd be crazy to miss? Visit sling.com to learn more. Sling lets you do that so we
- [74:48]
Unidentified Military Analyst
hope to see you there.
- [74:49]
Mick Mulroy
The link will be down in the description.
- [74:55]
Sling TV Announcer
Want a game changing way to watch college basketball? With a one day pass from Sling, get instant access to the men's and women's tournaments. Starting at just $4.99. You can catch all the action on TNT, TBS, ESPN and ESPN2. Want even more hoops? Then add an extra pack to your subscription for just $1. No overpaying, no overcommitting, just tournament suit. So crazy they'd be crazy to miss. Visit sling.com to learn more. Sling lets you do that.
- [75:26]
Tyler Reddick
Tyler redick here from 2311 racing the rush of racing. Nothing beats it, but Chumba Casino comes close. Chumba's got fast spins, fun games, daily bonuses and all the action you can handle. Now that's a ride ready to hit the throttle? Get in the driver's seat and head to chumbacasino.com let's Chumba Sponsored by Chumba
- [75:50]
Ryan Seacrest
Casino no purchase necessary. VGW Group Voidware prohibited by Law21. Terms and conditions apply.
- [75:55]
Sling TV Announcer
Want a game changing way to watch college basketball? With a one day pass from Sling, get instant access to the men's and women's tournaments starting at just 499. You can catch all the action on TNT, TBS, ESPN and ESPN2. Want even more hoops? Then add an extra pack to your subscription for just $1. No overpaying, no over committing. Just tournaments so crazy they'd be crazy to miss? Visit sling.com to learn more. Sling lets you do that. Want a game changing way to watch college basketball? With a one day pass from Sling, get instant access to the men's and women's tournaments. Starting at just $4.99. You can catch all the action on TNT, TBS, ESPN and ESPN too. Want even more hoops? Then add an extra pack to your subscription for just $1. No overpaying, no over committing. Just tournaments so crazy they'd be crazy to miss. Visit sling.com to learn more. Sling lets you do that.
- [77:02]
Tyler Reddick
Tyler reddick here from 23xi Racing Victory Lane yeah, it's even better with Chumba by race to chumbacasino.com let's chumba.
- [77:12]
Ryan Seacrest
No purchase necessary. VTW group void where prohibited by law. CTNCS21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino Want a
- [77:18]
Sling TV Announcer
game changing way to watch college basketball? With a one day pass from Sling, get instant access to the men's and women's tournaments. Starting at just 499. You can catch all the action on TNT, TBS, ESPN and ESPN too. Want even more hoops? Then add an extra pack to your subscription for just $1. No overpaying, no over committing. Just tournaments so crazy they'd be crazy to miss. Visit sling.com to learn more. Sling lets you do that. Want a game changing way to watch college basketball? With a one day pass from Sling, get instant access to the men's and women's tournaments. Starting at just $4.99. You can catch all the action on TNT, TBS, ESPN and ESPN2. Want even more hoops? Then add an extra pack to your subscription for just $1. No overpaying, no over committing. Just tournaments so crazy they'd be crazy to miss. Visit sling.com to learn more. Sling lets you do that.
- [78:24]
Tyler Reddick
Tyler Redichier from 23xi Racing. Another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Chumba. Jump in@chumbacasino.com let's shamba.
- [78:33]
Ryan Seacrest
No purchase necessary. BTW group void where prohibited by law. CTNC21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino
- [78:41]
Dan Morgan
I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod.
- [78:43]
Ryan Seacrest
Say hi, Dan.
- [78:44]
Dan Morgan
Hey, how's it going today?
- [78:45]
It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do.
- [78:48]
I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan and Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm.
- [78:54]
That's pretty awesome. I think I saw a billboard of yours recently that said 20 billion one. 20 billion is an insane number.
- [79:03]
Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think Somewhere north. Probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and badder and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on.
- [79:15]
Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident?
- [79:21]
Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. That's £529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call. 24. 7. 365.
- [79:31]
Mick Mulroy
Wow.
- [79:31]
Dan Morgan
Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan, America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the Show.
- [79:35]
Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you.
- [79:46]
Tyler Reddick
Tyler Redick here from 2311. Racing. Game night's fun until someone spends five minutes lining up one sh chalk. Breathe. Rechock. Still aiming. While they figure it out, I fire up Chumba Casino. I can spin anywhere, anytime. And there's always a new social casino game every week. Spins happen way faster than that shot. Play now@chumbacasino.com. let's Chumba.
- [80:10]
Jonathan Hackett
Sponsored by Chumba Casino. No purchase necessary.
- [80:12]
Ryan Seacrest
VGW Group voidware prohibited by Law 21. Terms and conditions apply.
- [80:19]
Dan Morgan
I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod.
- [80:21]
Ryan Seacrest
Say hi, Dan.
- [80:22]
Dan Morgan
Hey. How's it going today?
- [80:23]
It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do.
- [80:26]
I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan and Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm.
- [80:32]
That's pretty awesome. I think I saw a billboard of yours recently that said 20 billion one. 20 billion is an insane number.
- [80:41]
Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think somewhere north. Probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and badder and our army grows. The number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on.
- [80:53]
Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan?
- [80:56]
Jonathan Hackett
What?
- [80:57]
Dan Morgan
What would I do if I got into an accident?
- [80:58]
Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. That's £529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call. 24. 7. 365.
- [81:08]
Mick Mulroy
Wow.
- [81:09]
Dan Morgan
Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan, America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the Show.
- [81:13]
Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you.
- [81:17]
Unidentified Military Analyst
This is Mike Bolow of Lexicon Valley.
- [81:20]
Jonathan Hackett
And I'm Bob Garfield. Are you one of those people who sometimes uses words?
- [81:25]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Do you communicate or acquire information with you know language.
- [81:30]
Dan Morgan
Hey, us too.
- [81:32]
Jonathan Hackett
So join us on Lexicon Valley to
- [81:34]
Mick Mulroy
chew over the history, culture and many mysteries of English. Plus some rice cracks.
- [81:41]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Find us on one of those apps apps where people listen to podcasts.
- [81:51]
Tyler Reddick
Tyler reddick here from 2311 Racing. Game night's fun until someone spends five minutes lining up one shot. Chalk, breathe, rechock. Still aiming. While they figure it out, I fire up Champa Casino. I can spin anywhere, anytime. And there's always a new social casino game every week. Spins happen way faster than that shot. Play now@chumbacasino.com let's Chum Them.
- [82:15]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Sponsored by Chumba Casino.
- [82:17]
Ryan Seacrest
No purchase necessary VGW Group void where prohibited by law 21 terms and conditions apply.
- [82:24]
Dan Morgan
I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod.
- [82:26]
Ryan Seacrest
Say hi, Dan.
- [82:27]
Dan Morgan
Hey, how's it going today?
- [82:28]
It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do.
- [82:31]
I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan and Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm.
- [82:37]
That's pretty awesome. I think I saw a billboard of yours recently that said 20 billion one. 20 billion is an insane number.
- [82:46]
Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think somewhere north. Probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and badder and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on.
- [82:59]
Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident?
- [83:04]
Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. That's £529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call. 247 365.
- [83:14]
Mick Mulroy
Wow.
- [83:14]
Dan Morgan
Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan, America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show.
- [83:18]
Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you.
- [83:22]
Ryan Seacrest
Hi, this is Alex Canceroitz. I'm the host of Big Technology podcast, a longtime reporter and an on air contributor to cnbc. And if you're like me, you're trying to figure out how artificial intelligence is changing the business world and our lives. So each week on Big Technology, I bring on key actors from companies building AI tech and outsiders trying to influence it, asking where this is all going. They come from places like Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and plenty more. So if you want to be smart with your wallet, your career choices, in meetings with your colleagues and at dinner parties, listen to big technology podcasts. Wherever you get your podcasts.
- [84:02]
Dan Morgan
Hey, it's Cole Swindell.
- [84:04]
Jonathan Hackett
After I give everything I've got to
- [84:05]
Dan Morgan
land a perfect vocal, I usually take five before jumping into the next track.
- [84:10]
Jonathan Hackett
And I've learned exactly how to recharge in that time.
- [84:13]
Dan Morgan
Some folks grab coffee, I hit a
- [84:15]
Jonathan Hackett
quick good luck spin.
- [84:16]
Ryan Seacrest
Next thing you know, the break is
- [84:18]
Dan Morgan
just as fun as laying down the track. A better break makes for a better take. Need a break? Let's Chumba.
- [84:24]
Ryan Seacrest
No purchase necessary. BTW group void, we're prohibited by law 21 TNC supply sponsored by Chumba Casino.
- [84:34]
Dan Morgan
I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod.
- [84:36]
Ryan Seacrest
Say hi, Dan.
- [84:37]
Dan Morgan
Hey, how's it going today?
- [84:38]
It's going good, man. Tell us who you are and what you do.
- [84:41]
I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan and Morgan, which is America, America's largest injury law firm.
- [84:48]
That's pretty awesome. I think I saw a billboard of yours recently that said 20 billion won. 20 billion is an insane number.
- [84:56]
Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think somewhere north. Probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and badder and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on.
- [85:09]
Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident?
- [85:14]
Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. That's £529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call. 247 365.
- [85:24]
Wow. Dan Morgan from Morgan and Morgan, America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show.
- [85:29]
Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an office near you.
- [85:33]
Unidentified Military Analyst
This is Mike Bolo of Lexicon Valley
- [85:35]
Jonathan Hackett
and I'm Bob Garfield. Are you one of those people who sometimes uses words?
- [85:40]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Do you communicate or acquire information with, you know, language? Hey, us too.
- [85:48]
Jonathan Hackett
So join us on Lexicon Valley to
- [85:50]
Mick Mulroy
chew over the history, culture and many mysteries of English. Plus some wisecracks.
- [85:56]
Unidentified Military Analyst
Find us on one of those apps where people listen to podcasts.
- [86:09]
Tyler Reddick
Tyler redick here from 2311 Racing. Another checkered flag for the books. Time to celebrate with Chumba. Jump in@chumbacasino.com let's shamba.
- [86:18]
Ryan Seacrest
No purchase necessary. BTW group void, we're prohibited by mob. CTNC's 21 plus, sponsored by Chumba Casino.
- [86:26]
Dan Morgan
I've got Dan Morgan here on the pod.
- [86:28]
Ryan Seacrest
Say hi, Dan.
- [86:29]
Dan Morgan
Hey, how's it going today?
- [86:30]
It's going good. Man, tell us who you are and what you do.
- [86:33]
I'm Dan Morgan. I'm an attorney and a managing partner at Morgan and Morgan, which is America's largest injury law firm.
- [86:39]
That's pretty awesome. I think I saw a billboard of yours recently. It said 20 billion one. 20 billion is an insane number.
- [86:48]
Yeah, 20 billion recovered. It's actually, I think somewhere north. Probably closer to 22, 23 after this year. And each year we get bigger and better and our army grows. So the number will hopefully keep getting bigger and bigger as time goes on.
- [87:00]
Awesome. So how does someone get in contact with Morgan and Morgan? What would I do if I got into an accident?
- [87:06]
Probably the easiest way is dialing pound law. That's £529 from your cell phone. We are always open. Our call center is always waiting to take your call. 24. 7365 wow.
- [87:16]
Dan Morgan from Morgan Morgan, America's largest injury law firm. Thanks for coming by the show.
- [87:20]
Thanks for having me. Visit forthepeople.com for an offer.
- [87:24]
Health PSA Announcer
You're jamming your favorite song, and while you aren't missing a beat, you could be missing a signal from your body. It's an SOS from your kidneys and it doesn't sound like music at all. It's silent. High blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and other risk factors can quietly stress the kidneys, leading to negative impacts on the heart. That's why you should ask your doctor about a simple urine test called uacr. Most miss the signal for hidden kidney disease and related heart risk. You shouldn't visit detectthesos.com today to learn more.
- [87:57]
Ryan Seacrest
It's tax season, and by now we're all a bit tired of numbers. But here's an important one. You need to $16 billion. That's how much money in refunds the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud. But it's not all grim news. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second and 11 alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com iheart Terms apply.
- [88:27]
Mick Mulroy
Here's the truth.
- [88:28]
Ryan Seacrest
You could literally be adored by everyone and then come home and still get
- [88:31]
Unidentified Military Analyst
completely ignored by your own cat.
- [88:33]
Ryan Seacrest
It's classic cat behavior, but new Shiba Premium Puree is a lickable treat that changes all that. They're protein rich, made with bone broth and have the smooth, creamy texture cats go crazy for. Especially when it's hand fed. Yeah, it's more than a treat. It's a fast pass to favorite human status. So feed your cat Sheba and go from totally ignored to truly adored in just 12 days.
- [88:56]
Mick Mulroy
Guaranteed or your money back.
- [88:58]
Tyler Reddick
Learn more@shiba.com Tyler Redick here from 2311 Racing, Victory Lane. Yeah, it's even better with Chumba by my side. Race to chumbacasino.com let's Chumba.
- [89:10]
Ryan Seacrest
No purchase necessary. VTW Group void where prohibited by law. CTNCs 21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino.