CDR Michael (Mike) Zimmerman, USN Ret. 3X Defense Meritorious Service Medal recipient brings Iran, POTUS, and current military intel into Sharp Focus!

Our guest Michael Zimmerman is a retired Navy Commander, who talked about his support of the Iran War, POTUS, plus he answered questions from Lancaster residents.

He has been decorated with several awards, including the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, three times.

He is currently a Data Scientist contractor for the US Army and President of Maztech Consulting. 

He lives in Lititz with his wife and three children.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:01

Welcome to Kat's Candid Conversations. Kat Aquino is an award-winning journalist who has interviewed compelling people and organizations from around the world who make a difference.

SPEAKER_04 0:12

Our guest, Michael Zimmerman, is a retired Navy commander. He has been decorated with several awards, including the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, three times. He is currently a data scientist contractor for the U.S. Army and president of Masstech Consulting. He lives in Libitz with his wife and three children. Welcome, Mike.

SPEAKER_00 0:35

Thank you, Kent. Pleasure to be here.

unknown 0:37

Good.

SPEAKER_04 0:37

We'll get right into it. President Trump said we're not going to have boots on the ground. At least he doesn't want to, but he opened the possibility. So we're wondering if you're sending those troops to the region, does that mean we're going to have boots on the ground in Iran? Are we going to go to the Strait of Hormuz? I mean, what are we to think about?

SPEAKER_00 1:02

Okay, so first off, there's the the there's the current conditions of the combat. Our our youth, our our sons and daughters, like I keep saying, and our grandkids and our nieces and nephews are operating at an operational tempo which is second to none. They're dead tired. We're talking about constant 14-hour to 18-hour days, lack of sleep, constant aircraft carrier launches, constant air operations, constant refueling, constant as well.

SPEAKER_04 1:34

On the aircraft carrier.

SPEAKER_00 1:35

Exactly. And on the ground as well. The crew chiefs are working 18, 20 hour days exhausted. The pilots are getting their minimum sleep, and then they're getting back in the aircraft again. So for the people of the U.S. citizen needs to understand and be absolutely exact absolutely in awe of what our sons and daughters are doing right now. That's my real um focus is the men and women who are fighting this war right now and the lack of casualties, the lack of accidents. There have been more aviation accidents in America, general aviation, over the past 15 days than there have been in a war of constant 24-7. The most dangerous place to work in the world is the deck of an aircraft carrier.

SPEAKER_04 2:28

Why is that?

SPEAKER_00 2:29

It's because of the nature of the environment. It's constant, constant aircraft landing, constant aircraft taking off. There's a possibility of debris being on the on the flight deck. There's people are moving in and out. If you've ever seen a watch, I would recommend to the public watch a video of the ballet which takes place on an aircraft carrier deck. It's a ballet. In the night, right? In the dark, seven foot, ten-foot waves, carrier deck going up and down, extremely dangerous environment with jets moving and taking off, jet blasts there, and everything is in is going accordingly. It's amazing the amount of the focus and the uh the work ethic and the the performance of these men and women.

SPEAKER_04 3:14

Well you say our sons and daughters are going to war, but what is the goal of this war?

SPEAKER_00 3:21

So I only have to go, yeah, I only can only we can only defer to what the Secretary of War and the President say are the goals. So conceivably in in what's being released, the first goal was already met the elimination of the nuclear capabilities of Iran's nuclear capabilities, right? Conceivably so from what we're all the report were being reported by U.S. Central Command and by Secretary of War, Iran's nuclear capabilities are gone. That was the initial stated goal.

SPEAKER_04 3:51

What do you mean they're gone? Where were they? I thought we obliterated them.

SPEAKER_00 3:54

That's what I mean. They're gone. They're they're obliterated.

SPEAKER_04 3:56

Well oh, so we didn't go in there to take away more nuclear.

SPEAKER_00 4:01

We did, yes, we did.

SPEAKER_04 4:02

So when you I don't know about seven months ago, um we went we went in and we obliterated the their nuclear capacity.

SPEAKER_00 4:11

Well, obviously we had to go back again, right? Otherwise, they would not have told the told the Iran would not have made public that we are 60% processed for uranium, okay? Meaning that they said that. They said that. And so that well, they have to be poured, right? So if if a if a regime like Iran says we are 60% fulfilled in processing for uranium, what do you really think they are, right? They're gonna minimize, right? Because they they're they they've their stated objectives were for um processing of uh plutonium and uranium was was not for energy. It was for a weapon. We had no choice. Right.

SPEAKER_04 4:55

And we eliminated that.

SPEAKER_00 4:57

And this and the experts regarding processing said even at 60 percent, that would have been they were close to being 60 percent. At 60 percent, that would have allowed Iran, the regime, the current regime, to manufacture 50 atomic weapons the size of what the blast in Hiroshima.

SPEAKER_04 5:17

And we recently obliterated that?

SPEAKER_00 5:19

Yes, we did. According to according to the reports we we we were we were being given, yes.

SPEAKER_04 5:23

What reports?

SPEAKER_00 5:25

Uh what the Secretary of War said and what you and I said, United States Central Comm Central Command said and the president, yeah.

SPEAKER_04 5:31

So they said as a fact, we've eliminated 60 percent.

SPEAKER_00 5:35

We've eliminated all their nuclear capabilities. Recently, yes, of the past 15 days.

SPEAKER_04 5:40

Where were they located? And how did they no idea?

SPEAKER_00 5:43

I'd have to look that up. Uh that's some of that's classified, um, and some um frankly, I don't know exactly where, but but around Tehran, probably.

SPEAKER_04 5:52

Okay, if there's in a report that we eliminated 60 percent.

SPEAKER_00 5:56

Right.

SPEAKER_04 5:56

And what's the second one, the second goal?

SPEAKER_00 5:59

As stated by the president, it's to um eliminate a lot of Iran's military order of battle, which means their function, their their ability to function as a uh coherent and well-performing military operations.

SPEAKER_04 6:16

Which we already talked about.

SPEAKER_00 6:17

Right.

SPEAKER_04 6:18

What is the third goal?

SPEAKER_00 6:20

I think this well it's pretty it's pretty much implied the third goal is to open the Strait of Hormuz, right? Make sure maintain maintain a free waterway and free traffic, right? Free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

SPEAKER_04 6:33

And today the news came out that they're threatening each other.

SPEAKER_00 6:37

Who's that?

SPEAKER_04 6:38

Uh they said exactly, I'll give you the quote, um, Trump saying today, Sunday, the country had 48 hours, or it will target its power plants, and Iran's military said it will target our key infrastructure belonging to the US and Israel in the region. So they're threatening each other. If you do this, we'll do that.

SPEAKER_00 7:02

That's war, right? It's not exactly uh diplomatic negotiations.

SPEAKER_04 7:07

What are your thoughts on it?

SPEAKER_00 7:08

My thoughts on the flow, the free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz is absolutely necessary for the world economy, right? It's also necessary for the uh Gulf states, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, in all Kuwait, even Iraq, right? Um, the Strait of Hormuz has always been the choke point for the flow of oil out of the Middle East. And Iran has owned that pretty much, owned, has de facto owned the Strait of Hormuz and in for what 45 years? The current threat exists in not their aircraft, some of their missile systems, which have been taken out. There's their surface warfare, surface-to-surface missiles, meaning anti anti-surface warfare, um, anti-ship missiles have been taken out. They were they were very much uh embedded, and we use large large penetrating bombs to take out those those missile sites. To back up, the current existing threat is really the nature of modern warfare, which is drones, fast moving drones, fast moving air drones, fast moving surface drones, even fast moving subsurface drones. And uh the RGC Navy actually also has has always um tried to bully and cause havoc in the Strait of Hormuz with their fast-moving attack boats, very small attack boats, right? So why small? Because if you're if you've been watching modern war movies, for instance, everything's about radar, right? Small and mobile, can't see it on radar too easily, right? Drone swarms, can't really see them on and can't really see them on radar too easily. And if you do, now you need to take out these, you know, the size of the the typical drone that you can put in your backyard. And one of the biggest threats that I was has really concerned me personally is a small drone carrying this five-pound little missile. Doesn't deal much damage, right? Unless you fire it into a tanker full of oil. One, right? The tankers are so vulnerable to attack, Kat, that that's why the companies and frankly even the crews on the on the bridges are not being able are not going through or being permitted to go through the Strait of Hormouths.

SPEAKER_03 9:34

So how are we gonna open it up?

SPEAKER_00 9:36

So you asked about the MEF, the Marine Expeditionary Force headed that way. Um so as far as boots on the ground, a mer the mission of a marine expeditionary force is not to invade Iran. They have 2,200 perhaps Marines, combat Marines, right? That's not enough to invade Iran, right? Those are tactical missions. They also bring with them more Apache helicopters, they also bring with them drone capabilities. Marine expeditionary forces are extremely tactical and extremely resourceful. If if if if freighters need to be boarded, if vessels need to be boarded, the Marines are right in there, right? If I'm not going to go into potential operational security issues that I would consider operational security, but the marine expeditionary forces could invade an island, go in, strike, and get get right back.

SPEAKER_04 10:31

You like the Kerr Island?

SPEAKER_00 10:32

Carg island, yeah. Yeah, exactly. You're right.

SPEAKER_04 10:35

But once they get out, Iran can get right back in there.

SPEAKER_00 10:38

Maybe. But with to do what? To rebuild? Well, while they're rebuilding, guess what's going to happen to them? Here come the Apaches. Here come the A10 Warthogs. So opening up hormones, we'd use drones or so to open up the Strait of Hormuz, we have got to mitigate the threat of the drones, mitigate the threat of the fast attack boats, and mitigate the threat of any subsurface threats, meaning if if Iran's.

SPEAKER_03 11:16

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 11:17

And you saw some of that was revealed by I think a frigate or a uh cruiser, I'm not sure what size it was, but using lasers, right? Also keep in mind that what 2,000 drones and missiles have been have been um targeted Bahrain, and only about and 90 93% of them were shot down using what technology? I don't know. Do you it's not in the media, is it, is it? So no, it's not yeah, but it's there. It's there. 2,000 attacks, 2,000 missiles and or drone attacks, John Swarms against Bahrain. They're their their southern neighbor, Iran's southern neighbor, right? 93% shot down.

SPEAKER_04 12:00

That's a big percentage.

SPEAKER_00 12:02

That's also a a mark to the uh to the performance and the talent of the engineers who designed those systems.

SPEAKER_04 12:09

93%.

SPEAKER_00 12:10

93%.

SPEAKER_04 12:11

Interesting. I don't know that we're being told that. We just see the pictures of day. Oh, okay.

SPEAKER_00 12:19

I read it in Alge Zero.

SPEAKER_04 12:21

Ah, interesting. Because we just see the the hotels burning, you're like, it got through, it got through, but 93% didn't get through.

SPEAKER_00 12:27

Yeah, drama and negativity works, right?

SPEAKER_04 12:31

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 12:31

Drama and negativity works. Fires work, explosions work. There are no embedded reporters anywhere on with any American operations, are there?

SPEAKER_04 12:41

Oh, there's no reporters there at all.

SPEAKER_00 12:43

Because there's no ground troops. How can you embed what you're gonna do? You can't put them on the back of a of an F-35 now, can you? Good point. How would the United States or Israel I'm not defending this, but let's just talk to process, right? How would the intelligence community know that the missile systems seven months ago were eliminated and now they're 60%?

SPEAKER_03 13:06

How would they know? Exactly.

SPEAKER_00 13:08

The only way you're gonna know that is two ways, three ways. Through intelligence. It was obliterated. It was they said it was obliterated. Maybe they did not get all the intelligence finalized, maybe they got new intelligence. It's constant flowing. So what happens is the only way that anybody will possibly know what Iran's capabilities are is number one, we have an inside source or leadership, right? If there's Israel or America or whatever country has a source inside Tehran or satellites, right? But satellites can only see so much. The other way is just gather general gathering of intelligence. So as for the intelligence life cycle, perhaps we got it wrong. I can only is I can only make those assumptions. I can't defend what D and I just said, and I can't uh defend what the president said.

SPEAKER_04 13:56

That she can't say there's an imminent threat and that we obliterated. So the word that goes back to that's the it gets confusing, and that's why the public gets confused. Like what's really going on.

SPEAKER_00 14:09

Understood. Understood.

SPEAKER_04 14:11

You said there's a report. I haven't seen the report. I haven't read anything, have you, Danielle? Of the 60 percent that they just oh that's that was analogy zero.

SPEAKER_00 14:23

That's everything I'm reading in the in the paper that's 60 percent. They were they were near 60 percent, and if they received if they were able to process 60 percent, that equates to an eye-opening 50 potential suitcase nukes or small bombs on the side of an ICD.

SPEAKER_03 14:40

I have no idea.

SPEAKER_00 14:40

I'm not I'm not a nuclear guy, so I have no idea.

unknown 14:43

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 14:44

I have no idea.

SPEAKER_02 14:45

Well, you mentioned Israeli intelligence. Hasn't DBNet Yahoo been warning us for like 30 years that they're a week away from the bomb, but it's always like a week away. I mean, I'm exaggerating and paraphrasing.

SPEAKER_00 14:56

I don't know, but also this is the also yours what's your perspective is. So the perspective of of I don't believe anything the administration says, or you are there's there's is the perspective I'm full on board of Iran regime change and therefore eliminating any potential threat to our children. And if the president says it and the IC says it, the intelligence community says it, then it then we have to uh you know have faith in what they said. Are we are we right to question them? Absolutely. That's we're Americans. That's called the First Amendment.

SPEAKER_04 15:27

I don't So Danielle also has a question about the recently he resigned Joe Kent from his position, and Danielle has a question about him because he was working intelligence, right, Danielle?

SPEAKER_00 15:43

He was working, he was a counter-terrorism chief.

SPEAKER_04 15:45

Exactly. So he resigned, and Danielle has a question.

SPEAKER_02 15:49

Well, I mean, I'm just building off the same thing. Do you do you take his word? He he also said there was no imminent threat, and I I would think he'd be in a position to vouch for that.

SPEAKER_00 15:59

From the counterterrorism office? Maybe not. I mean, he's not he does he does not work in Langley, he's he's homeland security counterintelligence, counter-terrorism, right? Um I don't know the man, but um my questi first question is having worked in the in the Pentagon stuff, that uh why was the how does the defense counterterrorism chief know everything the CIA does, the DIA does, and the Pentagon does. Um so again, keep it's it's the it's Washington, right? Um I'm sorry. Um I am sc kind of cynical over every every president, whether a Democrat or Republican, has you know, defense has has to take a defensive posture because they're always being attacked, right? There's always the opposition, and it should be, right? So maybe Mr. Kent was bitter, I don't know. Maybe he was telling the truth that he thought there was no imminent threat. And if he was under oath and he said there was no imminent threat that he knew of, well then I'm I'm sure he did that's what he really believed, right?

SPEAKER_02 17:04

Well, I mean from the interview I watched of uh Mr. Kent, it sounds like he's a staunch supporter of the president even now, even though he resigned and kind of in protest of this war.

SPEAKER_04 17:14

Well he kind of alleged that Israel pushed that's where I was going with it. You know the rhetoric that Israel pushed us into it.

SPEAKER_00 17:25

So we're getting back to what I was talking about. Without you being able to know all the intelligence, I'm not hiding behind it, okay? There's a reason why intelligence, I I personally I think there's too much classification in intelligence work.

SPEAKER_03 17:40

In what way?

SPEAKER_00 17:41

Well, I think the public needs to have m access to more information, but what kind of information do you think the public needs to know? Well, let's for let's take f for instance, there are probably thousands of uh men and women in America who have the same clearance as I do, which are you know good really high clearances.

SPEAKER_04 18:02

You still have the clearance today?

SPEAKER_00 18:04

Yeah, I do. Okay. So um but that said, sometimes we uh previous administrations have been able to hide behind that, call things classified, right? I can give you specific examples, but I have to think about that, all right. Um but uh I've noticed a lot of times it's easy to hide behind that classification level, counterintelligence or counter um counterterrorism, right? For instance, all the accusations that was made against Mr. Trump about being a Russian Russia gate, that was all done behind the curtain of counterintelligence because that allows things to operate and things to happen without the purview of the American public or even Congress.

SPEAKER_04 18:49

What exactly happened?

SPEAKER_00 18:50

So it's not a real example, historical example.

SPEAKER_04 18:54

Well, according to Joe Kenneth, they stopped the investigation into Charlie Kirk's death. You're saying that we should go ahead with investigations to find out what happened, correct?

SPEAKER_00 19:08

That's up to the American citizen and the American voter. My opinions don't really matter or whether we should chase after that. I mean, I don't even have an opinion on that. But do you believe we should investigate if there's corruption, yes, corruption, absolutely. Thomas Jefferson has has a quote attributed to him the common the common enemy of the people are politicians, the government, the government and criminals. So let's use the Constitution to make sure the the politicians don't become the criminals. We make sure the government does not become the criminals. Make sense?

SPEAKER_04 19:40

Makes sense.

SPEAKER_00 19:41

That's exactly how I work.

SPEAKER_04 19:42

And that's why we have the vote.

SPEAKER_00 19:44

I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat, if you're corrupt, yeah. Again, I swore an oath to the Constitution, and that's that's my almost somewhat polyannished point of view, but I don't care. That's that's you know, I am very anti-corruption.

SPEAKER_04 19:58

It's not always easy to find the corruption or do something about it.

SPEAKER_00 20:04

No, it's not. 1920s Chicago, right?

SPEAKER_04 20:07

Right, right, right, right.

SPEAKER_02 20:08

All right. Yeah, just to wrap up the camp section. One of the things he said during his interview was that Israel and America have different objectives. Now you mentioned regime change is one of the objectives, and he he made it clear he's not anti-Israeli at all. He's worked with intelligence in Israel, and he said if he were in their shoes, he would feel the same way. So, but one of these things he said, regime change is in their best interest. It's not necessarily in ours because it could prolong draw us in further into the war. Would would you agree with that?

SPEAKER_00 20:42

No.

SPEAKER_02 20:42

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 20:43

No, it's in our it's it is in the world's best interest to remove this regime.

SPEAKER_04 20:46

How do you remove it without a prolonged war and not having boots on the ground?

SPEAKER_00 20:51

Great question. So we're we're agrees. We're going to debate them. Can I address that question first?

SPEAKER_01 20:57

Right.

SPEAKER_00 20:58

Sure. Okay. If this country, America, was facing the imminent, constant, imminent threat of sirens, missiles, terrorism, so on and so forth, I guarantee you that we would not tolerate it.

SPEAKER_03 21:14

Sure.

SPEAKER_00 21:14

And we shouldn't, right? We would not tolerate it. Look what happened after 9-11. Within weeks, right? Within weeks where we're in action, right? Israel has to go through a 9-11 almost every month. Not not necessarily in the casualty rate, but as far as the threat, right? So of course they have different um goals and objectives than we do. It's called survival, right? We're we're nice and comfy here in this nice living room.

SPEAKER_04 21:41

We're distracted.

SPEAKER_00 21:42

Exactly. We don't have to worry about a bomb being on our kids' school bus tomorrow morning, do we? It's called survival, right? So they of course they're going to hope that America helps them remove the threat, and we always have, right, for their survival. During my during my dispeeches. I've been giving lately, I always come out with one phrase: a reminder to the American people. We are a good people. We are the redeeming nation. Now you're gonna have to typically drag this democracy, this republic, in kicking and screaming into war, and threatening and putting our sons and daughters' lives at stake. But we are the redeeming nation. We represent democracy the last hope, like Mr. Reagan said. The last hope. And so we have an alternative objective than the Israelis do, or the French do, or the Spanish do, or the Germans do, right? And that is our own American objective. So of course we have different objectives than Israel. That's natural. Because everyone knows that every country spies on each other, even their friends, right? We have to.

SPEAKER_02 22:49

Okay, so assuming regime changes is in our best interest, how do we how do we not guarantee, but what I'm trying to ask is that how do we ensure that something that doesn't even worse doesn't go into power in Iran? Like what do we replace that regime with is my question, and how do we keep that sustainable?

SPEAKER_00 23:08

So let me ask you a question. Yeah. What could possibly be worse?

SPEAKER_02 23:12

Would you say like the regime that's currently in control in Syria and Libya right now are better than when Qaddafi and uh Bashar al-Assad were there?

SPEAKER_00 23:21

Oh no, not whatsoever.

SPEAKER_02 23:23

They're they're worse.

SPEAKER_00 23:24

They're far worse.

SPEAKER_02 23:25

They were controlled by Al-Qaeda and other territories.

SPEAKER_00 23:28

Al Qaeda and ISIS groups, right? So exactly.

SPEAKER_02 23:29

Isn't there a concern it could happen also in Iran?

SPEAKER_00 23:32

Well, frankly, the the current Iranian regime is worse than even the current the when the before the Ayatollah was was killed, their that regime was still far worse than what what Syria has right now, right?

SPEAKER_04 23:46

So we agree with that. So so how do we go about changing that?

SPEAKER_00 23:51

I smile because I go back to 1980s when I when I was at Pitt. I w I actually had a class in Middle East and Middle East politics. And Dr. Richard Cottham, you can look him up. He was a great man, and uh he was the professor of Middle East politics class. And why this the story has a point. He was the last Westerner to leave Tehran in 1979. And as I got to know the man, it was becoming obvious to me, even as a young person, that there's a reason why he was the last person there in Tehran, right? In the M in the embassy. And he gave me, he told me a story, and we were sitting in a student union one day, and he said, uh, well, the uh he had to call the FBI because he knew Farsi, and there were two gentlemen on the opposite side of this, all this, you know, plants and stuff in the uh in the student union having lunch, and they were talking about him and Farsi. Night, you know, it's mid-80s, right? So lo and behold, he called the FBI. So the point is, of my story is at the end of every Middle East politics class, there was a capstone event and a political war game, a political war game on how to overthrow the regime. That was the mid-80s. Interesting. And the playbook is still the same. What's the playbook? The playbook is you have the the the people, the population, the Iranian population, overthrow the regime. That's the only way, really, truly. Without boots on the ground, without a full-fledged, full-scale invasion, which will be, you know, there's still no guarantee on the results of that.

SPEAKER_04 25:34

Are they scared to go out there after so many have been killed? Of course they are. Their homes are being bombed?

SPEAKER_00 25:41

Of course. Well, look. Are their homes being bombed?

SPEAKER_04 25:44

Are they?

SPEAKER_00 25:44

Not by us, not apparently. That's a beauty for that's the beauty going back to the performance of our sons and daughters and nephews and nieces overseas right now. The precise precision targeting without incurring civilian population. Whereas Iran's doing what? Firing drones and missiles into cities in Bahrain.

SPEAKER_04 26:04

So you're saying So if I can.

SPEAKER_00 26:06

So the what the the the the one way to do to have the regime overthrown is, let's face it, we were close to the potential of an overthrow of the regime before the Iranians, during the protests, which incurred the fact that the Iranian security services killed 32,000 of their own people for a reason, right? The youth of Iran, the intellectuals of Iran, tired of the current regime, right? Now we need this the the world, the free world, needs to support them, but now you have to how are you going to support that without a full-on-scale invasion or having intelligence assets on the ground, right? Added to the fact that Iran the regime has shut down pretty much all internet, right? So it's kind of hard to communicate. So there's only certain ways you can communicate with that and support them. The Kurds. So the Kurds have always, the Peshmerga in particular, the Kurds have always wanted their own Kurdistan. They exist in northwestern Iran and northeastern Iraq, southern Turkey, right? I have told friends if the Kurds move, that's a good sign. That's your first sign. Not only that, but the the Shahs of Iran's son in exile here in America, I guess Reza Pabli, he, if you look at his website, I would I would I would actually recommend to all your viewers or all your listeners to look at his website. You also get a good indication of what's happening there. He is on his way on his website, sponsored by America, right? Is and um telling his uh his followers in Iran, patience, wait for the time, the time is nigh, right? So in order to meet that objective, it has to happen internally. One way would be the parish merger, which is the the paramilitary arm of the Kurds.

SPEAKER_04 28:03

How many are there?

SPEAKER_00 28:04

I don't know. I think there's probably 15,000. Um, if you look on their website, uh you look up the news, you can see that they're training right now.

SPEAKER_04 28:14

But 15,000 against how many of the so that that goes back to the next question, okay?

SPEAKER_00 28:21

There's the IRGC, which are kind of the which are the zealots of the Iranian military. They had their own Marines, they had their own navy, they had their own army. They're kind of like if you a good analogy for them would be you had Nazi Germany, you had the Wehrmacht, the regular army, and then you had the SS, right? And the SS were the ideological zealots. Well, RGC is akin to that, right?

SPEAKER_01 28:45

Yes.

SPEAKER_00 28:46

What are we targeting right now, especially in the Southern Front? We're targeting the RGC. The Israelis are targeting the IGC. The Israelis were also targeting these national security services, which would free up and remove some of the threats, mitigate some of the threats against a population who might rise up and rebuild. Now the key is the Artesh. The Ritesh is the regular Iranian army. And by the way, they're I think they're 40 to 50 percent conscripts, meaning they're drafted. In every revolution, the key is always what? The army, the military, right? If you can win them over, you have a chance. So there's three keys. The Kurds, in my humble, in my humble opinion, the Kurds, the Peshmerga, meaning the Peshmerga of the Kurds, the citizens themselves, and the Artesh, the army, right? In order to enable them enable to uh mitigate the threats and enable them, obviously they're gonna need weapons, resources, money, and frankly, the ability and the uh the objective and the motivation and the courage to do it.

SPEAKER_04 29:57

Okay, so I'd like to um kind of end. I have some questions from the locals who live in Lancaster. Sure. Who wrote in some questions for me? So Bill Glarte, I hope I pronounced your name right, from Manor Township asked, what would be the best possible outcome for the United States? And what would be the worst possible outcome? And then his second question he has is it a realistic possibility to maintain stability in that region after all is said and done?

SPEAKER_00 30:34

Let's go to the worst case scenario. Worst case scenario is open source intelligence and uh meaning the new new the news media and uh reports tell us that there are terrorist cells here in America right now. Worst case scenario is a lot of lone wolf attacks and or God forbid, a no-kidding organized attack, 9-11 style. That's when it happens. Then the 82nd is on board of planes, then we're moving, right? The American people would demand it. You kill Americans here on our soil, then we will end up with boots on the ground, potentially. That's the worst case scenario, right? The other worst case scenario is alternatively, we missed some nuclear possibilities. Hezbollah or Hamas Horizus now has a nuke, given the Timber Iran. Highly unlikely. That's another those are the two worst-case scenarios. Best case scenario, regime change. Regime change internally, that brings what the gentleman was talking about stability in the region. Don't forget that over since 2009, the Saudis and the Qataris and the and the the uh the Emiratis have been asking America for a nuclear deterrent. They have been asking, they saw us disappear from the region. They saw us aiding and abetting the Iranian regime with billions of dollars. They wanted, I mean, they live with the threat, just much like Israel, right? They're Sunni, except for Qatar, and Ron Shia. That that war has been going on for since what 600s, right? So considering all that, the Saudis and those other the regional, the strong actors in the region, have been asking America for a nuclear deterrent to allow them to purchase nuclear weapons as a deterrent to Iran. So there has not been stability in that region in the Straight Hormos of the Persian Gulf since 1979. The way you bring about stability in a region and the free flow of oil and LNG, natural gas, liquid natural gas, to empower even China's economy, to empower European economy, and to empower Asia's economy is a regime change in the free flow flow of trade. I uh I am adamant that Mr. Trump says and he knows, war is bad for business. War is bad for business.

SPEAKER_04 33:06

How much of this war has to do with oil? Some people think it's the reason we're at war is for oil.

SPEAKER_00 33:15

Not in America. We only get 10, 10, 20 percent of our oil from that. We can we can survive just fine. In fact, you know what? If the Strait of Horn Moose was closed permanently, there's a lot of people in America to get real rich. Right? Drill baby drill, right? So so that's not that's not a case, a use case of like, well, Americans are afraid because of saying that, well, we just need the oil. No, we don't. No, we're not anymore. No, we do not. China needs oil. What was who is China's that that mass economy, right? Who, by the way, they won't come to the trade table? Well, who was who what what's two countries, who would who are China's number one and number two sources of of oil?

SPEAKER_03 34:00

Venice.

SPEAKER_00 34:00

Venezuela and Iran. Oopsie.

SPEAKER_04 34:04

Geopolitics.

SPEAKER_00 34:05

Geopolitics for business.

SPEAKER_04 34:08

Do you think that's one of the reasons why Trump went into Venezuela?

SPEAKER_00 34:14

I think Mr. Trump, and um, if you put aside his the things he says, if you put aside just to the heart of the man, okay, the heart of the man, he really believes in democracy and he really believes in goodness, and he is trying to remove threats to our children and his children.

SPEAKER_04 34:34

Have you met President Trump? You you really hesitated on that one. Um was there a reason you hesitated?

SPEAKER_00 34:41

So Mr. Trump really, um he really believes in in removal of the threats to American citizens. I have often told people that even back in 2016, if you kill an American on this planet, whether or not that American loves Trump or hates him, your time on this planet is numbered. Numbered.

SPEAKER_04 35:04

You know people who have met him and interacted with him, correct?

SPEAKER_00 35:08

Oh, yeah, and I worked at the Pentagon under Trump, yeah. So yeah.

SPEAKER_04 35:11

But you haven't met him personally yet?

SPEAKER_00 35:13

Not on a personal basis, no.

SPEAKER_04 35:15

But you've heard a lot about people who absolutely and they're very positive. Absolutely. And that's why.

SPEAKER_00 35:21

Well, he's a polarizing character. I mean, so I have friends who this is a funny story, a true story. Let's let's line up a little bit about New Yorkers, right? No offense to any New Yorkers out there, right? I have many NYPD friends who were Navy reserves, especially after 9-11. I mean, they NYPD and the New York Fire Department, they just came rushing to serve, right? I even had the assistant district attorney of Manhattan enlist as an E-5. And we were telling him, you understand that when you get deployed as an E-5, that you know, that the that East Village down in the East Side um condo, our apartment is gone. Didn't care. Didn't care. The assistant DA Manhattan and enlisted, right? So my point is, but those same people, my NYPD friends, they say, you know, you walk up to a guy, you all police officer in New York and say, excuse me, officer, what time is it? What time is it? You know what I say? He'll say, Well, you don't own an F and watch, right? Do you see the point? It's just New Yorkers. And Mr. Trump is, above all, a pure New Yorker, right? Interesting point.

SPEAKER_04 36:32

All right, let's move on. Um, Frank Fico of Lankeaster asks, When do you think the war will end? Uh, what is a realistic time frame?

SPEAKER_00 36:44

All military operations all must have an objective. A clear objective with clear rules of engagement, with clear, no-kidding plans, right? Otherwise, it turns into, what's that favorite word of American military operations? Quagmire.

SPEAKER_03 37:05

I was gonna say quagmire.

SPEAKER_00 37:06

Exactly. So when does it end? When we meet our objectives. We have military objectives, we have geopolitical objectives, we have economic objectives, straight our moves, and we have political objectives. In Washington, which one wins? Short term, the military objectives do. Then come the congressional hearings, then comes the media, then comes the political pressure, and then comes the economic pressure. So honestly, that is completely up to the national authorities, right? That's completely up to the national authorities to what are the objectives that need to be stated clearly to the American people once those objectives are met. And I will tell you, I am full in favor of watering down those objectives. If we know intelligence-wise, there's a potential for regime change, then man, you just keep this on. You keep going. Because the benefits of a regime change of a stabilized Iran and a stabilized Persian Gulf region are enormous. Enormous. We all in this room will benefit from it.

SPEAKER_03 38:09

How do we benefit?

SPEAKER_00 38:10

Economically. Freedom, right? Can you imagine if we don't have to spend billions of dollars patrolling the Straits of Hamoose like we have been for 49 years? 47 years, whatever it is.

SPEAKER_04 38:22

49.

SPEAKER_00 38:23

Yeah. Can you imagine if that threat is removed? Can you imagine the how the economies even the economy of China will boom and maybe they'll come to the table? Oil.

SPEAKER_03 38:34

I mean, aren't we still going through Hormuz now?

SPEAKER_00 38:37

Well, as at the moment we're not, right?

SPEAKER_03 38:39

Yeah, but before we were.

SPEAKER_00 38:40

Well, so Iran is the not is what uh one of the top five producers of liquid natural gas. They weren't spending the money on their li on the R L and G on their economy. They were spending money on buying weapons. And the proxies. And the proxies. Imagine Israel not not imagine getting on the news every single week and seeing another Israeli attack or attack on Israel. Imagine that. Imagine the ability of our children to be able to live in peace. Now that's a stability. Stability.

SPEAKER_04 39:15

Which is one of the questions. The stability in the region. You can be answered it again.

SPEAKER_00 39:20

Right.

SPEAKER_04 39:20

All right. Um Robert Beltran of Lancaster asks, would you send your children to fight in this war?

SPEAKER_00 39:29

He's asking a man who served for 31 years.

SPEAKER_04 39:32

I know. You really said.

SPEAKER_00 39:34

Yes. Yes. Um now, my for medical reasons, my kids can't. But would they? Yes.

SPEAKER_01 39:39

Right.

SPEAKER_00 39:40

And also keep in mind, I would like again, I'm gonna say it again, I'll reiterate and re on the focus. My focus is support the men and women in uniform who are doing this every day. Do you think every three days, every three days they're allowed to use their phones?

SPEAKER_04 39:56

It's true.

SPEAKER_00 39:57

Do you want them to see America over here saying, why are we there and not supportive of them? By the way, you think they're having fun? They're miserable. The USS Ford aircraft carrier had a fire. They've been at sea far longer than a typical deployment. I was on board an aircraft carrier. I had two deployments for six months, and I was I was so misfortunate. I had all the kind of ports and all over Europe, right? Poor me, right? We had a lot of the deployment was long, it was being away from family, but we still got to port. We still got to let loose, we still got to um relax and get off the boat, right? The Ford, not so much. Then they had to fire, okay? Their morale was low. Everyone's morale is low. In the Navy, we always say one thing a complaining sailor, although although we use a different word, is a happy sailor, right? Because it's not fun, right? But I'll do it again in a heartbeat. A heartbeat. I know men and women I work with every day. You just put us on there, we'll go. Now, now the truth is that the second I land on the aircraft carrier going to take over for those sailors and officers. I'm going, what did I just do? This stinks. This is this is no fun.

SPEAKER_04 41:12

Is it a rumor? Is it not true that the soldiers were dissatisfied and they put they clogged up the toilets and who knows?

SPEAKER_00 41:21

And if they did, that's that's a that's the that's that's a that's a disciplinary issue on board the aircraft carrier. The commanding officer will take care of that. That is not normal. That's not a that's not atypical, that's typical, right? Of of being unhappy. First off, be careful who your source is, right? So there's hybrid warfare out there though. Don't do the work of the enemy to the American people. Do not do the work of the enemy because the enemy right now is their only alternative is for this population to say stop it right now. That's their only possible that's their only possible alternative for regime change. This regime is depending upon the politics of America to change. That's their only hope. Don't let them. Don't do the work of the enemy.

SPEAKER_04 42:09

But you mean it's unpolarized right now?

SPEAKER_00 42:12

Right. And by the way, there's there's foreign intelligence services whose job it is right now to tell you lies. Read my paper about Russian hybrid warfare, right? For instance, there was an exercise in, I think it was um either Ostania or Lithuania that was ended because the Russian the Russian social media and uh hybrid warfare was so good and so effective that mainstream media outlets were announcing that a tank ran over a little kid during an exercise never happened. But an entire NATO exercise came to a screeching halt. Why? Because the media reported that lie.

SPEAKER_04 42:56

The mass media reported.

SPEAKER_00 42:57

The mass media reported.

SPEAKER_04 42:58

The people who believed it.

SPEAKER_00 42:59

Right. What drives me crazy as an information warfare officer is I watch Channel Wake News or I watch the local news and say, what's trending? Why is that news? Just because everyone is reading something, does that make it news? What kind of journalism is that?

unknown 43:14

Right?

SPEAKER_00 43:14

Letting the public announce for you, right? Just like that's kind of offensive. That that offends that should offend all of our uh um sensitivity sensitivities as far as uh what's we're not looking for uh intelligence. That offends my intelligence, right?

SPEAKER_04 43:30

So how do we tell who's reporting correctly and who's not?

SPEAKER_00 43:34

How can we differentiate that's that's a that's a podcast, that's another podcast. Okay, right.

SPEAKER_04 43:40

All right, maybe we'll have you back for that one. All right, so here is Did I answer that question by the way?

SPEAKER_00 43:45

I apologize for the gentleman ahead.

SPEAKER_04 43:47

Uh I believe you did. You said that you would definitely send your children if they could go. Uh Ed of Manor Township asks, please explain why President Trump threatened. Senator Mark Kelly for his remarks that a serviceman must refuse illegal orders. I've got a mixture of Democrats and Republicans in here, as you can see.

SPEAKER_00 44:11

I don't know. Uh frankly, I don't care, but um that's again, that's just politics of opposition. Don't do the work of the enemy, right? So we can all sit here and we can go through on a daily basis filtering out and and analyzing every single word that comes out of that man's mouth, Mr. Trump. Like what don't. So don't. So why? Um so but maybe we can, the First Amendment rights, right? Likewise, we could have done the same thing during Obama's years. And I found some people doing the same thing during the Obama's administration. Let's be honest, right? A politician talks all day long, all day long, constantly. Some of them like them, some of them don't. I ran in campaigns. I've slipped up already, right? Simply because I'm human. I'm talking and talking up. I slipped up during this during this interview, right? So the expectation that everybody says something, everything perfect every time you talk and you're talking for 14 hours a day, that's unreasonable. Right? So as far as who said what about it is an officer's legal right, a military officer's legal right to not abide by a lawful order. But that's where you gotta get real careful. What constitutes un constitutes an unlawful order? An unlawful order might be get not foxhole, there's incoming, and your life's gonna be put in jeopardy. Well, that's not a lawful order. Yes, it is. You don't like it, you don't want to do it because it constitutes a risk to your life, right? There's a fire on the USS Ford. Damage control team, move. Fire control team, move. They're wearing oxygen breathing apparatuses. That was hell on earth for those men and women. Once again, the performance of your sons and daughters. That was hell on earth. Inside of a metal chamber, no windows, no ventilation, way below decks, fire, heat, and they obeyed those lawful orders to do that.

SPEAKER_04 46:12

Unlawful orders.

SPEAKER_00 46:13

At risk. No, they obeyed those lawful orders, right?

SPEAKER_04 46:16

What if it's an unlawful order?

SPEAKER_00 46:17

So what then the question is what constitutes an unlawful order? That is a JAG question, Judge Africa general question, right? And an unlawful order is one that breaks the law, Title X laws, right? Or the Constitution, potentially the Constitution as well.

SPEAKER_04 46:33

So you so what they go against the Constitution and they refuse to go against the Constitution.

SPEAKER_00 46:37

So let me tell you, had I had I disobeyed any orders given to me on when I was a commander, a lieutenant, or even a petty officer, had I disobeyed those orders, my JAG would have had to defend and say in court, at a court martial, that I was disobeying, I was I was given an unlawful order.

SPEAKER_04 46:56

What if you were given an unlawful order? What would you say?

SPEAKER_00 46:59

But again, that's that's an entirely subjective nature in the heat of the moment. So no, officers are not should not obey an unlawful order, but you have to understand in as a as a leader and a commission officer, what is quite what constitutes an unlawful order? Now committing murder, that's an unlawful order. Stealing something, that's an unlawful order.

SPEAKER_04 47:23

Do you think Senator Mark Kelly should have been threatened for saying that?

SPEAKER_00 47:28

I don't even know what he said, so I'm um I don't think I'm qualified to answer that.

SPEAKER_04 47:31

That's what he said.

SPEAKER_00 47:33

What'd he say?

SPEAKER_04 47:34

Oh, I'll repeat what he said. Um Senator Mark Kelly for his remarks that a serviceman must refuse illegal orders.

SPEAKER_00 47:44

He doesn't have to refuse illegal orders.

SPEAKER_04 47:46

Well that's a subjective have, but he should be able to.

SPEAKER_00 47:51

We're getting to the point of quibbling here, right? What is a lawful order and what wasn't? That was a generic throw meat, throw meat to the opposition statement. So shame on Mr. Kelly, honestly.

SPEAKER_04 48:03

Political?

SPEAKER_00 48:04

Political. Beyond it. There's nothing happening in this war which is unlawful, as far as as far as as the orders given out. By the way, most of it's being done by officers, right? This war is being conducted in an electronic and intelligent and warfare manner. Most of the so I don't mean to defend the enlisted because I'm prior enlisted, but the pilots of the F-35s, the F-18s, are officers, right? The commanders, the ship's weapons officers on board the on board the frigates and on board the bombers, and on board the uh um cruisers that push the button to fire the missile are officers.

SPEAKER_04 48:43

I wonder if they know. I mean, they do know, of course, that the majority of Americans are against that the war. I wonder how that affects the case.

SPEAKER_00 48:52

I don't I see different polls, Kate, Kat. I do. I don't I don't think the American people are against the war. The American people are against boots on the ground.

SPEAKER_04 48:59

That's for sure.

SPEAKER_00 49:00

And by the way, do you really want them to see that? I don't want them to see that. That's what I'm asking you. Yeah. Again, let's go back to the the real issue here, and that is not politics or our feelings. Our feelings should be surrounded on the faith and the incredible performance of our servicemen and women right now, every day, every night. Lack of sleep, incredibly dangerous operations. It's a good point. Their performance is remarkable. Absolutely remarkable.

SPEAKER_04 49:30

I can tell you feel very passionate about that. I've been there.

SPEAKER_00 49:33

I've been there, right? Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 49:34

Yeah, you've experienced it.

SPEAKER_00 49:36

Yeah, I've I've watched our best and brightest. I I I personally think, and having been in Iraq and Afghanistan, that that generation that volunteered for OEF and OIF, much like our grandparents were the greatest generation, so were they. So were they. And now they're all we're all nearing middle age.

SPEAKER_04 49:53

And you believe that there's a threat to the United States as well, we'll argue. But I get what you're saying. But we don't have to read the.

SPEAKER_00 50:03

Well, there's a threat to the United States, you can tell right now. How's our gas prices doing?

SPEAKER_04 50:07

Right?

SPEAKER_00 50:07

Yeah, but that's an economic threat, right?

SPEAKER_04 50:09

Yeah. They're well, they're waging like an economic war, right? Iran, that's what I They've always done that.

SPEAKER_00 50:15

They've they've held this straight as a as a token of for the bullying, right? As as an as a part of their negotiation practice.

SPEAKER_04 50:23

And it's such a horrible, horrific regime.

SPEAKER_00 50:25

It is. So why that goes back to my statement. Don't help them.

SPEAKER_04 50:30

It's almost like a threat to humanity.

SPEAKER_00 50:32

It has been, it always has been. Hezpalahamas, ISIS.

SPEAKER_04 50:36

What do we stand for?

SPEAKER_00 50:37

What do we stand for? So me, I go to the gas pump, I feel the pain, but then I look at, okay, I'm willing to absorb that. If there's stable bus, if there's stability in the world and inflation comes down because gas prices will come down globally, because there'll be a big global economic transition. The Strait of Her Moose actually is that key of a choke point.

SPEAKER_04 51:01

And if there's bombs all around us and we're getting killed for protesting, would we want someone to help us?

SPEAKER_00 51:09

Absolutely. The fact that, yeah, well, some some say it. Some administrations were negligent, highly negligent in not helping the Iranian population. Highly negligent. They didn't feel their pain. They didn't care. If they cared, if let's let's talk about the uh the abandoning of Afghanistan, right? So who?

SPEAKER_03 51:31

Oh, the Taliban.

SPEAKER_00 51:32

Who do you think benefited from leaving all that equipment behind? The Taliban. And Iran.

SPEAKER_03 51:39

Iran.

SPEAKER_00 51:40

Of course. Iran was all over Afghanistan. Iran, Iran runs part of Taliban. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_03 51:46

And that was kind of a lot of people.

SPEAKER_00 51:47

It's a neighboring state. All they have to do is drive it across the border.

SPEAKER_04 51:50

And that was kind of recently that we um left. In fact, someone in my neighborhood lost their son in the attack on our soldiers in Afghanistan.

SPEAKER_00 52:01

Yep. So I mean lost their life. Your your tax dollars pay for that equipment, and now that equipment could be turned on our sons and daughters. Now let's talk about feelings about that.

SPEAKER_04 52:11

And look at the condition Afghanistan. And as a woman, they're not even allowed to go to school.

SPEAKER_00 52:16

That's right.

SPEAKER_04 52:17

They've really turned back the clock there.

SPEAKER_00 52:19

That's right. But then again, that goes back to the Quagmire issue, right? It was a long-term, long war, and that's that's why we the American population should have a knee-jerk reaction against boots on the ground. We've lived it. And frankly, keep in mind that there are so many veterans out there who served in OIF and OEF and would do it again. But the last person who wants to go to war cat is the warfighter.

SPEAKER_04 52:44

Well, Dan, yeah, you were wondering why or what lessons did we learn from the Iraqi war and Afghanistan war.

SPEAKER_00 52:54

So the lessons are typically the lessons learned objectively are typically um developed into new policies for the Department of War, like real lessons, real military lessons. But then there's the political lessons, right? And one of the lessons what is is we learned obviously is to avoid the quagmire. And also, another lesson we've learned throughout multiple wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, is the opposition always waits for the American public to turn on the war.

SPEAKER_04 53:27

But don't you think they were right in turning on the Vietnam War?

SPEAKER_00 53:31

I don't know. That's a whole different story. That was before I was born, really.

SPEAKER_04 53:35

Because, well, you you just said though.

SPEAKER_00 53:37

I'm just saying that I'm telling you what the opposition does. That's an objective fact. The objective fact is the opposition always waits for the American public to turn on the war. We're a democracy. We're a good people. War is antithetical to our nature.

SPEAKER_04 53:49

Okay. So the last question is from Kevin Reinhardt and he asks, is the U.S. Israel joint venture working to everyone's benefit?

SPEAKER_00 54:00

So Israel in this war and its current operations, Israel and America are in have a symbiotic relationship, meaning we both benefit from what Each Side is doing. It's obvious that the Israeli intelligence is extremely sophisticated. I mean, all you have to do is go back to the remarkable intelligence they must have had to give put phones in the hands of Hamas leaders and have them explode. I mean, the layers of sophistication are this is just remarkable. Likewise, um, well frankly, a lot of the mil the uh Israeli equipment has been modified by them, but that's mostly American. And the Americans are we obviously we are vastly benefiting from Israeli intelligence. They're known in the region, they can infiltrate, and they have greater, greater on-the-ground capabilities than than we'll ever have for intelligence.

SPEAKER_04 54:54

Do you think they're on the same page? Because recently I read that they're bombing Israel's bombing of um Karas, caris, the island. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 55:06

Made Trump mad?

SPEAKER_04 55:07

Yeah, made him mad, and then I read another article where it said that he actually approved it. So what do we believe?

SPEAKER_00 55:15

I don't know. It depends what your source is, number one. Number two, um, are allies always in agreement? Absolutely not. Let's go back to World War II. Britain and America, you know, we were we were never always in agreement. It took a diplomatic um uh commander-in-chief, Eisenhower, to manipulate that all those political mind fields between the two countries. And we were blood, we were blood allies, and we still didn't get along on everything.

SPEAKER_04 55:43

Well, there's a saying it it only takes two people to create politics.

SPEAKER_00 55:48

That's true. That's exactly right. Yeah. Yeah.

SPEAKER_04 55:51

All right. You're okay, Danielle? Um, well, thank you very much for your input on this situation in Iran.

SPEAKER_00 56:00

It's my pleasure, and uh just last statement is a support the men and women who are out there doing this right now. Do not do the work of the enemy.

SPEAKER_04 56:08

I think you put us in the frame of what they're going through and their long stays in the boat in the aircraft areas.

SPEAKER_00 56:16

Yeah, the USS Forge headed to Crete, and I hope they have some downtime, and I hope, and I hope and pray that they're home soon.

SPEAKER_04 56:22

As we do. All right. Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_00 56:25

My pleasure.