Speaker 1: Hours after that initial attack, two ballistic missiles were fired
Speaker 1: in the direction of the USS Mason from Yemen, where
Speaker 1: Iranian BacT Hutis operate. The missiles fell far short of
Speaker 1: the Mason, about ten miles away, but US ships in
Speaker 1: the region have been in the line of fire since
Speaker 1: the war in Gaza began, although this morning it is
Speaker 1: still unclear whether this attack on the commercial vessel, which
Speaker 1: is owned by a company led by an Israeli born
Speaker 1: shipping magnate, is part of these larger threats coming from
Speaker 1: these Iranian backed forces.
Speaker 2: So it's sort of breaking news overnight an Iranian back
Speaker 2: group firing missiles out a US warship. So we got
Speaker 2: that going on in addition to obviously the call it
Speaker 2: a ceasefire or pause there between Israel and Hamas. And
Speaker 2: then the capital of Ukraine underwent the biggest drone attack
Speaker 2: since the war began over the weekend.
Speaker 3: So many topics and subtopics to discuss with Mike Lyons
Speaker 3: who served the US military. They're in a variety of
Speaker 3: capacities and places around the world and is now a
Speaker 3: respected military analyst on CNN among other places. Mike welcome, how.
Speaker 4: Are you hey, guys? Great to be back with you.
Speaker 3: Hope you had a good Thanksgiving.
Speaker 2: Let's start with Iran groups firing at our warships.
Speaker 4: What do you make of that? You know, Iran still
Speaker 4: is not deterred on any level. These are Iranians supported
Speaker 4: militia groups that but for Iran, they don't have any
Speaker 4: of this kind of capability. The fact that they could
Speaker 4: fire on a US warship is amazing on some level,
Speaker 4: but it just shows you the level of support that
Speaker 4: they get. We see soldiers that are been fired on
Speaker 4: in Syria and inside of Iraq as well, and you know,
Speaker 4: to kind of connect us to Israel a little bit,
Speaker 4: now looks like the tie goes to the Iranians to
Speaker 4: get their hostages out. We still have American hostages there are.
Speaker 4: It just gets back to our relationship with Iran is
Speaker 4: just completely dysfunctional. They're just not deterred on any level
Speaker 4: from a military perspective, and we just continue to chase
Speaker 4: them all around the globe here and let them, you know,
Speaker 4: kind of lead and dictate what's going on. It's the
Speaker 4: problem is what's going to happen. It is literally a
Speaker 4: matter of time before the Israelis start a war with
Speaker 4: the Uranians because of their nuclear capability, and at some
Speaker 4: point the Cans getting kicked down the road. But at
Speaker 4: some point we'd have to deal with Iran.
Speaker 3: Well, last time we talked to you were highly unsatisfied
Speaker 3: with the amount of return fire that we offered to
Speaker 3: the Iranian proxies when they were you know, shooting missiles
Speaker 3: and drones and whatnot at our guys in a variety
Speaker 3: of places.
Speaker 4: No, no, for sure, until Tehran feels the pain here,
Speaker 4: you know, we're firing back at proxy groups or AMO
Speaker 4: dumps or not military formations and not taking away their
Speaker 4: real capability to do this. But you know it's a willpower.
Speaker 4: Is that likely if we're going to fire a missile
Speaker 4: inside of Iraq? Iran, if we take down their drone
Speaker 4: capability or go after some some real military target inside,
Speaker 4: that would escalate And this administration is just unwilling to
Speaker 4: do that. So therefore Iran gets to pull all the strings.
Speaker 4: They are conducting a masterful proxy war on so many levels.
Speaker 4: They've got at least thirteen or fourteen different separate brigades
Speaker 4: that operate in the Middle East in excess of one
Speaker 4: hundred thousand troops. This is why Israel has the problem
Speaker 4: because it's for them to fight one hundred thousand troops there.
Speaker 4: If they ever got their stuff all together, it'd be
Speaker 4: real challenge from a military perspective. And on top of that,
Speaker 4: they're spread out in the North and with HESBLA, they're
Speaker 4: spread out in the West Bank with Fatah and other
Speaker 4: organizations that are there inside of Syria. And you know,
Speaker 4: it looks like now Hamas is just trying to get
Speaker 4: everybody to stop the fighting at least because they're trading
Speaker 4: off time for hostages, right. I mean, every day they
Speaker 4: get a break that they could release ten more hostages.
Speaker 4: At some point they're running out of hostages to give up,
Speaker 4: and Israel continues to say they're going to work, going
Speaker 4: to start every day that we delay right now, were
Speaker 4: unfortunately going to have more idea of soldiers killed, but
Speaker 4: that's not a factor into the equation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So that's one of the reasons wanted to have
Speaker 2: you on today because we're off all last week and
Speaker 2: I was following your Twitter feed and some of your
Speaker 2: comments on the so called cease fire. Is Hamas using
Speaker 2: this to rearm redig in Rea anything.
Speaker 4: Absolutely repositioned forces, likely sending more to the staff, knowing
Speaker 4: full well that the civilians are there to hide behind.
Speaker 4: With that tunnel organization they have, Israel has no choice
Speaker 4: for the ideaf positions there have got to kind of
Speaker 4: hold back a little bit and go into defensive positions.
Speaker 4: They have to protect themselves too, I think, and it's
Speaker 4: very difficult from a soldier's mind to kind of flip
Speaker 4: this switch to go from you know, warfighter to kind
Speaker 4: of peacekeeper on the defensive side. And now all of
Speaker 4: a sudden, let's say the deal falls through today and
Speaker 4: they go twenty four to forty eight hours and no
Speaker 4: hostage is released, They're going to have to make a
Speaker 4: very tough decision to start the war back again. So
Speaker 4: what does that mean for your an idea of soldier
Speaker 4: on the ground you you were waiting with that order,
Speaker 4: what those orders are? I think Israel has got to
Speaker 4: take that very slowly again, bring back air strikes, drone strikes,
Speaker 4: artillery strikes before you know, kind of re engaging in
Speaker 4: the kind of combat that we saw there before they
Speaker 4: stopped it. Israel had all the momentum and unfortunately and
Speaker 4: Hamas knew that, and that's why they got the deal
Speaker 4: they had and that's interesting to stop.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Mike, there's an incredibly strange disconnect I think in
Speaker 3: the discussion of this topic. I mean, around here, we
Speaker 3: consider it self evident that Israel decided Hamas must be
Speaker 3: eliminated as a threat period, not knocked back on their heels,
Speaker 3: and then let negotiations begin October seventh prove to them
Speaker 3: it's untenable to live side byside with Maas. Meanwhile, here
Speaker 3: in the New York Times, for instance, I'm reading that
Speaker 3: Joe Biden's hoping to alter the trajectory of the war
Speaker 3: and extend the ceasefire. Blah blah blah. There is a
Speaker 3: complete disconnect between that thought and the fact that it
Speaker 3: is untenable to live next to Hamas. Ever, again, nobody's
Speaker 3: talking to each other about this.
Speaker 4: Right And the thing is, you know, regime change is
Speaker 4: a military mission that the Ideaf can accomplish, but right
Speaker 4: now it's conflicting with the getting the hostages back, and
Speaker 4: there's going to be so much pressure internally on Israel
Speaker 4: to continue down that path. But the only way that
Speaker 4: Hamas changes is if they you know, destroyed militarily or
Speaker 4: are they surrendered. Let's say, if they decide to fight conventionally,
Speaker 4: but we don't expect that to happen. So this is
Speaker 4: the challenge that that they have. And again the pressure
Speaker 4: coming inside of Israel to continue to pause while they
Speaker 4: get hostages back, I think is so great and to there,
Speaker 4: you know, and to get humanitarian aid all those things
Speaker 4: that go in. And I would love to bring back
Speaker 4: to generals from World War Two and say this is
Speaker 4: how we're fighting comp war this day. What do you
Speaker 4: think of this? How do you think this would go?
Speaker 4: And each you know, the ally generals would probably say, well,
Speaker 4: you might as well just plan on spending the next
Speaker 4: ten years at war because you're never going to destroy
Speaker 4: your enemy if you keep starting and stopping like the
Speaker 4: things you're doing here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's an interesting perspective. I hadn't heard that you
Speaker 2: have that we don't have, because net Nyahu is saying,
Speaker 2: you know, the moment this is done, we're like full
Speaker 2: back into the war. But you're saying psychologically, it's it's
Speaker 2: just not that easy. You can't flip a switch and
Speaker 2: go back to it.
Speaker 4: No, it's not. And it's from a soldier's perspective, they're
Speaker 4: going to recognize that they're going to have to start
Speaker 4: an air camp pain first. Again, they're gonna have to
Speaker 4: soften back up the battlefield as Hamas has moved around.
Speaker 4: They're gonna have to go back to collecting intelligence because
Speaker 4: they're gonna have to bear soldiers at risk. You know,
Speaker 4: the IDF has got to protect this force as well.
Speaker 4: And I get you know, we're trading off IDF lives
Speaker 4: for hostages. Last. No one wants to make that decision, right,
Speaker 4: But that's really what's what's going to come down to here.
Speaker 4: Some I'm sure some Hamas soldiers are already in those
Speaker 4: tunnels heading south that Israel's gonna have to pursue them
Speaker 4: right down the strip. They're gonna be pursuing them right
Speaker 4: into Israel, right into Egypt. That's just a matter of time.
Speaker 4: So this is just prolonging the war when the time comes.
Speaker 3: Well, if our subject is willingness to commit yourself completely
Speaker 3: to defeating your enemy, no matter the costs, public opinion,
Speaker 3: that sort of thing. You've got Israel, then you've got Russia,
Speaker 3: which obviously does not share their their hesitance to do
Speaker 3: what they feel like they need to do in Ukraine.
Speaker 3: I'll hit you with a statement. Tell me if I'm
Speaker 3: right wrong or somewhere in between. This is a stalemate.
Speaker 3: Ukraine cannot drive Russia out of their territory.
Speaker 4: That's true at this point without any offensive weapons, and
Speaker 4: they were giving them enough equipment so they don't lose,
Speaker 4: but now they won't be able to go on any
Speaker 4: kind of offensive. You're seeing now the winner is now
Speaker 4: going to start taking hold in that part of the world,
Speaker 4: and it is to tell me, and I'm surprised that
Speaker 4: Russia hasn't marshaled its military in order, because they should
Speaker 4: have defeated Ukraine by now, just very frankly based on
Speaker 4: the size and the scope and their industrial capability and
Speaker 4: all the things. The advantages they have in their side
Speaker 4: that they haven't so good good on Ukraine. But the
Speaker 4: second the United States and Allied forces and NATO stops
Speaker 4: supporting Ukraine, then I think they are at risk again.
Speaker 4: So yeah, that's definitely true that Ukraine does not have
Speaker 4: that capability to move them out. This counter offensive is
Speaker 4: on for six months and now it's virtually stalled.
Speaker 2: Well, this will be argued throughout history probably, but if
Speaker 2: we had given Ukraine some of the stuff that we
Speaker 2: gave them late, would they have been able to win
Speaker 2: this war.
Speaker 4: Well, they would have had to them day one, right,
Speaker 4: you know, you have sixteens in the life. They would
Speaker 4: have to and it had have to have modern day warns,
Speaker 4: modern day equipment, a tackles, they would they would need
Speaker 4: all the offensive weapons as opposed to defensive weapons. The
Speaker 4: US does a good job of selling, you know, our
Speaker 4: allies defensive weapons because we really don't want to be
Speaker 4: accused of then getting them having to take those weapons
Speaker 4: and go on the offensive with right, That's that's kind
Speaker 4: of the downside there. But if they had better tanks,
Speaker 4: if they had more at tackles, they had deeper artillery,
Speaker 4: they had those kinds of things day one. Maybe because
Speaker 4: now there were eighteen months into it, almost two years
Speaker 4: into it, they would have this more of a competenty
Speaker 4: and capability to do this. But to try to do
Speaker 4: it now you're you're adding water, thinking you're going to
Speaker 4: get a tree in the next six weeks. It's just
Speaker 4: not going to happen.
Speaker 3: Military analyst Mike lyons, Mike, we appreciate the perspective very much.
Speaker 3: Great to talk to you.
Speaker 4: Nice guys. Thanks for having Armstrong and