April 15, 2024 • 7 mins
Iran attacked Israel this weekend and Israel is yet to respond, but they will. Talking to Armstrong & Getty, Military analyst Mike Lyons breaks it down for us.
Talking to A&G, military analyst Mike Lyons breaks it down for us.
Hear the entire conversation in a new episode of Armstrong & Getty's Extra Large Podcast....
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This was an extraordinary military success. Not only is Israel's
military superiority, but that Israel's not alone, that the United
States actually he actually put the President put American fighter
jets in the air actively defending Israel in harm's way.
That goes a long way, and that sends a strong
message about where Israel is in the region versus where
(00:22):
Iran is in the region, which is increasingly oscillated now.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Was John Kirby on all the talk shows yesterday making
the argument for the White House that you take the win.
We just showed that the rest of the world is
so much better than Iran. They are embarrassed. They took
their best shot and they've been embarrassed by the rest
of the world. You take the win. It was a
huge success. So one of the first places I went
as I followed this news very closely on Saturday over
(00:48):
the weekend for analysis was our friend Mike Lyons, who
were about to hear from and he presented two options
yesterday on his Twitter thread. The first option was to
take the win, as argued by John Kirby and others there,
but the second option was this from Mike Lions and
we're gonna ask him about it. Israel was attacked by
another sovereign nation who violated the international airspace of other
(01:09):
countries in an unprecedented attack of crews and ballistic missiles
and a swarm of drones. This is an escalated and
disproportional response to an attack Israel made against them. To
restore at turns, Israel needs to attack the military and
strategic targets, nuclear facilities to punish Iran. It's time for
war and to finally eliminate this threat. I don't know
which of these Mike advocates.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
That's what I want to find out.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
Let's find out. CNN military analyst Mike Lyons joins us
from his automobile. I believe to discuss the fairly complex
geopolitical questions before us. Mike, how are you, sir?
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Hey, good morning guys. Great to be back.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
And I'm not trying to pretend that this is an
easy decision. But of the two scenarios you laid out
to take the win or the one we just read,
which are you actually behind?
Speaker 3 (01:53):
I think that you could take I don't want to
tread the needle necessarily, but you could take a little
bit of both. You could say was somewhat of a win,
thank god. The fact that ninety nine percent of those
rockets were fired and never made their target, and it
does show a little bit of incompetence on Iran inside. However,
the United States or anybody else, you have to respond militarily.
(02:14):
This is a complete escalation here. The terrence has got
to be restored, so Israel will respond. I was disappointed
that the administration felt that they had to leap the
information that said, hey, we're one hundred percent bind you,
but guess what if you decide to go on the offense,
We're not going to help you with that. So I
you know, again clearly the Israeli much respond to this.
(02:37):
It was nothing sort of a miracle that most of
those rockets were fired out of the sky. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
Putting aside the to my mind, shocking and disgusting passivity.
It's almost beyond passivity. It's we won't do anything. Just
trust us. We were doing anything off the table nature
of the Biden administration. What did you make of the
aid given to Israel will buy a number of countries
around the region.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
I think it was terrific. Jordan in particular. Now, we
always knew that Jordan's was going to align itself more
with visuals that if they don't want to be public
about that. Other NATO countries were obviously involved as well,
and that was good, but you know, but now the
gloves are off from an intel perspective, So now the
Uranians also know what Jordan's capability is because this was
(03:26):
an intel exercise besides just being a military exercise. They
took notes on exactly what happened and how many interceptors
were fired. And we were on the wrong side of
this economic bell curve. We fired probably more missiles at
them than they fired it up or at those rockets
to take them down. And this from a sustainment perspective,
can't keep going. What if what if the range decide
(03:46):
to shoot another three hundred tomorrow or sneak a nuclear
around in one of those things. So again, it was
good to see other countries involved, and I think deep
down there's a lot of moral support for what Israel
is doing. It's just that they still can't go public
with in that part of the world.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
So the reporting there was some reporting last night US
officials saying they believe Iran's intent was a mass casualty event.
As opposed to what I think a lot of us
believed for some of the weekend that they like telegraph
this so much with the idea that they would not
be successful. They just had to show that they were,
you know, trying to do this as a gesture, which
(04:23):
do you think it was?
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Yes, I don't buy that. I think the analogy is,
we're going to rob a bank. We're going to tell
you we're going to rob the bank, so we want
everybody to get in bulletproof vests. We're gonna come in,
We're gonna shoot everybody up, but you'll have a bulletproof
vest and you'll be okay as we try to commit
this crime. I mean, that's the issue here. What they
did was an active aggression against another country, whether they
warned them or not, or whatever the case may be.
(04:45):
They didn't fire one missile or ten missiles. They fired
three hundred. I mean the stope and scale of it
was tremendous, and the measure of effective this can't be well,
we just didn't kill anybody, we didn't hit anything. That
just can't be it. All that really did was give
the Israeli cabinet top time to now decide what their
response will be, which again I do think will be
(05:07):
covertly in the shadows. We'll have some level of military
aspect to it. But if you're a nuclear scientist or
a military official in Iran right now, you better have
your head on a swivel because everyone is a target
and that's how those targets are going to be inside Iran.
I wouldn't be surprised.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
Well, And it's worth keeping in mind that the Israelis
respond when they desire. Might be by noon today, it
might be in six weeks.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Yeah, and I still we haven't seen cyber, we haven't
seen other you know, kind of soft ways that they
can respond. Uh. And who knows. We know that there's
challenges inside of Iran already with that with their government,
they have significant internal conflict of maintaining their own power.
So from their perspective, this might be a last gesture
(05:50):
in order to show that they're still control of their government.
It would be great if something happened in there, you
hat revolution again inside of Iran. I mean it would tip.
It looks like it appears it would tip back towards
at least some level of normalcy, let's say.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
But but for for what's happening right now. Israel is
looking at Iron saying existential threat and nuclear facilities. I
wouldn't be surprised if that was the target.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Yeah, that's the story that broke late in the week
last week before this attack that Israel was that Iran
is so close once again to a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
And something to happen to because another thing could deliver it.
And so from from that perspective, I mean, let's just
say they can't go to North Korea and get a
suitcase or get something and and launch it and put it,
put it something and you know, kind of bring it
together in order to make this attack on the next time,
and that that has got to be what the concern is.
So those are all in the realms of the possibilities.
(06:44):
So that's when EMA Kirby systems like, let's take the
w here this is. This is not a baseball game
where we're going to play another game tomorrow. I mean,
this is a long term strategic objective. But what I
don't understand about this administration is it's very siloed in
how it's dealing with the same issue. There were all
of a sudden, we're now iron plaid against Iran, but
we're really not sure about what's going on with the
(07:06):
Moss and Southern guys that you Israel could do a
little better job of what's going on there. I mean,
it's the same enemy. It's the same enemy, and that's
how Israel looks at it. It's one thing. For some reason,
the two different research groups I have given the President
or whoever the advice is not talking to each other
because they think it's they're all separate, independent channels. It's
the same thing. It's the same channel.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
Yeah. I never want to come off as some sort
of hyperpartisan, you know, bomb chucker, but I'm just astonished
by the ineffectiveness of the Biden foreign policy. It just
it shocks me. I'm not quite sure what to make
of it. Seeing in military analyst Mike Lions Mike, Hey,
we sure appreciate you squeezing this and it's great to
talk to you. Thanks for the insights.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Thanks guys, thanks for having me and Getty
This was an extraordinary military success. Not only is Israel's
military superiority, but that Israel's not alone, that the United
States actually he actually put the President put American fighter
jets in the air actively defending Israel in harm's way.
That goes a long way, and that sends a strong
message about where Israel is in the region versus where
(00:22):
Iran is in the region, which is increasingly oscillated now.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Was John Kirby on all the talk shows yesterday making
the argument for the White House that you take the win.
We just showed that the rest of the world is
so much better than Iran. They are embarrassed. They took
their best shot and they've been embarrassed by the rest
of the world. You take the win. It was a
huge success. So one of the first places I went
as I followed this news very closely on Saturday over
(00:48):
the weekend for analysis was our friend Mike Lyons, who
were about to hear from and he presented two options
yesterday on his Twitter thread. The first option was to
take the win, as argued by John Kirby and others there,
but the second option was this from Mike Lions and
we're gonna ask him about it. Israel was attacked by
another sovereign nation who violated the international airspace of other
(01:09):
countries in an unprecedented attack of crews and ballistic missiles
and a swarm of drones. This is an escalated and
disproportional response to an attack Israel made against them. To
restore at turns, Israel needs to attack the military and
strategic targets, nuclear facilities to punish Iran. It's time for
war and to finally eliminate this threat. I don't know
which of these Mike advocates.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
That's what I want to find out.
Speaker 4 (01:33):
Let's find out. CNN military analyst Mike Lyons joins us
from his automobile. I believe to discuss the fairly complex
geopolitical questions before us. Mike, how are you, sir?
Speaker 3 (01:43):
Hey, good morning guys. Great to be back.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
And I'm not trying to pretend that this is an
easy decision. But of the two scenarios you laid out
to take the win or the one we just read,
which are you actually behind?
Speaker 3 (01:53):
I think that you could take I don't want to
tread the needle necessarily, but you could take a little
bit of both. You could say was somewhat of a win,
thank god. The fact that ninety nine percent of those
rockets were fired and never made their target, and it
does show a little bit of incompetence on Iran inside. However,
the United States or anybody else, you have to respond militarily.
(02:14):
This is a complete escalation here. The terrence has got
to be restored, so Israel will respond. I was disappointed
that the administration felt that they had to leap the
information that said, hey, we're one hundred percent bind you,
but guess what if you decide to go on the offense,
We're not going to help you with that. So I
you know, again clearly the Israeli much respond to this.
(02:37):
It was nothing sort of a miracle that most of
those rockets were fired out of the sky. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (02:42):
Putting aside the to my mind, shocking and disgusting passivity.
It's almost beyond passivity. It's we won't do anything. Just
trust us. We were doing anything off the table nature
of the Biden administration. What did you make of the
aid given to Israel will buy a number of countries
around the region.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
I think it was terrific. Jordan in particular. Now, we
always knew that Jordan's was going to align itself more
with visuals that if they don't want to be public
about that. Other NATO countries were obviously involved as well,
and that was good, but you know, but now the
gloves are off from an intel perspective, So now the
Uranians also know what Jordan's capability is because this was
(03:26):
an intel exercise besides just being a military exercise. They
took notes on exactly what happened and how many interceptors
were fired. And we were on the wrong side of
this economic bell curve. We fired probably more missiles at
them than they fired it up or at those rockets
to take them down. And this from a sustainment perspective,
can't keep going. What if what if the range decide
(03:46):
to shoot another three hundred tomorrow or sneak a nuclear
around in one of those things. So again, it was
good to see other countries involved, and I think deep
down there's a lot of moral support for what Israel
is doing. It's just that they still can't go public
with in that part of the world.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
So the reporting there was some reporting last night US
officials saying they believe Iran's intent was a mass casualty event.
As opposed to what I think a lot of us
believed for some of the weekend that they like telegraph
this so much with the idea that they would not
be successful. They just had to show that they were,
you know, trying to do this as a gesture, which
(04:23):
do you think it was?
Speaker 3 (04:25):
Yes, I don't buy that. I think the analogy is,
we're going to rob a bank. We're going to tell
you we're going to rob the bank, so we want
everybody to get in bulletproof vests. We're gonna come in,
We're gonna shoot everybody up, but you'll have a bulletproof
vest and you'll be okay as we try to commit
this crime. I mean, that's the issue here. What they
did was an active aggression against another country, whether they
warned them or not, or whatever the case may be.
(04:45):
They didn't fire one missile or ten missiles. They fired
three hundred. I mean the stope and scale of it
was tremendous, and the measure of effective this can't be well,
we just didn't kill anybody, we didn't hit anything. That
just can't be it. All that really did was give
the Israeli cabinet top time to now decide what their
response will be, which again I do think will be
(05:07):
covertly in the shadows. We'll have some level of military
aspect to it. But if you're a nuclear scientist or
a military official in Iran right now, you better have
your head on a swivel because everyone is a target
and that's how those targets are going to be inside Iran.
I wouldn't be surprised.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
Well, And it's worth keeping in mind that the Israelis
respond when they desire. Might be by noon today, it
might be in six weeks.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
Yeah, and I still we haven't seen cyber, we haven't
seen other you know, kind of soft ways that they
can respond. Uh. And who knows. We know that there's
challenges inside of Iran already with that with their government,
they have significant internal conflict of maintaining their own power.
So from their perspective, this might be a last gesture
(05:50):
in order to show that they're still control of their government.
It would be great if something happened in there, you
hat revolution again inside of Iran. I mean it would tip.
It looks like it appears it would tip back towards
at least some level of normalcy, let's say.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
But but for for what's happening right now. Israel is
looking at Iron saying existential threat and nuclear facilities. I
wouldn't be surprised if that was the target.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Yeah, that's the story that broke late in the week
last week before this attack that Israel was that Iran
is so close once again to a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 3 (06:24):
And something to happen to because another thing could deliver it.
And so from from that perspective, I mean, let's just
say they can't go to North Korea and get a
suitcase or get something and and launch it and put it,
put it something and you know, kind of bring it
together in order to make this attack on the next time,
and that that has got to be what the concern is.
So those are all in the realms of the possibilities.
(06:44):
So that's when EMA Kirby systems like, let's take the
w here this is. This is not a baseball game
where we're going to play another game tomorrow. I mean,
this is a long term strategic objective. But what I
don't understand about this administration is it's very siloed in
how it's dealing with the same issue. There were all
of a sudden, we're now iron plaid against Iran, but
we're really not sure about what's going on with the
(07:06):
Moss and Southern guys that you Israel could do a
little better job of what's going on there. I mean,
it's the same enemy. It's the same enemy, and that's
how Israel looks at it. It's one thing. For some reason,
the two different research groups I have given the President
or whoever the advice is not talking to each other
because they think it's they're all separate, independent channels. It's
the same thing. It's the same channel.
Speaker 4 (07:26):
Yeah. I never want to come off as some sort
of hyperpartisan, you know, bomb chucker, but I'm just astonished
by the ineffectiveness of the Biden foreign policy. It just
it shocks me. I'm not quite sure what to make
of it. Seeing in military analyst Mike Lions Mike, Hey,
we sure appreciate you squeezing this and it's great to
talk to you. Thanks for the insights.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
Thanks guys, thanks for having me and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!