Podcast Summary: Conversations With Coleman – "A Debate with Dave Smith: Israel, Iran, and American Power"

Date: October 4, 2025
Host: Coleman Hughes
Guest: Dave Smith, comedian and political commentator

Overview

This episode features a marathon, deep-dive debate between Coleman Hughes and Dave Smith, focusing on some of the thorniest issues in American and Middle Eastern foreign policy: U.S. military intervention, the roots of jihadist terror, the influence of the Israel lobby on the Iraq War, Israel’s objectives and ethics, and the challenge of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Despite frequent disagreements, both participants engage in respectful, rigorous argument, aiming for clarity over gotchas. Coleman pushes back on Dave’s antiwar, Ron Paul-inspired libertarianism, especially as it applies to Israel, U.S. global engagement, and how to weigh the trade-offs of military power.

Key Themes & Discussion Points

1. Dave Smith’s Intellectual Journey & Why He Loves Ron Paul

[05:08–08:44]

• Smith describes starting as a left-liberal, anti-Bush New Yorker post-9/11 but became riveted by Ron Paul’s 2007 debate with Giuliani.
• Ron Paul’s two core insights:
  • Skepticism about the “they hate us for our freedom” narrative and focus on concrete U.S. actions fueling anti-American terrorism.
  • Obsession with the Federal Reserve as a driver of economic turmoil and military overreach.
• Quote: "It was almost like a portal where it allowed you to access a perspective from outside of the American empire." (Smith, 11:12)

2. Roots of Jihadist Terror: Is It "Blowback" or Religious Ideology?

[12:17–34:55]

• Coleman’s Claim: It’s not just “grievances”—the key ingredient is radical Islamist ideology.
  • Analogies to U.S. troops in Korea: "We don’t have Rwandan terrorists flying planes into our buildings…there has to be this additional variable." (Coleman, 19:09)
• Dave’s Response: Terrorism happens when populations feel violently oppressed; religion is only one of many justifications rebelling groups invoke.
  • "It's quite often the case that people embrace violence in response...I don't think it's unique to Islam." (Smith, 30:54)
• They debate who gets a “veto” in international relations: Should a government’s invite outweigh a terror group’s threats?
• Both agree that not all grievances invoked by terrorists are legitimate—yet Dave wants to “reexamine” policies that create hostility.

3. The Economic Costs of Military Spending

[34:55–41:08]

• They debate whether U.S. military spending meaningfully drives inflation and national bankruptcy.
  • Coleman: "Focusing on military debt is like a firefly to the sun compared to Social Security and entitlements."
  • Smith: "It's not a firefly to the sun...after entitlements, it's the next biggest expense. And yes, it’s a huge driver."
• Debate on whether U.S. defense spending is uniquely inflationary, given similar economic outcomes in Europe.

4. The Limits of Antiwar Libertarianism: Can Non-Intervention Be Moral?

[41:08–47:24]

• Coleman tests the limits of Smith’s antiwar philosophy: Are there “just” interventions? He cites Korea, Kosovo, Liberia.
• Smith is skeptical even of “good” interventions, preferring the risk of inaction to the pattern of tragic interventions: “If you want to sit here and say my philosophy wouldn't allow Liberia, fair enough. But your philosophy...won't prevent Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. I'll take that trade.” (44:28)
• Both recognize all foreign policy involves tragic tradeoffs.

5. What If America Withdraws—Does China/Russia Fill the Void?

[47:24–54:57]

• Coleman advances the “realist” critique: when the US steps back, authoritarian military-industrial complexes fill the vacuum.
• Smith denies catastrophic power shifts are inevitable: "I fundamentally reject the idea that there will be one power who takes over the world."
• Realists and anti-interventionists clash on whether great powers’ “natural tendencies” can be countered by restraint.

6. Did the Israel Lobby Push America into the Iraq War?

[54:57–101:13]
One of the lengthiest, most detailed segments:

• Dave’s Position: Neoconservatives, whom he frames as part of the “Israel lobby,” were central to selling and staffing the war; influence is proven by their writings (“A Clean Break”), actions, and beliefs.
• Coleman’s Pushback:
  • Lobbying data: Pro-Israel groups spent far less than other lobbies; numbers are “chump change” compared to finance or tobacco.
  • "[The idea] that the domestic Israel lobby could get us to fight an entire war...at the same price as the dentists are paying Congress is too much for me." (Coleman, 57:32)
  • Sharon’s (Israel’s PM) explicit advice against invading Iraq, contemporaneous testimony from senior officials, and the post-hoc self-reassurance of figures like Netanyahu are discussed.
• Extended debate over the “Clean Break” memo, the influence of neocons, and the evidentiary status of the infamous “seven countries in five years” memo cited by Wesley Clark.
• On Tony Blair, both agree British leadership supported the war for their own reasons unrelated to Israeli influence.

7. Israel’s Motivations: Peace or Territorial Expansion?

[115:39–137:55]

• Smith: Sees a persistent right-wing project, especially among Netanyahu’s coalition partners, to block a Palestinian state, with some motivated by religious claims to a “Greater Israel.”
• Coleman: Emphasizes Israeli actions—withdrawals from Gaza and Sinai, peace treaties offered, center-left swings in times of hope—and argues Israel prioritizes peace when it genuinely perceives a partner.
• Smith cites the 2005 “formaldehyde” (Dov Weisglass) quote as evidence Gaza withdrawal was meant to stall a true two-state solution. Coleman provides fuller context, reading Weisglass’s explanation that a truce was Plan A; disengagement, Plan B, after failed negotiations.

8. The Ethics and Trap of Prolonged Occupation

[137:55–155:50]

• Smith compares long-term occupation to an indefensible “boot on the neck,” forcing impossible choices on the oppressed.
  • "The only moral options...are: annex and give citizenship, or withdraw. You can't just keep your boot on these people's neck forever." (Smith, 135:12)
• Coleman distinguishes Israel-Palestine from American slavery and other analogies, arguing that Israeli voters face real security trade-offs; withdrawal from Gaza and Lebanon brought more war, not less, and Palestinian political decisions matter.
• They spar about whether and when Israel has a moral obligation to unilaterally withdraw, and whether Palestinian public opinion would support that.

9. The Origins of Israel and Narrative Framing

[151:46–156:59]

• Smith frames Israel’s birth as an “experiment of Europeans creating a Jewish state on land where Arabs lived,” which required force and included the 1948 Nakba.
• Coleman argues context matters: Jews fled Eastern Europe because the West was closed; the “civil war” and Arab invasions in 1948 are crucial to understanding the refugee crisis.
• They agree the suffering is real, and that narratives often serve national myths more than history.

10. Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and the 12-Day War

[197:05–208:49]

• Coleman challenges why Smith, as an anti-interventionist, opposes bombing Iran’s nuclear program if it achieves the goal with zero casualties.
• Smith warns that even surgical strikes can spiral; points out Americans hailing “zero casualties” on bunker-busters ignore Iranian and Israeli casualties in the broader exchange. Advocates for sticking to negotiations (JCPOA).
• Coleman presses: "Can you name a single country that has enriched kilograms of uranium to 60%, and then not gone on to create a bomb?"
  • Smith admits: "I don't know the answer...the answer is zero."
• Both agree there’s risk in regime change; Smith maintains preemptive wars are too dangerous to justify.

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• "I was just so interested in that guy [Ron Paul]. So I went and got his book...Then I just started falling down the rabbit hole." – Dave Smith, 08:54
• "If Al Qaeda did not believe in Salafist, extreme Islamist ideology...take away that one ingredient, and they would not have flown planes into our buildings." – Coleman Hughes, 27:45
• "If you're talking about what actually gets people to sign up to give their life and go kill other people, it's almost always the result of...innocent people who have been killed by this group that you're going after." – Smith, 14:07
• "Military spending and entitlements are both huge drivers [of the debt]. They're all huge." – Smith, 39:36
• "Everything in life is tradeoffs." – Smith, 45:17
• "I fundamentally reject the idea that there will be one power who takes over the world." – Smith, 51:43
• "The idea that the domestic Israel lobby could get us to fight an entire war...at the same price as the dentists are paying Congress is too much for me." – Coleman Hughes, 57:32
• "Project for a New American Century...They were writing their policy papers...on how we have to overthrow the government in Iraq as part of this clean break strategy on behalf of Israel." – Smith, 58:44
• "Sudden withdrawal doesn’t guarantee peace; in fact, we got rockets from Gaza and Lebanon after disengagement." – Coleman, 164:12
• "If you just...look, even saying we offer...statehood five times, which is not true, but let's just say for the sake of argument that were true. So what?...Stop enslaving them." – Smith, 127:04
• "You don't need a partner to just stop the occupation...If it's not Israel, well, then what right do they have to be the ones who decide whether these people get a state or not?" – Smith, 127:36
• "Would you allow Israel to have border security with Jordan or no?" – Coleman, 170:32
• “I'm an American who's forced to prop this whole thing up. And I just think this is appalling.” – Smith, 165:26
• "Can you name a single country in the history of nuclear proliferation that has enriched kilograms of uranium to 60% and then not gone on to create a bomb?...The answer is zero." – Coleman, 202:46

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Dave’s origin story & Ron Paul: 05:08–08:54
• Why terror: “blowback” or ideology?: 12:17–34:55
• Economics of war: 34:55–41:08
• Tradeoffs in intervention: 41:08–47:24
• If America withdraws, then what?: 47:24–54:57
• Israel lobby & Iraq war debate: 54:57–101:13
• Israel’s true goals (Greater Israel?): 115:39–137:55
• The problem of occupation: 137:55–155:50
• Birth of Israel, narratives: 151:46–156:59
• Gaza, partition, blockades: 164:12–187:32
• Iran, nukes, recent bombing: 197:05–208:49

Tone & Atmosphere

Both participants are clearly passionate, savvy, and deeply read, but maintain a tone of rigorous disagreement rather than personal acrimony. The conversation is long and nuanced, with frequent references to historical documents, polling data, and counterfactual scenarios. Coleman is forthright and persistent in challenging antiwar and anti-Israel pieties; Dave is deeply skeptical of U.S. power and committed to a radically decentralist foreign policy. The episode showcases a rare willingness to press serious disagreements to their limits—without ad hominems or cable news theatrics.

Takeaways

• Meaningful disagreement requires precision, context, and occasionally, some humility about the limits of what can be known or predicted.
• Both hosts believe in the importance of examining tradeoffs and unintended consequences—be it war, occupation, or disengagement.
• The debate over Israel, Palestine, and Iran remains haunted by dueling histories, analogies, and fears; clear-cut moral answers are elusive, and both sides bring deep grievances and vulnerabilities to the table.
• The podcast stands as a valuable resource for anyone seeking a comprehensive, good-faith exploration of American and Israeli foreign policy controversies—without the usual polemical shortcuts.

For Listeners

This episode is an advanced, extended debate that rewards close listening by providing a masterclass in live, high-level political argument—full of history, philosophy, and the persistent challenge of how (and whether) the world’s democracies should wield global power.