← Future of Freedom
Future of Freedom
Daniel J. Samet & Doug Bandow: What Should Be the American Strategy in the Middle East?
00:33:25
On this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scot Bertram is joined by two guests with different viewpoints about American strategy in the Middle East. First on the show is Daniel J. Samet, a Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on US-Israel relations and Middle East policy. Later, we hear from Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil liberties. You can find Daniel on X at @DanielJSamet and Doug at @Doug_Bandow.
Loading summary
Transcript35 lines
- [00:08]
A
Welcome to FUTURE of Freedom. I'm your host, Scott Bertram. Future of Freedom is a production of Franklin News Foundation. To support this show, go to franklinnews.org donate we bring you interviews today from different sides of the debate over President Trump's Middle east policy. In a little bit, we'll be joined by Doug Bondo, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Cato.org first we talk with Daniel J. Sammet, Gene Kirkpatrick fellow at the American Enterprise institute. More@aei.org you can also find him on xanieljsammit. Daniel, thanks so much for joining us.
- [00:47]
B
Scott, it's a pleasure to be with you today. Thanks for having me.
- [00:50]
A
Talking about President Trump's policy in the Middle east, foreign policy in the Middle east, and you recently wrote a piece at nationalreview.com, trump restores realism to Middle east policy. In it, you say that Trump's second term reflects the triumph of experience over hope. What do you mean by that? How do you think it helps to frame his Middle east policy?
- [01:12]
B
Well, very simply put, I think Trump understands the Middle east very well. This is a part of the world in which power above all else gets results. That's true everywhere on earth, and especially so in the Middle East. Trump has this intuitive sense of how the region works. He understands what American interests are, and everything he does in that region goes to advance American security and prosperity. In contrast to some past presidents. I'm sure your listeners are very well familiar with some of our wars, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump is going to embark on no democratization crusades. He does not waste resources on pretending countries like Iraq and Afghanistan are going to become European style democracies. Instead, he really has this laser focus on the stakes for American security and prosperity in that part of the world. We've seen this on display as recently as a few months ago when he ordered this very successful airstrike that obliterated Iran's nuclear program. President Trump had been very clear over a period of a few years that it would be unacceptable for Iran, which is a theocratic dictatorship run by a bunch of moles who hate us, to acquire nuclear weapon. He was very concerned about the prospect of not only Iran's acquiring nuclear weapon, but the ramifications of that on proliferation by other states. He abhors nuclear weapons. He abhors war. He wants to be a peacemaker in contrast to what his critics on the left say, and some on the Republican side as well, who claim that Trump is a warmonger and that he's obsessed with creating instability around the world. No, Trump wants peace. He wants stability. We've seen this time and again through the Abraham Accords, which he brokered very successfully in his first term to bring Israel and some Muslim countries closer together. We've seen the willingness by him and his administration to expand on those repair accords this time around in his second term. And they very much hope he's successful. And I never. Because the more peaceful it is, the more peaceful the Middle east is, the better for our interests. We want a peaceful Middle East. We want a stable Middle east. And you want a Middle east in which radical jihadism that threatens us at home is not allowed to spread and proliferate. And I think Trump is being very successful on those fronts in his second term.
- [03:34]
A
Let's talk about American relations to two specific countries in the Middle east, one being Israel. You literally wrote a book about it. US Defense policy toward Israel. I think most people can see how Israel welcomes American support in its wars and its fights in the Middle East. Why is our close ties why are our close ties to Israel and our military support there good for the United States?
- [03:59]
B
Let's put moralism and share Judeo Christian history and culture aside. Israel is a very powerful country. That wasn't always the case. But today, in 2025, Israel has one of the strongest militaries on earth. They've got a very advanced economy, one of the best high tech sectors on the planet. And put very simply, the stronger our friends are, the better for us. We want very strong countries on our side. In my book which you cited, which was originally my dissertation, I interviewed John Lehman, who was Reagan's Secretary of Navy and who was a big supporter of Israel during his time in office and remains so today. He told me very simply, look, we want them on our side. Their intelligence services are very good. Their military is very good. Their high tech sector is very good. We just want friends like Israel around the world. And President Trump's view, that also goes for countries like the Saudis, like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar. As he sees it, he wants these countries in America's camp because they are rich, they are reliable partners, as Trump, President Trump sees it. And they have a lot to offer us the United States when it comes to Israel. It's far from one way street. Israel shares a lot of intelligence with us. They invest in our country. We do a fair bit of bilateral trade. And the military to military cooperation is very important to us. And when it comes to radical Islamic terror, they're killing Ab Jihadists who hate us as well. They don't hate just the Israelis. They hate the United States, too. And the more of those terrorists Israel kills, the better for the United States. It's that simple.
- [05:36]
A
Saudi Arabia, when we talk Israel, you said at the beginning, let's put aside our shared values for a moment. And perhaps we really have to do that when we talk about Saudi Arabia. But you say it's a powerful pragmatic partner. Opponents of our, of our, of our ties to Saudi Arabia point to human rights abuses, other problems in the country. Should we rely on Saudi Arabia as a good partner in the region? And how closely are their interests allied with our interests?
- [06:07]
B
I think they've proven, especially since MBS arrived on the scene, that more often than not, they share our regional priorities. No countries are perfectly aligned, that's true. Neither of the U.S. saudi relationship, nor of the U.S. israel relationship, for that matter. But as far as the Saudis are concerned, they are a powerful country who wants to be on America's side. They've got lots of oil and gas reserves. That's very important. Even if we have no particular love for the Saudis, we don't want those energy reserves to fall in the hands of our enemies. China, for instance, which I take it your listeners would agree is no friend in the United States, is very dependent on overseas energy reserves, not least in the Middle East. If we have a good relationship with the Saudis, well, we can manipulate that relationship in terms of energy for China. That's very good. The United States, the Saudis, especially in the last few years, have also taken a very encouraging stance towards the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is one of our enemies. Saudis have no love for the Iranians. They understand that Iran is the major source of instability and they are neighborhood. And they've been very encouraged by the hard line stance President Trump has taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran on those questions. The United States and Saudi Arabia are pretty much in sync on Iran.
- [07:36]
A
The strikes on the nuclear program thus far appear to be effective and they were targeted, as you point out in your essay.
- [07:44]
C
Why?
- [07:45]
A
Are you confident? Or should we be confident there won't be some sort of retaliation on behalf of Iran or its allies? And more generally, should we be concerned about this idea of blowback for our activities in the region?
- [08:00]
B
No, we, the United States should not be that fearful. And plus, Iran's not that stupid. Despite their very bellicose rhetoric, the mullahs in Tehran are aware of the massive power imbalance between us, the United States and them, Iran. They know Deep down, they are a relatively weak country. And we, the United States, are the most powerful country the world has ever seen. They're not that stupid to take a fight with us. Recall that in 2020, President Trump took the right decision to kill Qasem Soleimani, who was Iran's terrorist mastermind, who had the blood of hundreds, if not thousands of Americans on his hands and was actively plotting attacks on more Americans. That was absolutely the right decision. The Iranians really had no serious response to that strike. It restored deterrence. Frankly, it would be hard to imagine a Democrat president making that same call this time around after we saw those massive airstrikes and also strikes using sea based missiles, sea based Tomak missiles on Iran's nuclear program. We've seen no serious response from Tehran this time around either. So that leads me to believe that Iran is not going to retaliate in a serious way. They understand that President Trump is very intent on making sure they have no nuclear weapon. They understand that that's how it's going to be. And they also fear even more of our military power because again, they recognize that there is a gulf between us in terms of our military capabilities. On the question of, let's say, rebuilding the nuclear program, well, we have two examples, two historical examples that really put the lie to the idea that Iran is going to rebuild. In 1981, Israel, in a similar operation, took out Iraq's nuclear reactor. This is when Saddam Hussein was in charge. The United States actually opposed that operation. But as time went on, Washington came to conclude that that was actually the right move. Iraq didn't rebuild its nuclear program again in 2007, 26 years later, Israel took out Syria's nuclear program, which the United States, although didn't greenlight, tacitly supported at the time. And I think 18 years later, most people in Washington would agree that was also the right call. Neither Iraq nor Syria got a nuclear weapon. Neither country rebuilt its nuclear program. And I would expect the same of the Iranians. They've seen that Trump means what he says. He's going to follow through on his pledge that Iran will never acquire a nuclear weapon. And given that he's already used military force to obliterate their nuclear program, I think it would be foolish of them to attempt to rebuild it. I would not expect them to do so.
- [10:53]
A
If this is an example of Trump, meaning what he says, what do you think the reaction is in China, in Russia, as they look at President Trump's foreign policy approach in the Middle east and how that might affect the way the US Deals with them on a more global basis.
- [11:09]
B
As Machiavelli has said, and I imagine your listeners are familiar with Machiavelli. It's much better to be feared than to be loved, especially so of our enemies. Putin and Xi. I think not only respect President Trump as a strong leader, but they also fear him because he's willing to use American power in resolute defense of American interests. Let's go back to the last administration which, as we all remember in 2021, ordered this chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. It was embarrassing, it was a humiliation, it was a disaster for our country. And in terms of the geopolitical ramifications elsewhere around the world, we saw just a few months later, in early 2022, Russia move into Ukraine. Now, I think, and I think many others would agree that you can draw a direct line from that calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan to Russia's going into Ukraine. Because Putin, as he saw it, perceived weakness on the part of the Americans. He saw a commander in chief who was out to lunch, who was not willing to use military force credibly and who was willing to let a bunch of medieval savages run us out of Afghanistan in an absolutely horrific withdrawal and concluded that the United States would not respond resolutely to his invasion of Ukraine. Today we have a very different story. We have a commander in chief who is perceived to be strong. He's perceived to be a strong leader. Even I think his messed up critics here would recognize that he means what he says. He follows through on his pledges and he's not one to be messed with. That is really important on the world stage because we need a leader who is strong and we need a leader whom our enemies fear above all else. That's my view.
- [13:01]
A
You've said previously, Donald Trump wants peace. Donald Trump wants to bring an end to these conflicts. He's not been successful as of the time of, of our, of our discussion here today. Is there a possibility, should we worry about the idea of prioritizing short term peace over long term stability?
- [13:20]
B
It's a good question. Obviously you're referring to the Israel Hamas conflict that has been raging for almost two years now. @ the time of this recording, the so called 20 point plan has been made public. It's been offered to Hamas and they have yet to accept that plan. I'd be surprised if they accept, but I hope I'm proven wrong in that regard because we all want to see this war end. As Douglas MacArthur said decades ago when he was speaking in front of Congress. In war, there is no substitute for victory. The most important thing for Israel, which is our partner, our proxy in the struggle, is to come out on top. We want them to win because they're our partner in this. They're our ally. We want them to be victorious in their fight against Hamas, which is a bunch of barbaric savages who hate us, who hate the Israelis, and who have been actually vicious in how they treat civilians and any combatants alike. We want Hamas to be able to run Gaza never again. We want them never again to pose a threat, either to Israel or to the United States. That is our ultimate consideration. We need to let Israel, in my view, go ahead and finish the job. We need to let them be victorious in this war. They've decided that they want to go along with the 20 point peace plan that has been proposed, which reportedly would allow Hamas safe passage from Gaza in exchange for ending the war and releasing the hostages, in exchange for them never again being able to control Gaza. I think if that is what is brokered, that would be an acceptable outcome both to the United States and for Israel and for our other Middle Eastern partners. We want the war to end and we want Hamas never again to be in control of Gaza. They've shown themselves to be utterly incapable of running Gaza or any other territory in a way that's concerning with the UN Interest. We need them out. We need them never again on the scene.
- [15:26]
A
Daniel, you make the argument that President Trump has restored realism to Middle east policy. Does that coexist hand in hand with his America first promise to voters and to Americans?
- [15:40]
B
It does. America first, as the President has made clear, means this steadfast focus on what is good for the United States first and foremost. Now, there isn't necessarily tension between that view of which I'm an adherent, and the view that we should be engaged in the world and forging alliances overseas, making deals and using military force and other types of force when necessary? I think those two views, far from intention, actually are often complementary of each other. President Trump is often alleged to be an isolationist. I think that's an incorrect view. I don't think he would call himself that, and I don't think it's fair to call himself that. I think it's fair to label him as a leader who is concerned principally with the welfare of the American people. That's how he approaches his domestic policy as well as his foreign policy. He wants to look out for ordinary Americans, not globalist elites, and how he goes about making policy, whether on the domestic scene or on the foreign policy scene. And I think his America first approach when it comes to foreign policy has delivered real results since the end of the Cold War, specifically in the Middle east but also in other parts of the world. This what I would call drift away from a realist view of the world, from a view of the world that prioritizes our interests, namely our security and prosperity in favor of these abstractions like human rights and liberal values, has really in my view, not borne fruit in the Middle East. We've embarked on these misbegotten wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of American casualties. Those wars were not worth the costs and that was true under both Republican and Democrat presidents. Now we're seeing a return to a clear eyed view of American grand strategy and American interests. And under President Trump, as I see it, we're not going to embark on any more of those foolish misbegotten wars. We're going to be laser focused on our core American interests. We're going to be focused on trade, investment, energy security and counterterrorism operations. No more nation building, no more democracy crusades. I think President Trump has absolutely the right approach in the Middle east and elsewhere around the world.
- [18:07]
A
Daniel J. Samet is Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, aei.org you can also find him on xanieljsammit. Daniel, thanks so much for joining us today on Future of Freedom.
- [18:20]
B
Thank you, Scott. It's been great.
- [18:22]
A
Now to hear another side of the discussion about President Trump's foreign policy in the Middle East. We talk with Doug Bondo. He is senior fellow at The Cato Institute, cato.org, also find him on X ugbondo. Doug, thanks so much for joining us. Happy to be on TALK TODAY about American strategy in the Middle East, a piece you wrote earlier in the year, Trump needs an America First Middle east strategy. In here, Doug, you argue the United States essentially is fighting wars in the Middle east on behalf of Saudi Arabia, on behalf of Israel and others. Why do you think that successive administrations, administrations of both parties have chosen this path?
- [19:05]
C
Part of it is a perception of American interest. That is, the Saudis produce oil, they're a wealthy country, they buy American weapons that you want them on your side. You're concerned about access to oil. And the oil concern is a legitimate one. But it matters much less today than say, 30 or 40 years ago. Jimmy Carter kind of brought the US into the middle east on the sense of protecting oil and the concern then was Soviet Union might intervene and try to deny oil to the United States. And that was an argument you could make in 1976, maybe 1980, but you really can't make it today. And I think there's a hangover then from that. The other big issue, of course, has always been Israel, and the US Has a special relationship there. Certainly in the earlier years, there was concern that Israel might be overwhelmed by, you know, kind of a group of Arab neighbors. But, you know, you go back to 1967, Israel triumphed. 1973, a tough time, but Israel still triumphed. Today, Israel is absolutely militarily dominant. So again, it's hard to make the case that once was made. I think in many ways we see hangover there of an unwillingness to change American foreign policy and military policy. And to my mind, international policy for the US should be prudential and circumstantial. That is prudential. It should really advance American interests. You should be prudent in what you do and circumstantial in that you should change with the times. And today it's very hard to make that argument that we once made.
- [20:50]
A
Some critics would say withdrawing or disengaging from the region risks a power vacuum that could be filled by Russia, China or others. Do you think that's a serious threat we should consider?
- [21:04]
C
No, I don't think there's any other power that is going to fill the role the United States has. China has no interest in military intervention in the Middle East. They want to be active economically, but they're going to be active economically whether or not the US Is there. We've seen them much more active with Saudi Arabia, with the United Arab Emirates. We see them active with Iran. And that's based on economics. You go around the world, most countries actually trade more with China than with the United States, other than countries like Canada and Mexico, at least until President Trump, who isn't necessarily that happy with either of them. But China's going to play that role. But China has a military role in East Asia, which concerns us. But no one really sees China as a. A power kind of sending troops to the Middle East. They've never shown the slightest interest in that. And Russia, whatever its military designs, is much more regional power than an international power. I mean, we've long joked that Russia basically is a gas station with nuclear weapons. It matters, but it matters primarily in Europe, and it's shown the difficulty in trying to browbeat Ukraine. It's taken two and a half years, and it's taken a very Small amount of territory. It's lost its role in Syria with the revolution there. So it's not going to replace the United States. And the US shouldn't be afraid of having some competition in a region trying to maintain absolute American dominance means we're entangled in local controversies. We ended up with the Iraq war. That was a catastrophe based on a lie. Killed thousands of Americans, wasted trillions of U.S. doll, you know, the U.S. was spending millions of dollars to shoot down drones that cost thousands of dollars from Yemen, which were targeting European ships in an area where the US had virtually no traffic, maritime traffic. These policies make no sense, declaring that we're the dominant power. You can't justify that by wasting money for no particular purpose that serves American interest.
- [23:21]
A
In the piece, you claim that U.S. intervention is a main cause of terrorism against Americans, that it essentially creates blowback against citizens both here and those living abroad. What do we know about that? Just in terms of evidence, why would we think that Al Qaeda, isis, would change course if we would just withdraw?
- [23:42]
C
Well, I think there's a separate issue of, given where we are at today, will terrorists go away? To my mind, there are two ways you fight terrorism, one of which is you have to confront the people who are threatening us today. But most of those people don't show up in America. We had the one terrible instance with 9, 11. But, I mean, ISIS has never. I mean, ISIS wanted to create a caliphate over there. ISIS had no interest in coming to America. And they lost because everyone in the region hated them and were going to confront them. So my mind is number one. If you have terrorists who want to kill us, then you have to be prepared to either defeat them or kill them. But the other point is not to create new terrorists. And being over there merely does that. That is, to the extent that we bomb other countries, you know, we get involved in other countries wars, we make other countries, you know, other, you know, forces. Enemies of America as well as whoever we're supporting. We turn them into terrorists attacking us. There was the instance a number of years ago where a Pakistani American, you know, part, you know, filled an SUV with explosives, parked it in Times Square in New York City, and, you know, went off. And luckily it didn't go off. They found it, and they diffused everything. He waited about a week to fly off, and they caught him on the airplane before he went. Now, I would have, you know, if I. If I was doing it, I would have parked the suv, hailed a cab, gotten to JFK airport, and flown away instead of waiting around to be captured. But in court, you know, the judge, you know, asks him, why did you do this? You know, these are civilians. Why are you. Why are you doing that? And he says, look, the US Is droning, you know, people in Pakistan and, you know, the US These civilians elect their government. They're responsible. And the judge says, yeah, but there are children there. And the guy says, look, the US doesn't make that distinction. It kills children and families in Pakistan. Why should I make the distinction? And, you know, that's not to justify what he did, but the explanation is important. That is, if we're going to get involved and support the Pakistani government and kill local people, well, somebody's not going to like that. And guess what? We've become a target. So my view is getting out of the Middle east, if it doesn't serve American security interests, will in fact result in less terrorism in the future. We may still have to act and put in special operations forces. At times we probably have to work with intelligence and work with other governments, but we want a lower footprint, and we don't want to become essentially the cat's paw of governments there who have their own agenda.
- [26:26]
A
Doug, since your piece was published in April of this year, we saw the strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities. I wonder, in the wake of that, would you argue that we actually, in some ways, are less safe and should we still worry about some sort of intense retaliation?
- [26:44]
C
Well, I think we're less safe, but I think the question is less safe from what? Iran is never going to attack the United States. I mean, the notion that the US Iran would fire nukes at America and be utterly destroyed and it was simply just not going to happen. That Iran is not a threat to the United States. It's a nasty place. I mean, without question, that regime is a bad regime, but we shouldn't. This is where the starting point matters. In 1953, the US and Brits helped overthrow a democratic government in Iran that gave us the Shah. We liked him, but he tortured his own people and he got overthrown. And that gave us this terrible government. So the idea that suddenly we're innocent. No, we were over there. We overthrew a democratic government. We promoted a regime that killed and tortured people. And then we're shocked that the new folks don't like us. Well, that shows the problem of getting involved. The current folks are most interested in protecting themselves. They recognize the US As a superpower. I think what we managed to do is we had a. This president, when he was president before, got rid of the nuclear agreement it wasn't a perfect agreement, but it had actually constrained Iran. So naturally they moved ahead on nuclear development, and he could have gotten another agreement, but then he decided to bomb them, and now they don't want to talk to the US and unfortunately, we've convinced them that there is no way to protect themselves except to have a nuke. I mean, that we kind of put proved that along with the Israelis. So I think this is kind of the misbegotten price of intervention. If you're running around bombing countries, they are likely to say, how do I protect myself? Well, North Korea's decided it wants not only nukes, but it wants ICBMs that can target America. And they're pretty close. So think of a world in which Kim Jong Un holds the future of American cities in his hands. Well, guess what? We got involved in Korea, and we bomb other countries like Iraq that we don't like. Well, we created an incentive structure that frankly encourages other countries to look at us as enemies and decide they have to arm themselves in different ways to try to protect themselves. I'd argue that's a more dangerous world for us.
- [29:00]
A
Let's talk a bit about Israel. Some would argue that US Support is still essential for their security. What do you think that Israel still wants, needs desires from the US and what should we provide them in that way?
- [29:14]
C
Yes. I have trouble looking at Israel today and asking and answering. They need American support. Now, the main thing they want, I guess, from the US Is weapons. But they are a prosperous, industrialized, advanced country that essentially is a regional superpower. I mean, they have nuclear weapons. There's one nuclear state in the Middle east, it happens to be Israel, and they've shown the ability to absolutely devastate their enemies. They have an extraordinary intelligence network. I mean, you consider what they did in terms of Hamas and pagers, and I mean, these sorts of things. I don't see any reason why the US has to be on the front lines where we treat their interests as ours and they aren't. I mean, we are a separate country. We have different interests. And to my mind, the big problem here is you have a very radical government in power in Israel. If you're not willing to provide some political solution for Palestinians, this war will never end. It appears today that there are more Muslims than Jews between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean, which means Israel's really existential question today is how can you be both democratic and Jewish? And the answer is you can't. And then that either means you give up a Jewish identity, which they don't want, which I understand. Or you have to be what is essentially an authoritarian state, which means you have an apartheid state in the west bank and Gaza was essentially an open air prison. That's also unsustainable. And today Israel quite honestly is becoming utterly isolated around the world where essentially it is defended by the United States, by India, by Argentina, a couple of other countries. But it's even losing the Europeans, which is extraordinary, that this is going to be a very uncomfortable world for Israel. And trying to live forever with a multimillion people as subjects under a military occupation, there's going to be continued violence. It's a great tragedy. I think that Israel's security is very much at risk in ways that we cannot resolve.
- [31:25]
A
Is there a responsibility for the US to help to promote peace and stability in the Middle East? Is that something that should be one of our goals?
- [31:36]
C
Well, I guess I'd say it's in many ways a fantasy. Yes, of course we should promote peace and stability wherever we can. But we should also recognize that sometimes stability and peace may not go hand in hand. And US Policy in the Middle east is not one of stability. We bombed Iran. That is not a stabilizing policy. We invaded Iraq. That was highly destabilizing. We helped Saudi Arabia bomb and create chaos in Yemen. That was not a stabilizing policy. So the US Talks about stability, but it believes in stability only when it advances American interests. Otherwise we're quite willing to blow places up and just see what happens. I'd love to see us promote peace, but again, our policy in recent years in the Middle east has not been particularly peaceful.
- [32:25]
A
Doug Bondo is Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. You can find more@cato.org and this piece is there and also at the American Conservative Trump Needs an America First Middle East Strategy. You can follow Doug on X as well. Ugbondo Doug, thanks so much for joining us here on Future of Freedom.
- [32:46]
C
Take care now.
- [32:46]
A
We thank both of our guests for joining us. Daniel J. Samet, Gene Kirkpatrick, Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, aei.org and danieljsammet on X& Doug Bondo, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, Cato.org and Ugbondo on X. To find additional episodes of Future of Freedom, go to Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your audio. Thank you for listening to Future of Freedom, a production of Franklin News Foundation.