Future of Freedom: "What Should Be the American Strategy in the Middle East?"

Podcast: Future of Freedom
Host: Scott Bertram (Franklin News Foundation)
Guests: Daniel J. Samet (American Enterprise Institute) & Doug Bandow (Cato Institute)
Date: October 3, 2025

Overview

This episode of Future of Freedom features a civil, in-depth exploration of America's strategy in the Middle East, focusing primarily on the effects and future ramifications of President Trump’s current policies in the region. The host, Scott Bertram, facilitates interviews with two policy experts presenting markedly different visions: Daniel J. Samet argues for a "realist" and America-first stance that sees strength and selective alliances as necessary, while Doug Bandow critiques US interventionism and highlights the dangers and unintended consequences of such a posture.

Both guests debate the purposes and benefits of US partnerships with Israel and Saudi Arabia, discuss the risks of military actions against Iran, and examine broader themes like the risk of "blowback," terrorism, the influence of great powers, and the distinction between short-term peace and long-term stability.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Daniel J. Samet: Realism, Strength, and Clear Alliances

(00:47–18:20)

Framing Trump’s Middle East Policy

• Trump “understands the Middle East very well,” recognizing that “power above all else gets results.”
• Trump prioritizes American security and prosperity—without pursuing “democratization crusades” like in Iraq or Afghanistan.
• Trump’s recent policies are described as a “triumph of experience over hope,” focusing on concrete interests rather than ideals.
• High-profile actions, such as the airstrike on Iran’s nuclear program, are presented as concrete evidence of this approach.

“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.”
— Daniel J. Samet (01:13)

On Israel

• US-Israel ties are mutually beneficial due to Israel's military, intelligence, and technological strengths.
• Support is framed not in terms of shared values but strategic benefit.
• Israel is described as “a very powerful country” operating as a crucial and effective partner.

“The stronger our friends are, the better for us.”
— Daniel J. Samet (04:09)

On Saudi Arabia

• Saudi Arabia is a “powerful, pragmatic partner,” especially post-MBS, whose priorities are now more in line with US interests.
• Energy resources and alignment against Iran are crucial reasons to maintain close ties.

“We don't want those energy reserves to fall in the hands of our enemies. … 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.”
— Daniel J. Samet (06:20)

Retaliation and Blowback

• Samet downplays the likelihood of serious Iranian retaliation, citing previous examples and the relative weakness of Iran.

“Despite their very bellicose rhetoric, the mullahs in Tehran are aware of the massive power imbalance between us, the United States and them, Iran.”
— Daniel J. Samet (08:12)

Impact on Global Adversaries

• Trump's willingness to use force increases deterrence, making adversaries like Russia and China fear US resolve.

“As Machiavelli has said...it's much better to be feared than to be loved, especially so of our enemies. Putin and Xi...not only respect President Trump as a strong leader, but they also fear him.”
— Daniel J. Samet (11:10)

Balancing Peace and Long-Term Stability

• Prioritizes victory for allies (especially Israel) as the prerequisite for sustainable peace.
• Endorses the 20-point Israel-Hamas peace plan, contingent on Hamas’s removal from control in Gaza.

“In war, there is no substitute for victory. … We want Hamas to be able to run Gaza never again.”
— Daniel J. Samet (13:32)

America First and Realism

• Samet maintains that “America First" is not isolationism but a focus on US interests, working with allies where beneficial.
• Opposes “democracy crusades” and costly interventions, supporting selective engagement based on strategic priorities.

“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.”
— Daniel J. Samet (17:44)

2. Doug Bandow: Non-Intervention, Prudence, and Blowback

(18:22–32:45)

Critique of American Middle East Engagement

• US has maintained military involvement out of outdated ideas on oil security and uncritical support for Israel.
• Argues US policy should be “prudential and circumstantial” and adapt to present circumstances, e.g., diminished oil dependence.

“Today, it's very hard to make that argument that we once made.”
— Doug Bandow (19:41)

On China, Russia, and the “Vacuum” Argument

• Bandow refutes the idea that US withdrawal opens the door to dangerous power rivals; China and Russia are uninterested or incapable of filling a similar role.

“China has no interest in military intervention in the Middle East…Russia, whatever its military designs, is much more regional power than an international power.”
— Doug Bandow (21:05)

Blowback from US Actions

• US interventionism creates new enemies and increases the risk of terrorist attacks against Americans.
• Cites examples where US actions fostered anti-American sentiment and catalyzed terrorism.

“The other point is not to create new terrorists. And being over there merely does that.”
— Doug Bandow (24:23)

• Specific anecdote: A Pakistani-American terrorist cited US drone strikes as his motivation, highlighting how overseas actions can have domestic repercussions.

Recent US Actions & Iran

• Bandow critiques recent strikes on Iran’s nuclear program as ultimately making America less safe by incentivizing adversaries to pursue nuclear weapons for deterrence.
• Argues that US interventions and abrogation of deals push Iran and other adversaries toward more hostile postures.

“Now they [Iran] 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.”
— Doug Bandow (28:03)

On Israel

• Points out Israel’s military and economic superiority, noting they no longer need extraordinary US support.
• Suggests continued US backing enables Israel to avoid addressing the Palestinian issue, prolonging conflict and isolation.

“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.”
— Doug Bandow (29:44)

• Raises existential issues facing Israel—balancing democracy and Jewish identity—and predicts continued instability without a political solution.

US Promoting Peace and Stability

• Bandow argues US claims of promoting stability ring hollow given its history of interventions, which have often led to greater chaos.

“We bombed Iran. That is not a stabilizing policy. We invaded Iraq. That was highly destabilizing.”
— Doug Bandow (31:49)

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• “In war, there is no substitute for victory.” — Daniel J. Samet (13:31)
• “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.” — Doug Bandow (21:05)
• “We don't want those energy reserves to fall in the hands of our enemies.” — Daniel J. Samet (06:22)
• “The other point is not to create new terrorists. And being over there merely does that.” — Doug Bandow (24:23)
• “We ended up with the Iraq war. That was a catastrophe based on a lie. Killed thousands of Americans, wasted trillions of U.S. dollars.” — Doug Bandow (22:14)
• “No more nation building, no more democracy crusades.” — Daniel J. Samet (17:44)

Key Timestamps

• 00:47 – Daniel J. Samet begins: Case for Trump’s Middle East Realism
• 03:34 – Samet on Israel as a vital US partner
• 05:35 – Samet on Saudi Arabia’s role and US interests
• 07:44 – Samet addresses concerns about Iranian retaliation
• 11:09 – Perceptions of Trump by China and Russia
• 13:20 – Peace vs. Stability: Israel-Hamas conflict and prospects for peace
• 15:40 – America First and Realism in foreign policy
• 18:22 – Doug Bandow introduces critique of US interventionism
• 21:03 – Bandow refutes “power vacuum” fears
• 23:21 – Bandow on terrorism and “blowback”
• 26:43 – Bandow critiques US action on Iran’s nuclear sites
• 29:14 – Bandow: Israel does not need US support; the need for a political solution
• 31:35 – Bandow: US record on “peace and stability”

Tone & Language

• The conversation is thoughtful and civil, with both guests speaking in articulate, policy-oriented language tailored for an informed audience.
• Samet is assertive, succinct, and unwavering in defense of strategic realism, while Bandow is reflective and critical, providing historical context and warning against unintended consequences.

Conclusion

This episode delivers a comprehensive survey of the arguments dominating American foreign policy debate in the Middle East. Daniel J. Samet, from a conservative realist position, argues for strong, interest-driven alliances and decisive action, crediting Trump with pragmatic clarity. Doug Bandow, on the other hand, urges U.S. retrenchment, mindful adaptation to a changing world, and an end to armed entanglements that sow chaos and create enemies. The resulting dialogue offers a rich perspective for listeners seeking to understand the present and future of American involvement in one of the world’s most volatile regions.