When Charlie Kirk closed his conference in Tampa with a live debate between Newsweek’s Josh Hammer and libertarian comic Dave Smith, he didn’t tiptoe around the touchiest subject on the right. He drove straight into it: the 12-day U.S.–Israel–Iran confrontation, the scope of Israeli influence in Washington, and—beyond the “against-ism”—what each side actually wants America to do next. What followed was a brisk, sometimes combustible clash that distilled the right’s foreign-policy divide into two clean archetypes: nationalist-realist versus non-interventionist.
The Stakes and the Setup
Kirk framed three questions:
- Was the recent 12-day war wise or reckless?
- How much influence does Israel—and pro-Israel lobbying—exert over U.S. policy?
- What’s the concrete end state each side proposes?
The moderator also pressed both men on Gaza and October 7, and insisted the debate end with prescriptions rather than just grievances.
Opening Worldviews
Dave Smith’s Starting Point
Smith entered the debate openly as a disciple of Ron Paul—“the greatest congressman who ever lived.” He framed his foreign policy worldview around Paul’s non-interventionism: America should be a republic, not an empire, guided by the founding fathers’ warning against entangling alliances.
The Core Charge: Neoconservatism + Likud
Smith argued that American foreign policy has been “criminally insane” for decades, dominated by neoconservatives who exploited 9/11 to launch regime-change wars. He directly linked the neoconservative project to Israel’s Likud party, citing:
- The Clean Break memo (1996) by Richard Perle and David Wurmser, which advocated overthrowing Israel’s regional adversaries instead of making peace with Palestinians.
- Wesley Clark’s post-9/11 revelation that the Pentagon planned to topple “seven countries in five years,” with Iran as the final target.
- Netanyahu himself lobbying the U.S. Congress in 2002 to invade Iraq, promising that “peace would spread through the region.”
The “Forever War” Pattern
Smith said the neocon agenda used nuclear fear as propaganda to sell wars to the American public. Iraq, Libya, Syria—all justified with WMD scare language that wasn’t in the original neocon writings but was tested as effective in U.S. focus groups. Iran, he argued, is the same playbook:
- The intelligence community itself admitted Iran hadn’t made the political decision to pursue a bomb.
- Trump had Iran at the table negotiating enrichment reductions before Israel’s strikes and America’s 12-Day War intervention.
- Launching the war was like playing Russian roulette—luck spared a catastrophe this time, but the risk was unnecessary.
The Economic Angle: Republic vs. Empire
Beyond morality, Smith hammered on economics. He said America has spent $20 trillion since the collapse of the Soviet Union chasing empire and propping up allies, all on borrowed and printed money. The “warfare state” fuels debt, inflation, and a housing market that prices out young Americans. His line: “No Islamist is going to take down our country, but drowning in debt and empire will.”
The Prescription
Smith’s alternative lodestar is clear:
Focus inward: restore fiscal sanity, end the debt spiral, and repair the republic.
Peace and commerce with all nations, alliances with none.
Armed neutrality: America should only use force if directly attacked.
End all foreign aid, including to Israel. Treat it as foreign policy welfare that distorts U.S. priorities.
Hammer: The Trump Doctrine in Action
Josh Hammer was careful to distinguish himself from two poles he said dominate the discourse: neoconservatism on one side and isolationism on the other.
1. Rejecting the Neocon Label.
Hammer bristled at being lumped in with the neocons who drove America into Iraq and Afghanistan. He said those wars were textbook cases of what not to do: moral crusades, democracy-building, “forever wars” that drained U.S. blood and treasure without advancing real national interest. “That’s not me,” Hammer insisted.
2. Rejecting Isolationism.
At the same time, he rejected what he saw in Dave Smith’s position as a drift toward isolationism—retreating behind oceans, refusing to project strength. Hammer argued that in the modern world, with rogue states and terror networks, America doesn’t have the luxury of hiding. “When a real adversary threatens U.S. interests,” he said, “we must be prepared to strike.”
3. The Trump Doctrine.
Hammer positioned himself as carrying forward what he called the Trump Doctrine, which he described as:
- Nationalist-realist, Jacksonian in temperament.
- No nation-building, no “moral crusades.”
- Rapid, decisive deterrence when action is required.
- Clear limits: no occupation, no quagmires, no U.S. casualties if it can be avoided.
4. The 12-Day War as Example.
In Hammer’s telling, the strike on Iran was exactly what the Trump Doctrine prescribes:
- Israeli electronic warfare and suppression cleared a path.
- U.S. B-2 bombers carried out precision strikes.
- No U.S. casualties.
- Iran’s nuclear program set back years.
- Operation over in less than two weeks.
To Hammer, this was the model: America projecting power without bogging down. “Hit hard, fast, and clean—and then come home.”
Answering Smith’s Moral Critique
Hammer directly addressed Smith’s accusations of hypocrisy and “stupidity” when it came to being pro-life but justifying civilian deaths.
1. Human Shields and Responsibility.
Hammer leaned heavily on the human shields argument: Hamas embeds itself in hospitals, schools, and neighborhoods. International law, he said, places ultimate culpability on those who use civilians as shields. Israel, by contrast, takes steps—warnings, leaflets, calls—to minimize casualties. “By historical urban-warfare metrics,” Hammer said, “Israel’s civilian-to-combatant ratio is restrained.”
2. Reading Smith’s Tweets.
Hammer then read aloud from Smith’s tweets criticizing Israel’s conduct. He used them to illustrate what he sees as the flaw in Smith’s stance: consistent attacks on Israel’s morality but little acknowledgment of Hamas’s responsibility.
3. Character vs. Substance.
Smith shot back that instead of grappling with his substantive case, critics—including Hammer—kept going after his character, painting him as “anti-Israel” or “anti-Semitic” rather than answering the arguments. “They only attack my character,” Smith said, “not my reasoning.”
Hammer responded that the reasoning itself was flawed—that it ignored both the operational reality of Hamas’s tactics and the strategic necessity of deterrence. But the exchange made clear how much of the debate revolved around framing: Smith insisting his critique was moral consistency, Hammer insisting Smith’s framing was moral grandstanding that missed the hard truths of war.
The Core Divide:
For Hammer, the 12-day war embodied disciplined, Jacksonian realism—deterrence without empire. For Smith, it looked like another discretionary war justified by euphemisms, where moral consistency was sacrificed and dissent was dismissed as character flaws rather than answered.
Round One: The 12-Day War
The debate opened with the sharpest flashpoint: the brief U.S.–Israel campaign against Iran, commonly called the 12-Day War. Both debaters agreed Iran should not acquire nuclear weapons—but they diverged on the question of means, risk, and legitimacy.
Dave Smith’s Case: Reckless Russian Roulette
Smith argued that the 12-day war was not a triumph of “Trump Doctrine realism,” but an unnecessary gamble that put American security, regional stability, and innocent lives at risk.
1. No imminent nuclear threat.
Smith grounded his case in official intelligence, citing the U.S. Director of National Intelligence’s annual report which explicitly stated that Iran had not made the political decision to pursue a nuclear weapon. Enrichment levels were indeed up to 60%—a worrying figure—but still short of weapons-grade, and the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed there was no evidence of diversion to weaponization. “There was no ticking time bomb,” Smith argued, only a manageable problem that had been inflated into an existential crisis.
2. Diplomacy was on the table.
Far from being cornered, Smith noted that the Trump administration had opened direct talks with Tehran in hopes of freezing and reducing enrichment. Trump’s style—erratic but transactional—had actually created leverage. By bombing instead of bargaining, Washington slammed the door on diplomacy just as it showed promise. “We short-circuited a path that was working,” Smith said.
3. A war of choice, not necessity.
Smith’s sharpest metaphor: this was Russian roulette. The strike may have looked clean in hindsight, but only because Iran opted for restraint in its retaliation. A different decision—say, a more aggressive counterstrike against U.S. forces or Gulf allies—could have escalated into a regional war overnight. “The fact that the chamber clicked empty doesn’t make it wise to pull the trigger,” he quipped.
4. Civilian costs understated.
Hammer’s line—“No American soldiers died”—infuriated Smith. He argued that this metric dehumanized the conflict, ignoring both Iranian and Israeli civilians caught in the crossfire. For Smith, the absence of U.S. casualties cannot be the gold standard of success. Strategic wisdom, he insisted, requires weighing all the lives lost, the risks taken, and the precedent set for launching discretionary wars.
5. The pattern of discretionary wars.
Smith tied the episode to a broader post-9/11 pattern: America normalizing strikes and regime-change flirtations in the Middle East under the banner of deterrence. From Iraq to Libya to Syria, he said, each discretionary war was sold as “surgical” and “bounded,” only to metastasize into regional instability. “This was not prudence—it was habit,” Smith said, arguing that Hammer was dressing up old neocon logic in Trumpist clothes.
Smith’s Bottom Line:
What Hammer called disciplined deterrence, Smith called reckless roulette. Without an imminent threat, without exhausting diplomacy, and with real civilian costs, the war was neither necessary nor wise.
Josh Hammer’s Case: Disciplined Deterrence
Hammer positioned the 12-Day War not as reckless escalation but as the model execution of the Trump Doctrine: fast, forceful, bounded, and strategically aligned with America’s core interests.
1. Iran’s long pattern of aggression.
Hammer reminded the audience that this wasn’t a “new war.” From Hezbollah’s 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines, to Iran’s provision of explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) that maimed American troops in Iraq, to the Revolutionary Guard’s backing of militias across the Middle East, Tehran had been at war with the U.S. for decades. The IAEA’s repeated complaints about restricted inspections and advanced enrichment levels, Hammer argued, only confirmed what Iran’s trajectory had always suggested: they were heading toward a bomb, whether the final political decision had been declared or not.
2. The Trump Doctrine in practice.
Hammer rejected the “neocon” label outright. He said the 12-Day War followed Trump’s own nationalist-realist model: “Jacksonian, not Wilsonian.”
- No ground troops. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, no American divisions were sent into a quagmire.
- No U.S. casualties. American lives weren’t put on the line, yet strategic aims were met.
- Clear, decisive objectives. In less than two weeks, Iran’s nuclear capacity was set back years without entangling the U.S. in long-term commitments.
This, Hammer said, is how deterrence should look in the 21st century: a hammer strike, not a crusade.
3. Alliance in action.
Hammer praised the operational choreography with Israel. Israeli electronic warfare units and air-defense suppression created the opening. U.S. B-2 bombers then executed the deep-penetration strikes on hardened Iranian nuclear sites. “It was an alley-oop between allies,” he said—each side playing to its strengths. For Hammer, this demonstrated that America benefits when trusted allies share the load.
4. Promises kept.
Hammer underscored that Trump had always pledged two things: (1) to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and (2) to avoid endless ground wars. The 12-Day War, in Hammer’s telling, delivered both. Iran’s program was crippled, yet no open-ended quagmire followed. “This was not Iraq 2003. This was America keeping its word while avoiding another forever war,” he said.
Smith’s Pushback: Reagan and Iran-Contra
Smith interjected to challenge Hammer’s framing, drawing a historical parallel. He pointed back to Ronald Reagan’s handling of Iran in the 1980s.
- Reagan, Smith noted, had publicly declared Iran a terrorist regime while simultaneously trading arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair. That contradiction, Smith argued, shows how slippery “deterrence” language can be. The rhetoric is hardline, but the practice often slips into murky, counterproductive adventures.
- He warned that Hammer’s “disciplined deterrence” risks repeating the same cycle—talking about strength and clarity while sliding into covert deals, shadow wars, and strategic blowback. “We’ve been here before,” Smith said. “You say Jacksonian restraint. History says mission creep.”
- For Smith, Reagan’s example proved that U.S. policymakers habitually underestimate tail risks in the Middle East. What starts as “surgical deterrence” often metastasizes into exactly what Hammer insists it won’t: prolonged entanglement, contradictions, and credibility loss.
The Collision
Hammer leaned on history to argue Iran had long since “earned” decisive strikes. Smith leaned on history to argue “decisive strikes” often lead to unforeseen traps. Hammer held up the 12-Day War as a vindication of Trump’s promises; Smith countered with Reagan’s Iran-Contra scandal as a cautionary tale that promises of restraint usually collapse under pressure.
The Hinge Questions
At the height of the exchange, Moderator Charlie Kirk drilled into the core tension: if each side’s model was tested to its limit, what would they actually be willing to do?
1. To Hammer: Ground Troops?
Kirk posed the toughest hypothetical to Hammer: “If putting U.S. boots on the ground were the only way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, would you support it?”
- Hammer immediately rejected the premise. He said the entire logic of the Trump Doctrine—what he called Jacksonian realism—is precisely to prevent America from being cornered into another ground invasion.
- He insisted the 12-Day War proved the point: decisive air power, intelligence coordination, and allied burden-sharing eliminated the need for U.S. ground troops.
- “If you’re at the place where you think only an Iraq-style invasion will stop Iran, you’ve already admitted you’ve failed strategically,” Hammer argued.
- His bottom line: the quick-strike, high-tech deterrence model is not a bridge to ground war—it’s the antidote to it.
2. To Smith: Would You Ever Use Force?
Kirk then turned to Smith: “Is there any scenario where you’d support military action against Iran?”
- Smith didn’t rule it out categorically. “In some extreme case, where inspectors confirm Iran has a bomb ready to be deployed, I’d understand the argument for force,” he admitted.
- But in this case, Smith said, such a scenario simply didn’t exist. The Director of National Intelligence had already assessed that Iran had not made the political decision to pursue a bomb. Inspectors still had access, and enrichment—though elevated—was not weaponization.
- He argued diplomacy and verification were not just theoretical options, but active and working before the bombs fell.
- For Smith, the question wasn’t whether America should ever fight—it was whether America had to fight here and now. And his answer was no: the strike was discretionary, not necessary.
The Contrast Made Plain
- Hammer’s hinge: Preemption avoids quagmire; a “no ground troops” principle is baked into the doctrine.
- Smith’s hinge: Diplomacy was functioning; war is justified only when every peaceful option has collapsed—and in his view, this case was far from that.
The Verdict: Risk Tolerance vs. Risk Aversion
Both Hammer and Smith insisted they were the adults in the room, warning against recklessness. But what counts as “reckless” turned out to be the sharpest dividing line.
Hammer’s Prudence: Deterrence Through Decisive Strikes
- Hammer cast the 12-Day War as a “clean execution of Trump’s nationalist-realist doctrine”: limited, rapid, technologically precise.
- For him, the risks were foreseeable and managed—no ground troops, no American casualties, no open-ended occupation.
- He argued that the message to Tehran (and to Beijing and Moscow watching from the sidelines) was clear: “Don’t test U.S. resolve, because we can and will break your toys without breaking ourselves.”
- Hammer’s prudence is about using force early, narrowly, and hard enough to reset deterrence before an adversary thinks escalation is worth the gamble.
Smith’s Prudence: Diplomacy Over “Russian Roulette”
- Smith flipped the frame: the absence of U.S. deaths didn’t prove wisdom, only luck.
- “Just because the chamber didn’t fire this time doesn’t make Russian roulette a smart game,” he quipped, pointing to the risk of Iranian retaliation, regional blowback, and great-power entanglement.
- He warned that every time America normalizes a discretionary strike, it lowers the threshold for the next one—eroding legal, constitutional, and moral norms against preventive war.
- For Smith, prudence means exhausting diplomacy, verification, and restraint before unleashing force—not congratulating yourself afterward for surviving the risks you created.
The Underlying Divide
- Hammer bets that disciplined quick strikes buy stability, keep U.S. soldiers safe, and deter enemies who only respect force.
- Smith warns that even “surgical” wars create precedents, kill civilians, and make tail-risk catastrophe more likely over time.
In short, two versions of caution:
- Hammer’s: Hit fast to avoid quagmire.
- Smith’s: Hold fire to avoid escalation.
Round Two: Is Israel an Ally—And How Much Influence Is Too Much?
After the clash over Iran, the debate turned to a deeper and more uncomfortable question: what does it mean to call Israel an “ally”? Both men insisted the answer matters for America’s future, but they approached it from very different starting points.
Josh Hammer: Israel as a Vital Ally
Hammer’s case leaned on history, faith, and strategy. He rejected what he called “reductionist isolationism” and set out three planks:
- Civilizational Kinship
- Hammer tied the U.S.–Israel bond to the American Founders themselves.
- He cited the role of the Hebrew Bible in shaping American law and political thought, pointing to the resonance of figures like Moses in early American iconography.
- To Hammer, this wasn’t just foreign policy—it was about loyalty to the Judeo-Christian roots that anchor Western civilization.
- A Common Fight Against Islamist Terror
- Hammer reminded the audience that Iran’s proxies have killed Americans directly—from the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks bombing to IED networks in Iraq.
- He argued that Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are not just Israel’s problem but America’s enemies too.
- Supporting Israel’s battles, in his framing, is supporting the fight against the same forces that attack Americans.
- Division of Labor in a Multipolar World
- Hammer stressed that China, not the Middle East, is America’s defining challenge of the century.
- But to pivot resources toward the Indo-Pacific, the U.S. needs capable allies in other theaters.
- Israel, with its advanced military, intelligence capabilities, and technological sector, functions as a stabilizing anchor in the Middle East—allowing America to focus on Beijing without leaving a vacuum.
On Foreign Aid and AIPAC
Hammer surprised some by breaking with the AIPAC orthodoxy.
- He said plainly that he is not a fan of the “aid-first” lobbying model.
- Annual U.S. assistance of $3.8 billion, in his view, distorts the relationship: it fosters dependency in Israel and resentment in America.
- He advocated for phasing out aid over time, not as punishment but as a recognition that Israel is strong and capable enough to stand on its own.
For Hammer, aid is negotiable—but alliance is non-negotiable. He insisted that whatever one thinks about aid dollars, America’s strategic partnership with Israel is firmly in the U.S. national interest.
Dave Smith: Not an Ally in Policy Terms
Dave Smith didn’t mince words: he rejected the idea that Israel should be called an “ally” in the policy sense. He began by drawing a sharp line between the Israeli people and the Israeli government, making clear his critique targeted the latter.
1. A Friend Who Picks Fights
- Smith used a vivid metaphor: Israel is like the “buddy who drags you into bar fights.”
- The U.S., in this analogy, keeps paying the price—militarily, financially, and diplomatically—while Israel pushes for escalation.
- He pointed to past American interventions—Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now Iran—as examples where, in his view, Washington was nudged into discretionary wars aligned with Likud’s regional aims, not America’s.
- His bottom line: Israel’s leadership has often made America less safe, not more.
2. Lobbying Leverage
- Smith zeroed in on AIPAC and affiliated pro-Israel networks.
- He described them as outsized influence machines, noting they don’t just fund Republicans or conservatives but also bankroll progressive Democrats—as long as those candidates stay pro-Israel.
- That, Smith argued, shows their loyalty is not to American constitutional principles or balanced debate but to a single foreign government’s priorities.
- He stressed that this distorts U.S. democracy: policy debates get shut down not by persuasion but by donor leverage.
3. No Foreign-Policy Welfare
- Smith’s prescription was categorical: end all foreign aid.
- “No carve-outs, no welfare for foreign policy,” he said. The U.S. should trade with Israel like it trades with other nations, cooperate when interests overlap, but stop bankrolling another state’s wars or welfare system.
- For him, the deeper principle is that America cannot preach fiscal restraint at home while sending billions abroad—especially to a country with universal healthcare, robust tech, and one of the most advanced militaries in the world.
The Rare Agreement: Ending Aid
Despite their clashes, this was the rare moment when Smith and Hammer converged: both supported ending U.S. aid to Israel.
- Hammer’s approach: a deliberate, time-bound wind-down. Aid, in his view, should end responsibly, so Israel isn’t abandoned mid-conflict or destabilized.
- Smith’s approach: an immediate cutoff. He argued delay only prolongs dependency and entanglement.
The tone in the room shifted here. Even amid accusations of being “naïve” or “too hawkish,” both men agreed the current aid model is unsustainable.
For the audience, it was a striking takeaway: if voices as different as Hammer and Smith can agree on something so central, perhaps there’s room for coalition reform on U.S. foreign policy—even if their rationales remain worlds apart.
Round Three: Gaza and October 7
By the time the debate reached Gaza, the stakes were visible in the room. Charlie Kirk, moderating, reminded both men that October 7 could not be minimized or waved aside. From that baseline of shared horror, Hammer and Smith split—one stressing Israel’s right to act, the other warning against collective punishment.
Hammer: Context Before Critique
Josh Hammer opened his argument with a forceful claim: you cannot talk about Gaza without starting on October 7.
1. The Scale of Horror
- Roughly 1,200 people were killed—men, women, and children, including Americans. Families were massacred in their homes. Women were raped. Civilians were dragged across the border into Gaza as hostages.
- Hammer described it as the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. He translated the scale for an American audience: “forty-five to fifty 9/11s” in proportion to Israel’s population.
- This, he said, was not just a terror attack. It was a civilizational assault designed to break Israel’s very existence.
2. Israel Didn’t Want This War
- For years, Hammer argued, Israeli governments tolerated Hamas’s rule in Gaza. They chose a “mow the grass” strategy rather than dismantling Hamas outright—precisely because they feared the chaos of governing Gaza themselves.
- October 7 shattered that approach. “The status quo is no longer tenable,” he said. Israel had to act, not out of choice, but out of necessity.
3. Moral Metrics in War
- Hammer leaned on research from West Point urban-warfare experts.
- Their findings: Israel’s civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio, though tragic, was lower than that of other modern campaigns in dense urban areas—including U.S. operations in Fallujah against ISIS.
- He framed this as evidence that the IDF’s conduct has been comparatively restrained despite the brutal conditions of fighting in packed cities.
4. Assigning Moral Culpability
- Hammer’s core principle: responsibility follows intent.
- Hamas places rocket launchers in schools, mosques, and hospitals. Hamas fires from civilian rooftops and tunnels under apartment buildings.
- “When civilians die under those conditions,” Hammer argued, “the responsibility lies with those who turned them into shields, not the army trying to stop the rockets.”
- He insisted that critics who invert this logic effectively reward Hamas’s strategy—creating perverse incentives for terrorist groups to keep embedding among civilians.
Tone and Strategy
Hammer’s case was not detached. He spoke as though October 7 had to remain the moral center of gravity.
- He criticized what he saw as attempts to “skip past” the atrocities and jump straight to critiques of Israel’s campaign.
- His message: Israel didn’t start this war, but it has the right—and the duty—to finish it in a way that makes another October 7 impossible.
By the time the debate turned to Gaza, the room could feel the stakes rising. The moderator, Charlie Kirk, reminded both men—and the audience—that October 7 could not be downplayed. Hammer and Smith agreed on its horror, but from there the roads diverged.
Smith: Condemn Hamas, But Confront Policy
Dave Smith entered this round without hedging: October 7 was evil. Massacres, kidnappings, and atrocities against civilians demanded no “contextualization” before condemnation. But from that starting point, Smith insisted, a responsible analysis had to move beyond outrage to examine why it happened and what came next.
1. Netanyahu’s “Flame Strategy”
- Smith argued that Benjamin Netanyahu’s government helped create the conditions for October 7.
- Instead of dismantling Hamas, Israel propped it up. Cash flowed through Qatar into Gaza—with Israel’s tacit blessing—because a Hamas-run Gaza served Netanyahu’s domestic agenda.
- Why? A divided Palestinian leadership gave him cover: with Hamas in power, he could claim “there is no partner for peace” and avoid negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.
- Smith’s verdict: this policy was short-term political cynicism that backfired catastrophically. October 7 was not the sudden eruption of an unstoppable enemy but the predictable outcome of a strategy that cultivated Hamas as a foil.
2. Collective Punishment
From causes to conduct, Smith turned his focus to Israel’s military response after October 7:
- Food & medicine blockades. Israel restricted the entry of basic supplies, which Smith described as deliberately punishing civilians for Hamas’s crimes.
- Aid bottlenecks. Convoys were slowed, rerouted, or outright denied—producing starvation-level conditions.
- Reports of fire on aid seekers. Smith cited accounts, including from humanitarian groups and even IDF soldiers, of civilians being shot at while crowding for relief.
- Soldier testimony. He referenced Israeli whistleblowers who admitted to rules of engagement that endangered noncombatants.
Smith’s framing: these were not unfortunate “collateral” mistakes but a pattern of collective punishment—incompatible with moral principle and international law.
3. Human Shields Don’t Erase Responsibility
Hammer leaned on Hamas’s use of human shields. Smith countered with a sharp analogy:
- Imagine armed criminals occupying a school full of children.
- No serious police chief would bulldoze the building, kill the hostages, and excuse it by pointing to the criminals’ tactics.
- By the same logic, Israel, as the party with superior power, holds the greater moral obligation to find alternatives.
- Smith’s refrain: “Human shields are not a moral get-out-of-jail card.” The ethical duty doesn’t disappear because the enemy acts wickedly; if anything, it increases.
4. The “Stupid and Pro-Life” Exchange
The debate grew heated when Smith pressed conservatives on moral consistency:
- Hammer defended Israel’s actions as tragic but justified by Hamas’s strategy.
- Smith cut in: “That’s stupid. If you’re pro-life, you don’t excuse killing civilians. You find another way.”
- He accused conservatives of hypocrisy—claiming to value every unborn child at home while rationalizing the deaths of children abroad under the label of deterrence.
- For Smith, being truly pro-life means being pro-innocent life everywhere—not just when politically convenient.
The Contrast
- Hammer’s frame: surgical deterrence, disciplined by the Trump Doctrine, tragically necessary but bounded.
- Smith’s frame: moral collapse masquerading as prudence—“mission creep” justified by euphemism.
Smith’s bottom line: condemning Hamas and condemning collective punishment are not contradictions—they are the same moral obligation.
The Moderator’s Pressure Test: “What Should Israel Have Done?”
At this point in the debate, Charlie Kirk stopped the back-and-forth and pushed both men to move from critique to prescription. It wasn’t enough to argue over morality in the abstract—what, concretely, should Israel have done after October 7?
Smith’s Answer: Precision, Not Punishment
Smith didn’t hesitate: Israel had options that didn’t involve the scale of civilian carnage seen in Gaza.
- Targeted assassinations. He pointed out Israel’s long history of using intelligence-led strikes to eliminate terrorist leaders. “They’ve been doing this for decades,” Smith said, arguing that Israel had already demonstrated it could decapitate Hamas leadership without flattening neighborhoods.
- Covert operations. Mossad and Shin Bet had reputations as some of the world’s most effective intelligence agencies. Smith insisted they should have been deployed with surgical focus, not replaced with saturation bombing.
- Precision raids. Special forces could isolate and strike high-value Hamas targets. Costly and dangerous, yes—but more consistent with both morality and strategic patience than mass bombardment.
- Moral non-negotiables. Even in war, Smith drew red lines: “At the very least, no starvation tactics. No firing on people scrambling for food.” Cutting off water, medicine, or shooting at desperate civilians violated both ethics and prudence, in his view.
His framing was that restraint is not weakness but strategic wisdom. A war fought as collective punishment, he warned, only breeds more hatred and more fighters for the next generation.
Hammer’s Rebuttal: Law, Morality, and Harsh Reality
Hammer took the other side of Kirk’s challenge by reframing the stakes. Israel, he said, was not facing some rogue gang that could be handled with covert ops alone—it was facing a U.S.-designated terrorist group that he likened directly to al-Qaeda or ISIS.
- The nature of Hamas. For Hammer, Hamas is not a conventional adversary—it’s an organization that deliberately blurs the line between fighter and civilian. “They fire rockets from schools. They dig tunnels under hospitals. They put command centers in mosques.”
- The shield principle. Under both international law and moral reasoning, Hammer argued, the blame for civilian deaths lies primarily with the group that uses civilians as cover. “Hamas embeds among them. That’s not Israel’s choice—it’s Hamas’s.”
- Historical restraint. Hammer leaned on comparisons: by the standards of modern urban warfare, he claimed, Israel’s civilian-to-combatant ratio was far more restrained than America’s own record in places like Fallujah or Mosul. To demand perfection from Israel, he suggested, was to hold them to an impossible standard no democracy had ever met.
Hammer’s bottom line: Israel had already tried the “manage Hamas” approach for years. October 7 proved it untenable. To continue with pinprick assassinations while leaving Hamas’s infrastructure intact would be “insanity.”
The Clash in Frame
- Smith: Use the scalpel. Anything broader crosses into collective punishment and undermines moral legitimacy.
- Hammer: Sometimes the scalpel isn’t enough—when the adversary hides behind civilians, the tragic responsibility for collateral damage rests with the terrorists, not the state defending itself.
Prescriptions: The Futures They Envision
Hammer’s End State
- The Trump Doctrine applied: no endless crusades, but rapid deterrence when allies or U.S. interests are threatened.
- Phase down aid but lock in strategic cooperation: let Israel police its neighborhood while America pivots to China.
- Use Israel’s role as stabilizer to buy America freedom of maneuver globally.
Smith’s End State
- Smith’s End State
- Republic, Not Empire.
- Smith hammered home the distinction between what America was founded to be and what it has drifted into. The Founders envisioned a republic bounded by constitutional limits, where war required congressional approval, not executive whim. Today, Smith argued, America operates more like an empire—launching discretionary wars, underwriting allies with blank checks, and letting lobbies, not voters, steer foreign policy. His first prescription: reclaim the republic. No foreign aid—Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, anyone. No more empire-building. No more “world policeman.”
- Break the Warfare State–Debt–Inflation Loop.
- Smith connected foreign adventurism to domestic decline. Endless war means endless spending; endless spending means ballooning debt; ballooning debt means inflation that guts family budgets. He pointed to the grim consequences already visible: young Americans crushed by student debt, priced out of housing, delaying marriage and children. The warfare state isn’t just a foreign policy mistake—it’s a machine eroding the next generation’s ability to build stable lives. For Smith, the “forever wars” are directly tied to the crisis of family formation at home.
- Armed Neutrality.
- Smith doesn’t call for pacifism. His model is something closer to the old Swiss or American tradition of “armed neutrality”: peace through strength, but strength reserved for self-defense. In practice, that means three priorities:
- Diplomacy First. America should talk, trade, and negotiate broadly—even with rivals. Engagement reduces misunderstanding and lowers the risk of miscalculation.
- Trade With All. Free exchange is stabilizing, Smith argued. Wars shrink when commerce expands. He tied this to the Founders’ vision of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations.”
- Force Only If Attacked. Military action must be tied to direct American self-defense, not to “credibility,” “deterrence,” or the ambitions of allies. The red line: American blood spilled on American soil.
Trump – Criticism and Limits of Loyalty.
- Smith said he supported Trump in the last election but refuses to give him blind loyalty.
- He has openly criticized Trump for:
- Covering up a major child sex trafficking case (what he called “a giant child rapist ring”).
- Launching the 12-Day War alongside Israel, which Smith considered an unnecessary and dangerous escalation.
- Continuing Biden’s Ukraine arms policy.
- In past tweets (which Hammer read aloud), Smith had even called Trump a war criminal and said he “should spend his life in prison.” On stage, Smith didn’t back off from those critiques, saying Americans have a duty to criticize leaders when they go wrong.
JD Vance – Political Fragility.
- In his closing, Smith warned that Trump’s coalition is fracturing.
- He argued that Trump’s recent decisions—wars, aid, debt—were dividing the MAGA base.
- He specifically said: “JD Vance winning in a few years is not a given.”
- Meaning: If the right continues down the path of empire and foreign aid, they risk losing their populist, America First momentum, and Democrats could come back strong.
What They Actually Agreed On
- End U.S. aid to Israel (Hammer: phased; Smith: immediate).
- October 7 was horrific. Both condemned Hamas unequivocally.
- Antisemitism is wrong. Both rejected Jew-hatred, with Kirk warning the audience that “it rots your brain.”
- Human dignity. Both affirmed every life is made in the image of God—even as they differed on who bears ultimate blame for deaths in Gaza.
The Fault Lines That Won’t Go Away
- Risk calculus. Hammer trusts bounded, surgical strikes; Smith warns history shows small wars spiral.
- Ally definition. Hammer sees Israel as amplifying U.S. power; Smith sees it as draining focus.
- Lobbying. Hammer frames AIPAC as Americans expressing a view; Smith frames it as foreign-agent influence in all but name.
- Gaza morality. Hammer centers Hamas’s use of shields; Smith centers the power of choice—the one with jets and JDAMs holds final responsibility.
The Takeaway
The debate illuminated a core divide in the American right:
- Hammer’s side trusts deterrence through power projection, with allies like Israel serving as regional anchors.
- Smith’s side insists America is broke, morally compromised, and must pull back to survive as a republic.
Yet amid fire, one bridge emerged: a shared belief that U.S. aid to Israel should end. Whether phased or immediate, both men cracked open space for conservatives to rethink what “supporting Israel” should mean.
For a movement often fractured online, the fact that a live, heated debate found even one tangible point of agreement was no small achievement.
Setup & Scope
- Moderator (Charlie Kirk) opens by recalling the Trump assassination attempt anniversary and a moment of silence for Corey Comperatore, then frames a structured debate on:
- The recent 12-day U.S.–Iran/Israel war (what happened; was it justified).
- Israeli influence in U.S. politics (AIPAC, donors, lobbying).
- Prescriptions: what each side proposes going forward.
- Participants:
- Josh Hammer (pro-Israel, “nationalist realist” MAGA foreign policy).
- Dave Smith (comedian; libertarian, Ron Paul–style non-interventionist).
Opening Statements
Dave Smith (Non-interventionist frame)
- U.S. foreign policy has been “criminally insane” for decades—permanent militarism, wars of choice.
- Attributes this to neoconservatives (post-9/11) and links their program to Israel’s Likud (“clean break”/Wurmser/Perle memos; the “seven countries” anecdote via Wesley Clark), culminating in longstanding aims against Iran.
- Claims Israel-aligned hawks shaped Iraq WMD narratives to sell Americans on war; argues similar rhetoric is used re: Iran’s nuclear threat.
- Policy: Founders’ foreign policy—no entangling alliances, trade with all, avoid unnecessary wars.
Josh Hammer (MAGA nationalist-realist frame)
- Pushback: says tying Bush-era wars to Israel/Likud is “nonsense.” Cites:
- Ariel Sharon opposed Iraq invasion (Dave later disputes context).
- Libya 2011: Israeli envoys sought to dissuade NATO.
- MAGA alignment: Claims overwhelming MAGA support for close U.S.–Israel ties and for Trump’s B-2 strikes in the 12-day war.
- Reads Dave’s past tweets critical of Trump (e.g., calling Trump a war criminal, “impotent,” etc.) to paint Dave as anti-Trump/anti-MAGA.
Topic 1: The 12-Day War (U.S.–Israeli action vs. Iran)
Moderator’s focus
- Was the strike justified? Was Iran’s nuclear program an imminent threat? What are the risks vs. results (no U.S. casualties; limited duration)?
Josh’s case
- Calls it the epitome of the Trump doctrine: quick, surgical use of force; no U.S. ground troops, no U.S. casualties, set back Iran’s program “by years.”
- Frames Iran as longstanding adversary (1979 hostages; 1983 Beirut barracks; IRGC/IEDs in Iraq; “Death to America”).
- Credits IDF for degrading defenses, enabling the B-2 raid—“alley-oop” teamwork.
- On “imminence”: agnostic (hasn’t seen intel), but asserts IAEA concerns, high-level enrichment inconsistent with civilian use.
- Position: Not neocon, not isolationist—Jacksonian punch-back-hard realism.
Dave’s case
- Says Iran had no nukes, and intel said no political decision to build one; Trump was negotiating to reduce enrichment.
- Argues the war didn’t need to happen; even if it ended quickly, it risked escalation (“Russian roulette” analogy).
- Notes civilian deaths occurred; insists lack of U.S. casualties ≠ success.
- Claims Netanyahu wants regime change in Iran and pulled the U.S. toward confrontation.
Moderator’s pressure questions
- To Josh: if preventing an Iranian nuke required U.S. troops, would that be worth it? (Josh rejects the premise; sees no need for ground troops.)
- To Dave: Should the U.S. do anything to stop an Iranian nuke? (Yes—diplomacy/negotiations; military only in very narrow, justified cases.)
- Dave’s bottom line: No need for war; Iran isn’t a direct U.S. threat (no ICBMs/air force to hit U.S. homeland).
Topic 2: Is Israel a U.S. Ally? Is Influence Excessive?
Quick yes/no
- Josh: Yes, Israel is a vital ally.
- Dave: No (as a state actor/government—not “the people”); says it pulls the U.S. toward more fights.
Josh’s ally argument
- Civilizational: Biblical roots; defense of Western civilization against jihadism.
- Strategic: Deterrence of Islamists; stabilizes region so U.S. can pivot to China.
- Practical: A self-reliant partner that fights shared enemies (e.g., Hezbollah figure behind 1983 bombing).
Dave’s counter
- America’s real threat is our own deep state and permanent war incentives, not Hezbollah.
- Wars + open immigration destabilized the West; we’re $37T in debt; endless war erodes currency and youth prospects.
- Israel’s fights are Israel’s problem; U.S. should not be dragged into them.
AIPAC / Lobbying
- Dave: AIPAC ≠ NRA. It’s advocacy for a foreign government; funds progressive Democrats if they’re pro-Israel; should register as a foreign agent, and so should CAIR and others.
- Josh: Not a fan of foreign aid or AIPAC’s aid-centric mission, favors phasing out aid over time. But:
- AIPAC is Americans advocating U.S. policy (like other diaspora groups).
- If AIPAC were all-powerful, JCPOA (2015) wouldn’t have passed.
- Many Americans independently favor close ties for civilizational/strategic reasons.
Notable convergence: Both support ending U.S. aid to Israel—Josh wants a phased wind-down (not “tomorrow” mid-war); Dave wants zero now.
Topic 3: Gaza, Oct. 7, and Conduct of War
Josh
- Oct. 7: “Single deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.” Describes on-the-ground horror; many nationalities killed/hostaged, including Americans.
- War rationale: Israel long refrained from toppling Hamas; Oct. 7 made that posture untenable.
- Law & ethics:
- Hamas = FTO with genocidal charter; uses human shields (mosques, UN schools, hospitals).
- Cites John Spencer (West Point): IDF’s civilian:combatant ratio among the most humane historically in dense urban war.
- Moral culpability for civilian harm falls on Hamas due to human shields.
- Aid: Says Hamas stole large shares of aid; welcomes new Gaza Humanitarian Foundation process; alleges Hamas fired on its distribution.
Dave
- Condemns Oct. 7 atrocities, but argues Netanyahu strategically propped up Hamas (“control the flame” doctrine; Qatar cash) to avoid a peace process—a policy that backfired.
- Claims collective punishment in Gaza (blockade, denial of essentials), cites reporting alleging IDF fire at civilians during aid chaos.
- Accepts Hamas uses shields at times, but says that doesn’t absolve those dropping bombs; you must “work around” shields to minimize civilian harm.
- Rhetorical challenge: If you back Gaza operations that kill children, don’t call yourself pro-life.
Moderator’s direct challenge to Dave
- “What should Israel have done after Oct. 7?”
- Dave: Mix of targeted ops/assassinations, not a broad campaign with heavy civilian toll; at minimum, don’t starve civilians or shoot at those seeking food.
Closing Prescriptions
Josh’s prescription (Trump Doctrine)
- Neither neocon nor isolationist.
- Prioritize China; elsewhere, empower capable regional allies (Israel in the Middle East) to police their areas in ways that also serve U.S. interests.
- Phase out Israel aid over time; maintain tight strategic cooperation.
Dave’s prescription (Republic, not empire)
- Reject empire, restore constitutional republic.
- Stop foreign aid to Israel/Ukraine; end entanglements, cut defense bloat tied to the warfare state.
- Focus on sound money, fiscal sanity, and liberty; stop policies that impoverish the young.
Points of Agreement (stated or implicit)
- End U.S. aid to Israel (timing disputed).
- Oct. 7 was horrific; Hamas is bad/terrorist.
- Antisemitism/Jew-hate is wrong and corrosive.
- Debating these issues openly is healthier than censorship.
Core Disagreements (cleanly stated)
- Ally status:
- Josh: Israel is a vital ally (civilizational & strategic).
- Dave: As a government, not an ally; it drags the U.S. toward conflict.
- 12-Day war:
- Josh: Model success of Trump doctrine; degraded a real threat with no U.S. casualties.
- Dave: Unnecessary, risky, and needless; diplomacy existed; civilian deaths occurred.
- Iran threat:
- Josh: Long, dangerous nuclear/enrichment trajectory + proxy war record → justify preemption without ground troops.
- Dave: No imminent nuke, intel said no decision to weaponize; not a U.S. homeland threat.
- Lobbying/influence:
- Josh: Many Americans independently support close ties; diaspora advocacy ≠ foreign control; he still favors aid wind-down.
- Dave: Outsized influence (AIPAC & donors) warps U.S. policy; should be treated like foreign agent advocacy.
- Gaza conduct & morality:
- Josh: Human shields shift moral blame to Hamas; IDF’s ratio comparatively humane in urban war.
- Dave: Human shields don’t erase responsibility for bombing civilians; policy choices (blockade/aid incidents) indict Jerusalem as well.
Moderator’s Final Synthesis
- Noted agreements (aid wind-down; dignity of all life; Oct. 7 evil; reject antisemitism; debate > censorship).
- Urged continued civil debate inside the movement.
Useful mental map (who stands where)
- Hammer: America-first ≠ isolationism; hard deterrence, short strikes, tight Israel tie, aid taper.
- Smith: Non-intervention, diplomacy first, no foreign aid, stop being an empire, fix money and the warfare state.
