Dave Smith VS Triggernometry: War, Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson and the American Empire

The Legacy of 9/11 and the War on Terror

The conversation opens with Dave Smith reflecting on how 9/11 cleaved the world in two: before and after. For Smith and his co-hosts, this event did not merely alter America's mindset but birthed an entire new reality defined by permanent emergency states, vast intelligence agencies like the TSA and Department of Homeland Security, and an ever-expanding war on terror.

Smith's journey into libertarianism was shaped in this crucible of disillusionment. Initially swept into mainstream liberal critiques of George W. Bush's wars, Smith's encounter with Ron Paul's unwavering non-interventionist message awakened him to the broader consequences of America's foreign entanglements. The vulnerabilities exposed by 9/11 didn't justify trillions of dollars blown on wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, where lies about weapons of mass destruction betrayed the American people's trust and wrought catastrophe abroad.

Yet, these wars also sparked internal reckonings: millions of lives lost, veterans traumatized, and a political class seemingly indifferent to the ravages they unleashed. How often can governments justify endless foreign wars without losing legitimacy at home? And when does intervention cross the line from defense to empire-building?

America's Empire

Smith insists that America is, in fact, an empire — one sustained not by consent but by the wielding of force across the globe. Intriguingly, he notes that the American people never voted on this role. They remain, by law, a limited constitutional republic, yet they fund an empire that demands perpetual interventions and vast defense expenditures.

This contradiction between constitutional ideals and geopolitical realities underpins a fundamental tension: can a nation be simultaneously small in government at home and imperial abroad? Smith argues no. An empire requires centralized control, emergency powers, and the ability to project force as needed, inherently eroding the republic's foundations.

Yet, supporters of American hegemony might ask: if the U.S. did not maintain this global dominance, who would? Would China or Russia fill the vacuum, and what would that world look like? Smith acknowledges that power vacuums do not remain empty but suggests that multipolarity — multiple powers sharing influence — is a plausible alternative to unchecked empire, one that may be less costly to taxpayers and less destructive internationally.

The Consequences of Iraq and Afghanistan

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not mere foreign policy blunders; they were seismic events reshaping the Middle East and America's global standing. According to Smith, while the initial campaign against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was widely accepted, the broader regime change war against the Taliban opened a Pandora's box.

Iraq, however, was Smith's generation's Vietnam. Despite massive global protests, Western governments plunged into a war based on false premises, unleashing instability that persists today. Smith recalls how the removal of Saddam Hussein unintentionally empowered Iran, expanding its influence in the Shiite crescent and destabilizing the region further.

Moreover, these wars failed to secure lasting peace or democracy; instead, they cost millions of lives, displaced tens of millions, and sowed chaos. The political and moral fallout stung deeply among veterans and citizens alike, creating fertile ground for anti-war sentiment and skepticism about foreign interventions.

Israel, Gaza, and the Disproportionate Response

A substantial portion of the discussion circled around the October 7th attacks, Israel's response, and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Smith positions himself firmly critical of Israel's overwhelming military retaliation against Gaza, which he describes as disproportionate and harmful not only to Palestinians but also to America's interests and domestic tranquility.

While acknowledging that Hamas and Iran-funded terror groups pose serious challenges, Smith argues that America's involvement often stems more from supporting an Israeli strategic agenda than from direct national interests. He warns that blockades, bombings, and widespread civilian suffering perpetuate cycles of violence instead of resolving them.

Yet, he and the hosts debated whether such armed resistance — particularly attacks involving civilians taken hostage or killed — justify large-scale military operations. Smith suggests that historic Israeli counterterrorism was more surgical and that the current escalation exacerbates harm without eradicating the underlying threats. Is there a middle ground between brutal repression and unchecked terrorism? How do notions of "police action" translate when confronting tens of thousands of armed militants in a densely populated enclave?

The Complexity of Iran's Role

The talk complicates the common narrative of Iran as an existential threat to Sunni Gulf states and the West. Smith is skeptical of Iran's capacity or intent to "take out" countries like Saudi Arabia or the UAE but acknowledges the deep Sunni-Shia rivalry and Iran's backing of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

He highlights that many Middle Eastern states, including Israel's supposed Sunni allies, have nuanced, and often strained, relations with both Iran and America's policies. The imposition of the Iraq war, in particular, handed regional dominance to Iran, a strategic blunder from which the region has not recovered.

Israel's intelligence concerns around Iran's nuclear ambitions receive scrutiny. Smith notes Iran's position of maintaining nuclear capabilities short of outright weaponization — a delicate standoff shaped by past devastations faced by disarmed autocrats. How credible are sanctions and military threats in deterring nuclear ambitions, especially when geopolitical wounds run so deep?

Nick Fuentes, and Tucker Carlson

A volatile and illuminating segment revolves around the rise of controversial media figures like Nick Fuentes and the role of hosts like Tucker Carlson. Smith navigates a difficult line, condemning Fuentes's racist and anti-Semitic rhetoric while opposing outright bans and cancellations.

He advocates for open debates and more robust challenges to dangerous ideas, warning that censoring or ignoring such voices only drives them underground, increasing their appeal and mystique. Yet, Smith also stresses responsibility: providing a platform demands pushing back hard to prevent endorsement by silence.

Tucker Carlson's interview with Fuentes drew criticism for insufficient pushback on abhorrent views. The conversation raises questions about when allowing a platform crosses into enabling extremism. How should media balance free speech with preventing the spread of hateful ideologies? Can dialogue amid disagreement deter or exacerbate radicalization?

Cancel Culture and Political Accountability

Smith and the hosts address the broader implications of cancel culture and the demands it places on media figures and institutions. They distinguish between cancel culture and the natural process of political or ideological boundaries setting limits on who represents a movement.

Debates arise over whether failing to challenge objectionable views constitutes tacit endorsement. Smith contests this logic, pointing to nuanced interviews with controversial figures where disagreement exists without overt confrontation. Yet, he acknowledges the necessity of accountability, especially where rhetoric fuels hatred or violence.

They also critique the hypocrisy of certain commentators who call for deplatforming others yet advocate for wars with devastating consequences themselves. Does political power absolve one from scrutiny over harmful policies? How do accountability and free discourse coexist in such contested spaces?

The Socioeconomic Crisis

Beneath the geopolitical and cultural debates lies an economic reality repeatedly underscored by Smith: America's unsustainable government spending, entitlement programs, and ballooning debt threaten the republic's future.

He asserts that even with radical spending cuts, growing national debt and obligations like Social Security and Medicare create a fiscal crisis seemingly beyond democratic resolution, as voters overwhelmingly resist cutbacks that would harm them directly.

Smith warns of the long-term consequences of monetizing debt—runaway inflation, diminished dollar dominance, and social decay—unless a serious political reckoning occurs. Yet such choices are politically toxic.

The Changing Face of the Right

The podcast touches on how identity politics and "wokeness" on the left have provoked a potent and often reactionary response on the right. Smith describes a fracturing Republican coalition grappling with competing visions: establishment neoconservatives, anti-war libertarians, and emerging identitarian or reactionary factions.

This battle over the right's soul accompanies debates over who truly represents conservatism. Some argue that extremist voices have pushed boundaries too far, driving others away; others claim that "cancel culture" threatens honest discourse.

Smith draws parallels to past eras, lamenting the loss of an intellectual guardian class that defined polite conservatism, replaced now by fragmented tribalism. Will the right heal or fracture further under these stresses? And how can genuine grievances be addressed without succumbing to divisive racialism?

Anti-Semitism, and Legitimate Critique

A sensitive yet critically important segment explores the rise of anti-Semitism tied in part to criticism of Israel, the conflation of Jewish identity with Israeli policy, and the fears such currents provoke within Jewish communities.

Smith recognizes the complexity here: Jews remain highly successful and influential minorities yet continue to face real threats and vilification. He condemns both anti-Semitic hatred and the misuse of Jewish identity to silence legitimate political debate, such as Israel's lobby's role in foreign wars.

The discussion asks how societies can protect vulnerable minorities while fostering open discourse. How can the line between critique of a state and ethnic prejudice be respected without stifling necessary conversations?