Mac: Hey folks, happy that you’re here for the Mac and Mike show today. I’m Mac Keith. Mike, we thought we’d do something fun today. When I say fun—maybe fun for us, maybe not so much for you—but obviously everyone knows who Nostradamus is. What I suggested to Mike is we do a little bit of “Nostra-Mac and Mike.” I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed thinking about it.
There’ve been some really interesting major moves recently in the news in the past few months. You can talk about Greenland, Cuba, or Venezuela—why do I always have trouble with Venezuela? There seems to be major things happening in Iran as well. It seems to me, and I know everybody doesn’t agree with me, but it feels like Donald Trump has this Midas touch. Everything he touches turns into a good news story, despite how his opponents like to paint it as being unsuccessful, un-American, or undemocratic. I mean, he really is doing some good things that are not only good for us now, but potentially good long-term for the United States and generations of Americans to follow.
Mike, do you have a favorite you’d like to start with? I mean, there’s been some crazy stuff going on, but even Artemis 2 is a good news story for America, isn’t it?
Mike: Yeah. I’m not much of a prognosticator, if that’s the right word. I have a lot of friends like Brent who are always wanting to see into the future. The human condition is to be predictive by nature, but one of the things that always drives me nuts is when we make these guesses. I just posted on Facebook the other day: if you make a thousand predictions, sooner or later you’re going to be right.
Look at Jean Dixon with President Kennedy. People say she predicted his assassination, but she made a thousand predictions before that never came true. It’s the same with Nostradamus; it’s a matter of interpretation. But we are naturally wired to look at situations and anticipate what’s coming next. Of course, the Iran war is top of mind for me. The future there is going to depend on if we make a deal. If we do, they’re going to stay in charge and lead us down a familiar path. You just can’t trust them; they’ve never held to an agreement.
The other way is if we finally totally annihilate them because they refuse to talk. Hopefully, they refuse to talk and we just smash the country and get new leadership in there. The problem is it might turn out a little bit like Iraq. My prediction is that if it goes that direction, there will be internal factions fighting—sort of a semi-civil war inside of Iran. It’s not a good situation either way, but we will stop the nuclear proliferation.
Mac: It’s not a good situation in Iran right now, Mike, but from a “Nostra-Mac and Mike” perspective, I think 10 years from now, Iran will be a much different nation—much more like the nation of Iran in 1978. Much more westernized, with more freedom. Women won’t be stoned to death or hung because they showed a little bit too much skin. There will be more freedoms for people in the streets.
Right now, their currency is virtually worthless. In a way, getting rid of the theocratic revolutionaries—who spend all their money on terrorist proxies to create a “ring of fire” around Israel—will make everyone safer. Iran threatened not only Israel, but the UAE, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia too. Whether the current leaders negotiate honestly or not, I think the follow-up action by the U.S. will be to assist the general population—not with “boots on the ground” like Iraq, but rather giving them civilian support to help them create their own new government.
I think the future looks much brighter for the entire Middle East than it did before Operation Epic Fury began. Our military—and I’m so proud to be a retired part of it—took out not only the current inventory of drones and aircraft, but also the factories that produce them. We stopped them from creating nuclear fissile material with Operation Midnight Hammer.
One thing that must be done, whether in cooperation with the Iranians or by force: that fissile material buried underground with bunker-busting bombs has to be recovered. We can’t have them digging that up later to create warheads. 10 years from now, I think you’re going to see a much more westernized Iran—back to the 1978-79 era with western wear and a free society. The nation of Iran will have a lot to thank the United States for going forward.
Mike: Yeah, your prediction is long-term. Mine was shorter-term. I see a lot of trouble in the short term.
Mac: I agree. The transition from where we are today—with them trying to block ships in the Straits of Hormuz and taking shots at the U.S. Navy—is going to lead to some disagreeable circumstances. When the U.S. demands that fissile material be recovered, that’s going to be ugly unless Iran has been brought to its knees.
Now, you mentioned Venezuela. The elimination of Maduro as president seems to be going much smoother. We have nation-to-nation discourse occurring with the current leadership. Instead of oil going at a cut-rate price to China and the money going into Maduro’s pockets, it’s being shipped out at market prices, and the people of Venezuela are sharing in that wealth. That’s a good thing, isn’t it?
Mike: Yeah. Looking at the future of Venezuela, I think they may return to being the most prosperous nation in South America as they once were. The strategy there is interesting. We left the people in power essentially but held a sword of Damocles over them: “Play ball, be nice, or we’re coming to get you.” It’s just that simple. Compared to the leaders in Iran, they are more reasonable.
Mac: That’s the difference between a theocracy and a socialist government. A theocracy truly believes its message; socialists, while they don’t agree with capitalism, are much more conversational. They aren’t interested in suicide; it boils down to self-preservation.
Mike: One side doesn’t care if it dies; Venezuelans do. They’re more like us than the Iranian leadership. I see these countries we’re helping—even in the Middle East and Venezuela—becoming more competition for us. And competition is a healthy thing.
Mac: I also see some latency in the cooperation with the U.S. Venezuela was a problem for several neighbors; now they’re being a “good neighbor.” Those nations who had unpleasant circumstances with Maduro might be more friendly toward the U.S. now. I think that’s true in the Middle East as well. When Iran wanted nuclear weapons, the UAE, Syria, and Saudi Arabia felt they had to have them too. By removing that threat, those nations will naturally be more cooperative.
But do you want to make a prediction about NATO, Mike? When we were ready to do Operation Urgent Fury, how many of our NATO partners stepped up to help?
Mike: That’s a tough one to see into the future because it’s contingent on whether we have a Trump-like presidency continue or if we get—excuse my French—worthless Democrats back in charge. Trump believes in holding people to account. Conservatives and fair-minded people believe we’re responsible for our actions or inactions. The biggest problem with NATO has been its inaction.
The United Kingdom used to have a great navy. I recently saw that they tried to send one ship—the only operational one they had—to the Middle East, but something happened to the plumbing and they had to turn around. They cannot put enough ocean-going vessels to sea. They have no working carriers and very few operational destroyers. Some of the former Soviet bloc nations are now our best allies because they’re closest to the firing line—and they have fresh memories of what it’s like to not be free.
Mac: I think you’re right. The U.S. is going to take NATO as a country-by-country relationship. Some countries will get more cooperation than others. The Spanish wouldn’t even let us fly in their airspace—that’s worse than being an enemy.
Mike: Did you hear about the German politician who asked for the removal of all American troops in Germany?
Mac: I’d be happy to say okay! I loved Germany when I was stationed there, but I wouldn’t be opposed to taking our troops out. Let the Europeans stand up to the Russians. If they don’t want our troops there, great—let them stand on their own two feet. We should be the backup, not the first in line. We shouldn’t be the ones trying to make peace in Ukraine; let Europe handle that.
Mike: Regarding NATO, Donald Trump said that part of the response was based on the “kurfuffle” over Greenland. He suggested we ought to have Greenland as part of America. They’ve worked that out now—not as a territory, but with an agreement that gives us more expansive ability to put military bases there to protect North America and Europe.
Mac: I never heard Trump say we’d take it by force; he was joking about “whatever means necessary.” But that agreement gives the U.S. what it needs to defend the Arctic. Still, Trump indicated there was some bad blood in NATO because of that whole situation.
Mike: He was hard on NATO even in his first tenure because they weren’t living up to the agreed-upon 2% GDP spending on their own militaries. By the way, I saw that Germany is pushing to build up its military again to be the dominant power in Europe. That’s a shade of scariness. That’s why we’ve been hesitant to let the Japanese or Germans get too aggressive.
Mac: Well, after World War II, Japan was precluded from having a military. Over time, that has loosened, and we’ve actually encouraged them to build a military as a counterbalance to China.
So, what do you think about Cuba? I think long-term, Cuba will eventually be a state of the United States. They aren’t self-sufficient; their economy is shot and their currency is worthless. Professionals are being paid the equivalent of $30 a month for jobs that would be six-figure salaries here. They can’t even keep the lights on. Most of their cars are 1950s relics or Russian “boxes of crap.” I’ve seen them putting marine engines from boats into old cars because they can’t get parts.
Mike: Can’t they get Chinese cars?
Mac: They can, but they’re mostly junk too. And besides, if they don’t have electricity, what good is a Chinese electric car?
The problem with China is that they demanded a stake in every business that opened there. When car manufacturers went to China, the Chinese military became equal partners and proceeded to steal all the intellectual property. They don’t allow intellectual freedom or creativity; you think the way they tell you to think. That stifles progress, so they just steal from nations that do allow free thought.
Mike: I think that’s changing a bit. They’ve become quasi-capitalistic in some areas. Like Yugoslavia and the “Yugo” car—they figured out that if the government takes everything, it creates apathy. They have billionaires in China now.
Mac: Right, but if you get out of line as a billionaire, you disappear into a factory. China also has a massive demographic problem because of the “one-child policy.” There is a huge gap between the older generation and the younger one. They don’t have enough people to replace retiring workers, so they’re importing technology workers. They also have “ghost cities”—billions of dollars in high-rise apartments with no one to live in them, so they’re tearing them down.
Mike: So, looking at the future of the U.S., Mac, where do you see us going?
Mac: You said something to me once that crystallized it: how do our allies feel when we go through these “crazy periods” every four or eight years? We go from Biden to Trump, or Obama to Trump—it’s policy whiplash. It’s not just whiplash for our allies, but for our own people. We’re a very divided country.
When Trump was doing things in Iran, the media started talking about “Taco Tuesday” or “Two-Step Trump,” saying he was afraid to act. To me, that smacked of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. When our opponents in Iran see how divided we are, it emboldens them to be hardliners. They think if they just hold out long enough, the politics will change, Trump will be gone, and they’ll get another President Obama or Biden so they can do whatever they want.
Recent Comments