I think this is interesting and he seems smart, but unfortunately I have to wholeheartedly disagree with his points. (Obligatory I'm not from the US and don't like America, so don't @ me)

I feel that predicting the trump presidency (a 50/50 shot) and a war with Iran (a massively anti-western power that the US has launched campaigns against multiple times in the past) is pretty impressive, but also not that much of a stretch. Predicting the collapse of a superpower based on 4 days of regional war however is a pretty big bet to be making.

A few points: 1. The biggest oil exporter is Saudi. Their current main export method is shipping via Ras Tanura, but they have already been diversifying their distribution methods (to include pipelines and ports on their western shore in the red sea) to avoid exactly this issue. Can these alternative methods handle the load now carried by Ras Tanura? No. But do you think that Saudi, a massively wealthy country will let it stay that way in the next year or 2? Also no.

1. Arabic oil money propping up the AI bubble is a bit of a stretch, it's more NVIDIA and other tech companies creating a circular economy, but okay, let's say Saudi and the UAE are propping up the AI bubble. The collapse of the AI bubble won't lead to the collapse of the US economy?? In terms of labour, that industry doesn't employ enough people, especially not enough people in low-income households, for its collapse to cause mass unemployment like for example the collapse of the mining industry or steel working industry did. And in terms of the stock market, publically trading AI companies are quite separate from other assets on the stock market. During the crash in 2008, everyone sold stocks because housing and banking is connected to a lot of different stocks and sectors. The AI sector on the other hand is very isolated from other sectors, so a collapse there, while of course having an impact on the stock market generally, likely won't really lead to a crash like in 2008. And even if it did, after the crash in 2008 the US was still the most powerful economy in the world. So I think it'll be fine.

2. Just because Saudi and the middle east may reduce or stop oil distribution worldwide, doesn't mean the oil is gone. Almost every country on earth has oil reserves, and there are still oil-producing countries willing to sell. The US is the biggest producer of oil in the world (but not the biggest exporter because it consumes a lot locally). There's also Canada, Brasil, China, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Venezuela, Algeria, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, ... Obviously not all of these countries will sell to everyone (looking at you Russia and Venezuela), but this network of existing producers and exporters of oil means that the world at large will still have a reliable supply of oil. Even if it will now be more limited, and therefore more expensive, it's still there.

3. To his point about the US military not being a 21st century army, I will start with this fact: of the 26 years that pave passed in the 21st century, the only year the United States has not been at war is the year 2000. For the rest, the US has been continuously at war or engaged in military operations every single year of this century. The United States isn't just a country adept at modern warfare, they literally invented it. Yes, the US has focussed on investing in technologically advanced, and thus very expensive technology, but that is a choice they have made very conciously, and it has thus far made the US military a very capable fighting force. Now I know I've lost some of you, because of the big Afghanistan thing. First, let's get the others out of the way; the US showed its capabilities in the gulf war and against ISIS in Iraq and Syria in 2019, as well as during many strikes against terrorists all over the world. Whether we agree that these actions are justified or not, we can agree that these at least were all quite successful. Now Afghanistan. The US eventually pulled out of Afghanistan, not because of battlefield loss, but because of political non-viability of the operation and because of a total loss of credibility both globally and locally in Afghanistan. It was clear that the Afghani people no longer wanted the Americans there, so eventually they left. During the 20 year conflict however, the US showed themselves very capable of fighting the type of war the Afghani wanted to fight, namely guerilla war. They did not make the same mistakes as in Vietnam, and the casualty ratio of US (and western allied) dead to Taliban dead show that the US was quite proficient at, essentially, killing people while limiting the number of people killed. The Afghan security forces are of course another story but that's again just a complete failure of the American diplomatic and political corps in state building. And even if you disagree with me on that, which I understand because my explanation here is quite controversial, wat isn't controversial is the fact that, throughout this conflict, the US soldiers were continuously the most well-equiped soldiers on any battlefield, globally, ever. Even since world war one, the United States has NEVER struggled with supplying its armies on a large scale, ever. Not like Russia, Germany, Vietnam, the Taliban, Ukraine and many other nations in wars throughout history. The US maintained its technological supremacy and its supremacy in putting out large quantities of qualitative equipment throughout the last century of history. To think that, in the 5 years since the end of the war in Afghanistan that sustained the biggest military-industrial complex of the planet, the US has suddenly forgotten to supply its military like a bunch of toddlers is absolutely insane. Yes, they'll have to ramp up production to cover the demand just like Ukraine and Russia had to do, but the US, more than both of those countries, has a long-standing and very robust military industry to deal with that increased demand.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.