Going from least to most doom and gloom ...
1. Obama will be elected President. I don't mind so much -- we simply don't know if he has what it takes. My chief worry is that he will follow left-Democratic advice on foreign policy. This will lead to less short-term saber-rattling, and to larger wars long-term. Besides, though Bush tried with his defusing of the Iraqi powder keg, it may be that the big war that's coming is simply unavoidable. History turns in its cycles as the psychology of populations ebbs and flows, and human nature remains what it is. It may also lead to a resurgence of friendly feeling towards the United States, and a serious chance at repairing the global attitude towards us. I hope so, but I fear such feelings can be short-lived. He must take the right actions.
2. Iran will attain nuclear weapons. No one seriously doubts this is their aim. Nor can they be blamed for it. The people of Iran have felt themselves under the thumbs of foreign powers for many long years, most recently and egregiously those of the British and the Americans. They need to come into their own and master their own affairs, and to join the club with India and Pakistan is an obvious step. Syria, Egypt, Venezuela and Brazil will in time follow suit. Once a technology exists, it cannot be held down forever. The answer, then, to save humanity from extinction, is to hope not that we can stop proliferation (though we should never stop working on that), but to work towards the day when every nation, especially every nation wealthy enough to build a nuclear weapons industry, is responsive enough to its own people such that fear-mongering and warlike nationalism are never deemed necessary.
3. There will be a major, population-redistributing war within our lifetimes. The above aim, that peaceful social systems can take root and grow in every industrialized nation, will not happen in time to prevent it. The post-Cold War rise of intense nationalism mixed with the power focused by the global energy economy will lead to tensions that only war can release. Nor can we simply blame the Russians, the Iranians, the Israelis, the Chinese, or the Republicans for this. One reason (one of many): It is no coincidence that the population of the U.S.A. experiences a war that threatens its government's existence every eighty years or so. There are complex social, mob-psychological and economic systems at work which make this so. This doesn't make what happens our doing: It only assures that the American population, which has some influence in the running of its own government and reacts to events in certain ways as a function of generational timelines, will react (I predict in the early 2020s) such that global war results. By then, you and I will agree there is no alternative, as horrible as the idea may seem today.
* * *
Draw your own conclusions*. Mine are that:
A) Humanity is best served by commitments within the hearts of all people to individual liberty. Not individualism, necessarily -- many well-meaning socialist types regard extreme individualism as the problem. But we can agree that every individual should never be denied a certain level of self-determination;
B) Only the United States among major powers has encoded in its soul a commitment to this ideal -- that Mankind is endowed by his Creator (which I personally interpret as the ineffable evolutionary processes that led us to sentience) with certain inalienable rights including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
C) Institutions that survive the coming global war must include the United States, not in the interests of nationalism (which is a relatively meaningless term to any American) but in the interests of humanity; and to this end the U.S. must be strongly positioned when it begins. This requires we continue to take action in the global arena not so much that we are everybody's friend, but so that while we are admired by those who appreciate freedom we are also respected as willing to take strong measures to protect our own strategic interests.
Or to put it really simply: Sometimes we can justify the bad things the U.S. does because we must survive and be strong "for the good of mankind".
I am well aware how jingoistic if not outright fascist that looks, because the same wording could justify anything -- conquest of any nation, as has happened in the past, more than once, more than twice. The real challenge is in making the choices carefully and for the right reasons, which in turn requires maintaining focus on what is "right". Bush tried to change the rules with Iraq: Replace a dictator with a chance at democracy rather than keep the dictator on a golden leash. But too many things went wrong, too many self-interested parties were needed for the enterprise to have a chance, and our handling of Iran and Iraq in the preceding decades (not to mention Israel) guaranteed there'd be little to no trust in our intentions.
So, here we go: Roll the bones.
* - The conclusion that I am either batshit crazy or bonehead stupid will be excused on the grounds that no one knows exactly what anyone else knows and I've been called those things online far too often to worry about it anyway.