The text of our full discussion appears after this:
by Rod D. Martin and Frank Gaffney
August 13, 2026
My latest interview on Securing America with Frank Gaffney. Sign up NOW for Frank’s Rumble channel and don’t miss a single episode!
Frank and I discuss:
The Saudi-Turkish-Pakistani defense pact surrounds Iran
Why the midterm math favors Republicans
The burgeoning Trump economic boom: the energy and defense supercycles and why it’s 1983 all over again
PLUS: The DSA openly declares, “Our goal is communism.”
It’s a full 27 minutes of in-depth analysis you won’t want to miss. If you prefer to read, the full transcript is below. Watch, read, like, and share!
Hillsdale College’s wonderful “The Story of America” series is now FREE for you to watch! Learn about the most important episodes in America’s Founding.
Click here for the full series!
Now, here’s our full discussion:
Frank Gaffney: Welcome back. And when I get to say welcome to my friend Rod Martin, I think it’s a very happy day indeed. Happy because he is a happy warrior. He is one of the people who brings sunshine to this program, which is much needed.
Rod, of course, is the chairman of the board of the outfit that makes this program possible, the Institute for the American Future. He is also the author of the Rod Martin Report, which you can find at RodMartin.org, and I strongly commend you do that. He’s a serial entrepreneur, a man who has been active in the Southern Baptist Convention. He is a profoundly impressive essayist and pundit now, and we’re delighted always to have him visit with us. Welcome back, my friend. It’s good to have you with us.
Rod D. Martin: Great to be here.
Frank Gaffney: I’m going to read a little bit of a commentary that I want you to respond to. My glass-half-empty prognosis and yours — mostly full — would be, I think, very interesting.
Rod D. Martin: More full than not.
Frank Gaffney: Here we go.
While official Washington is understandably preoccupied with the war with Iran, a tectonic shift has just occurred in the region that threatens to overshadow that conflict’s ongoing challenges and knock-on effects. For many years, we’ve been encouraged to believe that three Sharia-supremacist nations — Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia — are reliable U.S. allies. Indeed, the Trump administration has counted on them to negotiate on our behalf with the Iranians.
The announcement that those three nations have just established a mutual defense accord is ominous. It means that Saudi Arabia is now joining the Turks and Pakistanis in aligning with the red-green axis forged by Communist China and the Muslim Brotherhood. Reports that Egypt may soon join them signal our enemies are filling a perceived vacuum of power in the Mideast, increasingly threatening Western civilization at a particularly bad time.
Well, those are my views. I hope that you will follow me on X, at Frank Gaffney, for more of them, and also at the Institute for the American Future, where you will find us at USFuture.org. It makes this program possible, and I hope you will generously support us in doing so. USFuture.org is the site.
Rod Martin, let’s talk a little bit about this. The red-green axis is a real thing. I believe it’s been mostly discussed in the context of what’s being done by the Democratic Socialists of America and the other friends of Communist China here, with jihadists who happen to be also here in substantial numbers.
But much of the wellspring of the funding, as well as the organizational heft that those guys are relying on, comes out of places abroad: Communist China, yes, but also a number of these countries. Qatar didn’t get mentioned in this context because it’s bankrolling a lot of it, but not in the defense pact just yet. But I imagine it’ll wind up there soon.
So why shouldn’t we be a bit troubled, shall we say, by the Saudis now seemingly throwing in with the Muslim Brotherhood, Erdogan’s Turkey, and Qatar, of course, and quite possibly Egypt in the near future?
The New Alliance Is Aimed at Iran
Rod D. Martin: Before we get there, let me just briefly say that the glass-nearly-empty approach is actually really important. Because if we don’t have watchmen on the wall, like yourself, Frank, who are telling us what could go horribly awry, we can’t plan for it. We can’t prepare for it. We can’t prevent it.
So anything that I say that contradicts you here is my assessment, but doesn’t necessarily say that, first of all, all of the dangers that you’re identifying couldn’t happen, or that we shouldn’t be on guard for them.
With that said, I think, on balance, this is probably a positive development. Because if you look at a map, and you look at where all these countries are, they make a very interesting circle around Iran. And Iran has hacked off the Pakistanis by their double-dealing in these negotiations.
Pakistan wants a win with the United States. They’re not our enemy, but they’re not our friend. What’s that term — frenemy? You can’t count on them, my gosh. But the Chinese can’t count on them either. And they’re sitting there wedged up against India. They’ve got strategic considerations that we may factor out, but they don’t. They’re sitting there, a nuclear-armed power with a real arsenal, and a real delivery system, and a real existential threat next door.
At the same time, they’re somewhat in bed with the Chinese. But they want to counterbalance that by also being in bed with the United States. And I think that’s what we’re seeing here overall.
These guys are all hedging their bets. And you should certainly pay attention to that. It’s not as though we’re able to just send viceroys to each of these countries and dictate what they do, separate from each other. Maybe in a perfect world that’s what we’d do, but we’re never going to do that.
So if you have Pakistan kind of triangulating, if you have Saudi Arabia kind of triangulating because its interests are different — it certainly wants Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella, but it’s pretty sure of ours if push came to shove — then you have Turkey, who’s been in our tent since 1952. They are not our friend, but again, they’re kind of a half-hearted enemy. What they want is an empire. They want to restore the Ottoman Empire. The Saudis very much want them not to.
So, okay.
And then you’ve got Egypt, which has managed to stay at peace with Israel since 1979, which is getting to be a while. I remember when it was ten minutes ago, but it’s turning out to be half a century.
So you look at all this together, and what do they each get out of it? There isn’t a collective “it.” It reminds me very much of — I would say CENTO, but really the United Arab Republic. Those guys couldn’t get along. They were quite certain that they were establishing the future of the Arab world. And in reality, they couldn’t even get their own futures together, and the whole thing spun apart in less than three years.
So I think what you have here is three, possibly four, countries who have an interest in Iran — which has attacked two of the three of them — an interest in navigating that, and an interest in seeking to have some independent ability to defend themselves. If we have a bad election, we could elect Kamala. They’re not stupid. They get that. That’s part of the problem.
But the rest of the problem is they all have an interest in counterbalancing each other. And I think what you get down to here is, on balance, helpful for the United States. Within this so-called alliance itself, I think they’re keeping their friends close and their enemies closer. And this is a way to have a mechanism to keep them out of each other’s backyard to one degree or another.
Now, Pakistan’s all right. They want Saudi money, but they have no territorial designs on the Middle East. But Saudi Arabia and Turkey, they are in each other’s hair.
Sharia Supremacism, China, and America’s Reliability
Frank Gaffney: All right, let me just respond. Let me tease this out. And thank you for that endorsement of the glass-half-full role that we play here. But the idea that the various elements — and I don’t disagree with the thing you said as far as it goes — it’s just that it does seem as though something that is not in that mix that has to be, Rod, is this idea. Well, two, really, but particularly the idea that these countries all do espouse a Sharia-supremacist end state, whether it’s the Ottoman Empire, or whether it’s the Saudi dominant role, or whether it’s something else. It nonetheless does come back to this point that we don’t tend to take that seriously.
And in fact, we are now relying on the Qataris, no less, as well as these other characters, to sort of be looking out for our interests. I don’t think that’s actually advisable.
But the other piece of this is the Communist Chinese are unmistakably working with all of these guys. Is it a perfect marriage in every case? No, I guess not. But do the Chinese have the ability to screw us in various partnerships with these folks? I think that is true. And I just worry that, especially if we’re perceived as no longer reliable, or no longer maybe even competent — I don’t know — that that danger is considerably greater.
Rod D. Martin: They think Trump is highly competent. They’re worried about 2028. America goes through these spasms where we’re doing just wonderful, and then we torpedo Nixon and end up with Carter, or we’re doing great with Trump and somehow we end up with Biden. And they know that American elections are regular and regularly disappointing. So, of course, they’re going to hedge their bets. And the Chinese are always in play.
But it’s worth remembering that the Chinese would be in play whether they have this particular alliance or not. That will always be true, so long as they are a player on the board. So I wouldn’t overthink that.
I think, on balance, this is an anti-Iran alliance. They’re not going to call it that. They shouldn’t call it that. But that’s what it is. And if it stays that, and if we have a competent administration in Washington, then on balance, it’s probably a net positive for the United States.
Frank Gaffney: Okay, well, let that be the last word for the moment. But I have the feeling we’ll be back to it in due course, because I think we’re going to see — again, in the analogy that I use there — tectonic shifts do have ripple effects. And we’re going to watch these ones carefully.
Rod Martin is going to stay with us. We’ll be right back with more on the other side of a short break. I hope you will stay tuned as well.
The Midterm Map and the Trump Economy
Frank Gaffney: We’re back, and so is Rod Martin, the author of the Rod Martin Report. Actually, he uses that wonderful platform as a vehicle for others, and we’re going to talk about one of those in a moment.
But Rod, prominently featured on the page these days is the economic boom that Donald Trump hath wrought. And I’m interested in two questions. One is: Is it real, and is it likely to endure — point one — especially with the buffeting of the Strait of Hormuz, oil, and all that inflation? But secondly, is Donald Trump going to get credit for it or, more to the point, will his team be rewarded for it in the fall elections? Do you think?
Rod D. Martin: Okay, let’s go backward on that. Starting with the election, I don’t think Trump is overly concerned about this election. He’s going to contest it hard. He’s going to spend a ton of money. His Super PACs collectively have $400 million. By contrast, the Democratic National Committee has a debt of $2 million. There is a radical mismatch this cycle which tells you how deeply unpopular “democratic socialism” is among the donor class.
Frank Gaffney: Is the President spending that money, though, Rod? I’m being told it’s sort of sitting in the bank someplace.
Rod D. Martin: Yes, and Elon says he’s going to spend a hundred million more, so I don’t think that we’re going to lack for money. I think you’re going to start seeing it flow after Labor Day, as is normal.
I also think that he’s not overly concerned because redistricting, on net, went dramatically our way. We have a much bigger cushion than we did. Just speaking in terms of numbers of seats, not specific races, the upside for the Democrats in a big year was probably around 236 seats. After redistricting, it might be 223. And that is a majority, but it’s just a very, very slim majority. They’ll have trouble doing business, just as we’ve had trouble doing business.
But that’s if they win, and I’m not convinced that they win. First off, on the Senate side, they’re not going to win. We might even pick up a seat, especially after the Democrats screwed up in Michigan. I think Mike Rogers has a real shot. I don’t know if we have a shot against Ossoff in Georgia. And I think Whatley is kind of throwing away that seat in North Carolina, just not running a good campaign at all. But if they can get their act together, they have time.
Nevertheless, we could hold even, drop a seat, add a seat. The Senate’s probably fine. By the way, the quality of Republicans in that Senate will have gone up dramatically, having lost Cassidy, Cornyn, Tillis, and McConnell. Big improvements on our side of the aisle.
On the House side, though, here’s the bottom line everybody’s got to understand: The Democrats would have to win two-thirds of the seats in play to win the majority. They’d have to win two-thirds. We only have to win a third to keep the majority. That’s a big difference. That’s a real uphill climb.
So I honestly think that we’ve got a really good shot going into November if we don’t screw it up. And we’re Republicans, so odds are we will screw it up. But if not — we’re going to try, that’s for sure — I think we can end up in control of both houses, and Trump has an incredibly productive final two years.
The Reagan Parallel
Rod D. Martin: Now, as for the economy, we’re exactly in 1983. All of our younger viewers here won’t know what that means, but the older viewers should.
In 1983, you’re coming out of the horrible recession set up by Jimmy Carter and then compounded by the Reagan-Volcker plan to slay inflation. We were coming off just staggering inflation, vastly worse than anything we’ve experienced recently, or really in the last 40 years. And they slayed inflation by jacking up interest rates to a point where it just stopped cold.
So we had this terrible recession in ‘82, ‘83. And everyone said Reagan was toast. But the groundwork was being laid, because the most deleterious factor in any economy is inflation. If you get that under control, everything gets better
.Add to that the massive tax cuts Ronald Reagan was able to pass in 1981 and Donald Trump was able to pass in 2025. Add to that the greater features, in some respects, of the Trump tax code. Add to that the $18 trillion of external investment that the President has recruited into this country. And no, it’s not all in the bank yet, but a huge amount of it is actually breaking ground on real plants that are going to be employing real Americans really soon.
So that capex boom is already extraordinary. We’re seeing a bigger capex boom right now than we did in 1983. And when it really ignites, it’s going to be unquestionable how great the economy is, in much the same way it was in 2019 before COVID. Everybody knew Trump had killed it in 2019, and then COVID killed that.
Well, barring Trump being stupid and rehiring Anthony Fauci, we’re not going to have that problem again. So once this really kicks into gear, oh my gosh, you’re setting up a supercycle.
Energy and Defense Supercycles
Rod D. Martin: And I’ll add just two points to that. This war has done more to divert global energy purchases to the United States, away from the Persian Gulf and Russia, than anything ever. That’s one. And that’s money coming to the United States instead of leaving the United States to its enemies.
Second — and this is actually pretty important — we are right now at the beginning of a defense supercycle. Now, if we screw up and elect Kamala in ‘28, that won’t be true. But when you look at what Lockheed Martin is doing, when you look at what Anduril is doing, when you look at what SpaceX is doing, when you look at the orders — the orders that the Secretary of the Navy just announced for Virginia-class and Columbia-class boats, both boomers and attack subs, which, by the way, are now redesignated SSGNs — we’re going to have 19 SSGNs, each with a smaller capacity than the Ohio-class boats that are retiring but similar in total, distributed over many more platforms.
It’ll take a while to build them. But when they’re letting that kind of huge contract, Electric Boat and Newport News can actually plan for the future, actually add staff, actually add capacity. That’s going to be huge. And this economy is just going to boom.
Frank Gaffney: We pray, as always, Rod, from your lips to God’s ears, that these things will eventuate, as opposed to some of the more dour prospects.
Rod D. Martin: They’re happening now.
Frank Gaffney: Let’s pray.
The DSA’s Goal Is Communism
Frank Gaffney: We’re back with Rod Martin, the driving force behind a wonderful online resource called the Rod Martin Report. You can find it and subscribe at RodMartin.org.
As I mentioned earlier in the program, one of the things I especially appreciate is that, in addition to being a platform for the remarkable wit and wisdom of its proprietor, he is also curating a wonderful group of guest contributors. One of them is a good friend and very much admired colleague of mine, Stella Morabito, who has written brilliantly over the years about, among other things, the Left and the mindset that operates in its ranks—and that, when they have power, they impose on everybody else to terrible effect.
Rod, Stella has a piece about socialism in our time. In particular, it is aimed, I think, at trying to help the young in our country, who seem to be fairly clueless about this — or worse yet, enamored of it — appreciate that this never works out, because of the nature of the radical Left.
Talk us through that, if you would, sir, because the prognoses about the elections and so on in part turn on whether the Left mobilizes behind some of these candidates who you would think could never get out of the chocks, in a way that does, in fact, put the country in peril.
Rod D. Martin: Look, some of our viewers will get this and some won’t, so let me cut to the chase. We just had the Democratic Socialists of America convention. These are the guys who are winning all these Democrat primaries. These are the guys who are taking control of the Democrat Party. Don’t ask me. Ask James Carville. Ask Bill Maher. Ask Hakeem Jeffries. These guys are more than a little wigged out about it.
The DSA is the enemy. And one of its key leaders stood up at the podium less than two weeks ago and said—these are the words, direct quote—“Our goal is communism.” And the crowd cheered.
So we have to understand: if you’re still thinking that socialism is just some hippie thing, or a fad that college students indulge but don’t really mean, or whatever, these guys mean it. These guys mean the real thing.
Hillsdale College’s wonderful “The Story of America” series is now FREE for you to watch! Learn about the most important episodes in America’s Founding.
Click here for the full series!
Communism has never existed anywhere without mass murder. It just never has. In every country the communists have taken control of, they have liquidated their enemies in short order — ranging from comparatively small numbers in Eastern Europe, to be fair; I mean, compared to America, vast numbers, but not compared to China, where Mao murdered 65 million of his own people; or Cambodia, where Pol Pot killed a third of his population in just over two and a half years; or Russia, where Stalin killed at least 20 million, and eight million in a “terror famine.” Whoever had even heard of a terror famine in Ukraine? And, of course, the Western media covered that up for him.
So this is a horrible thing, and they’re telling you flat-out: “Our goal is communism.”
Now, communists are really good organizers. It’s kind of their religion. They don’t believe in a god other than the state, but their theology — their atheology, if you will — is all about organizing. And it always takes a particular form. As you know, there is always a Popular Front. That’s what they call it. That was true in Russia in 1917. That was true in Nicaragua in 1979, and everywhere in between.
What they do is divide people into as many tiny interest groups as you can come up with. There’s your intersectional pyramid. There’s your gay, transgendered, whatever. They subdivide people into so many tiny identity groups that they all feel oppressed. They’re all told they’re oppressed. They all believe no one is for them except the Party. And the Party unites that into this Popular Front.
Now what happens next? When they take over, the communists always kill all of the people who were in the Popular Front with them. It’s just like night follows day. This is true everywhere. If they don’t kill them, they throw them in jail or exile them from the country. And the communists end up on top because they’re the most ruthless.
There is exactly one exception to that anywhere in the world, and that would be Iran in 1979, where the Islamists actually got the upper hand on the communists. Even more ruthless. But other than Iran, you can’t really find an example where this strategy didn’t end up in a communist system, assuming it was victorious — and it is victorious way too often.
America is uniquely resistant to that for many, many reasons, the chief of which is our brilliant constitutional structure, which makes it very, very difficult to implement sweeping change quickly. It can happen once in a while, such as at the beginning of the New Deal, but it’s really, really hard. Those conditions almost never exist.
And so I’m absolutely convinced we can beat them. But we’re in a fight. And if we don’t take it seriously, our kids and grandkids will not live in a free country.
The Red-Green-Blue-Yellow Axis
Frank Gaffney: And Rod, as you know, one of the things we talk about a lot — including at the beginning of this program — is that this danger is made all the more severe by the fact that, at least for the moment, they are making common cause with what I think of as at least two other totalitarian forces: the jihadists, of course, but also the globalist elites.
Our mutual friend Kevin Freeman likes to add a fourth element, which he calls the traitors and fools. So you’ve got the red-green-blue-yellow axis. But whatever you characterize it as, and however you slice and dice it, they’re all seeking one common purpose at the moment, and that is to get rid of this country.
You’re absolutely right. That is the fight we’re in. We have to recognize it as such, and we have to mobilize to resist it in its several parts, as well as its complicated but dangerous whole.
Rod Martin, we have to leave it at that for the moment. So much more to talk about, but thanks, as always, for giving us a little bit of sunshine, as well as some very, very thoughtful observations about the future. God bless you. Come back to us soon.
I hope the rest of you do the same next time. Until then, go forth and multiply.
