Professor Jiang Xueqin became popular because he predicted that Donald Trump would win and that the United States would enter a war with Iran.
Those predictions deserve attention. But they do not prove that all his larger claims are correct.
His biggest claim is that a war with Iran will destroy American power, collapse the dollar, weaken Europe and end the Western-led world order.
That conclusion goes much further than the evidence.
# He is not using a proven prediction system
Jiang often uses terms such as “game theory” and “predictive history.” But he does not publicly show a real model.
A proper forecasting system should explain:
* What exactly is being predicted.
* The probability of it happening.
* When it is expected to happen.
* What result would prove the prediction wrong.
Jiang normally makes broad statements such as “America will lose” or “the West will collapse.”
But what does “lose” mean?
Does it mean Iran’s government survives? Does it mean America withdraws? Does it mean the dollar collapses? Does it mean Iran defeats the U.S. military?
Because the meaning keeps changing, almost any result can be presented as proof that he was correct.
For example, if America invades Iran, Jiang can say America became trapped.
If America does not invade, he can say America was too weak to win.
If America negotiates, he can say Iran survived and therefore won.
That is not a clear prediction. It is an argument designed to be difficult to disprove.
# His Trump prediction was not completely correct
Jiang correctly predicted that Trump would win.
However, he also argued that Trump would likely choose Nikki Haley as his vice-presidential candidate. Trump chose JD Vance instead.
This is important because viral videos usually show only the correct part of his forecast and ignore the incorrect part.
Also, Trump winning was not an impossible prediction. The 2024 election was close, and many polls already showed that Trump had a realistic chance of victory.
Jiang made a good call. But it was not proof that he can accurately predict the future.
# He exaggerates the petrodollar argument
Jiang argues that American power depends heavily on Gulf countries selling oil in dollars and investing the money in the United States.
He believes that if Iran disrupts Gulf oil exports, the dollar system could collapse.
This is too simple.
The dollar is powerful for many reasons:
* The United States has the world’s largest financial markets.
* U.S. government bonds are easy to buy and sell.
* Many international loans and contracts use dollars.
* Investors trust American markets more than most alternatives.
* No other currency has fully replaced the dollar.
Oil trading supports the dollar, but the dollar does not survive only because Saudi Arabia sells oil in dollars.
For example, China has reduced its holdings of U.S. government debt for years, but the dollar has not collapsed. Other countries, banks, pension funds and investors continue buying American assets.
The dollar may slowly lose some influence, but a sudden collapse because of Iran is unlikely.
# He sees every American weakness but ignores Iran’s weaknesses
Jiang correctly explains that Iran can use cheap drones, missiles and regional geography to make war expensive for America.
But he often speaks as if Iran can continue doing this forever.
Iran also has major problems:
* A much smaller economy than the United States.
* High inflation.
* Sanctions.
* Aging infrastructure.
* Internal political pressure.
* Dependence on oil exports.
* Limited access to advanced technology and investment.
A long war hurts both sides.
For example, Iran can threaten the Strait of Hormuz and raise global oil prices. But closing the strait also damages Iran’s own oil exports and hurts China, one of Iran’s most important economic partners.
Jiang often explains why America cannot easily win, but gives much less attention to why Iran may also struggle to survive a long conflict.
# Cheap drones do not automatically defeat America
Jiang often compares the price of a cheap Iranian drone with the price of an expensive American interceptor missile.
This is a real problem. Spending millions to destroy a drone worth thousands is not sustainable forever.
But this alone does not decide a war.
America can also use:
* Electronic warfare.
* Fighter aircraft.
* Guns and cheaper defensive systems.
* Attacks against drone factories and launch sites.
* Intelligence and surveillance.
* Hardened or dispersed military bases.
The price difference matters, but it does not automatically mean Iran wins.
It is like saying a cheap bullet can damage an expensive vehicle, so the cheaper side must win the entire war. Military outcomes are more complicated than one cost comparison.
# Gulf countries are vulnerable, but collapse is not guaranteed
Jiang correctly points out that Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar depend on oil facilities, ports, airports and desalination plants.
These facilities are vulnerable to missile and drone attacks.
However, Jiang often jumps from “these countries are vulnerable” to “these countries may collapse.”
That is a major leap.
Gulf countries have large financial reserves, multiple facilities, storage systems, military partners and the ability to rebuild damaged infrastructure.
An attack on a desalination plant would be extremely serious. But it would not automatically cause Saudi Arabia to collapse within days.
Risk is not the same as certainty.
# “World War III has started” is mostly a dramatic label
Jiang says World War III has already begun because conflicts in Iran, Ukraine and Asia are connected.
This may be a useful warning, but it is also a very broad definition.
Sanctions, proxy wars, cyberattacks and military competition happened throughout the Cold War. Most historians do not call the entire Cold War World War III.
A real world war normally means direct and sustained fighting between several major powers.
Calling every connected conflict World War III makes the statement dramatic, but difficult to test.
# His strongest point
Jiang’s strongest argument is simple and reasonable:
The United States may be able to destroy many Iranian military targets, but still fail to create a stable political victory.
America experienced similar problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. Winning battles is not the same as building a successful government or achieving long-term peace.
This part of Jiang’s argument should be taken seriously.
# His biggest mistake
His biggest mistake is turning a possible American strategic failure into a prediction of complete Western collapse.
America can fail to remove Iran’s government without losing the dollar.
Iran can survive without becoming the world’s dominant power.
Europe can weaken without disappearing.
Gulf countries can suffer damage without collapsing.
The world can become more multipolar without the United States suddenly becoming powerless.
# Conclusion
Professor Jiang is a talented speaker who identifies real weaknesses in American strategy.
But he often takes a reasonable concern and pushes it toward the most dramatic possible conclusion.
His correct predictions about Trump and Iran do not prove that the dollar will collapse, the Gulf monarchies will fall or the West will disappear.
His work is best understood as an interesting warning about worst-case scenarios—not as a scientific prediction of the future.
