New ‘Nostradamus’ Predicts World War 3 Is Closer Than You Think | Xueqin Jiang

If there's a war in the Middle East, the entire world is dragged in because East Asia cannot survive without oil from the Middle East. And all Iran has to do is to close off the Strait of Hormuz and they basically collapse the East Asian economies. The only way for Iran to win a conflict with the United States is if the United States sends in ground troops. You can't retreat now because then you look bad. And that's what Iran is trying to provoke. It's in Putin's best interest to drag this war out as long as possible because what he wants to do is bring in NATO. He wants to force NATO to commit ground troops in Odessa. The reason why is... Our next guest has been

dubbed by the media China's Nostradamus for having correctly called many geopolitical hotspot events including the Iran -Israel war and how the U.S. would be involved. He also correctly called Trump's win way back last year. Take a listen. As we also discussed, it's very likely that Trump will become president.

Now, he's making bold predictions on what's next for the U.S.-Iran conflict in the Middle East, what's next for U.S. involvement in the Middle East, Russia, Ukraine war, what's next for that front, what's Putin's real objective. And what's next for the global economy and potentially a new third world war that could upend the entire global monetary system. He is Xu Jing Zhang, host of Predictive History on YouTube. Check out his channel. Very interesting. Link down below. Zhang, welcome to the show. Good to see you. Thank you for being here. Thanks, David, for inviting me. Zhang, let's start off with your first prediction that I mentioned. So you called Trump's win exactly a year ago before the election. But then back then you were calling for Nikki Haley to be VP, not J.D. Vance. Walk us through your analytical approach and ultimately how you called Trump's win.

Yeah. So I felt the 2020 election was very close, much closer than it should have been. And so I was trying to analyze the structural factors that made Trump so popular, including America's immigration policy, including America's focus on DEI, including America's wars overseas. If you're not changing the structural factors, if you're not changing the structural issues, then Trump is always going to be a viable candidate. And then I was observing all this lawfare being conducted against Trump, which gave him a persecution complex and which made him more popular in the eyes of racial minorities in the United States. And ultimately, the fact of the matter is that the Biden regime didn't really have a strategy, a plan, a vision for going forward. And then you had Putin's, invasion of Ukraine, which presented a major geopolitical challenge for the United States. And again, Biden wasn't able to present a united front. He wasn't able to present a full counter challenge to Putin.

So I felt that you had a confluence of geopolitical, economic and political factors that would ultimately let Trump win easily in 2024 if Biden stayed the candidate. And so that's how I made my analysis.

What was your reasoning for thinking that Nikki Haley would likely be VP?

So Trump, in order to become president, he needed to build a coalition of forces. So he's definitely had the people on his side. He needed certain factions of the government on his side, specifically the neocons. He needed to show the power faction in Washington, D.C. that he would support. He needed to show the power faction in Washington, D.C. And so Nikki Haley, in my opinion, was the best choice if you wanted to appease the neocons in Washington, D.C. And she really presented herself as neocon candidate during the Republican primary. So and I felt that by picking Nikki Haley, then Trump would easily win the suburban woman vote, which would allow him to have a landslide.

Before we get to your next prediction. Can you just tell us what is predictive history? How does it work?

Oh, yeah. Great question. Sorry. So I've studied a lot of history and I felt that there was a common flaw to history being presented, which is they're not making predictions. If you're doing history properly, if you're analyzing history properly, if your NFL models are correct, then you should be able to project the future, make certain predictions about the future. And if these predictions are correct, then you know that you're going to be able to make certain predictions about the future. And if these predictions are correct, then you know your NFL model is correct. So the idea of predictive history is, I want to make theories about history that allows me to make certain predictions about how the world will progress. And if these predictions are correct, then I know my NFL model is correct. But if these predictions are incorrect, then I know how to remedy or alter my NFL models in order to come close to the truth.

And I feel that if you do it this way, then history is much more accessible. It's much more clear, and it's much more useful for people. So that's the attitude. That's the approach to my understanding of history.

Can we use the same approach now and make a prediction for the midterm elections and what is likely going to happen?

So the problem with predictive history is you need to have a larger time horizon. So you would ask me, like, next year, what's going to happen in the midterm elections? It's very hard to say because you don't have enough information. You don't have enough data to work with.

Because it's only been two years this term. Is that what you mean?

Yeah. And also, I mean, the issue is that we assume that next year's midterm will be the same as every midterm that preceded this, right? But we're living in interesting times. It's entirely possible that there could be a change in the midterm elections. There could be some discrepancies in elections in the midterm next year. There could be a lot of cheating. There could be some cancellations. There's a lot of different factors that you need to take in. So I can't really call the midterm elections. What the polls say is that the Democrats will take the House again, and that will immediately start impeachment hearings against Trump. But I'm sure Trump has counterstrategies against that. So, yeah.

Okay. Well, you've gained significant media attention for accurately calling the outcome of U.S. involvement in the Middle East in regards to Israel and Iran. You made these predictions a year ago, even at the time when a lot of analysts were saying that the U.S. might show restraint and would not get involved again. So, you know, you went viral not because of the call itself, but because it contradicted a lot of mainstream analysis. So, again, walk us through that process. And ultimately, why you decided military intervention from the U.S. was inevitable.

Yeah. So, the trick is to understand the significance of the assassination of General Soleimani in 2020 towards the end of the first Trump term. What you need to understand is that General Soleimani, he was the ambassador for Iran in negotiations with the United States with the issue of Saudi Arabia. And when you're assassinated, you're not the ambassador for Iran. So, if you assassinate an ambassador, then it's basically a declaration of war. And there are many historical precedents for this. The one that comes to mind immediately is in around the year 500 BCE, the Athenians and the Spartans assassinated the Persian ambassadors. And that's what launched the Persian invasion of the great mainland. And so, there's a historical parallel. There's a historical analogy. When you assassinate an ambassador. ambassador it's a declaration of war um and so i knew at that time when they did this that the united states basically declared war on uh iran

and if trump we see got a second term if he won the election 2020 then he would most certainly have sent in ground troops in a second term but because he didn't then the question then is okay well would he win a second term because if you want a second term then he will most definitely attack iran um so the trick to analysis is to figure out the significance of that event and try to compare it to historical analogies and if the historic historical analogies match then you sort of know how the event will will then proceed

before we continue let me tell you about protecting your most important asset your personal information now your personal information is likely out there on dozens of data broker sites you've never even heard of these sites collect and sell your name address phone number and more without your permission that's why i use today's sponsor delete me it's a very important tool to use to protect your personal information and to protect your privacy it's a service that finds your personal data across the internet and gets it removed and it doesn't just do it once it does it continuously and monitors it and removes it throughout the year all you have to do is submit your information and within a week you get a privacy report showing where your data was found and what's been removed the whole process is simple and it runs in the background so you don't have to think about it go to join

delete me dot com slash david lin and use the promo code david lynn at checkout or scan the qr code here on the screen to get 20 off on all u.s plans join delete me now and take control of your privacy today so at the time iran retaliated quote -unquote by hitting some u.s military bases in the middle east with without a lot of active personnel just to you know show that they did something without escalating the conflict and i think where a lot of military analysts got it wrong was that they thought okay that was that was it they've iran did what they needed to do to show that they retaliated no more escalation they didn't do anything they didn't do anything they didn't do anything at all the dari is new formed a very very very fresh model that's an analogue

yeah yeah it's a model called that i could break and i can't i mean yeah of course but it's also a little bit interesting um because because that's the that's the consequence of having a lot different ultimately is you can write like this you can just write it down you can want to create something assassinate someone's ambassador. Because once you assassinate that person's ambassador, then you have to move quickly up the escalation ladder into full -scale war. So Soleimani, I mean, he's been there for over 10 years. And he was a de facto Iranian representative in the Middle East. And he worked with Americans to contain ISIS. He worked with Americans to figure out how to best govern Iraq. So they were basically friends. And you need someone like that in order to maintain equilibrium in that region. So when you assassinate that sort of person, then you're unleashing complete, unpredictable chaos. And why would you do that?

Well, it's because you ultimately want to alter the geopolitical equilibrium in that region. And how do you do that? You do that by over -funding the regime in Iran. And once you understand that, then you sort of understand that they're moving towards war. Then the question then is, why did Iran react so lightly? Or why did Iran show such restraint in the process? The reason is because it's asymmetrical warfare, right? I mean, if Iran and the United States went on head -to -head, Iran loses all the time. So Iran needs to employ soft power. It needs to win the geopolitical public opinion. It needs to rally its allies. It basically needs to create a trap for the United States. So what we'll see for the next few years is the United States will constantly be the aggressor, and Iran will show restraint to show that it is the party of peace.

What does this trap look like? Let's say the U.S. falls into this trap over the next couple of years. What happens?

Yeah. So the only way for Iran to win a conflict with the United States is if the United States sends in ground troops. And there are many reasons why. The first reason is, if you send in ground troops, then you are pot -committed. In poker, there's the term pot -committed, right? You're all -in, basically. Once you send in ground troops, there's something called a sunk cost fallacy that takes in, which is you've invested so much already in the process, you can't retreat now because then you look bad. So the pricking point or the tipping point is will the United States send in ground troops? And that's what Iran is trying to provoke. It's trying to set up conditions where the United States is going to be able to do that. So the United States feels safe, it feels secure, and it feels necessary in order to send in ground troops. And once the United States commits ground troops, then the United States will lose the war against Iran.

They didn't lose the war against Iraq by committing ground troops. Well, not immediately. I mean, public fallout, that's a different story, right? So why would Iran be different?

That's a great point. So Iraq was a desert. Iran is mountainous. Iraq is the perfect place for America to employ its shock and awe military doctrine, right? Lots of planes, lots of special operations, quick lightning strikes against the command centers of Iraq. And it's because they were so successful in Iraq that the Americans will be led, because of its hubris, to attack Iran, thinking it's really the same thing. But the reality is that Iran, it's basically, it's very mountainous. It's very hard to maintain supply chains in Iran. There are lots of choke points. You can't bomb mountains into submission. And Iran has learned a lot in the 20 years since America attacked Iraq. Iran has a pretty fleshed out strategy on how to deal with American ground invasion of Iran, if it were to happen.

Yeah. Double the population, too, of Iraq. But how likely is a ground invasion at this point? There's analysis that Israel is trying to persuade America to lead a ground coalition. I don't know if that's true. I'll let you assess that.

Yeah. So I don't think anyone thinks that a ground invasion against Iran will be successful. Not even the Pentagon would argue that a ground invasion of Iran is strategic. Unfortunately, there are many geopolitical factors, lots of geopolitical forces that are pushing the United States into regime change in Iran. Seymour Hersh on Substack, one of the great American journalists, but he has access to American intelligence operatives. And he's fully convinced that America is committed to regime change in Iran. And he's the same guy who... Over 20 years ago, predicted that America is committed to regime change in Iraq. And this was like six months before the actual outbreak of the war. And this was a time when no one thought that America would go into Iraq. So Seymour Hersh is saying that America is committed to regime change. If you're committed to regime change, bombing is not enough. You need to send in ground troops. And I mean, the reality is that there's a lot of political discontent, economic discontent, in America.

And when that happens, then if all else fails, they take you to war. So I mean, there are like millions and millions of reasons why I think they will send in ground troops. But I think that if you look at the geopolitical situation, just economic, there's very little choice for America, but to exert force in Iran.

But Trump has said he doesn't want regime change. I mean, is this one of those instances where he's saying one thing, and he wants the enemy, and he wants the enemy to think the other, where I mean, so far, he's been pretty consistent with his announcements. I'm just pointing it out.

Okay, well, I mean, I also point out that before he attacked Iran last month, he did say that there that there will be a ceasefire. He did say that he shot over the weekend, and then he went to bomb the Iranians over the weekend. So Trump has actually no credibility in the eyes of the Iranians.

Okay, fair enough. Well, what does this mean for the global geopolitical sphere? I think you've said that the coming conflict, correct me if I'm misquoting you, Jang, but I think you've said that the coming conflict could be like World War Three, it could destabilize entire fundamental global economic relationships. So what's next?

Yeah, so, um, it's, I mean, it's very scary how these conflicts around the world, you have the Russia Ukraine conflict, you have the conflict between Israel and Iran. It's very scary. How these events. How these events are converging together in the, in the Middle East. And so, I mean, if there's a war in the Middle East, the entire world is dragged in, because East Asia gets a third of its oil from the Middle East, Japan gets 90 % of its oil from the Middle East, the East Asia cannot survive if it without oil from the Middle East. And all Iran has to do is to close off the Strait of Hormuz. And they basically collapse the East Asian economies. So East Asia has to be brought in. Russia will be brought in in order to defend Iran for many reasons, not just geopolitical, but also religious reasons. And I talked about this on my channel as well.

Russia, Putin, they will protect Iran to a certain extent, if there is an invasion. NATO will be brought in because the conflict between Iran and the Middle East has been in Ukraine will get worse and worse. And my prediction for the war in Ukraine, okay, is that the war will shift to Odessa at some point. So the next big battle in the war in Ukraine is Odessa. And also what's really important is Odessa will be the last stand of NATO in Ukraine. NATO will commit its full might to defending Odessa. And if, if, if that happens, then Turkey will be brought in because Turkey, Turkey control the Bosphorus Strait, which gives NATO warships access to the Black Sea. But basically, if you look at a map, and you look at what's happening in Ukraine, you look what's happening in the Middle East, and you believe that these conflicts will only get worse and worse.

And at some point, they'll converge together. And at some point, the entire world will be brought into this region for World War Three.

This is what Trump announced last, last week. Speaking of World War Three and Russia, he threatened Russia with tariffs. He said, if the war is not concluded, or deal to end the war is not reached within 50 days, this was as of last week, he will threaten Russia with new tariffs by the order of up to 100%. Okay, so that's what he said. Let me get your prediction on what's going to happen in the next 50 days.

I don't think anything will happen in the next 50 days, because these tariffs don't really affect Russia. Russia is already heavily sanctioned by the West. The West.

Well, Trump knows this. Why is he saying this, then? Let's assume he agrees with you. This is a game three here.

Right. So, you know, Trump, he's a paid actor. I mean, his job, his role is to capture the imagination, the attention span of everyone in the world. So, he's trying to create as much drama as possible. Also by saying this, he's signaling to his NATO allies, prepare for war, right? He's telling the Germans, the French and the British, you know. We're going to allow you to send more arms to Ukraine. And I'm going to give Putin these 50 days, but we all know what he's going to do. So let's get ready, guys. Let's prepare for war, because now the onus is on you. The United States will probably focus on Iran, and NATO will be forced to focus on Ukraine.

So how long? I mean, we don't know for sure, but let's use your predictive history model. How long do you think this war in Ukraine can drag out at this point?

Right. So, according to game theory analysis, it's in Putin's best interest to drag this war out as long as possible, because he's winning the war. He has battlefield dominance. They're fighting the war on his terms. So what he wants to do is bring in NATO. He wants to force NATO to commit ground troops in Odessa. The reason why is, if NATO were to do this, this would be extremely unpopular back in their home countries, especially Britain and France and Germany. And what Putin needs to do in order to win this war is to force regime change in these countries, Britain, France, and Germany. And you can do that either through political elections, but you can also do that through civil war. So Putin, if he wanted to win this game, then he wants to create as much tension between the political elite and the people as much as possible in these NATO countries. And the best way to do that is by dragging them into an unwinnable war.

He doesn't have to beat these guys, but he just has to draw the war out.

Okay. We have a few minutes left. I'd like to end on China and U.S. relations. So I'm curious to get your analysis on how the trade war with China is going to progress after most of the tariffs were taken off, and now we're back to a baseline level of tariffs. And ultimately, the bigger question is Sino -American relations under Trump, how that may evolve over the next three years.

Yeah. So I think what's really important to understand is that China and the United States, the United States have been codependent, have been best friends basically for the past 30 years. When Xi Jinping came to power, this friendship came under a lot of strain. And so the way I understand it is, according to game theory, what Trump and the American administration is trying to do is apply economic pressure on China so that the Xi regime becomes less and less popular, so he's forced to make economic concessions. So I think that at the end of the year, Trump will visit China. And I think that this will mark the beginning of a rapprochement between China and the United States. Ultimately, at the end of the day, China and the United States are dependent on each other. China needs access to American markets, American technology, and American financing. Right now, America is basically offshore. It's manufacturing -based to China.

And there's no replacement. They've been talking a long time about moving to Vietnam or Southeast Asia or India, but what most... CEOs will tell you is there's really no replacing China. So I think we will move towards a rapprochement between China and America. All this is trying to make some important economic and financial concessions. It's basically trying... Trump is trying to help Wall Street have more financial leverage over China, basically.

So the US might still need China as their manufacturing base, but does China need the US as an export base? Or have they already, during this time, established other trading partners that can replace the US?

I mean, the reality is you have 200,000 Chinese students studying in America. And so it's not just about finance. It's about soft power. Chinese are attracted to the American dream. And these past 10 years, I work in the Chinese education system. These past 10 years, the Chinese government has been trying to encourage Chinese students' to go study somewhere else or even stay in the country. It doesn't work. The more restraints you place on families who want to send their kids abroad, the more desperate they become. So it's not just about economics. A lot of it is just appeal. The Chinese dream is to make as much money as you can so that you can move your money and your family to America.

That was the dream 20, 30 years ago. Is it still the dream? It's even more true today. Wow. Okay. So everyone telling me, hey, move east, young man, that's not true?

I wouldn't do it. But yeah.

Okay. Zhang, it was a great first introductory call. Thank you very much for the interview. Where can we follow your work and learn more from you in the meantime?

Yeah. So I'm on, as you say, the YouTube channel. So that's the best place to follow my work there.

Okay. We'll put the link down below. So make sure to follow Zhang's channel. It's a great channel. It's called Predictive History. He goes into a lot more detail. So we'll speak to you again next time about other topics. Thank you, Zhang, for coming on the show today.

Thanks, David. Great talk. Bye -bye.

Thank you for watching. Don't forget to like and subscribe.