Some have called you China's Nostradamus. You had three famous predictions in 2024 that Trump would get elected, that he would start a war with Iran, and that he would lose a war with Iran.
Mehdi Hasan vs. ‘Professor’ Jiang
Source-synced transcript for the compressed reading. Spans keep the original chronology, timestamps, and audit trail behind the public interpretation.
Iran clearly has the strategic advantage. I think the next step in the escalation ladder is that Trump will sit in ground forces.
Nikki Haley was key to your prediction about Iran. You said Trump would pick her as his running mate, but he didn't pick her.
I think that the problem with education is that it focuses too much on facts, too much on rigor, and not enough on imagination.
Too much on facts, do you hear yourself? Just trying to control what you say now. Your critics might say they're using you as a propaganda.
It is possible I'm a useful idiot, and I suspect that there are many entities around the world who would like to amplify my message, including the Chinese government.
Hold on, hold on. You don't call yourself Professor Jiang on your YouTube channel.
I do now, but when I first started out, if you go way back to my early lectures...
It doesn't matter when you first started out. You do call yourself Professor Jiang, and you're not a professor. What is your big prediction now for 2026? We'll see what happens. We can test it out at the end of the year. Back in 2024, Chinese -Canadian educator Xueqin Jiang posted a video on his YouTube channel, Predictive History, where he laid out three big predictions. Donald Trump would win the 2024 election. The US would then go to war with Iran, and ultimately the US would lose that war. Since then, the self -styled professor who says he uses game theory to analyze the past and predict future geopolitical events has become an internet sensation, and has even been dubbed, China's Nostradamus. But he's also faced some criticisms over his predictions, and many would say pretty out -there conspiracy theories. Two out of three of Jiang's big predictions have come true. But how much of that is his own geopolitical foresight, and how much of it simply comes down to luck?
How much does the Chinese government control or even influence what he says, what he predicts? I decided to not just speak to Xueqin Jiang, aka Professor Jiang, about Iran and the state of the world, but also to challenge him a bit. Here's our interview. Xueqin Jiang, thank you so much for joining me on Zeteo. You have said you use game theory to predict future geopolitical events. For those who have never heard of game theory, please do explain what it is, and how it helps you explain what's happening with Donald Trump and with Iran in particular.
Right, so game theory applied to geopolitics means that we see each individual nation -state as a player in a zero -sum game to maximize its individuality. And so each player would have its own characteristics, its own strengths, and it would adopt an optimal strategy in order to win the zero -sum game.
So how does that apply in the Middle East right now?
Right, so the United States is attacking Iran, and these two nation -states have different strengths and weaknesses. So America has the world's greatest military, it has aero supremacy, it has tremendous technology, and it has unlimited funding. And so Iran is adopting an asymmetrical strategy of holding the global economy hostage, meaning that rather than attacking the United States directly, which it cannot defeat directly, it is instead controlling the state of Hormuz, which is strangling the global economy, and it's attacking the GCC nations, the infrastructure of the GCC nations, in order to force Trump into the negotiating table. So that is the asymmetrical warfare of Iran.
You've also predicted that the U.S. — you had three famous predictions in 2024 — that Trump would get elected, that he would start a war with Iran, and that he would lose a war with Iran. Based on what you've seen over the past month, do you still stand by that prediction?
Yes, I do. I think that after a month, I think that Iran clearly has the strategic advantage. What I mean by that is that Iran is very clearly able to articulate its military objectives, and it has a very clear strategy of how to obtain these military objectives, and it is working very hard and very meticulously to obtain these objectives. This is the complete opposite of America, where Trump has failed to articulate an end goal, and right now it seems that the administration, the Trump administration, is unable to articulate both a strategy and a purpose to the American public, which is causing — most Americans do not support this war. It's also causing low soldier morale among the American forces.
What do you think happens next if slash when Iran wins?
Right. So even though Iran has the advantage right now, we still have to remember that America is the world's greatest empire. It has a lot of resources. It has a lot of firepower still not used. So I think the next step, in the escalation ladder, is that Trump will send in ground forces. So over 5,000 Marines and soldiers have been dispatched to the Middle East. This is already on top of the 50,000 American soldiers already stationed in the Middle East. And most military analysts expect that the Americans will launch an amphibious assault in order to control the ship of Hormuz. Now there are several options available to Americans in order to control the ship of Hormuz. The first option is to control Karg Island, which is the oil depot of the Iranians. 90 % of Iranians' oil exports depart from Karg Island. Then you have Qasim Island, which is just opposite the ship of Hormuz.
And then there's a naval base further down the coastline. And so these are the three options that the Americans have. And it is unclear which option the Americans will ultimately choose. But given the track record of the Marines, we can expect the Marines to have an early success. The problem with the strategy and the problem with America's overall strategy is what happens next? How do you maintain control over the territory that you've claimed? The reality is that the Iranians have been preparing this battle for about 20 years. They developed this very effective asymmetrical warfare strategy of using drones and ballistic missiles from afar, hidden in underground bases, to hit and strike American assets around the Middle East. It's almost like guerrilla warfare. And historically, an imperial power has had great difficulties in containing guerrilla warfare. So unfortunately, the Americans don't have a long -term strategy of how to win this war. Trump is still hoping for a quick strike, a knockout punch.
And he believes that the American Marines can deliver this knockout punch.
Liking this video? Then don't just watch. Hit like, share, and subscribe. And tap the bell so you never miss a video or live show. But if you want early access to exclusive content, then you have to head to Zateo.com and subscribe now. You'll be supporting fearless, independent journalism. You have made a lot of predictions. Some have called you China's Nostradamus. How would you respond to those who say, sure, you guessed that Trump would win in 2024 and he'd go to war with Iran, but that wasn't based on geopolitical insights or game theory. People who follow American politics or world politics could have guessed that. I think I and many others were warning that Trump could win in 2024 and that he would escalate with Iran, as he did in his first term when he killed Qasem Soleimani.
Right. So I think that if you've been following the news very closely, then it was actually pretty straightforward to make these three predictions, right? Because in Trump's first term, as you mentioned, Trump did have a history of escalating conflict with Iran. So the biggest escalation was when Trump ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. And quite frankly, America and Iran should have gone to war during that time. But because of the escalation efforts on both sides, we prevented World War III during that time. But Trump was under tremendous pressure from his allies and from his donors to start a conflict in the Middle East. So if Trump had won a second term, then he would have started the conflict. I was pretty confident that he would start a conflict if he had won in 2020. But fortunately, he lost. And so that question then was, what is the likelihood that he would get a second term when he would in 2024?
And then as I watched the news, it seemed pretty obvious to me that the Democrats were hopeless, that they were not delivering on their promises, that there were a lot of issues. For example, what was happening in Gaza, the war in Ukraine, that was making American voters disillusioned with the Democratic establishment. And so I thought that Trump would have a very good chance of winning in 2024. And if he won in 2024, I think there's a very strong likelihood that he would attack Iran. And so all three predictions have panned out.
Just on your predictions, I just want to be clear here. Nikki Haley was key to your prediction about Iran. You said Trump would pick her as his running mate and as vice president. She would pressure Trump into war with Iran. She's a notorious hawk. But he didn't pick her. And his current vice president, J.D. Vance, is widely seen as a skeptic of this war. So you admit you got that wrong?
Yes, absolutely. So I was thinking of what Trump's electoral strategy would be in 2024. And I think that if he picked Nikki Haley, this would be a tremendous boost to his campaign because Nikki Haley would be very popular among neocons in Washington, D.C. She would also be very popular among suburban white women. That was key to Biden's victory in 2020. So I made the prediction that he would pick Nikki Haley. But at the same time, I was not completely sure about it because I also felt that J.D. Vance also had a good opportunity to be selected. And I also said during my lecture, making the prediction that Nikki Haley would be his running mate, that depending on whether or not he picked Nikki Haley or J .D. Vance, this would determine how we can foresee or understand Trump's second term. And so if he had picked Nikki Haley, then he would have been
fully committed into the neocon project of regime change throughout the Middle East, of supporting Israel, of establishing American imperial power throughout the world. He didn't pick Nikki Haley. Instead, he picked the complete opposite, who is J.D. Vance, who is America first, who has always been skeptical of American imperial overreach. But not only that, he also picked Tulsi Gabbard to be his director of national intelligence. And so these are the two major skeptics of this war in the Middle East. And what I will say about picking these two individuals is that it shows that Trump has an off -ramp strategy where if this war goes sideways and the American public is up in arms and he's losing in the polls, then Trump may decide to pivot back to America first and have J.D. Vance and Tulsi Gabbard elevated in the administration over individuals such as Marco Rubio and Peter Hegseth. So that, yeah.
I suspect he will blame Peter Hegseth if all of this goes sideways, as it is. Where does China fall into all of this? You're a Chinese Canadian. You're based in Beijing. China clearly stands to gain from a failed U.S. war with Iran. How much of your views are reflective of China's views, the Chinese government's views, the CCP's views?
Right. So the official Chinese Communist Party line is that China is committed to global peace and to global trade that benefits all. China wants a win -win globalized system in which people are trading peacefully and in which everyone is committed to world peace. And so China has come out vocally criticizing both Iran and the United States. The United States, for starting this war, but also Iran for attacking the GCC energy infrastructure. Remember that China relies heavily on Qatar liquefied natural gas, as is the case with other countries in Europe. So China looks at what's happening in the Middle East. And China, I think, is working very hard diplomatically to come to an agreement. Unfortunately, right now, China doesn't have much leverage over either the United States or Iran. In fact, many analysts believe that this war was started in part to economically strangle China, because China depends on a lot of its economy.
I'm sorry, a lot of its economy is based on accessing cheap energy from overseas, specifically the GCC. China imports 40 % of its energy needs from the GCC. And so if the GCC were to stop energy production, then the Chinese economy would be in a lot of trouble. And this would give Trump a lot of negotiating leverage over China in the upcoming talks scheduled for mid -May. And I believe that what's going to happen is that because the Chinese are extremely pragmatic and very business orientated, and I think that Trump and China will sign a landmark deal where China agrees to buy a lot of energy from North America.
You're full of praise for China's role in trying to get peace in the Middle East. Here's what I don't get. You were caught filming protests by Chinese workers, famously in 2002 as a freelance journalist at the time. You were suspected by the Chinese government of spying. You were deported from China. Reporters Without Borders protested your deportation at the time. How did you get back into China? And why is it some of your critics say you have so little to say about China's role in all of this geopolitics? Is it because you're not allowed to currently?
Right. So when I started out as a young journalist, I was subcontracted by PBS to do a documentary on China's WTO entry. And one major issue about China's WTO entry, of course, is worker rights. And at this time in China, there was a major restructuring of the state -owned enterprise system. So I was dispatched to northeastern China to film a worker protest. Unfortunately, the place was swimming with police spies, and I was arrested and interrogated for two days. I was held incumbent in NATO for 48 hours. Which is the maximum by Chinese law. And I signed a confession saying that I was a reporter and working in China illegally as a reporter. And the decision was made to deport me without charging me with any crime. And so I was allowed to come back into the country, but I was deported. So that was the story.
If they suspected you being a spy, how did they let you back in? China's not known for being that trusting.
They suspected me of being a spy, but after 48 hours, of our investigation, after doing a thorough background check on me, they concluded that I was not a spy. And I was a journalist working to film in a worker protest.
But it wasn't just 2002. In 2017, we checked, you wrote an op -ed for CNN.com, headlined, China's Media Enables Tyranny and Corruption. In that piece, you praised the US media as the world's free speech defender of last resort. You said, in China, power trumps truth. And China's Communist Party, you said, maintains its iron grip on power by controlling what's said in the media and what's taught in the classroom. Do you stand by those views from less than a decade ago?
So in 2017, when I was asked by CNN to write an op -ed, I did stand by those views at that time because, like everyone else, in 2016, when Donald Trump won the election, I thought this would be very bad for American democracy because he was clearly not a believer in free speech. He called the news media fake news. And so I wrote the op -ed for American audience saying like the greatest treasure, the greatest wealth of America is the First Amendment, the right to speak whatever you want. And I contrast that with China where you're not allowed to say whatever you want, where you are very much monitored by the government. Even today, I do not have a Chinese online media presence. I do not say anything online. I do not talk to reporters from China because I'm conscious that whatever I say online could be used against me. But hold on.
They allow you to be on this show. They allow you to be on YouTube. You get past the great firewall that you criticized in that CNN piece. How come?
Look, the reality is that the best way to understand my situation in China is I'm essentially a Martian on Earth talking to Martians back at home in Mars. Like I am not part of the Chinese system. I'm on YouTube. Which is blocked in China. I speak English.
How do they allow you to be on YouTube? This is what I'm not understanding. If you're blocked in China, why do they allow you to become... You're very prominent now. You're famous in the West. I'm sure the Chinese government has noticed that.
Well, most Chinese will have access to a VPN device. And that's what I use in order to access the Internet.
You wrote for CNN that the Chinese government has built the Great Firewall to monitor and control their citizens' pursuit of truth. Does China control what you say?
China does not control what I say. Because again, I'm not talking to Chinese people. I'm talking to Westerners. Hold on.
That's what most people would say is China's great benefit. They might see your critics might say they're using you as a propagandist to come and say this stuff about Iran and the US on behalf of China. That would be what your critics would say.
Look, the reality is that this is a fear and legitimate criticism that I've been contemplating for the past three, four weeks. Because, you know, when I first started this YouTube channel like two years ago, I was expecting 5,000 viewers who would have a passion for learning, who would be as engaged with literature and geopolitics as I was. And over the past month, I've blown up all across the Internet. And I don't think this is organic. But so I wonder if there are some governments or some entities that believe that my message should be amplified. It is possible I'm a useful idiot. And I suspect that there are many entities, people around the world, who would like to amplify my message, including the Chinese government, but also including the Russian government, including some aspects of the American government, including some people who are hostile towards war.
I appreciate your candor. You said you blew up on the Internet. You did go viral over your Iran predictions. But on your YouTube pages, people now start to acquaint themselves with you and familiarize with your work. People have been slightly surprised to see some of your other stuff. You have a series of lectures focused on secret societies, where you argue that groups like the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Jesuits are at the center of world control. People would say you sound kind of crazy when you talk about the Illuminati. It's the kind of thing you hear in Dan Brown novels.
Right. So I'm trying a new approach to pedagogy and to scholarship, which is speculative, which is speculative analysis. So I went to Yale, and I received a very rigorous classical education. I'm very happy and proud that I went to Yale. But what I discovered in life, as I stumbled through life, is that what I was taught at Yale doesn't really apply to real life. People with the most rational, logical arguments don't usually win. And people who are the most progressive, the most enlightened, aren't usually the ones in power. So I was determined, just for my own personal benefit, to develop a new system which would give me better insight into how power works in the world. And so I started something called Predictative History. And the very idea of Predictative History is this. How do we know if our understanding of history is correct? And the answer is, well, we can make predictions based on
our historical framework and using and seeing if these predictions work out or not, validate our historical models. So what I've discovered is that if you have a combination of game theory, historical patterning, and eschatology, then this gives you a pretty deep insight into how the world will turn out. And secret societies are very much an important aspect of eschatology.
I'll come back to secret societies. A couple of things you mentioned there. You said you were at Yale. Just to be clear, your degree was in English literature. Was it not at Yale? It wasn't? Yes. International Relations or National Security. You're an English lit graduate. And you're not a professor. I know it's your YouTube moniker, but you're a high school teacher. You're not actually a professor.
Right. So when I went to Yale, I was actually a math and physics major. I was declared a math and physics major, but the Yale English department was very strong. And so I switched majors. So I have actually both a math background as well as an English background. That's why my system of analysis can seem strange to people. Because I'm combining a multidisciplinary approach to my thinking. And I'm not a professor. You're not a professor. But I never said I was a professor. It's the internet who called me a professor.
Hold on, hold on. You don't call yourself Professor Jiang on your YouTube channel.
I do now. But when I first started out, if you go way back to my early lectures...
It doesn't matter when you first started out. You do call yourself Professor Jiang and you're not a professor.
Look, look. There's a guy on the internet who calls himself The God. Have you interviewed him yet and asked him why he calls himself The God?
I think I'm good friends with a radio host called Charlemagne The God, but no one actually thinks he's a god. People actually think you're a professor. Just sticking with your analysis, you just said speculative analysis. To many people, that sounds like you're just making it up. You're speculating.
Look, I think that the problem with education is that it focuses too much on facts, too much on rigor, and not enough on imagination.
Too much on facts? Do you hear yourself? It sounds... What do you mean too much on facts?
Look, look. I know this sounds strange, but there is a difference between facts and truth, right? Facts are what can be independently verified by other sources. Truth is a deep understanding of the world that allows you to understand why things are the way they are, as well as make certain predictions. We used to be a people, a human species, that was very focused on truth seeking. And that's why religion was such an important part of our lives, because God, prayer was very important to help us understand our place in the world, where we came from, what we're doing here, and where we're going. And now we just focus on facts, on making sure that you can memorize all the elements of the periodic table, on making sure that you are...
When you talk about secret societies, I guess people want to say, well, where's the factual evidence? Where's the evidence? You said, I think, the Jesuits control the Vatican. First of all, there's nothing wrong with Jesuits. Good people. I know many of them. Second of all, there's only ever been one pope who's a Jesuit and he's gone. So people would wonder, like, facts are important to your evidence. And people would say that it's not just fun and games when you're doing speculation on YouTube. They look at some of your rhetoric and they see that you don't just criticize Zionism or Israel, as many people legitimately do. You talk about this pretty far -right concept of Pax Judaica, a new world order centered around Israel. You have a video called Dawn of the Jews in which you seek to answer the question, why is it that Jews are so dominant? Surely you understand why a lot of
people think at best you're trafficking in pretty anti -Semitic tropes, and at worst, you're a card -carrying anti -Semite when they see that stuff.
Okay. Well, that is a very strong accusation. So can you please tell me what specifically I've said that you find offensive?
When you do a video called Dawn of the Jews, why is it that Jews are so dominant you don't find that offensive?
I never said that. I never said Jews were dominant. What I said in my lecture was that the Jewish identity was created by the Persian Empire in order to better control the Levant. And if you read the Bible, that's exactly what you can derive from it. If you go to my lecture, Dawn of the Jews, you will see that I use the Bible as my primary source, and then I analyze what the Bible is saying. The problem is that most people don't read the Bible.
But people who came up with Pax Judaica are not biblical scholars. They're the modern white supremacist far -right. Sorry.
Sorry. What is wrong with the term Pax Judaica?
You tell me. What does it mean?
It just means that there is an entity in the Middle East, Israel, that is able to dominate the Middle East very much along the lines of Pax Americana and Pax Britannica.
But you didn't say Pax Israelica. You said Pax Judaica. That implies all Jews. You know the tropes about Jews ruling the world. I wouldn't be okay if you said Iran is dominant, Saudi Arabia is dominant, Pax Muslimica. In fact, you know that there are many racists in the West who do believe that Islam and Muslims are trying to take over the world. I find that equally offensive.
Right. So I'm using a Latin convention. And so the Latin convention would be Pax Judaica. It would not be Pax Israelica.
But you know where this concept comes from. It exists in far -right online circles. It's not some academic term.
Do you believe that the Greater Israel Project is a far -right conspiracy theory? No. What is it then?
I think it's a very real project being carried out by the Israeli government. I just don't call it Pax Judaica.
Right. Okay. So the difference between the Greater Israel Project and Pax Judaica is this. Greater Israel Project is what the Israelis believe that Yahweh, their God, promised to their ancestor Abraham in the Bible. And this extends from now to the Euphrates. And I could have just used Greater Israel Project. But I want to differentiate because I believe that Pax Judaica is not an empire run by Jews for Jews. It is an empire run by transnational capital and secret societies in order to create an AI surveillance state throughout the Middle East.
Just to be clear, this is speculative analysis. This is not based on facts, as you say.
So it is based on speculative analysis, based on history, historical patterns. It's also based on connecting the dots. Because if you just look at what Netanyahu says, if you actually just go and watch on YouTube...
I know what Netanyahu says. We're in agreement on how bad Netanyahu is and how expansionist he is. I'm talking about the language you use, the milieu you're in. Let me ask you this before we wrap up. What are your own politics? Where do you place yourself on the political spectrum?
I believe I've always been on the left. So I believe that wealth redistribution is very important. I believe in freedom of speech. I am anti -war. I'm anti -empire. I believe in individual autonomy. And so, unfortunately, I used to be left. But I think that given my preferences, given my politics, I believe most people would consider me on the far right nowadays. And that's unfortunate.
That is unfortunate. Last question. You made three very famous predictions in 2024. What is your big prediction now for 2026? We'll see what happens. We can test it out at the end of the year.
Well, I've made three predictions about how this war will progress. So my first prediction is that the United States will use ground troops. Yeah, I agree with that. I'm with you. And I believe that these ground troops will be a quagmire for the United States and that they will have to call up a national draft. Okay? That's my first prediction. Okay. My second prediction, and this is very important, is that Israel and the United States will not use a nuclear weapon in this war. I think that the talk of nuclear weapons is fearmongering. I don't think we will escalate to that point of nuclear weapons.
I hope you're right. I worry about nukes. I hope you're right.
And my third and most controversial prediction is that I believe that during the course of this war, somehow, someway, the Al -Aqsa Mosque will be destroyed. Wow. Yeah.
Well, that would be a disaster. God forbid. We will have to leave it there on that rather dark prediction. Xueqin Jiang, I appreciate you taking time out. I appreciate you taking my questions. Thank you so much. Thank you.