Professor Jiang on geopolitical collapse, financial warfare, and civilizational decline
Steven Bartlett interviews Professor Jiang, a geopolitical analyst who predicted the Iran war, on why he believes the world is entering a period of civilizational collapse.
Summary
Professor Jiang, a geopolitical analyst who rose to prominence after predicting the Iran war, joins Steven Bartlett to examine the collapse of the petrodollar system, the fragility of global supply chains, and the cascading conflicts he believes will define the next two decades.
Professor Jiang argues that the world has reached the apex of technological advancement and that the current breakdown of globalization will cause technology itself to regress — drawing a direct parallel to the Bronze Age collapse. He presents a series of specific predictions: a cyberattack on US financial infrastructure as the next 9/11-style event, a siege of New York City if Trump secures a third term, Lionel Messi becoming president of Argentina as part of a geopolitical realignment involving Israel, and escalating tension between China and Japan over Taiwan and Southeast Asian resources. He also expresses fear at the closing of the episode about being banned from the United States following a recent border encounter, and references his public commentary on the Clean Break memo.
A significant portion of the conversation focuses on global water scarcity as the next major geopolitical flashpoint, with Professor Jiang using maps to identify red zones — including the US West, the Middle East, and India — where resource conflict is most likely. He also discusses the Mecca Accords between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan as a mutual defence pact that could draw those nations into direct conflict with the Houthis.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
The petrodollar system and the foundations of global civilisation
Professor Jiang: I think that we are living in a time when the world is collapsing. And so what I want to explain to you today, Steven, is how we got to the world that we are in and why it is collapsing. So the first thing I want to explain to you is the petrodollar system, which is the basis for the global economy.
Let's go back to the year 1945. This is the end of World War II and the United States is dominant. The United States will manufacture goods for Europe and for Japan, which were destroyed in World War II. So what the United States said is: we will lend you US dollars in order to purchase the goods that we will export to you, but you have to promise to pay us back in gold. And the United States became complacent. They were spending money they shouldn't have been spending. The United States went from a credit nation to a debtor nation. So in the year 1971, Richard Nixon said that the US dollar would no longer be pegged to gold. And so the question now was: if the US dollar is no longer pegged to gold, then what is the value of the US dollar?
So Richard Nixon had to create demand for the US dollar. Three things happened after what became known as the Nixon shock. The first was the creation of the petrodollar. Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East agreed to sell their oil only in US dollars. So if you want to buy oil and energy, you need US dollars. In the late 70s and early 80s, China said the same thing: if you want our cheap manufactured goods, you have to pay in US dollars. And in the mid-80s there was something called the Plaza Accord, where Japan agreed to take all its savings and buy US treasuries.
Steven Bartlett: So it's essentially they're buying a promise from the US. All of this is based on promises. The US dollar is a contract. China promises to give you manufactured goods and Saudi Arabia promises to give you oil.
Professor Jiang: This system — the petrodollar system — created the world that we live in today. So let me explain why. This is a semiconductor. It is the basis of all technology, of all computers. And there are three critical elements in a semiconductor: silicon, gallium, and germanium. There are many more elements, but these are the three most critical, and these three together allow semiconductors to achieve almost impossible technology. Precision missiles, satellite communication — all of these are based on these three elements working together.
Why we have these three elements in place is because of this global system. Silicon is mainly manufactured in China — about 60 to 70% of the world's silicon comes from China. 70% of gallium comes from China. 90% of the world's germanium comes from China. Now, for semiconductors to work, the process is this: the United States — mainly in California, companies like Nvidia or Apple — will design very advanced semiconductor chips to power the iPhone, to power video games. Then the United States will send this chip design over to Taiwan and Malaysia for the manufacture of these chips. The Netherlands and Japan will create machines to print out these semiconductors. A company in the Netherlands called ASML manufactures lithography machines worth $400 million each. Then these lithography machines and the chip design go to Taiwan — primarily Taiwan, but also Malaysia — in order to manufacture these chips, and then these chips are sent to China to be put into appliances.
So when you see a semiconductor, you're not just seeing a piece of metal and plastic. You're really seeing the world converging together. And I want you to remember this formula, because it will help us explain how the world works. It is very simple: technological progress is correlated with specialisation times globalisation. All technological progress is premised on more countries being able to specialise, and these countries being able to trade freely with each other. And what makes this all possible is global trade supported by two things. The first is the US dollar. The second, and most important, is US military hegemony.
Steven Bartlett: Hegemony meaning —
Professor Jiang: Meaning there is no peer competitor. There is no one who can challenge the United States in control of the seas.
Why the world is collapsing — the Bronze Age analogy
Steven Bartlett: So you're coming now to the point of why you think — because the claim at the top was that the world is collapsing.
Professor Jiang: Exactly. I bring all of this up because we need to appreciate what technological innovation is. If technological innovation is specialisation times globalisation, then we are living in a time of not just war, but also the regression of civilisation. My argument to you today is that we've basically hit the apex, the height of technological advancement. We cannot go any further. Because in order for technology to progress, you need greater specialisation and you need greater globalisation. But what we're seeing right now is this war in Iran, which will cause a chain of events that will force all nations to become much more general. You will see a decline in specialisation. They will become much more nationalistic. They will need to create self-sufficient supply chains. So you will see a decline in globalisation, and therefore technological progress will have to decline.
Steven Bartlett: The word "collapse" that you use is a strong word.
Professor Jiang: That's exactly the word I meant. We are not living through World War II. We are not living through a shifting of the global order. We will live through, over the next 20 years, the collapse of civilisation itself.
Steven Bartlett: The collapse of civilisation itself. Are you sure?
Professor Jiang: I am positive that we are seeing the collapse of civilisation.
Steven Bartlett: Give me some definition around the collapse of civilisation, because people could infer that as the dollar not going to be as strong, or we're not going to innovate as much, or prices are going to go up. But the collapse of civilisation —
Professor Jiang: Let's go back to World War II. In World War II, if you lived in Europe or Asia, it really seemed like the end of the world. Tens of millions of people died in that war. But at the same time, you had a superpower that was emergent — the United States of America. So at the end of World War II, America was so powerful that it was able to create a new world order and basically finance and defend this new world order called Pax Americana. And we are seeing the last days of Pax Americana.
And then you ask yourself: well, let China emerge, or maybe Russia will emerge, or maybe Israel will emerge to replace Pax Americana. And unfortunately, what we know is that systems in decline, empires in decline, do not go willingly. The historical analogy I would use is the Bronze Age collapse. The Bronze Age was very similar to this period in our history, when the entire world was globalised, because in order to make bronze you needed both copper and tin, and these were found in different places of the world, and that allowed for global integration. But because of global integration, over time, that led to massive inequality, debt, and polarisation. And so when the system collapsed, the entire world collapsed. The closest historical analogy we have to today is the Bronze Age collapse.
Steven Bartlett: What was life like in the Bronze Age collapse? How was it different pre-collapse versus post-collapse?
Professor Jiang: During the Bronze Age collapse, what happened was there was a perfect series of crises that caused systematic collapse. The first was a change in weather patterns — climate changed — which led to famine, primarily in Europe. We have famine and people are starving. What do people do? They migrate. They migrate to areas that have food, and that place was primarily Anatolia and Egypt. These migrants overwhelmed the systems of Egypt and Anatolia, and this caused a cascading effect where the entire world lost order. These migrants were called the Sea Peoples, and they were destroying traditional hierarchies and authorities. And once that happened, the very fundamental elements of civilisation disappeared.
The expanding Middle East war and Iran's proxies
So if we apply this analogy to today, I'm going to paint for you a scenario of what might happen. We have this war in the Middle East that is only expanding. It's bringing in more and more countries. Basically all of Iran's proxies have been brought into the war. This includes the Houthis, who occupy part of Yemen.
Steven Bartlett: So the Houthis are a group of military that are in favour of Iran?
Professor Jiang: The Houthis are an ethnic group in Yemen. Yemen is a country that is divided according to tribes. The thing about the Houthis is, first of all, they live in the mountains, so it's almost impossible to dislodge them. Saudi Arabia tried for five years. It didn't work. The other thing about the Houthis is they are a Shia tribal people. Now, there are Shia Muslims and there are Sunni Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims in the world are Sunni — about 90% of the entire global Muslim population. The Shia are about 10%. And as a result, because they're the minority, the Shia are much more fanatical than the Sunni. This has always been historically true. They believe in martyrdom. The Houthis will fight to the death. They're not afraid of death.
The third thing about the Houthis that we need to appreciate is they control a critical choke point called the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. This is the Red Sea. A lot of trade has to go through the Red Sea. Iran has already closed off the Strait of Hormuz, and the easiest and cheapest way for Saudi Arabia to get its oil to East Asia and South Asia is by sea. So Saudi Arabia cannot actually transport its oil. That's the first group now involved in this war.
Then you have Hezbollah, which is in Lebanon, and they are now fighting Israel. Hezbollah is also a Shia group, so they are also very fanatical. And then you also have the Shia militias in Iraq, which are basically their own independent militaries. So all four have been brought into the war: Iran, the Houthis, Hezbollah, and the Shia militia in Iraq. Why is this important? Because they span the entire Middle East. We are now seeing the expansion of the war, and over time, more and more nations may have to be brought in to protect their own interests.
Steven Bartlett: How is this different from, you know, the Iraq war? I grew up with al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas. There was always fighting going on in the Middle East. It feels like it's been a function of my childhood — the Middle East always fighting in some capacity somewhere. And eventually there's peace in Iraq, the war kind of stops, ISIS is decapitated, and it just kind of moves around a little bit.
Professor Jiang: Great question. But what's happening today is very different from 2003. In 2003, the United States went in to decapitate Saddam Hussein and his government. And that was easy to do because you had a government that was not very popular amongst the people. America specialises in shock and awe military tactics. The problem today is you have four different groups: the IRGC in Iran, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Shia militia in Iraq. They are decentralised. They are fanatical. And they share a similar eschatology — a similar religious framework. And as a result, the United States military is not very good at fighting guerrilla insurgents. We know this because of what happened in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. These are what are often referred to as forever wars, where the United States spent trillions of dollars over 20 years to try to squash insurgents and failed miserably.
Because these four groups are coordinating but decentralised, this war can only expand over time. Now Saudi Arabia feels threatened by the Houthis. So what Saudi Arabia has done is sign something called the Mecca Accords with Turkey and Pakistan. These three countries must now come to each other's defence. And it seems to me that Saudi Arabia will be the first to invoke this mutual defence pact against the Houthis. So you can see a situation where Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia are brought into war to try to dislodge the Houthis. But we know that the Houthis in a mountain retreat are almost invincible. And the Houthis, in response, can destroy the energy infrastructure of Saudi Arabia. They have ballistic missiles. They have drones. And Saudi Arabia is this giant lake of gasoline ready to be lit up by the Houthis at any time.
Steven Bartlett: Back in the early 2000s, there was al-Qaeda, there was ISIS, there was still Hezbollah and Hamas. So how is this different? There were lots of militant groups.
Professor Jiang: Why this is different is there is active coordination amongst these groups. Al-Qaeda and ISIS were working separately. But the Houthis, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Shia militia — they all report back to the IRGC in Iran. And here's the kicker. Both China and Russia are supporting Iran in this conflict. China is supporting Iran through the Belt and Road Initiative, basically transporting goods to Iran through this corridor, and Russia is supporting Iran through the Caspian Sea. As a result, Iran could in theory fight this war indefinitely. There's a clear alliance in place to make sure that Iran and its proxies can withstand this war.
The petrodollar system and global supply chains under threat
The other thing that's really important to appreciate is that the Middle East is the heart and centre of the petrodollar system. It takes all these barrels of oil in the GCC countries and transports them to India, Pakistan, China, Japan. East Asia takes these barrels of oil energy and turns them into manufactured products, consumer electronic products for the world to consume. It makes these in US dollars. And China, Japan, and the GCC all invest their excess savings in the United States, which allows the United States to focus on innovation — to create places like New York City, which is the financial centre of the world.
So all of this is the petrodollar system. As you can see, the system is dependent on free trade. But once the oil stops flowing, China and Japan are no longer able to make the manufactured goods they need to export, and the United States loses all these recycled US dollars. The three biggest buyers of US treasuries — basically the three biggest financiers of the US economy and the AI bubble — are Japan, the GCC, and China. So we will see a cascading effect where maybe in a few months' time the system collapses.
Steven Bartlett: One of the reasons why it's quite hard to believe that the world is going to collapse and that this is going to be like the Bronze Age collapse — I was actually reading about the Bronze Age collapse after you mentioned it. What I pulled up says: "The late Bronze Age collapse was a rapid, violent, and widespread societal breakdown that occurred in the Eastern Mediterranean between approximately 1,200 and 1,150 BCE. Before the collapse, the region was heavily globalised. Major superpowers like the Egyptians were deeply interconnected through diplomacy, royal marriages, and complex international trade networks. But within a span of just 50 years, almost every significant city in the Eastern Mediterranean was destroyed and many were never rebuilt."
Here's my honesty. As a 34-year-old, I have lived a very charmed life as it relates to history and the things that happened in history. So when we hear that society will break down, there'll be civilisational collapse, we don't really have a reference point. Gen Z's and millennials — our parents and their parents had reference points from World War II in the 1940s, but we don't really have them. So it seems like — that can't happen to us.
Professor Jiang: You're absolutely right. And I think a lot of the issue is the world has been constructed in a way to maintain the privileges of western populations. An example I use is: you say that we've lived a charmed life. Well, if you lived in Iraq or Afghanistan, you do not live a charmed life. The United States came and attacked those countries for no particular reason and destroyed the very infrastructure of their societies. Even today, Iraq and Afghanistan are engulfed in political violence, war, and political assassinations. And so if you were a child in Iraq or Afghanistan, or even in Africa, you have never known peace, stability, and prosperity.
The inequality in the world is stark, and we in the West have been extremely privileged to be sheltered from a lot of the chaos in the world. In fact, the US empire is designed to ensure that western populations never have to suffer the tragedy and suffering of other people. And what I'm trying to say is this US empire is breaking down, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. So all the suffering that we might have seen on television — it is coming to us in our lives, and we need to be aware of it.
Steven Bartlett: When you say it's coming to us in our lives — the same political violence, the same chaos, the same political polarisation that has infested the rest of the world — do you think war is coming to our shores? Because we now live in a post-nuclear bomb era, and that seems to have created, in a weird way, a bit of peace between superpowers.
Professor Jiang: I'm going to paint you a picture of our global supply chains and what it means for global supply chains to break down using a few maps. These maps, I hope, will paint a clear and simple picture of what is about to come.
Professor Jiang's personal journey from optimism to pessimism
Steven Bartlett: Can I ask you a question before we go to the screen? Have you always been pessimistic about the future?
Professor Jiang: No.
Steven Bartlett: When did you become pessimistic about the future?
Professor Jiang: I became very pessimistic about the future after Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. I was an immigrant who grew up in a very poor family. My father was a dishwasher, and he was a dishwasher for 30 years before he retired. We were so poor we couldn't even afford a car. We never took any vacations. But I worked hard. I got into Yale University, one of the best colleges in the world, and I went there on a full scholarship. So from my perspective, the world was perfect. It was a meritocracy. It was a place that rewarded talent and hard work. I believed that the world was governed by reason, by logic, by science, by truth, by good people.
And when Brexit and the election of Donald Trump happened, I was traumatised. Brexit was the British people turning away from globalisation. The election of Donald Trump, from my perspective, was the American rejection of meritocracy, of reason, of truth, of order. And when that happened, it told me that what I believed about the world didn't really work. Those events forced me to reflect deeply on why the world was breaking down. And that's why I drew you this formula — because traditionally we understood innovation as maybe coming from universities. But having studied history and global supply chains, I now recognise that no technology just comes from specialisation and globalisation. And this not only is an analysis of the current world, but it also gives us a framework to predict the future. If in a time of war, specialisation and globalisation break down, then in theory, technology should break down as well. That's what I'm trying to figure out — how and why we are where we are today.
Global supply chain maps — food, water, and migration
Professor Jiang: So this is a summary of the global supply chain network, and we can see how it involves the entire world. You are not able to build semiconductors unless you have a globalised economy. There's been a lot of talk about China controlling the elements. China manufactures about 70% of the world's silicon, and controls about 70% of rare earths. What people don't appreciate is it works both ways. China does export a lot of silicon and rare earths, but it also needs to import a lot of helium in order to sustain its semiconductor manufacturing process. Helium cools these semiconductors in a way that allows them to be manufactured — it's a cooling agent.
Another thing that people don't appreciate is that while people think China has a monopoly on rare earths, America, in a place called Spruce Pine, North Carolina, has a monopoly on high-quality quartz. It controls about 90% of the world's high-quality quartz, which you need in the silicon manufacturing process as well. So if these nations start to stop trading with each other, technology would cease to progress.
Now, it's not just semiconductors that are dependent on the global supply chain. Food is also very dependent on the global supply chain. What we're seeing is a stark contrast between the north and the south. The north produces most of the world's fertiliser, and the south — primarily Africa, the Middle East, and South America — imports a lot of fertiliser. Most of the ammonium production plants are in the north of the world: Canada, the United States, Europe, China, Russia. So the global south is dependent on the north for food. In a time of war, when global supply chains break down, the north might lose access to fancy wireless smartphones. The south will face famine.
Why is this important? Because the main issue we will face in the next 20 years is not oil. It's actually water. This map tells us where the next major geopolitical flash points are. Basically, if you see red on the map, it means this place has water scarcity issues, and the red areas tell us exactly where wars will erupt. Even the United States — if you look at the western part — has water scarcity issues. Colorado, California, Arizona — these places are fighting over the Colorado River because the Colorado River supplies most of their water. The Middle East is almost like dynamite ready to explode. And this war will aggravate all the tensions there. India itself is facing water shortages, which brings it into conflict with China. And here in northeast Asia — Japan, North Korea — that's another major flash point. So this one map basically tells you where the next geopolitical flash points will be over the next 20 years.
But what's important to appreciate is that once war breaks out, there are third-order effects causing conflict to spread around the world. This map tells us fertility rates around the world. Africa has the world's highest fertility rate, followed by the Middle East. And if you go back to the previous map, this area is also where there is the most geopolitical tension. So if there are more and more young people being born here, they have no choice but to migrate. And where will they migrate? Probably to Europe.
And you're like, well, Europe should just build walls and prevent these migrants from reaching Europe. But Europe has its own problem, which is the aging crisis. The fastest-aging populations are in the most developed nations, including Japan, Europe, and North America. If you have an aging population, you need to provide cheap healthcare and nursing. That means you have to let in more immigrants in order to service the aging population. And what will happen then is domestic conflict, where you have more migration into western societies, which brings them into conflict with native populations, and therefore it is possible you have civil war, political violence, and even the possibility of revolution.
Steven Bartlett: On this point about immigration causing civil war, political violence, revolution — won't it just be the case, as we're seeing, that these western societies will increasingly elect right-wing political parties? We're seeing parties in the UK like Reform surge. There was news yesterday in Germany. We're seeing the same in the United States.
Professor Jiang: That's exactly what we're seeing. We're seeing the AfD surge in Germany, MAGA being very dominant in the United States, Vox in Spain. In theory, what's going to happen is these countries become much more right-wing and then they block out immigration, because that is their main policy platform. And that should stop the civil war.
Steven Bartlett: The problem is, what do you do about your aging population?
Professor Jiang: Robots. Exactly — that's what you would think. But what we're seeing is a breakdown in global supply chains. Robots depend on copper, which you get from Chile, Peru, China, Australia. You also need lithium, which you get from the lithium triangle — again, pretty far away. You also need silicon, which is mainly manufactured in China. You need rare earths, which again are really manufactured in China. So in theory you could use robots, but when global supply chains break down, you have to figure out the cheapest way to resolve the labour issue, and the cheapest solution is immigration. People are much cheaper and much more expendable than robots.
So I know this is a bit scary. I know this is really depressing. But what if the United States were able to win this war in Iran and conduct regime change? Then our problems are solved. Iran is under the control of the United States, we're back to globalisation, oil is able to flow to South Asia and East Asia, they manufacture goods and recycle their profits into the economy, and with all this money, AI is able to innovate to a point where we achieve AGI and then we solve all the world's problems.
Iran's strategic options and the game theory of total war
Steven Bartlett: So what happens next with this whole Iran situation?
Professor Jiang: Unfortunately, it has now developed its own momentum. So let me explain what is most likely to happen. You have Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz. You have the Houthis controlling the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. You have Hezbollah, which can threaten the Suez Canal. You have the Shia militias that can also threaten the Mediterranean. From a game theory perspective, what Iran should do next is take the initiative and disrupt all global trade. The US empire is based on the petrodollar — it's based on global trade. When you disrupt global trade simultaneously, there's no way for the United States to respond.
Steven Bartlett: How could they disrupt global trade?
Professor Jiang: What they can do is start to attack randomly. Attack Saudi Arabia. Iraq can attack Israel. Iran can attack the Houthis' targets. Hezbollah can attack the Suez Canal. And why you do that is you're creating uncertainty and chaos in the global trade system. The global trade system is built on confidence, and that's what drives insurance. If you're an insurance company, you're like, "These actors are completely out of control. The United States has lost control over the situation." You can no longer insure global shipping. If you can't insure global shipping, global shipping ceases to work. This is a madman theory, and this is Iran's best play moving forward. The United States does not have the military capacity to respond to a coordinated random strike across the Middle East.
Steven Bartlett: So is this your prediction? Is this what happens next?
Professor Jiang: I don't want to make this prediction just because there are lots of factors I do not know. I don't know politically what the situation is in Iran. Certainly the IRGC would want to do this, but there are political factions within Iran who would think this is too provocative. It's possible the entire world would unite against Iran if Iran were to do this.
Steven Bartlett: So what is your prediction in terms of Iran and what happens next?
Professor Jiang: My prediction is this will only escalate. How it will escalate, I don't know. But the trump card — to use a pun — for Iran is to start to disrupt global trade. The United States has a response, and this response is to attack Iran's critical civil infrastructure, which includes desalination plants and power plants. And this would be worse than using a nuclear weapon on Iran. Because without power plants, the people in Tehran — a city of about 10 million people — face starvation, because a lot of their food is refrigerated. This is how the war becomes almost civilisation-destroying. If Iran were to completely disrupt global trade, and if the United States were to destroy the power plants of Iran —
Steven Bartlett: Obviously that would be horrific and inconceivably horrifying for the people that live in Iran, the innocent people caught in the middle of this. You don't think that the US will actually do that, though, right?
Professor Jiang: I think the United States will be forced to do it. According to game theory, they will be forced to behave like this. Because we need to appreciate this formula: the more power you have, the less imagination and empathy you have. The idea is you don't think killing millions of Iranians is too heavy a price. It's all worth it if you can maintain the empire. The hubris leads you to believe that the gods favour you and you ultimately win and triumph in this great struggle.
Steven Bartlett: Don't you create a huge migration crisis where people start fleeing from Iran up into Europe because they are starving?
Professor Jiang: Exactly. Not just Iran, but Africa as well, because they've lost access to cheap energy and fertiliser. So you have all this migration into Europe, which would overwhelm the European social fabric and the European state. But unfortunately, this has been happening at a much slower pace ever since 2014, when for whatever reason the United States chose to destroy Libya and cause civil war in Syria, which caused millions to migrate into Europe. And as you remember, the Europeans in their generosity accepted all these migrants, which has led to tremendous social friction and political tension in Europe today.
Steven Bartlett: So your prediction, if we conclude, is that the US won't win this war in the Middle East because they can't defeat Iran and its proxies. And your conclusion is that this is going to continue to escalate.
Professor Jiang: Yes. And already we're seeing other actors being drawn into the war. The most recent news is South Korea has authorised a naval contingent to go and try to secure the Bab-el-Mandeb.
Steven Bartlett: What would you do if you were Donald Trump?
Professor Jiang: I would push all in. I would start attacking power plants in Iran, because if I take any half measures, I would just look weak and I'm only going to create more problems. I would only incentivise Iran and its allies to be more provocative, more aggressive. So if I'm Donald Trump and I'm in this situation, I would just push all in.
Steven Bartlett: You would end up killing millions of Iranians theoretically.
Professor Jiang: Well, I started this war. Then I have to win this war, because I can't lose this war. I refuse to lose this war. I understand the concerns. But if you want to understand how these leaders think, this formula gives you the best window into the psychology — because of so much power, they lose the capacity to imagine different possibilities and have empathy for the suffering of the people in the world.
Steven Bartlett: Couldn't they just back out? Couldn't Donald Trump just do a big press conference where he says, "We won this war in Iran. We've destroyed their military, their naval bases. It's done. Iran will no longer have nuclear weapons."
Professor Jiang: The entire petrodollar system is premised on two things: the US dollar as the world reserve currency, and the aura of inevitability and invincibility of the US military.
Steven Bartlett: If they look like they are beatable, then the US image is sufficiently tarnished.
Professor Jiang: Right.
Three predictions — the siege of New York, financial 9/11, and Messi as president
Steven Bartlett: What are your predictions? I've been dying to know.
Professor Jiang: I brought to you three predictions, and because we are so close to the anniversary of 9/11 in New York City, I structured these predictions around the anniversary. These will be three fun but horrifying predictions.
Prediction number one: there will be a siege of New York City. Let me explain my logic. I was here last time and I said that Donald Trump will get a third term, and he's been joking about it. He's been talking a lot about it. He's been posting about it. So let's imagine what happens if Trump gets a third term. Well, you would have a lot of very angry people, especially in the major cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, and New York City.
Steven Bartlett: We should probably just pause there, because there is a constitutional ban on serving three terms. The primary barrier being the 22nd Amendment, which was ratified in 1951 following Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four elections. It establishes a strict term limit for the presidency. The text in the 22nd Amendment explicitly says no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice. So how could that happen?
Professor Jiang: Well, let's just say there is a national emergency and the president is forced to suspend the constitution. Then he could theoretically have his third term. It's also possible that in 2028 he decides to run as the vice president and have his son Don Jr. run at the top of the ticket, and then once the election is over, Don Jr. would resign and then Donald Trump would become the president. There's nothing in the constitution that prevents him from doing that. So there are two possibilities.
Steven Bartlett: There isn't anything in the constitution that allows the US president to suspend the constitution in a time of national emergency.
Professor Jiang: It's precedent. For example, during the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was able to suspend habeas corpus, which is a constitutional right. And during World War II, Franklin Delano Roosevelt also did many unconstitutional things — for example, interning the Japanese population in camps. There's nothing the Supreme Court could do against this, because a lot of US politics is convention. It's agreed-upon norms. But if a US president says, "Well, screw these conventions," there's nothing anyone else can do about it.
So let's imagine, just for the sake of argument, Trump gets a third term. What will happen is these cities that are Democratic will be in open revolt — meaning they will refuse to pay taxes to the federal government, and they will not welcome ICE federal agents into their cities, which creates conflict between local law enforcement and federal law enforcement. And historically, if that were to happen, the president usually thinks he has a responsibility to quash this insurrection. So this would over time lead to the siege of New York City, where maybe federal forces, along with possibly militias from other states — possibly red states that favour Trump — would try to besiege New York City by cutting off the food supply and water supply. And this could be a conflict that goes on for years and years.
Steven Bartlett: And what year would that take place?
Professor Jiang: 2028. It could happen right after Trump secures his third term.
Steven Bartlett: Do you think Trump is going to have a third term?
Professor Jiang: Do you want to bet?
Steven Bartlett: Yeah. I actually did have a bet with two random guys on Facebook a couple of years ago. They told me that after Donald Trump had lost the election to Joe Biden, he was going to stay in power. And I said, "There's no way he stays in power." They said, "No, he will." They offered me a bet — £1,000 each. They were QAnon people. And I said, "Fine." And they actually did pay me when he came out of power. They transferred me $1,000 each. I gave it to charity. But I'm more than happy to make another bet if you want.
Professor Jiang: Let's do it. $100.
Steven Bartlett: $100. And you're betting that Trump gets a third term?
Professor Jiang: Yes. I think he'll be in power after 2028. Like, he'll be in power after 2028.
Steven Bartlett: When's the election?
Professor Jiang: Well, the election should be November 4th, 2028. But I didn't say he would win the election. I just said he would get a third term.
Steven Bartlett: So you're saying that he will refuse to leave office or find another way to remain president beyond the date of the inauguration?
Professor Jiang: Yes. I'm saying that on January 21st, 2029, Trump will still be in the White House.
Steven Bartlett: Okay, I'll take that bet.
Professor Jiang: $100. Okay. $100 may not be worth anything at that time, but that's $100.
So again, we are just assuming for the sake of argument that Trump is in office in his third term. There will be political violence across the United States, primarily in New York City. And if the federal authority is being challenged by a city or local state authority, then the president will take this very seriously and send in forces to quash this insurrection. Maybe other cities will be much more compliant. But New York City has a very charismatic mayor in Zohran Mamdani, and New Yorkers — you don't want to mess with New Yorkers. When they get angry, they get really, really angry. So I think this is very likely if Trump gets a third term — there'd be a siege of New York City.
Steven Bartlett: He would almost be 83 years old.
Professor Jiang: I mean, we say that, but the amount of energy he has — the fact of the matter is the guy eats cheeseburgers every day, gives a press conference almost every day, he's always on social media. For example, he's tweeted out that all of North America is now the USA. He's talking about taking over Canada and Greenland and Cuba. I don't know where he gets his energy, but he seems really energetic.
If you just look at a picture of Obama in 2008, he was a really handsome, really young, very vibrant man. You fast forward eight years and he came out just decrepit. He had aged at least 20 years in office. Donald Trump, for whatever reason, has not aged that much.
Steven Bartlett: Hair dye and fake tan.
Professor Jiang: There's something really weird about Donald Trump. A lot of US journalists in Washington DC have his direct personal cell phone number and they can call him and he will talk for an hour. Like, the guy is the president of the United States, and if you're just an average Washington journalist, you can call him and talk to him for an hour a day. There are journalists who go to the White House to interview him and say they tried to leave an hour ago, but he made them stay and talk to him some more. He would not let them leave. I don't know where he gets his energy from, but he's extremely energetic and he loves that attention.
Steven Bartlett: Okay. What's prediction number two?
Professor Jiang: So again, we are approaching the anniversary of 9/11, and there are a lot of people who fear there will be another 9/11 attack on the United States, just because you have a lot of actors that are very angry at the United States and who may want to seek vengeance against the American people. In that case, if there is another 9/11 attack, I believe it will be an attack on the US financial infrastructure.
Let me explain my reasoning. What was 9/11? 9/11 was an act committed by terrorists in order to traumatise the population into self-destructive violence. Is that a fair statement?
Steven Bartlett: I don't really know. Was that the —
Professor Jiang: Let's parse the statement. 9/11 was an attempt to traumatise the American population into self-destructive violence. What I mean by that is you're taking the symbols of American power — the airplanes, the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the White House — and you're destroying them. For the longest time, American people believed that these are symbols of American invincibility. And to see them destroyed like that would traumatise the population. In fact, it did traumatise many, many people. And the idea is you traumatise them into self-destructive violence — they want vengeance. And so what did they do? They went to the Middle East, fought against the Taliban in Afghanistan, then went to attack Iraq, then this war spread to Syria and Libya. These 20 years of forever wars in the Middle East have been very destructive for the United States. They've caused a huge fiscal deficit. They've caused the American military to lose a lot of prestige. They've caused a lot of corruption in Washington DC.
So if you're a terrorist and you look at 9/11, you're like, "Okay, I want to do the same thing — I want to traumatise people into self-destructive violence. How can I do so?" Well, I need to traumatise them. Flying planes into the new Twin Towers doesn't do that because people have been normalised to that sort of violence. So how can I induce trauma into people?
Well, let's do a thought experiment. What would happen if one day you open your iPhone and you're looking to buy a coffee? You scan your iPhone and it doesn't read. You think there might be a problem with the bank. You call the bank. You can't get through. And after hours and hours of frantic anxiety, you finally recognise that there's been an attack on critical US financial data servers. All the money in your bank account has been wiped out, and they don't know when or how long it will take them to retrieve it. Would you feel concern?
Steven Bartlett: I would say you would feel more than concern. I would say you would feel a lot of anger and anxiety and frustration.
Steven Bartlett: That must be hard to do. Surely taking out the financial infrastructure for everybody for a long enough period of time where they start to feel real-world consequences —
Professor Jiang: Would you say 9/11 was hard to do?
Steven Bartlett: Yeah.
Professor Jiang: I would say so as well. I can possibly imagine them doing this. There is a certain creativity to these people, and I would not rule that out. But I'm just saying: if another 9/11 happens, it is possible what we'll see is the destruction of the US financial infrastructure, which would drive millions of people into a mad frenzy. You've worked your entire life to save up $2 million. That $2 million is your retirement.
Professor Jiang's detention at the US border
Steven Bartlett: You said to me at the top of the conversation that you're having difficulty getting back into the United States recently. What do you mean by that?
Professor Jiang: I think there are a lot of people who do not like what I'm saying. I would say I am one of the most polarising figures in the world right now. The story is that the Iran war happened in March and it made me famous. I was really afraid that this fame would annoy and frustrate a lot of Americans, and so I decided that I should not actually go to the United States at this point, because it's most likely that I'd come here and could be held in detention by customs or deported. That time period was extremely scary for me. I refused all offers to come to the United States. There were quite a few people who wanted me to fly to the United States to be interviewed.
Then over the summer, the war started to die down. I thought, okay, let me fly to Canada where my family is. I'm in Toronto and I'm going to try to enter the United States by air from Toronto. So on August 5th, I went to Toronto's Pearson Airport. It was like 7:00 in the morning because I had an early flight to Los Angeles. I told them I was going to go on the Theo Von show and I'd be in the United States for two weeks, which was all true.
So when I'm at customs, the immigration officer asked me a lot of questions, but I handled all these questions pretty smoothly. Then he asked me, "Do you have a travel letter for your son?" Because my son Chris, who's eight years old, was travelling with me. And I'm like, "What is a travel letter?" It's 7:00 in the morning, so my brain's not working. He said, "Call your wife." So I try to call my wife. My wife is in the shower. And so then the immigration officer says, "Okay, you have to go into secondary to be interrogated to make sure that your son Chris is travelling with you willingly."
So we go into secondary and it's like 7:00 in the morning and my flight's at 8:30 and we're waiting for like an hour and I'm freaking out because it seems like we'll miss our flight. During this hour I'm texting my wife and she's giving me the birth certificate and all the materials I need to prove that Chris is my son. And then at the very last minute we get called and I'm able to resolve the issue. I tell them I'm going to go on the Theo Von show and I'll be there for two weeks.
So I'm in the United States and I get contact from other podcasts to do interviews. I travel around the United States and I forget about the two-week promise to the immigration authorities, because I'm a Canadian citizen and therefore I don't need a visa to come to the United States. If you say you're coming for two weeks but you stay a month, it's usually not an issue. I go back to Toronto and I come back to do this podcast.
So yesterday I'm ready. I have my travel letter. I have my son's birth certificate. And I go to the immigration officer and they still put me in secondary. But basically, I think what happened was I said certain things during my podcast interviews that pissed off some really powerful people in the United States. A lot of things that I said were related to something called the Clean Break memo.
The Clean Break memo was published in 1996 and it laid out a plan for how Israel can become the dominant hegemon in the Middle East. It was written by a study group, and part of that study group were two individuals — Richard Perle and others. These two would, in the George W. Bush administration, go to work in the Pentagon, and these two, along with Paul Wolfowitz, were the chief architects of the Iraq War. So I named these people and I explained how this war in Iran follows from the Clean Break memo and the goal is to establish Israel as the regional hegemon. I think this is what got me into a lot of trouble.
Steven Bartlett: Why do you think that got you into a lot of trouble?
Professor Jiang: Because I'm a Canadian. When I come into the country, they usually don't bother me. And so for them to question me, I think it was because some top officials basically requested that I be put in secondary every time I come to the United States. I also believe this because I have a friend, Max Blumenthal, who is a very good US journalist. He was in Iran covering Qasem Soleimani's funeral. In response, a social media influencer named Laura Loomer demanded his arrest. And so when Max Blumenthal came into the country — and he is a US citizen, by the way — his devices were confiscated. Now Max Blumenthal is suing the Department of Homeland Security for illegally confiscating his devices. And so I think that we live in a time when, unfortunately, the empire is in decline, and because of hubris and arrogance, they are trying to silence their critics rather than accept constructive criticism.
Steven Bartlett: So it's a theory.
Professor Jiang: Absolutely. They never told me why I was put in secondary, but he hinted that every time I come to the United States, I will be put into secondary to make sure that I'm coming for legitimate reasons. He also hinted that it is possible that once my I-94 expires in six months, they will not renew it — meaning they will not allow me into the country anymore. I hope I can come back to the United States. I have the deepest admiration for the American people. I think that Americans are the most open and generous people in the world. But at the same time, I do appreciate that we are living in very interesting times.
Prediction three — Lionel Messi as president of Argentina
Steven Bartlett: Prediction three.
Professor Jiang: My third prediction is that Lionel Messi will become president of Argentina.
Steven Bartlett: Oh wow. I wasn't expecting that.
Professor Jiang: Yeah. I wanted three new predictions that were fun and interesting for us to discuss. So why do I make this prediction? Argentina is working very closely with the United States and Israel at this moment. You are a British citizen, so you will appreciate that Argentina has recently demanded the return of the Falklands. And Donald Trump has voiced support for Argentina. So I'm asking myself: why are they so concerned about the Falklands? And not only that, but if you've been following the news, Javier Milei has become very close with Benjamin Netanyahu. Argentina and Israel have very strong relations. In fact, Argentina is welcoming Israeli investment and immigration. And apparently, if you are an Israeli citizen and you go to Argentina, you have immediate access to their healthcare as well as pension, which makes actually no sense because they're not Argentine citizens. So it seems very much that Argentina is working very closely with Israel and the United States.
And the reason why I think Argentina and Israel are working so closely together is that right now there's almost a civil war in Israel — between Messianic Jews who believe this war in the Middle East will usher in the end times and the coming of the Messiah, and secular Jews who are like, "These people are insane." And so the only way to resolve this conflict is by exporting secular Jews elsewhere. And it seems to me Argentina is a very good place to export them.
But then you're like, okay, how do you get the people of Argentina to accept this massive immigration from Israel? Because Israel is not very popular in Argentina. I think the best way is to make Lionel Messi the president of Argentina, and his popularity will be enough to let all these Israelis into the country. Him as well as the reclaiming of the Falkland Islands — these two things together. The god of Argentina becomes president, and Argentina reclaims the Falklands from the British. And I apologise to you as a British citizen.
Steven Bartlett: It's okay. I like Messi. You also mentioned to me that you think Japan is going to go to war with China — or China is going to go to war with Japan.
China versus Japan — the inevitable conflict over Taiwan and Southeast Asia
Professor Jiang: Yes. So it's the funniest thing, but for the longest time, people believe that China will eventually invade Taiwan. This is what's very commonly accepted in the West. But if you actually go to China, no Chinese actually believes this, and no Taiwanese actually believes this either, because this is not the way that China actually goes about its foreign policy. It does not go and invade other countries — in its most recent history, it has not been that aggressive. The last war that China fought was in Vietnam, in the early 1980s. But if you go to China today, everyone believes that China and Japan will go to war.
To appreciate this, you have to understand the geography of Southeast Asia. China is a land power that is self-sufficient. Japan is a sea power that is dependent on resources from abroad. Historically, China was primarily an agricultural nation. Japan, in order to survive, engaged in piracy. The Japanese have always been pretty militaristic. They had a warrior culture for the longest time. They were always at war with each other. And the Japanese people are extremely resilient and cohesive because the geography of Japan is very unstable — lots of earthquakes, lots of tsunamis. They have to work together as a people in order to survive.
This is important because this war in Iran is affecting both China and Japan. China will probably have to de-industrialise. But if Japan doesn't do anything, then it's possible that in the next 50 years Japan ceases to exist. Because not only is Japan dependent on energy and imports and resources from overseas, but it has an aging population — the most elderly population in the world. So in a time of war, when the United States is no longer able to give it protection, Japan needs to create resource colonies. And historically, Southeast Asia has been the main resource colony of Japan. If it doesn't have Southeast Asia, the United States becomes the main benefactor of Japan. And Japan doesn't want to be in that position, because that's what happened in World War II when Japan got most of its energy from the United States. And when the United States embargoed Japan, Japan was forced to declare war on the United States.
So Japan wants to access the resources of Southeast Asia. There's a problem, though, and that problem is called Taiwan. Taiwan is right in the middle of the South China Sea. And if China and Taiwan were to reunify, China could embargo Japan. I'm not saying China will do so, but China has the option of doing so. And Japan sees that as a threat to its existence.
Steven Bartlett: Say "embargo" — what does embargo mean?
Professor Jiang: Embargo means you blockade.
Steven Bartlett: But if they did this, wouldn't all hell break loose? Japan are going to attack China. Taiwan, it's going to get messy.
Professor Jiang: I'm not saying that China would embargo Japan. I'm saying it has the option of doing so.
Steven Bartlett: But you are saying that China is going to attack Japan.
Professor Jiang: No, no, no. I'm saying there's a conflict between these two nations.
Steven Bartlett: I thought you said it was inevitable.
Professor Jiang: Yes. So let me explain how this will play out. Japan sees the Taiwan issue as vital to its national security interest. And that's exactly what Prime Minister Kishida said a few months ago. And when she made that statement, China overreacted. Before, you had millions of tourists from China visiting Japan a year. Now most of them are not allowed to go to Japan. And it's very likely that China and Japan will have a conflict over Taiwan.
Now, the thing to remember is it does not benefit any nation here to go to war, because as you point out, all chaos would break out. What you need to do is create leverage to negotiate better terms. So what Japan is doing is saying, "Okay, look, we can't take on China directly because China is too powerful. But what we can do is build alliances to possibly challenge China, and if we have to, embargo China." So what Japan is doing is building an alliance with the Philippines, Australia, and India. Together, these four nations — even without the United States — could in theory choose to embargo China. What Japan needs is access to Southeast Asia, because that will be the main source of its resources going into the future.
China does not want to come into a conflict with Japan, because China is seen as the big bad dragon in this area. If China is seen as too provocative, that would basically incentivise all of Southeast Asia to gang up on China. So you can see an alliance between India, Southeast Asia, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, South Korea, North Korea, and Japan versus China.
The way to resolve this issue is to use a proxy in order to threaten Japan and develop more leverage over Japan in negotiations. And that proxy is of course North Korea. North Korea has the potential to shell South Korea because most of the population of South Korea lives within 20 minutes of North Korea. In theory, North Korea could flatten Seoul in just a day. Most of North Korean artillery is actually by the border. What North Korea could also do is lob missiles into the Sea of Japan and rattle the Japanese.
So this is the dynamic being played out: Japan, through its proxies — primarily the Philippines — is challenging Chinese naval dominance in the South China Sea, and China will use North Korea as a proxy to threaten South Korea and Japan. Over time, as the United States retreats from the Asia-Pacific, this conflict between China and Japan will get worse and worse. And the main reason why is it is in the strategic best interest of the United States to ferment as much tension between China and Japan as possible.
Steven Bartlett: But it could compromise Taiwan.
Professor Jiang: Who cares?
Steven Bartlett: The US cares about Taiwan? I thought that's where we get all of our semiconductors from.
Professor Jiang: But what does Trump want to do? He wants the Taiwanese to move their semiconductor industry to the United States. And that's already happening — TSMC, the main semiconductor company in Taiwan, is opening what I believe is a $20 billion new factory in Arizona. So if there's a conflict between China and Japan, the tension becomes worse and worse, and the Taiwanese semiconductor industry would be forced to relocate to the United States. That would be in the best interests of the Americans.
Russia, Europe, and the path to total war
Steven Bartlett: You also think that Russia is going to invade the Baltics.
Professor Jiang: Yeah. So now we'll shift focus and go into Europe. Right now you have NATO and Europe supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia. Most of this war is actually happening in eastern Ukraine, and Russia seems to be winning a lot of territory there. But everybody's saying that Ukraine is fighting back really, really well.
Steven Bartlett: The reason why is what Ukraine has chosen to do in these past few months, which has changed the contours of the war — Ukraine is using drones to attack Russia's energy infrastructure, and just hitting Russia in general is making the people of Russia change their perception.
Professor Jiang: Exactly. So before, this conflict was contained to eastern Ukraine and it didn't affect the people of Russia. In fact, it was really helping the economy of Russia because Russia could still export its oil around the world. Now, Ukraine is using drones to attack the oil refineries of Russia, which is causing economic pain on the Russian people and making Putin increasingly unpopular. So the contour of the war has changed.
So if you're Russia and you're looking at this, you think your enemy is not Ukraine. You think your enemy is NATO and Europe. Why? Because the drones are being manufactured in Germany, the UK, and other places. In theory, Ukraine could fight this war to infinity because its manufacturing hub is in Europe. Europe is also providing Ukraine with infinite financing as well as intelligence. So if you're Russia, you're like, "Over time, we can't possibly win this war of attrition because Europe's manufacturing capacity is well protected behind the NATO alliance."
So what Russia needs to do is provoke NATO and Europe into coming into Ukraine — basically force them out of their shell. And so what's been happening is Germany and Russia have been in conflict these past few months. In early August, there was a drone attack on Leipzig airport, and the Germans blamed the Russians. In response, the Germans closed down the Russian consulate in Bonn as well as removed certain Russians from Germany. Russia retaliated by closing the German consulate in St. Petersburg, and the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said, "We are in a similar situation to 1941." What happened in 1941? The Germans invaded Russia. So in other words, Russia recognises that if they just leave Europe alone and just fight this war in Ukraine, they will lose in the end. So they must force and provoke Europe into mass mobilisation to defend Ukraine. And one way to do that is by hitting critical manufacturing infrastructure within Europe.
Steven Bartlett: Do you think Russia's next move is to attack within NATO — Germany, the UK, etc.?
Professor Jiang: It has no choice. It has to do this.
Steven Bartlett: Can't it just do a deal with Trump? They're trying to do a deal at the moment, aren't they? Jared Kushner is apparently trying to get a deal done between Ukraine and Russia. So if the United States — do you want peace between Europe and Russia, or do you want war between Europe and Russia?
Professor Jiang: Well, from a gameplay perspective, you're better off with war. Why? Because if there's war, Russia can't sell its energy overseas. The United States has a monopoly over energy now.
Steven Bartlett: This causes global instability, though. If there's a war here, then it's going to impact the US in a big way.
Professor Jiang: Well, then why did the United States invade Iran? Because they thought it would be an overnight Venezuela situation where you decapitate the leadership, everyone rises up, you have a favourable leader in the country that is subservient to you. This is exactly how the empire thinks. Now, if we apply this formula to the European situation, the thinking is: Putin is a paper tiger. He is very unpopular at home. If we just force this war for another two months, if we continue to attack the energy infrastructure of Russia, then eventually people will rise up and overthrow Putin. The same logic.
Steven Bartlett: So therefore, Trump wants Ukraine to win, or he wants Ukraine to keep doing what they're doing.
Professor Jiang: Well, Trump personally doesn't care, because the more war there is, the more the Europeans are forced to rely on American energy.
So if you're Putin, what you need to do is force the Europeans into war in Ukraine. Why? Because there's really only one path to victory in this scenario. The path to victory is to cause instability and violence in Europe. The idea is: if you force Europe to mass mobilise, the people would rather overthrow the government than agree to take up arms against Russia. That's the theory. But Russia has exactly one path to victory, and that is to cause as much instability and violence as possible within Europe. The best way to do that is by forcing the Europeans to mass mobilise their population. But for that to happen, what Russia needs to do first is declare total war. What total war means is the mass mobilisation of your society. So far, Russia has not declared war on Ukraine — it is a special military operation, which means Russia is relying on volunteers to fight this war. In a time of total war, Russia could mobilise its entire adult population. We estimate there are at least three million reservists in Russia ready to be called up to arms. Mass mobilisation in Russia would force mass mobilisation in Europe. And this is how the war will most likely turn out.
What would have to be true for catastrophe to be avoided
Steven Bartlett: I guess the other thing is — listen, professor, it sounds like there's a lot of conflict on the way, there's an acceleration underway. What would have to be true for us to sit here in 2036 and for there not to have been a conflict between China and Japan, for the Iran situation to have cooled off, the Ukraine war to be where it is now or regressed? What would have to be the case for none of these catastrophic things to take place?
Professor Jiang: In the year 1995 — and this was published in 1996 — we lived in a world of neoliberalism, something called the Washington Consensus. The idea was: we have developed a new model of history. If people just traded with each other and consumers just bought goods, we would have peace forever. This is what we call neoliberalism, the Washington Consensus. And Bill Clinton was the main proponent of this idea. And in order to achieve this vision for global peace, what he did was promote the Oslo peace process, which sought to create a two-state solution and bring peace in the Middle East. The two-state solution is the Palestinians and the Israelis agreed to live side by side. And at that time, the main thinking was that once peace happened in the Middle East, once a two-state solution was created, they would start to trade with each other. Israel and Palestine would be brought into the GCC and they would be part of the global supply chain. And once prosperity came to Israel and Palestine, they would have no need to ever hate each other again. This is called the Oslo peace process.
And again, at that time, this was just how policymakers in Washington understood the world. It worked in China. It worked in Japan. It worked in Germany. Japan and Germany were these really militant nation states. But then we allowed them to trade. We allowed their consumers to have air conditioning and SUVs, and now they're just really peaceful people. So why can't we do the same thing in Israel and Palestine?
Steven Bartlett: So what is the Clean Break theory? What is it in a sentence?
Professor Jiang: The Clean Break theory is this. Netanyahu came into power and basically his argument is: we can never ever trust the Arabs not to hate us. We are Israelis. We have been promised this land by God. And the Arabs see us as enemies. And whatever we do, they will always hate us. So screw peace, screw compromise. Let us become the regional hegemon, because that is our manifest destiny. That is what God told us to do. That is what is written in the Bible. And that's what we were born to do. And this is something called the Clean Break memo. And the Clean Break memo had three major pillars that have all been achieved today.
The first pillar is: stop the Oslo peace process. Do not give more land to the Palestinians. The second pillar is regional dominance — transcending the Israel-Palestine conflict by focusing on weakening regional adversaries, specifically advocating for the containment or removal of hostile regimes in Iraq and Syria, and dismantling the Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah axis. And the third pillar is preemptive action — abandoning defensive containment policies in favour of proactive offensive strategies. And that's exactly what Israel is doing today. This is what Israel has done for the past 30 years. It has promoted regime change in Syria, in Iraq.
Steven Bartlett: So wait, are you saying that the way to stop all of the pessimism we talked about happening is by the Clean Break theory succeeding?
Professor Jiang: No. What I said was in 1995 there was already a theory in place called neoliberalism that offered a solution to the Israel-Palestine issue that has been plaguing the Middle East for the past few decades. And if they had followed that through, we'd live in a very different time.
Steven Bartlett: So to my question — what would have to be the case for all the things you've described, the wars and the conflict, not to happen?
Professor Jiang: What would have happened is the United States had pressured Israel into seeking peace with the Arab nations.
Steven Bartlett: So the US needed to get Israel to be friends with the Arab nations.
Professor Jiang: Yes. You force it, because Israel is simply dependent on you for technology, for financing, for arms. Israel is the biggest recipient of American foreign policy aid. Just for those that want to know what the Clean Break theory is — it's called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It refers to a prominent 1996 policy document prepared for Benjamin Netanyahu by a study group led by American neoconservative strategists.
Steven Bartlett: Did he read this memo?
Professor Jiang: He commissioned it.
Steven Bartlett: He commissioned it. Okay. And the key objectives of the Clean Break are, as you said: first, abandoning land for peace — moving away from the Oslo Accords framework, shifting to a posture of peace through strength without giving up any territory. Number two, regional dominance — recommending transcending the Israel-Palestine conflict by focusing on weakening regional adversaries, specifically advocating for the containment or removal of hostile regimes in Iraq and Syria, and dismantling the Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah axis. And lastly, preemptive action — urging Israel to abandon defensive containment policies in favour of proactive offensive strategies. And that's exactly what Israel is doing today.
Professor Jiang: And so the conclusion here is: to stop this conflict escalating, they have to reverse course with this strategy.
Steven Bartlett: The US needs to contain Israel.
Professor Jiang: Yes. But what I'm arguing is it's too late. Because you've already unleashed these structural forces that will collapse the global trade system. In which case, it's every nation for itself. You've already created the conditions for Japan and China to go to war. You've already created conditions for Germany and Russia to go to war. You can't put the genie back in the bottle again.
Advice for ordinary people — faith, family, and truth
Steven Bartlett: What does this mean for most of us? Most of us aren't involved in politics. We just kind of watch this stuff and have to figure out what to do with our families and our lives in spite of this craziness we see in the news. What is the advice that you have for the average person?
Professor Jiang: The best advice I can give to the average person is: believe in God. I am a product of the meritocracy. I received the best education in the world, and I feel the best education in the world makes you think the world is materialistic — God doesn't exist. And as a result, in my 20s, 30s, and 40s, I was a deeply angry, depressed, frustrated person. Because if God doesn't exist, there's no order and structure to what's going on, and it's just complete chaos, and there can be no hope or light in chaos. And because I married a wonderful woman who I think is really an angel, because I have three beautiful children, I do believe there's a plan and a structure and order and reason to the world. And I've come, in the past two years — and it's only been recent — to a true belief in God.
Steven Bartlett: So it's all going to be okay.
Professor Jiang: Yes. But you need to believe in God and you need to focus on your family. Then it will be all right.
Steven Bartlett: So don't focus on protesting in the streets or elections or any of those things. If you believe in God and you focus on your family —
Professor Jiang: Sometimes you're compelled to take action. Because I believe in God, I live a life following one simple principle, which is: speak the truth. Why am I on your show? Why did I spend the past month going on so many different podcasts? Because it's important people know the truth. If you really believe in God, if you really focus on your family, you have a personal and moral responsibility to speak the truth. If you know what's going to happen, then speak it. It doesn't matter what good it will do. Your faith in God compels you to live the truth and to speak the truth and to spread the truth. Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you can sit back and hide in your room and play computer games all day. It means if you truly believe in God and you believe there's a plan, then you have to take action and you have to participate in the world. Because why else would God create you?
Steven Bartlett: So why is God letting all of this stuff happen? When I look around the world I see lots of wars and conflict — Russia, Ukraine, the Middle East, lots of other things breaking out at the moment. Why would God let this happen?
Steven Bartlett: What is the path to wisdom?
Professor Jiang: Struggle, pain, failure.
Steven Bartlett: Yeah. Can we just have the wisdom without them?
Professor Jiang: Could you? So we've got a lesson to learn.
We have many lessons to learn. But if you are truly a spiritual person, you're thankful for this time, because this struggle, this suffering will allow us to transcend ourselves. Are we here to make a lot of money and drive fast cars? Or are we here to learn what it means to be truly human? To learn what love is? To develop a deeper connection with God? I think we're here first and foremost to be truly human. And that means living a life of love, empathy, and imagination.
And so we go back to that formula: if you have too much wealth, too much fame, too much power, it's impossible for you to truly have imagination, empathy, and love. So how do you correct this? You create a world of crisis. Because in a world of crisis, everyone — you and me — we're forced to look deep down and ask ourselves: what is truly important to me? What gives me happiness? What is meaning and purpose in my life? And I think the answer is it's my love for the people around me. And that's the answer that we will all come to. And once we come to this answer, then I think that is the great spiritual awakening that could possibly redeem all of humanity.
AI as a control grid and what gives Professor Jiang hope
Steven Bartlett: Professor, what's the most pertinent thing that's front of mind for you at the moment that we haven't talked about?
Professor Jiang: Well, we did talk about the coming conflict between China and Japan, and I worry a lot about that.
Steven Bartlett: What about AI? We didn't talk about that, and that's kind of overlaid on all of the stories we've talked about — because it's to do with robotics, it's energy, it's semiconductors, chips, it's US-China.
Professor Jiang: That's a great question. So if we go back and talk about global supply chains, this formula is very important to understand: technology equals specialisation times globalisation. So in a time when global supply chains are breaking down, in a time of war, AI cannot make that leap into AGI. So what will happen is AI will be repurposed as a control grid, rather than AI developing the intelligence necessary to reduce scarcity, to solve the most pressing medical problems of humanity, to solve climate change. AI will be repurposed to monitor and surveil all of us.
Steven Bartlett: I think that's going to happen irrespective of everything else. I think governments are going to be increasingly interested in and capable of monitoring all of us all the time, because we have cameras. We're here in New York City at the moment. There's cameras everywhere. They're just a little bit dumb. They don't really talk to each other. But with AI, they can all talk to each other. The professor's walking down the street on his way to his hotel, and now he's in a hotel —
Professor Jiang: I agree that is the most likely trend. But what I'm saying is all these crises will accelerate this trend. Because let's just say you have a siege of New York City — Palantir will use this opportunity to develop autonomous drone warfare that is controlled by AI.
Steven Bartlett: So is that your big concern with AI? Is it surveillance?
Professor Jiang: That's not the biggest risk I see. The biggest risk I see is how AI can cheapen the human experience. How AI is almost dehumanising. Because what people like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel and Sam Altman are saying is computers are so much smarter than us. And it could be true that AI will eventually be able to do mathematics and medical diagnostics much more efficiently than we are. But ultimately, we as humans are here to love, imagine, and be kind to other people. And that is what the human experience is. And if we focus too much on AI, that diverts and distracts us from our true mission, which is one of spiritual growth.
Steven Bartlett: What gives you hope?
Professor Jiang: The only thing that gives me hope are my children. I'm here because of Chris. Honestly, if I didn't have children, first of all, I don't think I would be this successful because I wouldn't have much purpose and meaning in my life. But honestly, at the same time, I think that without children, and if I were suddenly this famous, I would become very corrupted very fast. I would just focus on the fame. I would try to make as much money as possible, because without children the only purpose in life is competition against others — to prove that I am materially more successful than other people. But now that I have children, I'm much more concerned about building a legacy for them and setting a good example.
Steven Bartlett: Are you worried about Chris's future?
Professor Jiang: I'm not. My wife and I have loved him to the best of our ability. And the fact that we love him gives him the confidence to live his life to the fullest. We see every day Chris as a gift from God.
Steven Bartlett: But if the world is collapsing in your words, and Chris is in that world — are you not concerned?
Professor Jiang: I'm not at all concerned. Because we are here in order to have a spiritual awakening, and all the crises will induce deep reflection in order for us to fulfil our purpose. I don't know why Chris is here. When Chris was two years old, he literally told us, "Mom, dad, I'm from another world." And he named that world. "I'm just an alien visiting you guys." And my wife and I, we weren't surprised. We're like, "We knew this." Yeah. We knew you were an alien. We knew you came from another world. And we knew that you came here to experience humanity — for all our faults and all our problems. And we see you. We love you. But we will do whatever we can to empower you on your mission. And we're going to try our best, because ultimately it's your life. It's your mission. And we cannot ever control you. Love is about trust. Love is about liberation — liberation from your own anxieties and liberation from the need to control others.
Closing question — Professor Jiang's biggest challenge
Steven Bartlett: Professor, we have a closing tradition where the last guest leaves a question for the next, not knowing who they're leaving it for. The question left for you is: what is your biggest challenge and how are you working on fixing it?
Professor Jiang: My biggest challenge is my fear, my doubt, my paralysis. I went to the US border yesterday and now I'm afraid that I will never be allowed back into the United States after I leave. I'm afraid that I might get banned from a lot of countries, because all I do is talk about different countries. I've talked about China. I've talked about Canada. I've talked about the United States. If I got banned from all three countries, I'd be in a lot of trouble. And so my constant challenge is to maintain my faith in God, maintain my faith in my family, maintain my faith in my purpose.
Steven Bartlett: I hope you do. And you have a wonderful son. He's so curious — that was the vibe I got from him.
Professor Jiang: He's a gift from God.
Steven Bartlett: Very, very curious. I just met him in the green room and he was playing with some Play-Doh and lots of toys and stuff like that. And I'm not surprised that he is your son from the 15 seconds I spent with him, because he's very, very curious and clearly going to be a very smart young man. So congratulations.
Professor Jiang: Thank you.