Jiang Xueqin discusses the Iran war, the petrodollar, and US imperial strategy with Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen interviews Jiang Xueqin on the geopolitical and economic dimensions of the US war against Iran.
Summary
Glenn Diesen interviews Jiang Xueqin, host of the YouTube channel Predictive History, on the ongoing US-Iran war and its relationship to the petrodollar system. Xueqin argues that the war is primarily about preserving US dollar supremacy by knocking Middle Eastern oil off global markets and forcing the world to purchase energy from North America. He contends that Trump offered Iran a broad ceasefire framework and agreed to meet in Islamabad to negotiate, but the US delegation — led by JD Vance and Jared Kushner — was not serious about the talks and walked away, suggesting the initiative was a tactical probe to gauge China's willingness to accept American LNG rather than a genuine peace effort. Xueqin also argues that the US and Israel's targeting of Iranian railways and infrastructure is aimed at disrupting the Belt and Road Initiative and the International North-South Transport Corridor. He frames the broader conflict as a struggle between globalists and nationalists within the US itself, with Trump seeking to transition America from a global empire into a continental fortress — a 'technate' — centered on greater North America. Notably, Xueqin points out that the 'No Kings' protests in the US, organized by Democratic-aligned groups, explicitly suppressed anti-war sentiment, illustrating his argument that the entire Washington establishment supports the war — with Democrats expecting Trump to serve as the scapegoat if it fails, enabling a globalist restoration in 2028. The conversation also touches on former Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi's prediction that energy would flow again between Russia and Europe only once Americans controlled the relevant infrastructure, underscoring the theme of US ambitions to dominate global energy architecture.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Opening: The Economic Logic of the Iran War
Glenn Diesen: Welcome back. We are joined today by Jiang Xueqin to discuss the developments between the United States and Iran. Thank you very much for coming back on.
Jiang Xueqin: Thanks.
Glenn Diesen: The first thing I think about in regards to this war is that the Iranian targets all seem to be very well calculated in terms of economics. This is interesting because usually in all American wars there are some economic interests driving the decision to go to war, but now we see them not just shutting down the Strait of Hormuz but essentially forcing the Americans to spend their expensive interceptor missiles. All of this seems to have an economic underpinning. But the really big thing appears to be the possible attack on the petrodollar. How do you see the vulnerability of the petrodollar in this war?
Jiang Xueqin: I would argue that right now this war in Iran is primarily about maintaining the petrodollar, because these past ten years the world has become increasingly concerned about the viability of the petrodollar. Right now the United States is $39 trillion in debt. Right after the Russians invaded Ukraine, the United States froze over $200 billion in Russian assets, which makes the world question the legitimacy as well as the credibility of the US financial system — because if the Americans can weaponize the dollar against the Russians, they can weaponize the US dollar against everyone. After that you saw this massive exodus from US treasuries, and right now China is establishing the gold corridor. BRICS is trying to create alternatives to the petrodollar, but for the Americans the petrodollar is the very basis of their empire — and quite honestly it is the objective of their empire.
The United States right now is going to fight tooth and nail to protect the petrodollar. What this basically means is to use its naval supremacy, its control over strategic maritime choke points, to control trade access and basically force nations to depend on US resources. We saw the United States in January attack Venezuela, and now it has attacked Iran. Recently, these past few days, there was a Ukrainian drone strike on Russia's main export hub, which basically took 40% of Russian oil off the global market. Europe and East Asia are now forced to depend on the United States and North America for energy. We are seeing a pivot from Europe and East Asia over to North America.
That is the strategy in place — the United States basically wants to take Russian and GCC oil offline and force the world to buy from the United States, which protects the petrodollar. But what we know from history is that this sort of hubris will lead to a backlash, and it will lead to the world unifying against America eventually. America used to be the policeman of the world, and it has become the pirate of the world. Maybe in the short term you will see the strategy working out, but definitely in the long term you will see the world becoming much more aggravated by this piracy.
The Islamabad Negotiations and Trump's Strategic Calculations
Glenn Diesen: What do they need to achieve then in this war? I was wondering if you were surprised that the Americans appear to have walked away from the negotiations — at least that's what it seemed like in Islamabad. Is this to continue the war, or is it simply because the petrodollar won't survive if the Strait of Hormuz remains with the Iranians? What is the thinking here?
Jiang Xueqin: We've seen a very strange sequence of events these past six weeks. The war has been going on for about six weeks and we've seen a lot of strange events. The moment the Americans attacked Tehran and killed their supreme leader, the Iranians basically closed off the Strait of Hormuz. In response, what the Americans did — which was very surprising — is they basically removed sanctions on both Russian and Iranian oil, allowing the Russians and Iranians to make a lot of money selling oil. Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary, explained that this is to maintain global stability. He's afraid that oil will reach $200 a barrel, which would destabilize the global economy.
As this war progressed, we saw the United States escalate to attacking civilian infrastructure — universities, bridges, and railways. There is real concern that the Americans and Israelis plan to choke and strangle Tehran to death, meaning cutting off the railway system and roads, which would put Tehran under siege. They couldn't get food and water from other parts of Iran, and Tehran, a city of ten million people, would be in a lot of trouble if that were the case. So what we were seeing was constant escalation.
Then last week we were on the brink, because Trump basically declared that if Iran did not open the Strait of Hormuz, the Americans would bomb Iran back to the stone age. Iran obviously would retaliate by destroying GCC energy infrastructure and desalination plants. Last Tuesday we were really on the brink and it seemed as though we were heading towards World War Three. But then Trump did something completely surprising — he basically offered what amounted to an unconditional surrender framework. Iran had a ten-point plan which included that Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium, that all economic sanctions against Iran would be lifted, that Iran would be given sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, and that all security guarantees would be applied to both Iran and its proxies — the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas. These were the ten points that Iran demanded, and Donald Trump basically said this was a workable framework. They agreed to meet in Islamabad to discuss these ten points and use them as a framework for a possible long-term ceasefire.
Once they reached Islamabad, JD Vance, Jared Kushner, and their delegation basically blew off the Iranians. They were not serious about negotiations. The Americans went in with some goodwill hoping to reach an agreement — that's why the Iranians went — but the Americans just basically said no, we're going to stick to our original demands. So the negotiations went nowhere, and now we're back to where we were a week ago.
The big question then is: why would the Americans do this? What was the point of this ceasefire? We can only speculate. Let me try to figure out how Donald Trump thinks, because he's a businessman. What does he want? His main objective is to maintain American imperial supremacy by maintaining the petrodollar. That basically means forcing China, Japan, South Korea, and Europe to buy energy using the US dollar. That's what the petrodollar literally means.
Maybe the point of this war was to destroy the GCC and Iran's capacity to deliver oil to the world market and force the world to rely on North America — Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Obviously Trump can't announce this because it would turn the entire world against the United States. In order to pull this off, he would basically need to gauge China's reaction, because we know that China and Iran are very strong allies. China has invested a great deal in Iranian infrastructure as part of the Belt and Road Initiative, and China buys about 90% of all Iranian oil. Trump needs to figure out: can I pull this off, and would China agree to buy oil from me? He's a negotiator, a businessman. He's practical. He's trying to figure out what the pressure points on China are.
I would make the argument that Iran agreeing to these negotiations would not have been possible if China did not apply pressure on Iran. The Iranians have been negotiating with Americans these past few months and they know that the Americans use these negotiations as a pretext to assassinate leaders and carry out surprise attacks. The Iranians know the Americans have absolutely no credibility at all and are not serious about peace negotiations. These past few weeks the Iranians had been adamant, saying, "You started this war. We're just protecting our sovereignty. Let's fight this to the bitter end." I think that was the right approach — that is the attitude you must take against bullies.
So why did the Iranians suddenly have a change of heart and agree to negotiate in Islamabad? They even sent a pretty high-level delegation, including the foreign minister, to partake in these negotiations, knowing that Israel has a history of assassinating negotiation teams. They put their diplomats at tremendous risk. I think the only explanation is that right now the Chinese economy is under a lot of strain. China receives about 60% of its oil and energy from the Middle East, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia. China also receives about a third of its energy needs from Venezuela, Russia, and Iran combined, and China has been very lucky in that these three places have been sanctioned — so China was able to receive that oil at a very deep discount, which really helped the Chinese economy. Now a lot of this energy is moving offline, so the Chinese economy is under a lot of stress.
Trump is trying to figure out: when I go to China in mid-May, can I propose to Beijing a grand alliance where you start buying energy from North America? He's trying to figure that out. Given that Iran agreed to negotiations, I think he's figured out that the answer is yes — that China must agree because of the state of its economy. This is why, right after the negotiations were cancelled, Trump announced a naval blockade against Iran. He knows that China is under a lot of strain and he can bring China into an agreement, and thus protect the petrodollar. That's my explanation for what's going on. I could be wrong — it's all speculation — but I think this is what makes the most sense so far.
The Naval Blockade and Its Practical Limitations
Glenn Diesen: The naval blockade is a strange conception because it's unclear how it's going to be upheld. They're not naturally in the strait either — they will be far away. Would it entail attacking Chinese ships entering? It seems absurd. What if the Iranians open up for Indian ships? Are they going to start attacking Indian ships? It doesn't really make that much sense. How would this blockade actually function, or is it just meant to choke off Iranian ships?
Jiang Xueqin: From a practical perspective it's actually very hard to implement, because if you go close to the Iranian coastline near the Strait of Hormuz, you're in range of Iranian ballistic missiles. The Americans won't risk that — we've seen that their aircraft carriers, including the Gerald Ford, the Nimitz, and the Lincoln, have intentionally stayed far away from Iran's ballistic missile range. They're afraid of ballistic missiles and they know these missiles can sink their aircraft carriers, which would be a tremendous strategic defeat for the Americans.
So I think this blockade is a pretext to choke off the Strait of Malacca. There are two major choke points for East Asia to receive oil from the Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz is what Iran controls. In response, America plans to choke off the Strait of Malacca, which is right now basically controlled by Indonesia and Malaysia, both of which are American military allies and have been heavily infiltrated by the CIA. I think that's the grand strategy — to use the Strait of Malacca to choke off East Asia from GCC energy.
Glenn Diesen: But if the Americans actually go through with this attempt at a blockade, the Iranians would probably respond with their ally in Yemen — that is, to close off the Red Sea at Bab al-Mandab. It seems this plan is weak at many levels. What do you see as the likely success of the United States achieving its objective — not just with the blockade but also with preserving the petrodollar — because Iran is quite resilient, and I'm assuming that the Chinese, much like with the war against Russia, know that they could be next on the chopping block, or at least that they are the ultimate targets?
China's Vulnerability and the Long-Term Outlook
Jiang Xueqin: What America is mostly interested in is trying to sustain its debt. Right now America has $39 trillion in debt. That's not a problem as long as nations continue to buy US treasuries. We've seen these past few years a movement away from US treasuries and more and more towards gold — the Chinese especially are moving towards gold. How do you force East Asia and Europe to continue to buy US treasuries? Well, if you are the sole supplier of energy — oil, gas, LNG — they have absolutely no choice but to sell their gold and buy US treasuries in order to sustain their economies.
Yes, you're absolutely right that the Iranians have countermeasures. The Iranians could use the Houthis to close off the Red Sea. They could attack the pipeline that connects Saudi Arabia to the Red Sea. There are many measures that the Iranians can take, but the influence of the Iranians is contained to the Middle East. The ultimate objective is to knock off Middle East oil and energy from the market, and that is very easy to do as long as you continue to provoke this war.
I think the next step is a ground invasion in order to force the Iranians to attack GCC energy and desalination plants. The entire goal is to destroy the Middle East, which will force the world to pivot to North America. In the short term this strategy will work out, because there's absolutely no alternative for the world to Middle East energy. But in the long term this will create a great deal of animosity towards the United States, which will ultimately destroy their empire.
Glenn Diesen: Romano Prodi, the former Prime Minister of Italy and former President of the European Commission, said something interesting along those lines. He made the point that at some point the Europeans will have to start getting energy again from the Russians if they want to thrive. But he also made a prediction that the energy would flow again once the Americans began to control the energy infrastructure between Russia and Europe — essentially the Americans taking over Nord Stream. This is when the energy would start flowing again. That's an assumption that the Americans want to be in control over the energy architecture, otherwise they will not permit it.
But beyond this — a common argument is that Trump is not necessarily fully in control, that he is, if not compromised, at least under great influence from various interests, be it the neocons or the Israelis. How do you see the extent of Trump's control? Because given how different his second administration is compared to the first one, it often gives the impression that it doesn't always matter who sits on the throne in the US.
Trump as an Agent of Empire
Jiang Xueqin: In the first administration there was a lot of concern within the deep state, the neocons, and the different political factions within Washington DC about Trump's capacity to be a leader, because he was outrageous in his speech and his rhetoric. The Europeans were very much concerned about Trump. Trump started a trade war with China that was hurting the global economy and hurting American consumers. Trump did not seem like a viable leader and did not seem as though he could maintain the empire. People felt that if he stayed in office longer, the Europeans would drift away, China would drift away, the entire world would drift away, and American hegemony would generally die.
But then what happened was that Biden came to power and Biden was essentially comatose. He did nothing for four years. Putin invaded Ukraine and the Americans didn't really have a forceful response. They did do a lot of things — like blow up the Nord Stream pipeline, sanction Russian energy, remove Russia from the SWIFT system, freeze $200 billion in Russian assets — but none of these things were actually useful. The empire decided that regardless of what they felt about Trump, he is forceful, he will act, whereas Biden and the Democrats may not act. And so the decision was made to reinstate Trump in 2024. That's why we are here today. Trump is an agent of empire. He is doing what the empire requires.
What happened during the unipolar moment — basically from 1999 up to today — was that America had a lot of goodwill and was able to achieve the consent of the world mainly by co-opting the global elite. All these elites in Europe, in Russia, in China were incentivized to engage in as much corruption as possible so they could basically transfer their ill-gotten gains into America. This worked really well for the elite for a long time. But obviously these nation states were not very happy with the state of affairs — that's why you saw the rise of Putin in Russia and the rise of Xi in China, because there was a lot of concern among the nationalists that America was hollowing out these countries, and they were completely right.
So now you're seeing a direct challenge to American empire, and the only response when you don't have the consent of these nation states is to use force to enforce your empire within them. Before, the American military was used to guarantee peace and international trade — they were the policemen of the world in order to maintain the rules-based international order. Now that Russia, China, and other nations are questioning the legitimacy of that order, what Trump is doing is transforming the American military from a police force into a pirate force in order to extract tolls from the world.
Trump's first strategy was to use tariffs on the world — to force Europeans to pay tariffs to the American empire. But the Supreme Court struck that down, saying the executive branch does not have the authority to enforce tariffs, only Congress does. So Trump's response was: if you won't let me enforce tariffs, then I'll enforce tolls. I'll make the world pay tolls in order to have trade around the world. That's why we're seeing the Americans deploy their navy into the Caribbean to block trade into the Western Hemisphere. That's why we're seeing this war in Iran to block off the world from Middle East energy. And that's why we're seeing the US Navy basically boarding Russian shadow fleet tankers — essentially stealing them — and we'll see more of this as the months go by.
Glenn Diesen: What's interesting with Trump is there's some consistency here. Many people mistook his rhetoric for being all about peace. But if you listen to what he said going all the way back to the 1980s, he was essentially scolding the Japanese and others for taking advantage of the US. He didn't say the US shouldn't have a big empire — he just said the empire should pay us for the privilege of being protected. It's not that he didn't want an empire; he just wanted a better return on investment. You have to monetize the empire, otherwise the empire will kill off the republic. It should feed it.
That means not just extracting from adversaries but also from allies. But I don't think it's limited to Trump. I think overall the United States will tilt more and more in this direction, because as you said, they have exhausted themselves with $39 trillion in the hole. It's not as if you can vote for a Democrat and suddenly they go back to paying for the security of allies and having generous trade agreements. There's no going back after you've been exhausted to this extent.
Jiang Xueqin: This is a really important point. Remember in 2016 when Trump first came out, he was saying the same things — everyone is taking advantage of us, especially China, so let's impose tariffs and make sure that America is winning in this trade relationship. But after Trump left office, Biden came in with the Democrats and they institutionalized his policies. In the first Trump administration a lot of it was personal, especially his tariff war against China, and then Biden and the Democrats made it institutional. We can expect the same process here — maybe Trump leaves office in 2028, the Republicans lose, the Democrats come into office, and they won't change anything. All they're going to do is institutionalize it and make it a long-term sustainable policy, because this is what benefits the American empire.
How Russia and China Are Responding
Glenn Diesen: How will the great powers respond then? The US is obviously shifting strategy — it's becoming more extractive and more aggressive. How do you see China and Russia reacting to this? You mentioned before China's gold corridor in terms of shifting away from reliance on the US dollar. What is the overall strategy? My impression is that the Russians interpreted Trump as someone they could make peace with and reset relations with, but that appears to be backsliding. I think they were quite appalled by what has happened to Iran — not just the attack on economic infrastructure but also the killing of its leaders. It seems very much to go against their interests. And Trump never actually did what he promised, which was to end the war in Ukraine. In all fairness, this could have been done if he had cut off the intelligence agencies still working there.
Jiang Xueqin: I think we give too much credit to Trump. This is a natural response of empire to its decline. Historically, empires have never gone quietly into the night. They have flailed against the wind and tried to destroy the world as they decline. We will see much more hubris, much more thuggery and piracy from America with or without Trump.
I think we are in this situation because of the limitations of Chinese strategic thinking. When China built the Belt and Road Initiative — which was a good strategy for trying to secure resource independence from the United States — the problem was that when Chinese ships went to collect commodities from overseas, they were escorted by the US Navy. When they came back, they were escorted by the US Navy. It was the US Navy that guaranteed the protection of Chinese trade. It never occurred to Chinese policymakers that one day America could say: why are we escorting these Chinese ships around the world? Why don't we just steal the cargo? It never really occurred to Chinese policymakers that this was a possibility.
The reality is that China is now in a lot of trouble. China has invested $200 billion into the Middle East in infrastructure. China right now imports 50 to 60% of its oil needs from the Middle East. Now that the Strait of Hormuz has been closed off and this war is raging in the Middle East, China is in a lot of trouble. This all has to do with the limitations of Chinese strategic thinking. In the short term, China has absolutely no choice but to agree to Trump's demands — which is that China will become a major purchaser of American LNG. China has absolutely no choice in the matter.
In the mid and long term, what's going to happen is that Russia will start to challenge America in the seas. Russia is going to challenge American maritime naval supremacy. There's no way that Russia could defeat America militarily at sea, but America will be forced to fight a war of attrition. Over time, the American Navy will be degraded, and it will be very hard for the American Navy to replenish its lost ships. That's what we're seeing in the long term. But in the short term, there's actually nothing Russia and China can do.
Glenn Diesen: I often think the current situation resembles a little bit what happened before World War One. You saw Germany building and becoming stronger and stronger in terms of industrial production, steel production — essentially all the key measurements. Meanwhile, the British controlled the seas. Germany's entire ability to compete against the British was in the hands of the British. All the British had to do was begin to cut off or threaten their supply lines, which is why the Germans also had to find other possible corridors, either land or sea.
I feel something similar with the Chinese — they have all this industrial capacity, and probably one of the motivations behind the Belt and Road Initiative was that you can't rival the US as the leading economic power while the Americans are organizing your supply lines and physical transportation corridors. It doesn't make much sense.
But this return to piracy, as you say — choking off different transportation corridors — we've seen the blockade on Venezuela, Cuba, the hijacking of Russian ships. The hijacking of Iranian tankers has been happening for some years now, even before this war. I get it that a hegemon in decline will begin to weaponize all the economic levers of power — access to technologies, industries, transportation corridors, banks, currencies — all of this is weaponized. But the United States isn't all-powerful either. What is the main challenge for the US to hold out? As you said, they're struggling with their own debt. Their economic trouble is also translating into social and political instability. It looks as if they can't afford to play this game with the Iranians for too long. At some point they will have to put an end to this thing.
Why the War Cannot Stop: The Heartland Thesis
Jiang Xueqin: I think the goal is to have this war continue for as long as possible. The reason is that if there were peace in the Middle East, what would happen is that Russia, Iran, and China would get together and form a trade alliance to counter America's control over the seas. This trade alliance could extend easily into Europe and Africa. This is what Mackinder calls the heartland thesis — the way for America and Britain to maintain their empire is by controlling maritime navigation. The great concern is that a power would emerge in Eurasia to unite the heartland and basically negate Anglo-American naval power.
So this war in Iran cannot stop. If it stops, then Russia could achieve its North-South trade corridor and China could implement its Belt and Road Initiative. Given how America is starting to behave, I think Europe, the Middle East, and Africa would happily join this trade alliance and basically try to ignore the Western Hemisphere. There's no way that America will cede Iran and leave it alone. It's going to send in ground troops to create as much chaos as possible and try to disrupt the Belt and Road Initiative. We're seeing the Israelis and Americans targeting railways in Iran, which are crucial to the Belt and Road Initiative, and we can expect more targeting of Belt and Road infrastructure for years and years.
Glenn Diesen: I couldn't help but notice the targeting of the railroads as well as some ports in the Caspian. The entire International North-South Transport Corridor — which has been building from Russia through Iran to India — is being undermined, as is Iran's connectivity with China. But I'm wondering about the feasibility here. What exactly can boots on the ground achieve, and can the United States even get boots on the ground, given that they're quite overextended already?
Jiang Xueqin: The boots on the ground are basically to maintain the war. The problem with aerial warfare, which is what the Americans and Israelis have been using for the past six weeks, is that it's going to be very hard to maintain air power. We're already seeing some planes crashing because they're not well-maintained. We're seeing the Iranians adapt very creatively and resiliently to American air power. You can only establish aerial supremacy by having boots on the ground. I think the main objective of boots on the ground is not necessarily to take over Iran — that's a suicide mission — but basically to secure the coastline, try to degrade Iran's air defenses, and force Iran on the defensive. If I'm fighting this war, I think my main objective is to choke off Tehran — to cut off all railways, cut off all roads, and basically force the population into starvation.
Glenn Diesen: So this is where you think we're going? Destroying the population — or as Trump would say, killing off a civilization?
Jiang Xueqin: That would be the strategy moving forward. To basically besiege Tehran.
Glenn Diesen: It's just such a big country. It seems hard. If the railroads are undermined — but it also has domestic problems that Trump needs to contend with. It's not a popular war among the public and he has fierce political opposition, only intensified by political polarization.
Trump, NATO, and the Globalist-Nationalist Divide
Glenn Diesen: I did want to ask about NATO, because this was often perplexing to many Europeans. While the Gulf States are now discussing the extent to which being frontline states for the US is actually harmful to their security, and East Asia is having some of these talks as well, in Europe they must be the most loyal and obedient allies or frontline states of the United States. I'm convinced they would possibly have joined the war on Iran if he had asked them before it went south. But why does it seem to be such an objective for Trump to undermine NATO? The Europeans don't have much political imagination for security without the United States. It looks like a massive resource to have the Europeans essentially buy whatever America wants — use their currency, buy their energy, buy their expensive weapons. The Europeans will do anything if they believe America will be there for them. So why make this big show of saying we're not going to be there for you anymore? Because if there's one thing that would make the Europeans break off and seek an independent path from the United States, it's essentially the US shutting the door on them — because they wouldn't otherwise shut the door on America. I can understand that NATO's not a force amplifier, that the Europeans aren't bringing much to the table and are a bit of a cost, but it's still a bit strange how dismissive he is of them.
Jiang Xueqin: I think the real war is actually not between the United States and Iran. The real war is between the globalists and the nationalists. In the United States, it's a war between the financial elite — as represented by the City of London and Wall Street — versus MAGA and America First. What Trump wants to do is basically transition America from an empire into something called a technate — the idea of a greater North America. Move away from the world and just focus on consolidating greater North America: taking over Canada, taking over Greenland, taking over Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua. These are the countries that Trump has been antagonizing for the past few months. The grand vision is to transition America into greater North America and become a continental fortress that sells resources to the rest of the world, because the rest of the world is at war and in desperate need of both fertilizer and energy.
Trump really sees NATO as part of the deep state, as part of the globalist class. He's using this war as a pretext to sever relations with NATO. Trump would be perfectly happy if NATO were to go into Ukraine and be absolutely massacred by the Russians — that would solve a major headache of his.
Yes, there is this war going on between the United States and Iran, but we should not forget that there's also a shadow war going on between the globalists and the nationalists in America. This is also why Washington DC is supportive of Trump's war — because the globalists want Iran to be humbled, they want Iran to be destroyed so that they can extend the hegemony of the empire. They think that Trump is a useful idiot, a puppet in order to achieve this goal. That's why the Democrats have not stopped him.
There was recently, two weeks ago, the "No Kings" protest in the United States — millions of people. You were allowed to say "no kings," but you were not allowed to say "no war." You would think that people would be much more galvanized by an anti-war sentiment than by an anti-tyrant sentiment. But during the protests, which were organized by Democratic lobby groups that were very pro-Zionist, you were not allowed to voice any anti-war sentiment. It just goes to show you that all of Washington DC is fully behind this war. They think that Trump will be the scapegoat — that even if this war goes badly, Trump will be the one who takes all the blame. The Republicans will be wiped out in the midterms, and then the Democrats can steamroll back into office in 2028 and implement a globalist agenda and destroy MAGA once and for all.
Glenn Diesen: This language of globalists versus nationalists is fascinating. The first time I read about this divide was from Samuel Huntington, back in 2004. He wrote an article called "Dead Souls" where he made the point that all this globalization had essentially created a political elite detached from the nation. He predicted that the future divisions in the world would be between the cosmopolitans or globalists versus the nationalists or patriots. It was insightful — and that was 22 years ago. If you listen to a lot of the new populist leaders we have today — Marine Le Pen and others — this is essentially the same language they also use.
Let me ask a last question though. How does Russia fit into this? All the pieces kind of make sense — I understand the rivalry between the United States and China, the problem of Iran — but Russia is an energy superpower in many ways. It doesn't have to be an opponent of the United States. Within this rivalry between the cosmopolitans and the nationalists, it seems to belong to the latter. How do you see this impacting the thinking in the United States? Russia is a close partner to Iran and China.
Russia as America's Primary Adversary
Jiang Xueqin: Right now the United States' main adversary is not China — it's really Russia, because Russia is the only country that has the resources, the political will, and the territorial integrity in order to challenge American hegemony. Right now America's major concern is Russia, and this war against Iran is really seen as a way to counter Russia's aggression in Ukraine. Basically, once Russia went into Ukraine, America had no choice but to attack Iran in order to counter Russia's possible control over the heartland. This is going to be the defining struggle for the world for the next twenty years — not between the United States and China, but between Russia and America.
The great question is where will the world align over the next twenty years? If history is a guide, most countries will start to align with Russia, because if you go back to the Peloponnesian War, the main aggressor was Athens. What happened ultimately was that the entire world aligned against Athens because Athens was seen as the great aggressor. Right now the great aggressor is America, and we can see the world — especially Europe, Iran, and China — turning to Russia as the great salvation. What Russia will do is start to challenge America in the seas. I don't think there's any hope that Russia will win against America at sea, but Russia has absolutely no choice but to start to challenge America.