One View On How The US War With Iran Will End?

[PeterRS]

I have paid little attention to the pundits on TV and elsewhere about the Middle East War, partly because I do not trust a word of what politicians and so-called decision makers in any country are saying. However, as I sometimes do, I pick up nuggets from youtube. Some admittedly is crap - and I have recently been guilty of repeating one crap entry, for which I again apologise.

This morning, though, I listened to a video explanation by Canadian educator Jiang Xueqin (who is not actually a professor) of how he believes the war has to end. Hong Kong's South China Morning Post has dubbed him China's Nostradamus. I have never listened to any of his vdos before - and i admit I am slightly baffled by the comment on the top left "Altered or synthetic comment" as I do not know what it means! But I find much of what he says to be logical and worth hearing. Part of the reason for going to war was new to me - especially the petrodollar issue. And part of what he predicts could be one of the outcomes with shifting alliances in a Middle East without an American presence is at the least very interesting. I believe he is correct in sugeting that Iran will never trust America, if only because every time they have been in the midst of previous negotiations, the USA has torn them up. He believes that the USA has to withdraw from the Middle East partly because it will be overextended militarily, and that the resultant vacuum will be filled by Israel and Iran. The remaining Middle East states willl then align with one or the other - for their own interests. He believes that eventually Israel and Iran will eventually agree to co-exist - and that I do find more than somewhat difficult to believe. But then I really have no idea what to believe. I just find this analysis interesting. 

His entry on wikipedia states this -

Jiang's Geo-Strategy episode, "The Iran Trap" (2024), has attracted international attention, predicting the re-election of Donald Trump in 2024 and escalating U.S. involvement in a conflict with Iran (cf. the 2025 and 2026 conflicts) and eventual U.S. loss in a prolonged conflict, the first two of which have come true as of 2026. According to India Today, other analysts had made similar predictions but "Jiang packaged them early and memorably."

[caeron]

Trump made them play their own trump card, the strait of hormuz. The only real answer is invasion. Trump's politically in a corner about the war already. Ordering a ground assault and an occupying force would end him. He's an idiot, but I don't think he's that much of an idiot.

So, I don't see Trump getting what he wants at the negotiation table even if the Iranians negotiated in good faith.  They're very bad people, but they're not stupid people. For all their suffering, they have defeated us. They have a big chunk of the world's oil and gas hostage. 

Whether we withdraw more from the middle east, everybody is looking around for more trustworthy allies than the US. We elected that buffoon twice. They need to prepare for whoever the third will be.

[Pete1111]

Does Jiang Xueqin explain how Netanyahu persuaded Trump to attack Iran while Obama and Biden rejected that idea?

 It's peculiar he produces AI generated videos of himself.  Perhaps this is the efficient way to do it, since his geopolitical theories are also from AI

 

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, Pete1111 said:

Does Jiang Xueqin explain how Netanyahu persuaded Trump to attack Iran while Obama and Biden rejected that idea?

 It's peculiar he produces AI generated videos of himself.  Perhaps this is the efficient way to do it, since his geopolitical theories are also from AI

Do we know for sure that Netanyahu persuaded Trump? To me that is spin and I have no idea if it is true or false. I believe Netanyahu is very much at the bottom of the quagmire the US is now in, but I doubt if Trump would have started a war unless he knew Netanyahu was going to back him up with a vast arsenal of weaponry. 

I know little about AI. But if his vdos are AI speak, they sure make a great deal of sense.

[Pete1111]

9 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Do we know for sure that Netanyahu persuaded Trump? To me that is spin and I have no idea if it is true or false. 

 

...e.g.  Former Secretary of State, John Kerry spoke about it.

 

[Pete1111]

This is the NYTimes article referenced by Kerry and Psaki, above.

It's behind a paywall. 

Basically Netanyahu pitched that an acceptable regime change was possible if the US attacked. 

The CIA, Rubio and Vance disagreed. 

Hegseth and Trump were convinced Netanyahu's plan had merit.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-war-takeaways.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Z1A.S29h.2QIhz-im5ikR&smid=nytcore-android-share

10 hours ago, PeterRS said:

 

I know little about AI. But if his vdos are AI speak, they sure make a great deal of sense.

I am not an expert, but AI can include capturing information in the Cloud to craft evidence that agrees with an agenda.

It is worrisome how such AI conspiracy theories can persuade others.  Sounds like it works.

His theory Iran and Israel will become cooperative power brokers in the Middle East seems as farcical as how the CIA defined Netanyahu's regime-change scenario.

[PeterRS]

4 hours ago, Pete1111 said:

His theory Iran and Israel will become cooperative power brokers in the Middle East seems as farcical as how the CIA defined Netanyahu's regime-change scenario.

Thanks for taking us behind the paywall. As far as the above comment is concerned, today it does indeed seem farcical. But looking 2 or 3 years into the future, is it any more farcical that Germany would become an ally of the UK and the USA, or that Vietnam become an ally of the USA?

Israel is never going to get rid of Iran and Iran is never going together rid of israel. I can certainly see a situation where the Middle East is torn apart and then carved up between them. Surely that would be preferential to a bunch of individual states which were carved out of the desert and created from scratch by Brtain and other colonial powers?

[unicorn]

Either the US occupies Iran, and sees a real regime change via fair elections (monitored by the UN and/or US), or Trump goes down in defeat with his tail between his legs. No way for Trump to gets what he wants without changing the people at the top. He can't bomb his way to success.

[PeterRS]

4 hours ago, unicorn said:

Either the US occupies Iran, and sees a real regime change via fair elections (monitored by the UN and/or US), or Trump goes down in defeat with his tail between his legs. No way for Trump to gets what he wants without changing the people at the top. He can't bomb his way to success.

There is no way the US can occupy Iran.

[vinapu]

10 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Israel is never going to get rid of Iran and Iran is never going together rid of israel. I can certainly see a situation where the Middle East is torn apart and then carved up between them. Surely that would be preferential to a bunch of individual states which were carved out of the desert and created from scratch by Britain and other colonial powers?

preferential to whom ?  In Middle East carved between Israel and Iran where one will see place for 300 millions of Arabs ?  Will they prefer Israeli paradise or Iranian one ? What about  Turkey, after all former master of most of Middle East and still formidable power .

What makes  you thinking that British forced partition is better than Israeli / Iranian forced unification?

Israel's strength comes not from internal power although that is formidable. It's based on unwavering US support and division  among their Arab neighbours. Neither fact is eternal. All it takes is US antisemitic president preoccupied with troubles at home or Latin America and at the some time some Arab unifier  who manages to rise to prominence before is killed by Israelis  and picture  in the area  may be changed .

Atomic bomb if great deterrent but if , God forbid,  would be used, retaliation  will be much more devastating for country of 30000 sq. km than one 10 or 30 times bigger.  

[vinapu]

4 hours ago, PeterRS said:

There is no way the US can occupy Iran.

now you are talking