In moments of global instability, something interesting—and sometimes dangerous—tends to happen in the public discourse. As the war involving the United States, Iran, and Israel continues to dominate the news cycle in 2026, a number of voices have started circulating across social media claiming to have predicted everything that is happening right now. One of the names that has been appearing more and more frequently in clips and discussions online is Xueqin Jiang. According to many posts and viral clips, Jiang is an educator who supposedly used game theory to predict several major geopolitical developments, including Donald Trump winning the 2024 election and the outbreak of a war involving Iran in 2026. Some of the same clips circulating online also claim that Jiang predicted that the United States would ultimately lose such a war.
Naturally, claims like that capture people’s attention. When the world feels unstable, people become extremely interested in anyone who appears to have predicted major global events in advance. If someone seems to have forecast political outcomes and geopolitical conflicts correctly, it can make them appear almost prophetic. And right now, with the United States and Israel appearing to be in a difficult position early in this conflict, some people are pointing to Jiang’s predictions as proof that he has a deep understanding of the forces shaping global politics.
But this is exactly the moment when critical thinking becomes most important.
Over the past week or so, more scrutiny has been directed toward Jiang and his claims. I personally watched an interview he did on the political commentary show Breaking Points with hosts Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti earlier in March 2026. At first glance, the interview sounded convincing. Jiang spoke confidently about game theory, geopolitics, and the strategic behavior of nations. Like many commentators who use analytical frameworks, he presented his arguments in a way that sounded structured and logical.
But something during that conversation felt strange.
At one point in the interview, Jiang casually mentioned the idea that the Illuminati were secretly controlling world events and were behind the scenes manipulating conflicts like the Iran war. Hearing a supposed academic analyst drop a reference like that—without much hesitation or explanation—immediately raised some red flags for me. When someone mixes geopolitical analysis with claims about secret global cabals controlling everything, it becomes difficult to know where serious analysis ends and speculation or conspiracy thinking begins.
Around the same time, I also saw commentary from Kavernacle discussing Jiang’s work in more detail. In that video, Kavernacle examined several of Jiang’s claims about historical events and pointed out that many of them appear to be inaccurate or misleading. According to that critique, Jiang has gotten numerous historical details wrong in the past while still presenting himself as an authoritative analyst.
If those critiques are accurate, that raises a serious issue.
Because when people believe that someone has accurately predicted major global events, they often begin treating that person as a trusted authority moving forward. Predictions that appear correct can give someone enormous credibility very quickly, even if many of their other claims do not hold up under closer scrutiny. In other words, a few high-profile predictions—whether accurate or coincidental—can transform someone into a perceived expert almost overnight.
This phenomenon is not new.
Periods of crisis have always created opportunities for charismatic figures to step forward and claim that they understand what is really happening behind the scenes. When people feel confused, frightened, or uncertain about the future, they often look for voices that sound confident and certain. Someone who speaks with authority, references complex theories, and claims to have predicted major events can quickly attract a large following.
History is full of examples of this pattern.
During times of instability, people have repeatedly turned to figures who promise insight, prediction, or secret knowledge about the forces shaping the world. Sometimes those figures are genuine analysts who provide valuable perspectives. But other times they turn out to be opportunists, exaggerators, or outright charlatans who simply know how to present themselves convincingly.
And that is why skepticism is important.
Just because someone appears knowledgeable—or because one or two of their predictions seem to line up with real-world events—does not automatically mean that their broader claims are accurate. Predictions can be vague, selectively remembered, or interpreted after the fact in ways that make them appear more impressive than they actually were.
Another issue is that the internet accelerates this entire process.
Short clips circulate rapidly on social media, often stripped of context. A 30-second clip of someone saying something that later seems correct can go viral without anyone examining the rest of their record. Meanwhile, the longer history of incorrect predictions, flawed analysis, or questionable claims may remain largely unseen by the wider public.
That dynamic creates the perfect environment for self-proclaimed experts to gain influence very quickly.
And in a moment like the current Iran war—when emotions are high, information is chaotic, and people desperately want clarity—the temptation to believe in someone who claims to “understand the bigger picture” becomes even stronger.
But this is precisely when caution matters most.
Listening to analysts, commentators, and researchers can be valuable. Diverse perspectives can help people think through complex global events. But it is important to evaluate those voices carefully, examine their track records, and question claims that sound too extraordinary or conspiratorial.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
When someone mixes geopolitical analysis with references to secret organizations controlling the world, that should encourage people to pause and examine the credibility of those claims more carefully.
Right now, the world is going through a volatile and uncertain moment. Conflicts are escalating, tensions are rising, and the future feels unpredictable. In that kind of environment, it is understandable that people want explanations and forecasts about what might happen next.
But that desire for certainty can also make people vulnerable to persuasive figures who may not actually have the knowledge they claim to possess.
The lesson here is simple: during chaotic times, the loudest or most confident voices are not always the most reliable ones.
And the more uncertain the world becomes, the more important it is for people to think critically about who they trust to interpret it.