Empires often fall not with a sudden blow, but with a sequence of predictable missteps. According to historian Jiang Xueqin and other pattern-based analysts, we may now be walking straight into one such collapse. Xueqin, a student and professor of history, believes the escalating confrontation between the United States, Iran, and Israel isn’t just another Middle East conflict. It is a high-stakes game shaped by game theory, historical precedent, and disturbingly apocalyptic ambition that could see the world’s axis of power forever changed.
This isn’t about oil or ideology anymore. It’s about strategic destruction. Each major player—Trump, Iran, and Israel—appears to benefit from the chaos of war. That’s what makes it terrifying. Iran wants unity at home and leadership in the Islamic world. Israel wants to neutralize Tehran and reassert regional dominance. Trump wants a political resurrection by burning down the institutions he blames for his downfall. Their interests align in catastrophe.
The Diabolical Logic of Escalation
Game theory teaches that when all parties profit from a particular outcome—no matter how catastrophic—it becomes the most likely scenario. Iran, Israel, and Trump may all prefer a disaster if it means achieving their long-term goals.
Iran has every incentive to bait the U.S. into a ground invasion. It would unite its population, trap American forces in an unwinnable war, and elevate Iran as the David that humbled Goliath. Israel, meanwhile, can use the chaos to consolidate regional power and further its controversial territorial ambitions. Trump’s calculus is inward-facing: a foreign war creates the perfect storm for declaring martial law, consolidating power, and turning political defeat into patriotic fervour.
This is escalation dominance—a strategy where one party pushes another to overreact, forcing increasingly extreme responses until war becomes the only option. Every Iranian drone strike, every Israeli air raid, every American retaliation feeds the spiral.
The Prophetic Endgame
What makes this scenario different from Vietnam or Iraq is that it’s infused with religious and civilizational prophecy. You can negotiate with generals and presidents. It’s far harder to find middle ground with people who believe they are fulfilling divine instruction.
Each actor in this conflict, disturbingly, has factions that see this not only as war, but as a step toward biblical destiny. Israeli hardliners speak of “Greater Israel.” Iranian leaders invoke messianic martyrdom. Some of Trump’s evangelical base openly support conflict as part of an end-times prophecy.
As Jiang Xueqin warns in his now-viral lecture, when religious belief overlaps with military planning, rational deterrence becomes impossible. The players are no longer bargaining over territory—they are fighting for the end of history as we know it.
History Repeats, But This Time With Nukes
Jiang’s predictions—a return of Trump, a war with Iran, and a multipolar trap where every move worsens the board—are less speculative and more structural. He draws from 2,500 years of empire collapse, showing how every dominant power eventually overextends militarily, loses legitimacy domestically, and collapses from within. America, he warns, may be next.
And if that collapse comes, it won’t resemble previous declines. It may come with civil unrest, a failed draft, economic collapse, and, in the most tragic scenario, the detonation of nuclear weapons—either in desperation or through uncontrolled escalation.
It’s no longer a question of whether war is “winnable.” It’s a question of whether it’s even survivable.
There Is Still a Choice
Yet history is not destiny. Game theory outlines probable paths, not mandatory ones. There is still space for strategic de-escalation. Diplomacy, even now, could break the cycle if all parties realize what’s truly at stake. Demilitarizing decision-making, empowering multilateral institutions, and reining in theocratic zealotry could reset the board.
But time is short. The traps have been set. The players are in motion. Unless we understand the game we’re caught in—and choose to exit it—we may find ourselves playing it to its logical, and terminal, conclusion.
In the end, it’s not prophecy that determines the future. It’s whether we act before the spiral becomes irreversible. The apocalypse is not yet written. But it’s perilously close to being signed.