Jiang Xueqin explains Iran’s geo-political strategy to his Chinese high school students, arguing that despite overwhelming American and Israeli military dominance, Iran can survive and even prevail in a potential full-scale war by employing a carefully designed strategy built on asymmetrical warfare and a four-part strategic matrix.
Military Dominance of the US and Israel over Iran
On April 1, 2024, Israel struck the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria, killing seven people including two commanders; an embassy is considered sovereign territory, making this an unprecedented intentional act of war.
This follows the 2020 US drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad.
Both incidents demonstrate American and Israeli military dominance over Iran in two key areas:
Technology: The Damascus strike was so precise it hit only the Iranian embassy while leaving the adjacent Canadian embassy untouched, showcasing advanced targeting capability.
Intelligence: The Israelis knew the commanders would be present at that specific time, using both signals intelligence (electronic surveillance, cell phone tracking) and human intelligence (spies inside the embassy).
Iran’s Response: Operation True Promise
Iran responded with “Operation True Promise,” launching a strike package of approximately 300 drones and missiles at Israel.
Israel claims 99% were intercepted and caused no damage, showcasing the Iron Dome.
Iran claims the attack was intentionally designed to cause minimal damage.
Jiang argues Iran is more credible because Iran must be strategic: the strike package cost $10–30 million, while Israel spent at least $1 billion to defend against it, illustrating the cost asymmetry Iran would exploit in a real war.
Asymmetrical Warfare: Why Military Dominance Does Not Guarantee Victory
Asymmetrical warfare means the weaker side wins by controlling the terms of engagement rather than fighting the stronger side on its own terms.
Analogy: Jack has armor and a machine gun; his enemy has nothing but knows a dark forest intimately. The weaker side uses traps, terrain, and creativity to defeat the stronger side.
2002 Millennium Challenge simulation: The US military ran a war game simulating an invasion of Iran. In the first round, Iran won by using asymmetrical tactics—specifically, swarming American aircraft carriers with thousands of small, cheap suicide boats and drones.
A real drone might cost $1,000; a decoy drone $100. A swarm of thousands costs ~$20 million to deploy but could destroy a $1 billion aircraft carrier.
In the second simulation, the US declared asymmetrical warfare “cheating” and forced a conventional fight, which the US won—revealing the inflexibility of dominant military powers.
Why empires are vulnerable to asymmetrical warfare:
Empires suffer from hubris and bureaucratic inflexibility; they refuse to adapt their doctrine.
The classic example is Vietnam, where the Viet Cong used creative, flexible tactics while the US insisted on conventional military doctrine.
The dominant power assumes invincibility and walks into traps it could avoid if it were willing to think differently.
The Iran Strategy Matrix: Four Goals for Surviving an Invasion
Jiang argues that if the US and Israel are planning a ground invasion of Iran (possibly within two years), Iran must accomplish four goals simultaneously through every action it takes—this is the “Iran Strategy Matrix”:
Unite the population: Even though Iran’s population is currently divided (with protests over women’s rights and opposition to the government), most Iranians would resist a foreign invasion due to historical memory of Western exploitation.
1953 coup: The British discovered oil in Iran in 1909 and through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP) gave Iran only 16% of profits. In 1953, when Iran’s democratically elected government demanded a 50/50 split, the British and Americans overthrew the government and installed the Shah’s brutal police state. The Shah was overthrown in 1979. This history makes Iranians deeply resistant to foreign intervention.
Build alliances: Iran has two layers of alliance-building:
Axis of Resistance (first layer): Shia militias in Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen. These groups share the common interest of resisting American influence but are not controlled by Iran—Iran provides military and financial support but cannot dictate their actions (e.g., Iran claims it was not involved in Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel).
Russia and China (second layer): Russia wants the US distracted from Ukraine (where Russia is positioned to win) and would benefit from US resources being diverted to Iran. China needs Middle Eastern oil to fuel its economy and cannot afford for the US to control both Iraq and Iran.
Russia would likely not deploy soldiers but would threaten nuclear retaliation if the US uses tactical nuclear weapons against Iran, thereby limiting US military options.
China would provide limited assistance while maintaining strategic ambiguity—not openly supporting Iran to avoid being dragged into the war.
Iran must prove two things to Russia and China before they will invest: (1) Iran will fight, and (2) Iran can win. This will take time.
Win global opinion: Iran benefits from the world’s attention being on Gaza, where Israel is conducting what Jiang describes as a genocide—removing Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt or Jordan. As long as global outrage over Gaza continues, sympathy for Iran grows. Major protests at Yale, Columbia, and other US universities reflect this shift.
Weaken the enemy: When the US invades, it will try to build a large coalition (NATO, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan) to give the war legitimacy. Iran must create conflict and dissent within this coalition—encouraging anti-war sentiment in the US and Europe, and driving wedges between the US and NATO allies like France and Germany who would not want to participate.
How Operation True Promise Fits the Strategy Matrix
From a conventional military perspective, Operation True Promise accomplished nothing—no significant damage was done. But from an asymmetrical warfare perspective, it achieved all four strategic goals:
Unite the population: Showed Iranians that Iran can strike back against Israel.
Build alliances: Demonstrated to the Axis of Resistance, Russia, and China that Iran is willing to fight.
Win global opinion: By designing the strike to avoid casualties, Iran appeared measured and restrained, framing its response as proportional justice for Israel’s illegal embassy strike. This contrasted with Israel’s policy of disproportionality (responding to one death with hundreds or thousands).
Weaken the enemy: After Iran’s attack, Israel wanted a disproportionate response, but the US restrained Israel—because the US cannot afford another war and would have to fight alone (NATO and Middle Eastern allies would not join). This created conflict between the US and Israel.
Rules of Engagement in a Potential US-Iran War
Before any major war, the parties negotiate rules of engagement:
No tactical nuclear weapons (Iran, US, and Israel all have them but would agree not to use them).
Russia and China can provide limited assistance to Iran (weapons, material) on a basis the US can accept.
China and Russia will maintain strategic ambiguity—they will not sign a mutual defense treaty with Iran or openly declare support, to avoid being dragged into the war.
Jiang emphasizes he is a high school teacher, not a decision-maker, and is teaching students how to think about geopolitics, not predicting with certainty.
Impact on Chinese Students in the US
Jiang reassures students that even if a war occurs, Chinese students in the US would likely be unaffected because:
There would be massive anti-war protests and civil unrest in the US (similar to the Vietnam War era).
Most Americans would be anti-war and not hostile toward Chinese students.
Israel as a Regional Empire
A student asks whether Israel, as a small country of ~8 million, can be considered an empire.
Jiang explains that Israel is by far the strongest military power in the Middle East and does not actually need American protection—it won the 1948 War of Independence and the 1967 Six-Day War against the entire region.
If the US withdrew from the Middle East, Israel would dominate the region.
Therefore, Israel suffers from the same hubris as an empire: it does not need to be strategic, flexible, or creative because it has military dominance over all its neighbors.
The US-Israel Relationship
The relationship is complicated: the US currently constrains Israel (because Israel needs American support), but Israel also uses America to pursue its geopolitical interests.
If the US left the region, Israel would become the dominant power, just as Germany would dominate Europe and Japan would dominate East Asia.
Jiang identifies Germany, Israel, and Japan as the three regional powers currently constrained by the American Empire.
He promises to dedicate a future class to the Israel Lobby and why the US-Israel alliance exists.
Consequences of an American Loss
If the US loses a war in Iran, it would mean the end of the American Empire, for three reasons:
Overextension: Fighting too many wars at once (Ukraine, Iran, etc.).
Debt: Running out of money from overextension.
Civil unrest: Domestic opposition to pointless wars.
However, even if the US loses, there is no peer competitor to replace it. Instead, the world would shift from a unipolar world (one superpower) to a multipolar world with regional power blocks: Germany controlling Europe, Japan controlling East Asia, Israel controlling the Middle East.
The decline of the American Empire would take decades or possibly centuries.
Future Classes Promised
What a ground invasion of Iran would look like and what it would mean for America.
The Israel Lobby and the US-Israel relationship.
The rise of Japan and Germany as regional powers.
What will provoke the ground invasion (Jiang speculates that if Trump wins the presidency, he is most likely to initiate a war against Iran, possibly within two years).
