The Man Who Predicted the Iran War 2 Years Ago Says We're Already in Phase Two — And There's No Exit Prof. Jiang Pt 1 | Impact Theory w Tom Bilyeu

Summary

Impact Theory with Tom Bilyeu

Episode Title: The Man Who Predicted the Iran War 2 Years Ago Says We're Already in Phase Two — And There's No Exit | Prof. Jiang Pt 1
Release Date: March 19, 2026
Host: Tom Bilyeu
Guest: Professor Jiang

---

Episode Overview

This episode features an incisive conversation between Tom Bilyeu and Professor Jiang, who famously predicted the Iran War two years before it broke out. The discussion delves deep into the true forces shaping modern geopolitical conflict, with a sharp focus on empire, economics, and the dangerous intersection of strategic desperation and hubris. Professor Jiang shares a sweeping historical perspective on why the U.S. and its allies are enmeshed in Iran, the risks of escalation, and why there is likely no exit from this conflict that doesn't destabilize global power structures.

---

Main Discussion Points & Insights

---

The Real Drivers Behind the Iran War (01:00–06:11)

• Official vs. Actual Causes

  • The U.S. claims its intervention is to prevent Iran from going nuclear, but Prof. Jiang asserts that’s not the core reason.
  • Omani FM confirmed Iran agreed to zero uranium enrichment even before the Israeli strike that killed the Ayatollah—proving the nuclear threat was a pretext. (06:11)

• Structural Forces & Empire Logic

  • “This is a war that is looking for a purpose and a strategy.” (02:20, Prof. Jiang)
  • Discussion of historical empires’ fear of Eurasian unification, referencing the British Mackinder thesis and why the U.S. inherited the strategy of maritime and financial dominance.
  • Empires in decline become insular, arrogant, and increasingly incapable of strategic planning, doubling down rather than admitting defeat. (02:13, Prof. Jiang)
  • The U.S. is trapped in a sunk cost, casino-like logic: “If you quit now, you’ll always lose that money, so you keep on gambling.” (04:10, Prof. Jiang)

---

Geostrategic & Economic History Lessons (06:11–20:01)

• Mackinder Heartland Thesis

  • Britain's imperial fear: a unified Eurasian land power (Ottomans, French, Germans, Russians). Empires create chaos to prevent continental consolidation.
  • “The entire strategy of the British was to create as much, to cost as much discontent and chaos in Eurasia as possible…” (09:00, Prof. Jiang)
  • The British model: control via key trade chokepoints (Straits of Hormuz, Malacca, Gibraltar).
  • The Bank of England’s role in empire: shift from lending to kings to lending to the nation, tying whole populations to war debts and letting merchant capital finance endless conflict. (Historical deep dive, 09:36–12:47)

• American Empire—Baton Pass

  • Post-WWII, the baton passes to the U.S.: from island nation to continental power, the U.S. stuck with global sea patrols and economic hegemony out of necessity and inertia.
  • The Marshall Plan and dollar hegemony cement U.S. dominance, with the rest of the West eager for American involvement to counter Soviet threats. (24:05–25:24, Prof. Jiang)

---

Financial Architecture & Descent into Crisis (26:58–35:18)

• Postwar System: Bretton Woods, Fiat Currency, Petrodollar

  • Reserve currency status (the “exorbitant privilege”) let the U.S. print money, buy foreign goods, and rebuild Europe/Japan while consuming global surpluses.
  • Nixon “shocks” gold backing in 1971, pivots to oil-dollar linkage via Saudi Arabia (“petrodollar”) and manufacturing partnership with China. (26:58–29:00)

• Financialization & Systemic Risk

  • U.S. shifts from manufacturing to finance, resulting in risky instruments (CDOs, subprime) culminating in the 2008 crisis.
  • China’s infrastructure boom bailed out the world post-2008.

• Weaponizing the Dollar and Consequences

  • U.S. weaponized SWIFT, freezing Russian assets after the Ukraine invasion (2022)—but this undermined faith in the dollar.
  • “When you steal someone’s money, you destroy your reputation.” (33:01, Prof. Jiang)
  • Now, without global faith, the U.S. must rely increasingly on force to maintain dollar hegemony, setting the stage for military escalation in Iran.

---

Options, Escalation Traps & No Real Exit (41:21–60:16)

• Realpolitik in the Gulf

  • Trump’s calculus: seek optical wins for domestic consumption, eyeing quick victory and oil leverage for diplomatic gains with Beijing. (41:21–42:58)
  • Israel/Saudi Arabia push for full-scale elimination of Iran as a regional threat; their interests are longer-term and existential.

• Risks of 'Khark Island' Operation

  • U.S. Marines are en route to Khark Island, Iran’s main oil export hub (43:55).
  • Jiang argues Khark is not as vital as portrayed; Iran will still find ways to export, and Chinese/Russian financing can sustain resistance.
  • Control of the island exposes U.S. troops to prolonged and escalating Iranian drone and missile attacks—mirroring Vietnam’s “mission creep.”
  • “The Marine Expeditionary Force that is going to Iran is the same force that went into Vietnam … five years later you’re at 500,000 American soldiers.” (46:54, Prof. Jiang)

• Russian Stakes vs. Chinese Stakes

  • “If Iran were to fall, this opens up the Russian southern flank to the Americans.” (46:59, Prof. Jiang)
  • Russia more deeply invested in Iran’s survival than China, providing intel and direct support akin to NATO in Ukraine.

• Game Theory—No Exit

  • Trump can’t withdraw (“declare victory and go home”) without U.S. global collapse: GCC forced to pay Iran reparations, abandon U.S. dollar, Japan/South Korea rearm and stop buying U.S. treasuries, dollar hyperinflates, Great Depression.
  • “There’s really no possibility of America retreating from this war. America can only escalate, unfortunately.” (53:29–58:32, Prof. Jiang)

• Domestic U.S. Political Consequences

  • War prolongation as an existential play for Trump—avoiding prosecution post-office (53:29).
  • If war spirals, Trump could invoke emergency powers, suspend elections (as Zelensky did in Ukraine), and attempt indefinite rule.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Empire Decline:

  • “At this stage where empires are in decline, and the leadership is unwilling to admit any possibility of defeat ... so arrogant and so insular that they refuse to consider the possibility of defeat, so they always double down.”
    — Prof. Jiang (02:13)

• On Economic Roots of War:

  • “It was purely economics, then America and Iran would have sat down in 1979, 1980 … and agreed on an economic solution. And 40 years later, there’s never been a serious economic solution. So this tells us that, yes, economics is at the heart of it but doesn’t really fully explain what’s going on.”
    — Prof. Jiang (18:15)

• On Global Trust in US Dollar:

  • “When you steal someone’s money, you destroy your reputation. So Putin’s response was, ‘Wow, $300 billion is the best money I’ve ever spent in order to collapse the American-led global financial order.’”
    — Prof. Jiang (33:01)

• On Mission Creep & Vietnam Analogies:

  • “Once you send in ground troops, then it creates a logic, a momentum of its own. … this is exactly what happened in Vietnam. … Five years later, you had 500,000 American soldiers.”
    — Prof. Jiang (46:54)

• On Trump’s Political Endgame:

  • “Trump cannot afford to leave office. … if he starts a war … and this war is at first supported by both the Democrats and the Republicans, but then slowly this war spirals out of control … he can conceivably stay in power for as long as this war continues.”
    — Prof. Jiang (53:29)

• U.S. Has No Good Options:

  • “If Trump were to leave the Middle East, basically the American empire would collapse.”
    — Prof. Jiang (53:29)

---

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:00–01:48 — Iranian/American military objectives, oil, and the risk calculus.
• 02:00–04:10 — U.S. decline, hubris, and strategic dysfunction in war.
• 06:11–09:29 — Mackinder thesis, heartland concept, and the British playbook.
• 12:55–20:01 — Empire patterns, baton handoff to US, and the global sea-lane doctrine.
• 26:58–35:18 — Bretton Woods, petrodollar, China deal, and dollar weaponization.
• 41:21–46:54 — Intentions of U.S., Israel, GCC, and strategic dilemmas of ground action.
• 53:29–58:32 — Game theory: No exit, Trump’s existential calculus, and scenario planning.

---

Conclusion

This first chapter with Professor Jiang paints a sobering picture of a world order trapped by imperial logics, economic architecture, and escalating desperation. The U.S. cannot exit the Iran conflict without precipitating a global financial and power collapse, but escalation only creates new quagmires. Domestic politics, empire structures, and economic realities lock America on a collision course with history—with no easy offramp in sight.

Make sure to subscribe for Part Two, where Tom Bilyeu and Professor Jiang go further into religious, psychological, and cultural dimensions of the current crisis.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hey, Sal. Hank. What's going on? We haven't worked a case in years. I just bought my car at Carvana and it was so easy. Too easy. Think something's up? You tell me. They got thousands of options, found a great car at a great price, and it got delivered the next day. It sounds like Carvana just makes it easy to buy your car, Hank. Yeah, you're right. Case closed.

[B]

Buy your car today on Carvana. Delivery fees may apply.

[C]

Spring is here and the shopping list is long. Time to make a Lowe's run. Buy three bags, get three free of stay green one cubic foot garden soil plus right now, members can earn four times the points on an eligible purchase. Start Spring off strong with these deals and more. Our best lineup is here at Lowe's. Ballot through 325 while supplies last soil offer excludes Alaska and Hawaii. Loyalty program subject to terms and conditions. See lowe's.com terms for details. Subject to change. Point boosters subject to exclusions and more terms apply. One time only offer.

[D]

Iranians have said that their goal is to spike the price of oil to $200 a barrel. If Trump were to leave the Middle east, basically the American empire would collapse. It's very risky to use military force to resolve an economic issue.

[A]

It isn't enough to remind everybody that you have a big military. You actually have to get control of Iran.

[D]

This is a war that is looking for a purpose and a strategy. The Marine Expeditionary Force that is going to Iran is the same force that went into Vietnam. Like five years later, you're at 500,000American soldiers. So you can make the argument, like, a lot of the issues in America come from the fact that the baby boomers are a selfish, materialistic, and self absorbed generation that refuse to surrender power.

[A]

So who are going to be the winners and who are going to be the losers in this?

[D]

Trump and America, they continue to underestimate the resilience and resolve of the Iranians.

[A]

Professor Jiang, welcome to the show.

[D]

Hi, Tom.

[A]

If you had to advise the US what would you tell them if they actually wanted to either get out of the war with the least amount of damage or actually win? What. What is the play here?

[D]

So a lot of the problem is that if you look at empires and Klein, they're no longer capable of strategic planning because there's a legal and toxic combination of hubris and desperation. And so they. So Washington, D.C. has become an insular bubble, right? And if you just look at these press conferences where reporters are like, hey, Mr. Trump, what's the plan? Here. And then Trump's like, shut up, man. I'm gonna put you in jail. In fact, I'm gonna pass a law that says if you criticize us in the war, we're gonna put you all in jail. Right. Or we're gonna shoot you to death. Right. That's how empires behave. And so at this stage where empires are in decline, and they are. And the leadership is unwilling to omit any possibility of defeat, and they're just trying to force everyone to repeat talking points. Right. So Peter Hextef in his press conferences is just saying, like, you know, the problem with you guys is you don't talk about the good things. All you talk about is the bad things. Stop talking about the bad things and just focus on the good things. And then we're good. Okay? And what he doesn't recognize is like, I'm sorry, but, like, the war is going bad. You need to hear it. And they absolutely refuse to hear it. Okay, so why Amber's decline is they become so arrogant and so insular that they refuse to consider the possibility of defeat, so that they always double down. And I don't know how you resolve this issue.

[A]

Yeah, it isn't going to be easy, that is for sure. So, okay, if we don't know how to do it well, what is your prediction for how it's actually going to play out? Is this a Trump declares victory, leaves it in chaos, comes home, or is this Trump gets sucked in because Israel, Saudi Arabia, they want a ground war. They want this protracted thing to play out so that they can basically jockey for power in the Middle East? Which of those two scenarios is more likely, in your view?

[D]

Right now there's a talk of war. So it's almost. Almost impossible for us to ascertain who's winning this war because. Because the Israelis and Americans are doing tremendous damage to Iran. The Iranians are fighting back as well. So we can't actually ascertain who's actually winning this. This war. But if you just look at historical examples, if you just look at game theory, then the idea is the Americans are stuck where they are, and they can only double down because if they ever quit. Right. It's not cost fallacy. It's like you go to the casino and you're losing $100,000. If you quit now, you'll always lose that money, so you keep on gambling. Okay? So unfortunately, what game theory suggests is that Trump's just going to double down. And. And so I think what he's going to do is he's going to take Car island, and he'll do it very easily, and then he'll want to secure the. The coast as well. And so you have mission creep. And unfortunately, he's being egged on by both Israel and the gcc because Israel clearly wants this war to escalate, and the GCC wants to remove the Iranian threat as soon as possible because they see the amount of damage that the Iranians can do to the gcc. So Dubai, if nothing changes, Dubai will just cease to exist. Because. For. Because Dubai is just based on the perception that is a safe tax haven. Right? But if Iran can just rain drones on Dubai uncontested, then no one's going to put their money in Dubai. So for Dubai to continue to thrive, it needs to destroy Iran and remove that threat from the Middle East. So, unfortunately, the way that things are structured suggests that this war can only escalate and not actually move towards a ceasefire.

[A]

All right, the official story is that this is a war to stop Iran from going nuclear. But the framework that you've been working off that allowed you to predict this war nearly two years ago suggests the structural forces that are actually driving it are deeper than that. If the war in Iran is just a symptom, what is the actual sickness?

[D]

So we know the cause is not Iran's nuclear program, because a few hours before the Israelis struck Tehran and killed the Ayatollah, the Omaniya foreign minister went on TV and said that the Iranians had already agreed to zero uranium enrichment, even for civil purposes, which was before a red line. So we know that the nuclear program is not the real cause. And in fact, Trump has yet to articulate a good reason for why this war started in the first place. Now that the reason the administration is articulating to the public is that, well, the Israelis were going to strike first, and if that would have happened, the Iranians would have struck back at both the Israelis and the Americans. And therefore, the Americans had to preempt the Iranians, and that's why the Americans went in with the Israelis. So this is a war that is looking for a purpose and a strategy. And maybe 100 years from now, historians will still argue over why this war started in the first place. So let's go over some possibilities. So the first possibility is that this war had to happen. And the reason why is the nature of the American empire. The American empire, its power rests mainly on its ability to control maritime trade. It's able to control key maritime choke points, like the Strait of the Strait of Malacca, the Strait of Hormuz, the Strait of Gibraltar. And the great fear is that the Eurasian continent would unify under great power. And so in the beginning of the 20th century, there was a British strategist named Mackender who McKender. And he argued that the greatest threat to the British Empire was the rise of a Eurasian power, whether it be the Ottoman Empire, whether it be the French, the Germans or the Russians. Because if that power were to arise, that power would unify both Europe and Asia and connect the entire Asian continent through railways and then. And then absorb the Middle east and Africa and Southeast Asia into a continental trading block that would negate the naval power of the British Empire. And the British Empire only had naval power. It didn't have the population to sustain a land army. We saw that in World War I and World War II. So the entire strategy of the British was to create as much, to cost as much discontent and chaos in Eurasia as possible, and if a great power were to arise, to basically go to war against that power. So we first saw the strategy play out during the Napoleonic wars when Napoleon basically unified Europe. And then what Britain did was financed seven wars, seven wars against Napoleon. They lost six and they won the seventh.

[A]

Do you think that the Brits at that point saw that as an existential threat and that's why they were going that hard?

[D]

Yes, they did, because Napoleon wanted to institute something called the Continental System. So basically just blockade England because remember, Britain is a resource poor island, so they were blocked off from the European continent. And if Napoleon was able to embargo them, then they would have starved, basically. There's also another issue in that there are two main sources of British Imperial power. The first, of course, is the Royal Navy. The second, which is actually more important, is the bank of England. And so the bank of England was chartered in 1688. Sorry, sorry. 1694. 1680 was the glorious Revolution. The Glorious Revolution is important because that's when basically the Dutch Republic merged with the British Empire. And the merger happened because one of the Dutch princes, William Orange, went over to England to become their king, something called the Glorious Revolution. And when that happened, when the Dutch aristocracy went over to England, they also brought with them their capital and their wealth. And so they set up the bank of England as a private bank that would serve British monarchical interests. So, so previously, before, if you're a merchant, you lent money to a king to fight his wars. The problem with that is that, well, the King could die or the King could lose the war, or the King could Just reneg on his promise and say, you know what, I'm the King, you can't do anything about me, so screw off. Okay? So there was a lot of risk involved in lending money to a king. Now the great innovation of the bank of England is that you no longer let money to a king, you give that money to the parliament, the nation state. So when you do that, then everyone in the nation, including the children, the grandchildren, are now obligated to pay you back. Okay? And in America, this became the Federal Reserve System. So in other words, all this wealth in Europe that was looking for stability all went to England, including the Dutch Republic, but also including the Habsburgs, including the Catholic Church. And so that allowed England infinite financing for wars. So even though it could not produce a land army, it could give you the financing to fight Napoleon. And that's what led to the seven Napoleonic Wars. And, and, but, but the problem with this is that once you start to fight a war, you have to keep on fighting because you, if you stop, if you lost, then you lose all your money, right? So it's almost like a Ponzi scheme. And so that's what led to the public wars. And again in the seventh, seventh war, Britain won, was, was able to force an indemnity onto the French and that saved the, the British system. So after the French came the Russians, which led to the Russian Great Gate, which let's have been called the Great Game between Britain and Russia in Central

[A]

Asia, but with the same idea. They're trying to stop them from forming this heartland alliance so that they can do trade via trains.

[D]

That's exactly correct.

[A]

We're hitting pause for a moment, but there's plenty more ahead, so don't go anywhere. The people who win, they're not smarter, they just absorb more ideas faster. There are thousands of books right now on business, psychology, leadership, books that have already changed how the best operators think. And every one you haven't read is a gap between you and the people who have. This is a bandwidth problem, not a discipline problem. And that's exactly what Blinkist was built to solve. It takes the world's best nonfiction books and distills them into 15 minute summaries you can read or listen to. It's got over 9,000 titles. We're talking atomic habits, thinking fast and slow. The hard thing about hard things, books you know you should have read by now, done in the time it takes to drink your coffee. And because it's built for mobile, your commute becomes a classroom. Blinkist also sends you personalized recommendations so you actually build a daily learning practice instead of just planning to do one. Start your free trial at blinkist.com/ that's B L I N K I S T.com impact start learning aggressively today. It will change your life. A great wardrobe is not complicated. A few pieces that fit well, hold up over time and work in almost any situation.

[D]

That's it.

[A]

That's what you need. The problem is finding them without paying luxury prices. That's exactly what Quince is built around. I picked up one of their cashmere sweaters and let me tell you, the softness is amazing and the quality actually caught me off guard. This is 100% Mongolian cashmere. That makes it easy to build a great wardrobe. Lightweight cashmere linen bottoms, short sleeve Mongolian cashmere polos, Pima cotton tees. All amazing quality. And every factory they partner with meets rigorous standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. Right now. Go to quints.com impact pod for free shipping and 365 day returns. That's a full year to build your wardrobe and love it. And you will now available in Canada too. Go to Q U I n c e.com impact pod for free shipping and 365 day returns. That's quints.com impact pod let's talk about a clock you can't see every day. Without active cellular support, you're compounding damage you won't feel until it's too late. By the time you notice, you're already playing catch up. Most people's longevity plan is just avoiding bad stuff. That's not a plan. Real longevity requires offense. Actively fortifying your cells every single day. That's what Nandica by Peak is built to do. I've tried it and I'm telling you right now, I am a fan. Nandica is a ceremonial cacao nootropic designed to support your cells from the inside out. Every ingredient is selected for maximum bioavailability. The result is calm, sustained energy, elevated mood, sharper focus, and you're actively building long term cellular resilience with. Stop playing defense with your health. Get 20% [e-mail] impact that's P I Q U E life.com impact this stuff is really good. Thanks for sticking around. Let's get right back into the action. Yeah, I want to keep beating this point for people because this is one of the more brilliant ideas that I had never heard of before that you brought forward. I'm constantly trying to get people to understand what's going on in Iran through the lens of Economics. And I don't know if this is going to be a point of agreement between us or a point of contention, because I know we're going to get into the religious element of it. With your thesis on eschatology, we'll get there in a second. But this idea that there have been all these attempts to get people that. That multiple different empires have tried to unify that heartland that you're talking about across Europe, that would essentially go from Eastern Europe all the way to the Middle East. And because I had often wondered, you hear a lot that, you know, the US Patrols the seas, that England did it before them. And I was always like, how, with boats that can't go on land, how exactly are you controlling this large empire via the sea? And this is the first way where I've heard somebody really dive into.

[D]

Well, if.

[A]

If you force commerce onto the water, you actively stop it from going on land. Now you get these few choke points.

[D]

And.

[A]

And if you can control those choke points, you control the economics. And if you control the economics, you basically control the world. And I've had a shockingly difficult time getting people to view this war through the lens of economics. Now, I know you're just starting here, and you have other things. Do you feel like the economic lens is the predominant lens, or are we going to get to something that you think is actually even bigger than that?

[D]

Yeah, I think the economic lens is the priority, but there are other issues adjacent to this economic issue. And about understanding these other issues, we can't really understand what's really going on because it was purely an economic issue. Then what America could do is say to Iran, let's just be friends. Let's be trading partners. Right. And Iran would be ecstatic about America lifting sanctions because the entire point of negotiating with America on the nuclear deal was to lift sanctions. Right. So it was purely economics. Then America and Iran would have sat down 1979, 1980, whenever, and just agreed on an economic solution to the differences. And 40 years later, there's never been a serious economic solution. And so this tells us that, yes, economics is at the heart of it, but doesn't really fully explain what's going on.

[A]

Okay, I want to set the religious component on the shelf for now. We'll get to why the right lens is economics. But however, if you want to know why people stop being rational actors, we'll get to that. So we've got this Mackinder's heartland thesis. The British have it. They're fighting against, you know, first France, then Russia, like that keeps going for a while. But the baton handoff from the Brits to the US running the same strategy is something that I think certainly Americans are largely blind to. Can you walk us through that? And why something that made sense for this tiny island continues to make sense for, you know, the gigantic land mass and economy that is the U.S. right.

[D]

So we have to remember, like much of the reason why Britain was able to keep its enemies in the heartland at bay was because it allied itself with the Germans. Right? So basically, basically it was an alliance with the Prussians that allowed the British to defeat the French at the end of the day. But in the late 19th century, about 1870, Germany unified under Bismarck and now they have their own ambitions. And now Britain came to conflict with Germany. The Germans were extremely technologically advanced at the best universities. They were extremely sophisticated, cultured people, just the best philosophy in the world. And they had the best general staff in the world. So Britain found a tremendous adversary in Germany. So much so that it took two world wars to defeat Germany. So we can argue about the causes of World War I, but most historians agree that World War I was cost because Britain was a hegemon and Germany was the challenger, a rising power that threatened the economic imperial security of Britain. And that's what ultimately led to this World War I. And America came into the war because quite honestly, it seemed as though Germany was going to triumph in the end. So it took basically an entire global alliance to defeat Germany in World War I. The tragedy, the travesty of World War I is that in the Versailles Conference, the Allies made Germany take all the guilt for causing World War I, which was extremely unfair and inappropriate. And it basically laid the seeds for World War II. And so you have World War II and now Germany is spreading across Europe and Germany decided to attack Soviet Union, which is communist. And you would think that American Britain would, would fight alongside the Nazis, but instead they chose to support Stalin. And again, the reason why is the Hartland McKenna thesis. You can, you cannot allow a great power to emerge in the Eurasian climate. And at that time it seemed that Germany was a seconded, right, because if you marry German technology and logistics organization with Russian manpower and resources, then this is the empire that rules the world. So America could not allow that to happen. But over World War I and World War II exhausted Britain and it forced the peaceful transfer of imperial power from Britain to America. And this was cemented in something called the Breton witch Conference of 1944, which established the global financial order that we live in today. So that Is the story.

[A]

Okay, so the part that I think a lot of Americans will be a little bit baffled by is why is that handoff so obvious that, okay, the way to rule the world is to stick with these shipping lanes. It makes sense when you've got a small island. It gets more confusing when the US Is a gigantic landmass with cooperative neighbors to maybe slightly varying degrees, certainly right now to the north and to the south of them. So why did we accept this idea of trying to patrol the entire world via the seas? Was it just the, the call of being the imperial leader is so strong and so intoxicating that we're willing to take on the risk of empire? Or was it that, well, that's what we're going to have to do to make sure that the dollar remains the world's reserve currency?

[D]

Right. So I think that at the end of World War II, first of all, there was a lot of tremendous goodwill among the Europeans for what America did.

[C]

Right?

[D]

I mean, because Americans made a lot of sacrifices to save Europe from fascism. And so the Europeans were very grateful. And the real concern was that America retreated back into its continental fortress, which is what America did at the end of World War I. Then another threat would arise in Europe, possibly the Soviet Union. Right. Well, I mean, obviously the Soviet Union. And so the Europeans were very much interested in ensuring that America stayed interested in European affairs. And that's what led to the NATO alliance and the Marshall Plan. And America itself recognized that if it did not help the Europeans, then Communism was ascended. Communism had already won in the Soviet Union and it was clearly going to triumph in China. And so now you have a combination of both Soviet Union and China. And so that really scared American policymakers. So it was in their best interest to revitalize the Europeans and the Japanese as soon as possible. And that's what led, of course, to the Marshall Plan. So. So I think that it was a combination of idealism and a combination of goodwill as well as just real politic, long term strategic planning.

[A]

Okay. So with that as the backdrop, we now understand that America's taking the baton. They're patrolling the seas. They're for a very long time, they're really holding at bay Russia from becoming the next great power. We end up winning that largely because Russia just imploded by not being able to figure out a successful economic system. Now you get Pax Americana, one government, the monopolar world where they're just running everything. How does that end up pushing us towards this moment? Because for a lot of people that grew up under that. It was awesome. So you and I, I think, were actually born in the same year. So for me, yeah, for me, this has just been like, yo, this has been amazing. And so it's. Watching it unravel is deeply distressing. But seeing it up close, as an entrepreneur, the way that I kept interfacing with something I've heard you talk about, but using very different words, is that some people need to be chased by a lion without hardship, without having to fight and struggle for something. The ideas that take root in people's minds are very distorted. They begin to think that, um, the world is just always going to be peaceful. That's just the default stance. And so they're not thinking about the real things that it takes to maintain hegemonic structure like we had for so very long. So when you think about the structural forces that were at play post the collapse of the Soviet Union, why did it get worse and not better?

[D]

Okay, so to answer this question, we have to look at what America's major imperial innovation was. Okay, so the Britain Wits Conference 1944 was to establish the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, something called the exorbitant privilege. And America did this to the benefit of Europe, because what this meant was that America was basically financing the reconstruction of Europe and Japan, right? Because Europe was devastated by war and they needed to rebuild the factories and manufacturing, but they needed, needed an outlet, needed consumers, right? So Americans agreed to buy from Europe and America would also sell to Europe, okay? And the point was to very quickly build the manufacturing capacity of Europe as well as America. And this is all made possible because of the US Dollar. The problem is that when you have fiat currency, there's always a risk that you print too much money, that you lose financial discipline. So the agreement was that US Dollar would be pegged to gold. So at any time the Europeans could reimburse the US dollars for gold. And so the US Dollar basically became a contract between the Europeans and the Americans. And this worked out really well for the first 10 years, and it led to tremendous post war prosperity. But over time, the Americans started to overreach, started to abuse this exuberant privilege in Vietnam, right? So basically America was financing this silly war in Vietnam that served no strategic purpose. Then you had the space race where America was spending billions of dollars to send a man to the moon. And then there was a great society of Lyndon B. Johnson, which was tremendous for the American people, but it made the Europeans question how much gold Americans actually had at Fort Knox. So the French famously sent a frigate, a ship to New York to pick up their gold and take it back to France. And after that, that led to something called the Nixon shock in 1971, where Richard Nixon said that the US dollar would no longer be pegged to gold. Now you have a problem, like if you're not paid to gold, then how do you determine the value of your currency? And so Nixon did two things which was crucial and basically, which basically established the world order that we live in today. Okay, the first thing he did was he signed a deal with Saudi Arabia, where Saudi Arabia would only sell its oil in US dollars. And that led to something called the petrodollar, right, which is now the basis of the US dollar. The other thing that, that Nixon did was also, that was also very important, which people don't really discuss, is he went to China and he made a deal with China to become trading partners where China would basically export its cheap labor and return, they would get U.S. dollars, right? So this, these two deals, okay, the petrodollar, as well as China becoming the factory of the world, became the basis of the new global economy. And in 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, this system then became the global financial order. And this was fine. The problem is that there was excess capital being produced around the world and it all went to America. Now at this time, America was shifting its manufacturing to China. So the economy of America became very unbalanced. And, and it became, it shifted from a focus on manufacturing to a focus on financing. So Wall street started to, you know, explode in both financial and political power. And that, that led to hubris. And then Wall street, because it had to create financial vehicles to absorb all this foreign capital, started to invent all these risky derivatives as such, as, you know, CDOs, collateral debt obligations. And this, of course, led to the 2008 subprime crisis. And at this point in history, essentially the entire global economy should have collapsed. Why? Because Wall street had basically bundled the entire global economy together so that if one part of the system collapsed, the entire system collapsed. And I know that you've shared this very well with your audience, so I won't go too much into it. The system didn't collapse because something happened which is that China bailed out the world by printing all this money to build infrastructure throughout China. Okay? So China basically became the consumer for the world, probably of all these raw materials in order to build its skyscrapers, its high speed rail. And that worked out really well for, for the world. But then China Said, well, you know what? Before we were exporting our cheap labor and now we are financing the global economy. So we want to have a greater say over global affairs. We want our companies like Huawei to go to Africa and sell our products and compete against Apple. And the Americans didn't like that. And that's what led to the Trump tariffs. And when he came to office in 2016, right. The first thing he did was to sanction these Chinese companies. And that's what led to the trade war. And so you have all this instability now in the system because China's trying to contribute heavily to the global economy, but it wants more political power because of this. And Americans are, no, we are still ahead to mind. You have to listen to us. So the 2008 great financial crisis was I heavy blow. Then his trade war of China was also not a heavy blow. But the, but the next heavy blow was of course, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[A]

Why?

[D]

Because after that happened, America started to use its financial weaponry to sanction Russia. Right. So it basically removed Russia from the swift system and it froze Russia's Russian thr it knowledge in assets in Europe and in America. And when it did that, when it did this, it actually backfired because remember, the entire global financial order is based on legitimacy and reputation. And when you steal someone's money, you destroy your reputation. So Putin's response was, Wow, $300 billion is the best money I've ever spent in order to collapse the American led global financial order. And so this is what's led to a lot of the issues that we have today where underpinning the global financial order is the US dollar. But people don't have as much faith in the US Dollar as possible. So how do you compensate for that? You compensate for that by using military power. And this helps us understand this war in Iran where by going to Iran and you know, I mean, we have to assume that the Americans under Trump were planning for a short, decisive war to control Iran. And once you control Iran, you control the entire Strait of Hormuz. You control all the resources, you can control global trade. Right. Also, what's really important is you prevent a Russia, Iran China alliance from forming. Okay? Because once that happens, once China, Russia and Iran come together and trade and create this trading bloc, it achieves the heartland, right? And then Europe comes in, then Middle east comes in, then Africa comes in, food breaks. So from an economic perspective, Americans didn't have a choice in the matter, in that the US Dollar was extremely unstable. People didn't have any faith in it anymore. And so you have to. You had to use force to remind people that the US dollar is still the only global reserve currency. And so they went into Iran hoping to control that crucial choke point of resources in trade. And it's really blow up in their faces.

[A]

Taking a short break, but there's more impact theory after Stay tuned. Let's talk about gold. Gold is the right asset these days, but but most people are using it wrong. They buy it, hold it and then wait for the price to go up. But that price is still denominated in dollars. So you haven't actually escaped the system. You're still playing by its rules. That's the shift monetary metals helps make possible. They've built a way for your gold to earn yield paid not in dollars but in more physical gold, up to 4% per year, more ounces compounding in hard money every single month. You're growing the quantity of the hardest asset on earth and storage and insurance are included so there's no hidden fees that are going to eat away at your yield. Most people are passively absorbing inflation. This is exactly how you actively compound your way out of that. Click the link in the show notes or visit monetary-metals.comimpact to learn more. Again, that's monetary-metals.comimpact this is a paid advertisement. Let's talk about the things you use every day and just never think about your socks, your comforter, the stuff that touches your body more than anything else you own. And most people settle for whatever's cheapest or most convenient. Today's sponsor, Cozy Earth takes the exact opposite approach. They obsess over the details most brands ignore. Their comforters are made with naturally breathable temperature regulating materials that create a cloud like feel without the heaviness or overheating so you actually sleep deeper and wake up restored. Their essential socks are soft, breathable and cushioned in four styles that support you from your first step to your last. Head to cozyearth.com and use code impact for up to 20% off. And if you get a post purchase survey, be sure to mention you heard about Cozy Earth right here at impact theory. That's cozyearth.com and use code Impact. Let's talk about the hidden cost of running your business off personal phones. We know everybody's doing it. When someone leaves your company, they walk out with customer relationships and conversation history in their pocket. You have zero visibility into what your team is saying and you're mixing business with personal so nothing is secure. That's exactly why over 90,000 businesses switched to Quo, the number one rated business phone system on G2. With over 3,000 reviews, you get one shared business number for your entire team. Everyone sees the full conversation thread, so there's no more disconnected handoffs. Quo's AI automatically logs calls, generates summaries and highlights next steps. Make this a season where no opportunity and no customer slips away. Try quo for free. Plus get 20% off your first six months at quo.com impact that's Q U O.com impact quo. No missed calls, no missed customers. Thanks for staying tuned. Now let's get back to it. Okay, so you've put a couple of pieces together that I think are really important and I'm going to say it in a slightly different way and see if this lands for you. So 1971, Nixon breaks the peg to gold. You become a true fiat currency. There's now no real tether for you. The world begins to realize, okay, hold on a second. This is just fiat. You guys are going to print out of control like every empire before you. And so Nixon does this brilliant thing and he finds two avenues to keep making the dollar systemically important. He gets essentially the vast majority of oil trade to be only transacted in dollars. Presumably you didn't say this, but I think it's basically, we'll protect you, dear GCC countries. So you can't really protect yourself super exposed there in the desert. Don't worry, we've got you. You guys focus on infrastructure, desalinization, all that stuff, and we'll run your military for you. That works out very well. Hey, China, we need cheap labor, but hey, we'll make sure that we're buying a lot of the stuff that you're producing. Just make sure that you're also doing trade in dollars. So you've got energy now pegged to dollars, and you've got this industrial revolution, not the one that most people think of when they hear that, but this new rise of China as the world's manufacturer, also now being tied to dollars. Then because of course, as empires do, they overextend, they bully, they do things that ultimately are against their own interests. And we begin eroding the trust in the do, which is the only thing left on a fiat currency. And so the part that I want to reword is when you say that we use our military to remind people of the power of the dollar or that we're strong or whatever. I would say it slightly differently. And this gets to why Iran becomes so important, like what actually happens in Iran is it isn't enough to remind everybody that you have a big military. You actually have to get control of Iran. You have to control the oil now. You have to control the Strait of Hormuz. And if you either are forced to destroy the oil, which now is going to just have a massive negative impact on the global economy, or because of asymmetric warfare, Iran continues to cause a problem in the Strait of Hormuz. And it's technically open, but every time a U.S. or U.S. allied ship tries to go through, it gets blown up. Now, all of a sudden, you may have reminded everybody that you have the stronger military, but Iran is showing you they can still control the thing you must get control of if you want to win.

[D]

Okay, I would disagree because you are saying that the Americans went in hoping for a Venezuela solution, right, where they removed Maduro, and that's where Rodriguez, the Vice president, was very happy to play along. So it's basically a regime change that favor the Americans. So let's just discuss how the interest of Israel and the interest of Trump are different. Right, because as you point out, Trump is interested in optics. He wants a quick victory. He wants the Iranians to surrender to him, and he wants to be, to be able to control the oil supply so that when he goes to Beijing at the end of this month, he can negotiate a great deal for America. And he will. And it will look really, really good. Right, because he just came off a, a very decisive victory in Venezuela. So, you know, he was very arrogant, he's very confident. That's Trump. But I think they really are thinking much more long term and they really want to eliminate Iran as a threat in the Middle east. And it's just not the Israelis as well. If you look at Saudi Arabia, the Saudis have always had issues with Iranians. So I think it was a coalition of interest, the Israelis and the Saudis who were pushing Trump to attack Iran. And actually reporting from the Washington Post actually confirms this, where mbs, the head of Saudi Arabia, he was lobbling hard for Trump to attack the Iranians.

[A]

The thing that I want to understand better is given the quagmire that we are now in with Iran, what are the options that are on the table, especially for Trump? So if you agree that for the US to actually have gained ground here, they need to control the Strait of Hormuz or by some miracle get a friendly government in Iran that will maintain control, but do things that are very beneficial to the GCC countries, to the us, To Israel, which seems sort of Farther away by the day. But if he has to do that, do you think he's going to push into Karga island and take over? It's like 94%. Do you think he goes all the way to a ground invasion? What do you think are the options at this point, given the realities on the ground?

[D]

So what I've observed is that Trump in America, they're behaving exactly the way that an empire decline behaves, which is that they suffer from a toxic and lethal combination of both hubris and desperation, meaning that they continue to underestimate the resilience and resolve of the Iranians, and they are desperate for a knockout punch as quickly as possible. Trump wants this war to end as soon as possible because he knows that the longer this war drags on, the worse the economy will suffer, the worse his polling will be, and the more likely the stock market will tank. So he's looking for a knockout punch. And right now, if you're looking for a quick solution, if you're looking for a gamble, well, your best option is Carg island, because as you point out, that is where Iran exports 90% of its oil, primarily to China. So right now, a marine exponential force is traveling from Japan to the Middle east, and we should expect them to arrive maybe in about a week. And there's about 2,500 of them, and they specialize in amphibious landing. So the idea is that they will bombard the coastline in Cark island, and this will enable the Marines to land and secure the oil depots of Cark Island. And at this point, Trump will declare victory and try to get the Iranians to the negotiating table and says, listen, I have Carg island, and this is your economic lifeline, so let's cut a deal that allows us to both save face. Okay? And I think that is the plan. But there are a lot of issues with this plan. Okay? The first issue is that Car island is not as important economically as people believe. That's the first issue. Meaning that even if you were to secure Card Island, Iran does have workarounds where they can just ship from, from the coast. That's issue number one. Issue number two is that Iran needs financing for this war. And now they're using this oil as financing, as collateral financing. But if the Chinese and the Russians believe that the Americans want to strangle Iran, then it's not in their best interest to see Iran destroyed. Then they will provide financing. And anyway. And look, the reality is that now that oil is shooting up in price, this benefits Russia tremendously, right? So Putin can take all this oil riches and finance Iran in finance war because Russia has the most to lose if Iran loses this war and there's regime change. So that's issue number two.

[A]

You think Russia has more to lose than China?

[D]

I, I, I do. I do. And the reason why is that if Iran were to fall, this opens up the Russian southern flank to the Americans. Right. Because Azerbaijan is an Israeli American ally. And if Iran were to fall, then the Americans and Israelis could, could stage operations from the south. Also. Also, Iran has been providing a lot of support to Russia in the Ukraine war. So Russia is getting most of its drones from Iran. So Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that Russia will protect Iran and Russia is most interested in the Iran government staying intact. And there's been reporting from American news outlets that American intelligence believes that Russia is providing targeting for the Iranians. So all these drone strikes, all these ballistic missile strikes, they're getting intelligence and targeting from the Russians, which by the way, is what NATO did in Ukraine. Right. So from the Russian perspective, it's payback. So the Russians are heavily invested in the Iranians winning this war. The Chinese are chromatic. They don't, they really don't care. They see Iran more as a major supplier of oil that they, that they need. But if they need to shift supply routes, they, they can, they can do so. Right. So the Russians are heavily invested and so they would finance the Iranians regardless if Iran is no longer able to export oil. Okay. And another issue is this. If you attack the economic lifeline of Iran, they now have incentive to strike at the oil refineries of the gcc. Right, because no matter how much economic damage you can do to Iran, they can do so much more to the gcc. And this would cause the oil, the price of oil to spike. Remember, Iranians have said that their goal is to spike the price of oil to $200 a barrel. Now it's about $100 a barrel. And so what they're saying is that we're going to fight a very long war attrition that could last years. So I don't see what the strategic benefit of taking Carte island is. The last problem, and this is the most important, is that once you take Card island, you expose the Marines to drone strikes and artillery strikes from the coast, which means that you now need to send in more Marines to secure the coast. Right. So you send in 2,000, 3,000 troops to secure Car island. You've done that easily. But they can't secure, they can't secure the island against Iranian drones. So the only way you can do that is by taking, taking the coastline along Clark Island. You do that with tens of thousands of Marines, but then you expose these Marines to attacks from the mountains, the Zagros Mountains, right, These drones, these missiles from the Zagros Mountains, which means that now you have to invest 100,000 troops to go after Iran's underground missile facilities. And this is exactly what happened in Vietnam. The great irony of all this is that the Marine Expeditionary Force that is going to Iran is the same force that went into Vietnam and marked the, the first major ground involvement of the Americans. In about 1965, they basically went into Dang Nan and secured the Air Force base. And at first it was like 3,500 soldiers. And that, that was supposed to be it. Like five years later you had 500,000American soldiers. Right? So once you send in ground troops, then it creates a logic, a momentum of its own. And then you have mission creep and then some cost fallacy, and then eventually you have an actual draft. Okay, so that is a great danger of taking Cargill island at this point.

[A]

Okay, so let's keep pushing down that road because I think that you're bang on with this. I think if Trump puts boots on the ground in Iran, I think he can get away with Khark island because it will be small. It will feel like, hey, we're doing this very discreet thing. We can take it in, you know, a couple days. We've got it now. He'll declare that that's a big win for us. We control 94%. He buys himself a little bit of time. Most people don't know what you just said, which is Iran has other options. So that's going to feel, going back to Trump equals optics. It's going to feel like an optical win. The thing that scares me is I think to your point, he will end up getting drawn into Boots on the Ground because one, he'll have seen the American people didn't super freak out. Okay, that's great. We all start going. Well, I mean, I guess we already have boots on the ground, so it's not so crazy that we go like, just try to finish the job real quick, you know. But by doing that, I think that his base implodes. I think he is a guaranteed loss at the midterms. And I think given the political dynamic in the US where we are so hyper polarized that it becomes existential for him in terms of he will go to prison. So if he loses the Midterms, he gets impeached immediately. He then obviously loses power in 2028, which needs to happen no matter what. Given that right now, our Constitution makes it very clear. No third term for you. But I think that we would. I mean, look, many, many a thing can happen between now and the 2028 elections. But I would imagine if Trump goes down, the Republican Party loses power, Democrats get into office. They have already vowed that they're going to go after him legally. So I have a feeling he's going to fight like this is existential. So he's going to start making decisions that would seem rational to anybody else or irrational to anybody else will seem rational to him, because he absolutely must find a way to victory, better to prolong it, leverage a war to stay in power, etc. Etc. So walk me through if you think any of that analysis is off base or if I'm missing something, but what do you see if he makes the fateful decision to go after Carg Island?

[D]

Yeah, no, I agree with your analysis. I think a lot of his thinking is, how does he stay in power? Because we know exactly what's going to happen if he leaves office. The Democrats are going to come to power and they're going to go after him and his family. We know this because that's what happened in 2020. When. When. Remember the raid in Mar a Lago? Remember all these. All this lawfare against Trump? Remember that he lost his court case and almost bankrupted him? Okay. So you can imagine that there's going to be a lot of people who want revenge for what Trump is doing in his exact second term. So Trump cannot afford to leave office. And so his personal calculus is, how do I stay in power? Well, stay in power for the ballot box is, you know, very risky. But, you know, if he starts a war, and this war is at first supported by both the Democrats and the Republicans, but then slowly this war spirals out of control, and then there's a lot of unrest around America, in which case he's forced to send the National Guard, and then he's forced to call the national draft in order to protect American interests in the Middle east, then he can conceivably stay in power for as long as this war continues. And we know this because of what happened to Zelensky in Ukraine. Yeah, exactly. Because of the war in Ukraine. They've suspended their constitution and they suspended elections, and Zelensky is still in power. Remember when Zelenskyy visited Trump in the White House? Trump asked Zelensky, hey, hey, can you really do that? And then Zelensky is like, you like this, don't you? Right? So I think, unfortunately, that is going through the mind of Trump right now. I just want to step back and. Because a lot of people are saying, well, why didn't Trump just declare victory and go home? The problem with this is if Trump were to leave the Middle east, basically the American empire would collapse. So let's go over, using game theory, what would happen if Trump were just to say, you know what, you know, I killed the leadership, I destroyed the nuclear weapons program, I set back the ballistics program. Everything I wanted to accomplish, I've already accomplished. So I'm going to go home, guys. Goodbye. Okay, what happened is this. Iran would say to the gcc, hey, you've destroyed our country. You have to pay back reparations. If you don't pay back reparations, first of all, we'll continue to attack you and destroy your oil infrastructure. And second of all, we won't let you use the trading moves. And so now the GCC is forced to take $400 in sovereign wealth funds. Before, this money was going to the United States. Now it's going to Iran to build back their economy and infrastructure and their military, right? But then the Japanese and the South Koreans are like, well, we just saw what happened, right, where the Americans attacked Iran and Iran fought back and destroyed the gcc. And the Americans refused to defend the gcc. Remember, the entire point of this petrodollar agreement is that Americans would guarantee the security of, of the gcc. And when this war started out, what we know happened is that the Americans abandoned their bases, changed into civilian clothes, and moved into hotel, into hotels because they could not stop the Iranians from raining drones and ballistic missiles on their bases. So the South Koreans and the Japanese would be like, okay, well, we can't trust Americans, so we need to remilitarize as soon as possible. So let's just not depend on the Americans and remilitarize. But what that also means is they stop buying U.S. treasuries, right? And so the U.S. dollar loses buyers from the Middle east and loses buyers from East Asia. And so the dollar could potentially collapse in value. And Now America has $40 trillion in debt, which forces an economic crisis in America, a great reset financial depression. But you'll have riots in the streets. And then you go to Europe. The Europeans are like, the Americans are suffering from depression. And the Americans are not able to defend their allies. Why are we fighting the Russians again? Why don't we just come to an agreement with the Russians. Why are we sending our men to die in Ukraine? Right. So now Russia becomes the dominant power in Europe and Iran becomes a dominant power in, in the Middle east and America is, you know, imploding back in Western hemisphere. Is that a situation that the American government that Trump would, would countenance? I don't think it is. So. So there's really no possibility of America retreating from this war. America can only escalate, unfortunately.

[A]

Yeah. There's another piece that I think is getting lost in all of this, which is Trump went to the Middle east and secured, I don' it, $2 trillion in investment promises into the US which will largely go into AI infrastructure. And if he doesn't manage to restabilize the Middle east and make sure that the GCC countries don't have to spend that money on their own defense, they're going to pull all of that money to defend their country. That causes a shock, a potential collapse of the AI bubble or burst of the AI bubble. And so right now the American stock market, so as you well know, we have a grotesquely K shaped economy. And the only thing propping up spending right now is that the wealthy few at the top are still buying a bunch of stuff. And that creates this illusion that the economy is doing okay. Ish. And that stops if AI implodes. And AI doesn't have to not be real. AI is real. But if the money stops flowing in, they're not able to get the infrastructure investments. They need to see this across the finish line so that the revenues can catch up. Because right now there's still a massive gap. We find ourselves in a position where the one thing propping up the US economy, poof. Goes away. And so it's like everything you just said and then squared. Because you've got the second thing waiting in the wings. If the first one doesn't kill the dollar, the second one could kill the thing holding up the economy.

[D]

No, I completely agree. It's a very dire situation.

[A]

That's it for part one. Make sure you are subscribed so you do not miss part two. Coming up soon, let's talk about a pattern that is guaranteed to be killing your progress. You know what you need to do. You need consistent nutrition. We all do. You need vitamins, probiotics, greens. We all know that we should be doing more of it. When your morning gets chaotic, you skip it. When you travel, you skip it. When you routine, routine breaks, everything tends to break. And that inconsistency compounds against you every single day. AG1 is designed to solve the execution problem. One scoop 8 ounces of water and you're done. You're getting 75 plus ingredients, vitamins and minerals, pre and probiotics, nutrient dense superfoods, everything that used to require six, seven different supplements and perfect planning now happens in one drink that takes about 30 seconds to make. Right now, AG1 is giving you $87 worth of free gifts with first subscription. You get a welcome kit, travel packs, vitamin D3 plus, K2 and flavor samples. Click the link in the show notes or visit drinkag1.comimpact to claim this offer.

[B]

RingCentral's AI receptionist uses Voice AI to answer on the first ring so you'll never miss a call again. In just a few minutes, you can personalize your own AI receptionist to answer questions, route calls and schedule appointments, and even send texts in multiple languages. Plus, it's easy to scale Create unlimited AI receptionists across any phone system. It's all powered by one reliable platform for effortless AI communications. See for yourself at ringcentral. Com ringcentral Voice of your Business.