Q&A Updated

Is Jiang Xueqin Credible? A Strong but Narrow Track Record

Jiang Xueqin has been right more often than wrong on the predictions that have resolved, but the sample is small and heavily concentrated in one subject: the US-Iran war. As of 2026-10-28, 17 of his 22 resolved predictions are confirmed and 5 are wrong, a headline accuracy of 77%. That is a good record. It is not yet enough to settle whether his method of predictive history is reliable across topics.

The live numbers

jiangpredictions.com has extracted 463 predictions from 184 of his YouTube lectures (183 are transcribed). Here is where they stand as of 2026-10-28:

The 77% figure is confirmed divided by confirmed plus wrong. It ignores the 416 pending calls, which is about 90% of everything tracked. A tally built on 22 outcomes can move a lot with a few new resolutions, so treat 77% as a snapshot, not a stable rate. The full methodology is on the accuracy page.

What he got right

The confirmed calls cluster around Iran, but they are not trivial.

Some of these are riskier than others. P011 and P041 were made years before resolution and named specific outcomes. By contrast, P016 and P071 are "will not" calls, which are easier to land, and a few entries (P088, P105) carry no recorded prediction date, so they say less about foresight.

What he got wrong

The most visible miss is the Republican ticket. In May 2024, Jiang predicted Trump would pick Nikki Haley as his vice president (P002a). He did not. It sits beside the confirmed Vance call (P002b), so the same lecture produced both a hit and a miss.

The full list of misses, with the sources behind each ruling, is on the wrong predictions page. We link to it deliberately. A tracker that buries its failures cannot support a claim about anyone's reliability, and the five wrong calls are part of the 77%, not an appendix to it.

Where the caveats bite

Pending is the biggest number. 416 predictions have no verdict. Many carry long timelines or are phrased in ways that resist verification. If a large share of them miss, the headline accuracy will fall. If they hit, it will rise. Nobody can say which yet.

Topic concentration. Of the 17 confirmed predictions, 10 sit in the US-Iran war, Middle East and Iran-internal categories. A strong record on one conflict that Jiang studied closely does not automatically transfer to, say, China or the global economy.

Hindsight in extraction. The predictions are pulled from lectures after the fact. Some calls were stated precisely and early; others, like P018 on the war lasting weeks to years, are broad enough that confirmation is easy. Readers should look at the timeline and prediction date on each entry rather than trust the label alone.

Resolution depends on reporting. A prediction is marked confirmed when news reporting shows it happened, such as coverage of the strike on Khamenei for P088. That makes verdicts only as good as the sources behind them.

So, is Jiang Xueqin reliable?

On the evidence available today, he has earned a hearing. Calling a Trump win and a US-Iran war two years ahead, plus the Hormuz closure and Mojtaba Khamenei's succession, is a record that most forecasters would be glad to have. He has also missed, and the tracker says so openly.

What the data cannot yet show is whether predictive history is credible as a general method rather than a good run on one region. That answer depends on the 416 pending calls. Until they resolve, the fair reading is more right than wrong, on a small and narrow sample. Check the accuracy page for the current count, and judge each prediction on its own record.

Browse all tracked predictions · Accuracy analysis · All blog posts

Track his next call

He predicted the Iran war, Trump's comeback, and the fall of Khamenei — on camera, before they happened. Get a free email the moment his next prediction is confirmed or proven wrong.