Yesterday Today Tomorrow

Inseong J Kim: Hello, this is Inseong Kim from Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, and Happy Father's Day. I think this is a great time for us to bring our social order back that makes sense for our society. Today, I am going to talk about a continuation of the Iron War. This is Part 3. Welcome back.

In Part 1, we talked about why America ended up at war with Iran. In Part 2, we talked about how the petrodollar was born and how the petrodollar has been challenged, including by China testing the dollar's place in the world. Today, we are going to dig a little deeper. We want to ask a simple question: what actually gives the dollar its power, and how can we sustain the dollar to stay strong?

A digital currency is coming. I don't know the relevancy of this topic yet, but I do think it's important for us to understand that digital currency does not go away from national connection. It will be very difficult, in my opinion. Let’s think of American power like a three-legged stool in terms of the monetary system. The first leg is the dollar itself, based on the fact that almost every country in the world uses it, trusts it, and keeps it in the bank.

The second leg is something we can touch, like industrial power. This includes factories, ships, computer chips, and actual things that we make, like necessary items. Everything that we make is industrial power. The petrodollar connects to that industrial power. In the beginning, we had all that power put together.

The third leg is harder to see. It is soft power, but it is just as real. It's how much the world still likes America. It involves our movies, music, schools, and universities—how we educate children and the simple feeling that America is still a place worth admiring. That is an important power. A stool needs all three legs to be well-balanced to stay standing. For a long time, America leaned hardest on the first leg: the money, the dollar, and the petrodollar, while letting the second leg of industrial power and factories get weaker.

Now quietly, that third leg has started to wobble too. Cancel culture, along with a wave of unwholesome content out of Hollywood, has kept America's soft power from flourishing the way it once did. Back when America was producing beautiful music and films, the whole world wanted to be a part of it. They admired that art and culture. That is not a small thing; it's a big part of it. Ask immigrants or other countries why they like America so much.

That matters more than it might seem. We can't just fix the dollar and the factories and ignore how the world feels about us. People keep using currency and money because they trust that country, its courts, its schools, and its word. We can force people to go along with us for a little while, but we cannot force them to actually like us or to choose us when they don't have to.

That kind of trust is built slowly over many years through culture and by keeping promises. It can be lost much faster than it was ever earned. It is a bit like a marriage. Love and trust are what hold two people together, not force. That's how we should view relations between nations. They have to like us, admire us, and give us respect without force.

At the same time, we can't ignore military power either. Strength is still what keeps the balance steady and holds the larger order in place. It worked for a long time after World War II. Just think back to this June when the jets from the Blue Angels and the Air Force Thunderbirds roared over the White House lawn during the UFC Freedom 250 event, part of the lineup to America's 250th birthday coming soon.

It was a beautiful sight, and for a lot of Americans watching, it was a reminder that there is a real strength standing behind the country. It’s the kind that lets Americans feel protected and safe. So, here is the real question for today: is there one project, one stretch of railroad or shipping lane that most Americans have never even heard of, that is actually strong enough to hold all three of these legs up at the same time? That is what I want to talk about today.

There is something worth noting in the corridor called IMEC, the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor. This wasn't just some small idea that India and a few Gulf countries came up with on their own. It is actually the centerpiece of a much bigger plan led by the world's wealthiest democracies, the G7. Once we understand that bigger plan, the corridor stops looking like some side project and starts looking like the real test of whether America can still deliver on what it promises.

The G7 represents the world's wealthiest democratic nations. Through IMEC, it brings Middle Eastern partners into the same circle, all united around a simple promise: free trade between countries based on shared, similar values. That's the deeper logic behind this whole corridor. Trading with fellow freedom-loving nations builds something that lasts, while leaning too heavily on trade with a communist-run country led us down a dead end.

That is what we are experiencing. We are not the only ones; we are just beginning to experience it, but many other countries have already gone through it. Australia got out, as did Japan. Everyone feels some kind of threat from the model of the Belt and Road Initiative. The bigger plan is called the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. According to the G7's own paperwork, the goal is to raise $600 billion by 2027.

That number exists for one reason: China has spent roughly a trillion dollars over the last 10 years building roads, ports, and railways all over the world through the Belt and Road Initiative. This is, in plain terms, a contest over who the rest of the world trusts more to build what they need. The two plans are built differently, and that difference is the whole point.

According to the G7's own materials, projects under this plan are supposed to follow clear rules, open books, fair labor standards, and an honest look at whether the country can actually pay back what it borrows before anyone breaks ground. China's Belt and Road Initiative has often worked differently, with deals made quietly between governments and details kept out of the public view.

That's part of why the Belt and Road Initiative has drawn criticism in places like Sri Lanka, where a country that couldn't pay back its loans ended up handing over a long lease on its own ports that China can now use. The American-backed plan, IMEC, is designed to try to avoid that. That's the difference. It's a real, honest attempt to do things differently, even if that means moving slower.

There is one more wrinkle worth noting because it makes the story less simple than it sounds. While the G7 is leading the money and planning, a lot of actual construction work on the ground, including parts of the railway corridor itself, has been done by Chinese state-owned construction companies. They won the work in the normal way by bidding for it, in the same way companies from South Korea or France have. It's a good reminder that building things in the real world doesn't always split neatly along the lines we draw on a map.

That is the reality we're facing. But can we break through these differences? When leaders talk about why this corridor matters, they are really asking something bigger: can this visible project prove that the West's $600 billion plan can actually compete with China on the same ground China has dominated for a decade? This becomes a sensitive issue because there is conflict involved.

Every month this corridor sits unfinished isn't just bad news for shipping times; it's a visible sign watched closely by every other country trying to decide who to trust with their next big project. Trust is exactly what got tested on the other side of this story too: the Iron War. This year pulled back the curtain on something most Americans never expected. We heard about it, but we weren't sure: the covert Chinese interference working through Iran the whole time.

According to intelligence reports from this year, China supplied Iran with satellite intelligence and navigation support through the Beidou system. Shipping deals involved dual-use components used in missiles and drones. It was tracked sending shoulder-fired missiles toward Iran through third countries, all while publicly claiming neutrality.

This is what's really happening. That same government is asking the rest of the world to trust its Belt and Road loans. It's hard to make the case for trusting a system that is quietly arming the other side of a war. China also used the moment to push its currency, with Iran reportedly floating the yuan for passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Chinese oil payments to Iran are increasingly bypassing the dollar altogether.

This is a challenge we're facing. That steady stream of Chinese money is also what's been keeping Iran's war machine funded, which means Beijing's financial maneuvering isn't separate from Iran's aggression; it's part of what's enabling it to continue. Some would call that an indirect challenge to projects like IMEC, where free countries want to have free trade, but someone is interfering in it.

It's not a direct challenge, but it's more about chipping away at the financial system the railway was built to reinforce than blocking the railway itself. That is what is really happening behind the Iron War, the IMEC attempt, and the G7. Before we close, it's worth pausing on something happening as we record this. The G7 is meeting right now in France, from June 15th through 17th, and IMEC came up directly.

The Indian Prime Minister Modi addressed the summit and pointed straight back to the corridor we've been talking about. According to his own remarks, he wants to build on what he called the IMEC vision with a new partnership: the International Mobilization Partnership for Accelerating Connectivity and Trade. This extends the same model of G7 capital, Indian expertise, and local ownership to new corridors in Africa, Latin America, and the Pacific Islands.

He described IMEC as defining trade, local ownership, transparent financing, and a clear vision for long-term sustainability. It is almost the exact same language we've been using today to set it apart from the Belt and Road Initiative. There are two totally different kinds of approaches. One is a free, transparent, and trust-based program; the other is a covert, secret, and controlled debt-trap program. The world has to choose.

This isn't just coming from the summit alone, either. The 2025 NATO summit listed support for IMEC as one of its own outcomes. This is the background of the Iron War. This is a very sensitive topic while the whole world is depending on the Chinese supply chain. We must figure out how we can balance the situation we're in without serious conflict because the world does not want war.

We want peace, but we cannot continue in the same direction we've been going. Everyone feels the same way. I think balancing the supply chain will be a great idea, and that is what IMEC is about. Distracting from this approach shouldn't happen because China doesn't have to dominate the world. We can balance it and share the burden. That is a great idea and what we're trying to accomplish.

A few more details from this week are worth noting. France is chairing the summit under President Macron, who made global economic imbalance a central theme. The stability of the Strait of Hormuz is explicitly on this week's agenda, which is the same choke point we've talked about. South Korea was also invited this year. This was its second year running as a partner country, with President Yoon Suk Yeol attending alongside representatives from Brazil, Egypt, Kenya, Qatar, and many other countries, even Ukraine and the UAE.

For the first time ever, Syria is attending a G7 summit. Just last month, G7 trade ministers met specifically on critical mineral supply coordination. These are the real stories that everybody has to hear rather than one-sided, fractional stories designed to escalate tensions among Americans and the world. Fortunately, people are getting it. Whatever the hidden agenda or propaganda that worked for a while, people are waking up.

They are seeing what is propaganda and what is actually going on. People have to make a decision about which way to go because there is definitely a different approach that we've been waking up to. We must implement these issues we're in. So, where does that leave us? Once we set the bigger speeches aside, it leaves us somewhere better than a question mark. This corridor isn't just a sound idea; it is a necessary one.

It is persuadable precisely because it starts from a different foundation than anything China has ever offered, which makes everyone uncomfortable. For nations that love freedom, believe in the rule of law, and want a future they choose rather than one they mortgage away, IMEC is a real beginning. This is not because the dollar amount is bigger, but because the approach itself is built on something the China model never offers: transparency instead of secrecy, partnership instead of dependency, and trust instead of a debt trap dressed up as generosity.

That is something to think about. This is also where we have to step back and think hard about how we actually approach this. A nuclear-armed Iran isn't just one more obstacle on the list; it could be the thing that ends IMEC outright. That's how important it is. A corridor built on stability across the Gulf cannot survive the region living under the shadow of Iranian nuclear weapons.

That risk has to be faced honestly, not folded quietly into the long list of problems that diplomacy will eventually sort out. That's the reality we're facing, along with a bigger picture based on inclusive information rather than fractional information. When you put this next to everything else we covered across this series, the bigger picture comes into focus.

The war we talked about in Part 1 wasn't a detour from this story; it was the same story. Going to war with Iran was never just about one country's missiles and one country's nuclear program in isolation. It was about keeping the door open for everything we talked about today: the corridor, the currency, and the culture. These can only exist if the region isn't held hostage by a regime racing toward bombs.

Seen that way, our pursuit here is never just about building an economic corridor. It is about the survival of freedom itself. Everything else—the rails, ports, dollars, music, and film—all get to exist because that fight is won first. Freedom must come first. Here is the part that has to be said plainly, though, because this isn't just a piece about praising IMEC favorably.

It is about holding IMEC to its own promise. The entire case for choosing this corridor over the Belt and Road Initiative rests on one claim: that it is actually different, transparent instead of secret, and accountable instead of having buried fine print that nobody outside the deal ever sees. That difference isn't just a slogan; it is the whole argument.

If IMEC doesn't deliver on it, or if it ends up being just another opaque arrangement where promises are made and nobody can check whether they were kept, then world citizens will have to pay real money and accept real risks for nothing. We would just be trading one closed system for a different flag on the same kind of closed system. That is something we have to pay attention to as world citizens, and nobody should accept that trade.

America has to be held to this standard exactly as hard as China has been—no exceptions and no excuses. The only thing that makes this corridor worth a single dollar or a single life is that it actually keeps its word when no other model ever had to. Thank you so much for listening to our program.

This information is extremely important for understanding the bigger picture regarding what is happening in Iran and the G7. Thank you for listening to Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. We will be back next week. Thank you.