The End Of The Petro-Dollar

The United Arab Emirates (UAE), a founding member of OPEC since 1967, announced its withdrawal from OPEC and OPEC+ effective May 1st. This decision, according to the UAE energy minister, aims to facilitate meeting changing demand, but it represents a significant blow to OPEC amidst a global energy crisis triggered by the Iran war. The markets are reacting to this supply shock, with gas prices reaching record highs and oil prices surpassing $100 a barrel. A critical aspect of this development is a warning issued by the UAE days before its OPEC announcement. The UAE indicated it might be forced to use yuan or other currencies and potentially sell off US assets if it ran low on dollars during the Iran war. This prompted a response from the US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessant, who stated that providing dollar swap lines to Gulf allies would "prevent the disorderly sale of US assets." Collectively, the GCC countries hold over $2 trillion in US assets, suggesting that a mass sale could destabilize US markets. To prevent this, the US is considering offering cheap dollar access to these nations. Concurrently, the US president has expressed intentions to "take over Cuba almost immediately," a move seen by some as a distraction from these deeper financial shifts. This situation transcends a mere oil story; it's a narrative of power and leverage, impacting gas prices, gold, Bitcoin, the US dollar, and the future of the global monetary system. To understand its significance, one must revisit the past 50 years of the financial system. In 1971, President Nixon ended the gold convertibility of the US dollar, meaning the dollar was no longer backed by gold. This raised a fundamental question: why would oil-producing nations sell a finite resource for a currency that could be printed infinitely? In response, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger negotiated a secret deal with Saudi Arabia in 1974. Revealed only in 2016 through a Bloomberg FOIA request, the agreement stipulated that Saudi Arabia would price its oil exclusively in US dollars. These dollars would then be recycled back into US Treasury bonds, effectively lending money to the US. In exchange, the US would provide military protection and weapons to Saudi Arabia. This arrangement, known as the petrodollar system, created a permanent global demand for the US dollar, as every country needing oil first had to acquire dollars. OPEC became the enforcement agent for this system, managing oil supply and discipline among producers to maintain the dollar-denominated pricing. Currently, in 2026, the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency for oil payments is being challenged. Economists like Luke Groman argue that OPEC is only necessary in a world where the reserve currency lacks a real anchor. If the dollar were backed by a tangible asset like gold, a cartel manipulating oil prices wouldn't be needed. However, with the dollar being fiat currency, backed only by trust, OPEC's role was to keep oil prices stable and high enough to make selling oil for dollars seem reasonable. If oil producers decide the dollar isn't worth much and a competitor offers a currency backed by something real, OPEC's purpose, and the dollar's anchor, disappear. The UAE's recent actions appear to be testing this very premise. The original petrodollar agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia expired in 2024. Despite initial media skepticism, this expiration was confirmed and marked a significant shift. The subsequent Iran war, starting February 28th this year, further complicated matters, creating an economic crisis for Gulf States. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, which handles 20% of global oil and gas supply, halted the economic model of these states. Saudi Arabia, for instance, needed oil at $100 a barrel to cover government spending before the war. With exports disrupted, economists estimate it would now need oil at $170 a barrel to generate the same revenue. However, the paper price of oil is being suppressed through the futures market, leading Saudi Arabia to bleed money and borrow extensively—over $100 billion in the last four quarters, an unprecedented level. Since Gulf currencies are pegged to the US dollar, they require substantial dollar reserves to prevent collapse. With declining reserves and shrinking economies due to curtailed oil exports, these nations face a severe threat to their monetary systems. The war, initiated by their US ally, has exacerbated their financial predicament. Their response: demand more dollars, hinting at selling US assets like Treasuries and stocks if swap lines aren't provided. China is emerging as a significant winner in this geopolitical and economic chess match. The timeline reveals a strategic move by the UAE: on April 14th, the UAE Crown Prince met with Xi Jinping in China; on April 15th, the UAE and China signed 24 trade and investment deals worth over $100 billion. On April 19th, the Wall Street Journal reported the UAE's threat to use yuan. On April 22nd, Scott Bessant agreed to swap lines. On April 28th, the UAE left OPEC. This sequence suggests the UAE secured its relationship with China first, then leveraged it to gain concessions from the US. Even former President Trump acknowledged the UAE's importance as an ally and the likelihood of them receiving the requested swap line. Bessant's justification for the swap lines—to maintain order in dollar funding markets and prevent disorderly sales of US assets—is an admission of the Gulf States' financial leverage over the US. Ironically, Bessant later called China an "unreliable trading partner," likely referring to China's reluctance to sell critical rare earths to the US military. The US military depends on these rare earths and tungsten for missile interceptors, fighter jets, and precision-guided weapons. China controls about 60% of global rare earth mining and an even larger share of processing. This dependency suggests that the US might be running low on crucial military supplies and cannot produce new ones without Chinese materials, explaining the extended ceasefires in the Iran war. The US has operated for 50 years as if printing dollars and recycling them through financial markets could substitute for actual production. China, meanwhile, has invested in tangible assets: copper mines, ports, rare earth processing, and its own payment system parallel to Swift. This long-term strategy is now paying off. The implications for the US dollar are a hastened decline as the world's reserve currency. In 2001, the dollar constituted 72% of global foreign exchange reserves; today, it's in the 50s, still the largest share but no longer a monopoly. Gold is increasingly replacing it, now representing a larger share of central bank reserves than Treasury bonds. Central banks are buying gold at the fastest pace in 50 years, largely due to a loss of trust in Treasuries after the US froze Russia's foreign exchange reserves in 2022. This act demonstrated the US's willingness to weaponize its financial privilege, prompting other nations to diversify their reserves. China has also built alternative international trade infrastructure, with Yuan clearing banks operating globally and major mining companies shifting to yuan-based commodity pricing. The decline in trust also means investors demand higher interest rates to hold US debt, leading to rising 10-year US Treasury yields. Luke Groman observed that every time the 10-year yield approached 4.4%, a level signaling potential dysfunction in the Treasury market, the US government, particularly Trump, would de-escalate tensions related to the Iran war. This indicates that the bond market is effectively dictating US foreign policy, as a dysfunctional Treasury market would be catastrophic for the US economy. However, the ongoing energy crisis means Asian countries also need dollars. Injecting more dollars stabilizes bond markets in the short term, but if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, this liquidity will turbocharge commodity inflation, which in turn causes bond markets to revolt as investors shun assets eroded by inflation. Scott Bessant's strategy is essentially buying time, trading short-term Treasury stability for a potentially larger problem if the war persists. Iran, aware of these dynamics, is fighting an economic war, not a military one. The conflict has two bleak outcomes. Either Iran collapses, leading to an oil spike and global recession, or the global supply chain collapses first, causing an inflation spike and recession. The US strategy of blockading Iran into submission assumes Iran will break first, but Iran's allies like Russia and China provide support. Keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed significantly impacts global fertilizer trade,