> highly likely that they will use this to get their country back on it's economic feet, definitely get the nuclear program finished

Yes on feet. No on nuclear. Iran's economy, for the near term, is trashed. It's going to need to choose between sovereighty and wealth. If it chooses the formewr, it lacks the resources to complete the project. If it chooses the latter, it probably goes with China, which means its nuclear programme will be constrained.

> force the end of the PetroDollar in the process

Sigh. Petrodollar hypothesis hasn't been a thing for decades. Various countries price and settle oil in currencies other than dollars. Dollar demand due to oil is a vanishing fraction of total international dollar demand. Like, oil could swap to being entirely traded in Bitcoin and it might make the next Fed meeting's agenda.

▲

Jean-Papoulos a day ago | parent | next [-]

>Petrodollar hypothesis hasn't been a thing for decades.

https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/the-dominant-dollar-f...

80% of oil trade in 2023 in dollars. Mostly importantly, the gulf states do in exchange for US security guarantees, which Trump just blew up in spectacular fashion. Decades of Middle Eastern policy have just been undone because of the US half-committing to this war.

▲

JumpCrisscross a day ago | parent [-]

> 80% of oil trade in 2023 in dollars

Compare oil trading as a fraction of dollar volumes in the 1970s, when petrodollar was a thing, to today. Also, the JPMorgan Chase estimate is almost certainly too high for dollar volumes in oil trading–I sat on a desk in Connecticut almost two decades ago and we traded oil settled for in sterling.

> gulf states do in exchange for US security guarantees

This is still 1970s geopolitics. The Gulf states get U.S. security guarantees in exchange for basing, foreign policy suzerainty, et cetera. We don't need Gulf money to finance our deficit anymore. (See: your article re. the UAE.)

Petrodollar is a fun thing to talk about. But it hasn't had explanatory or policy value since the Cold War. American consumption and capital markets drive global dollar demand. The petrodollar, if it has any use, is as a Big Mac index for general dollar use. It's a signal, not a driver.

▲

pjc50 a day ago | parent [-]

There's still a bit of this going on with other countries, such as the UK-Qatar deal which clearly mentions inward investment as a motivator: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-qatar-deepen-defence-ties...

(not a "petro pound" though!)

I think the main importance of the "Petroyuan" is simply sanctions evasion. The US claims jurisdiction over all dollar transactions, so countries need to use something else.

	▲	JumpCrisscross a day ago \| parent [-]
		> the main importance of the "Petroyuan" is simply sanctions evasion. The US claims jurisdiction over all dollar transactions, so countries need to use something else Correct. And I'm not saying tracking in what currency different commodities are settled isn't important. But it's as a signal of financial and trade flows. Not an end in itself. It was an end in itself in the 1970s, with the petrodollar and–far-more important to America–petrodollar recycling. Dollar hegemony is built on American consumption, first, and capital markets, second. The power of the renmimbi rests in Beijing's production power.

▲

imtringued a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The petrodollar thing isn't about spreading the US dollar. The US military is the world's biggest consumer of oil and has bases all around the world. US military strength depends on the ability to acquire oil at favorable terms and the best way to do that is by paying in USD. Countries that trade oil in USD are implicitly economic allies of the US military. You could think of oil as a weapon here.

▲

pjc50 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> It's going to need to choose between sovereighty and wealth.

I don't follow this at all? Is there some implication that selling oil to China is constraining sovereignty? Is there some nuclear deal between Iran and China I'm not aware of?

As an autocratic regime, they (IRGC) have no choice but to pursue not only sovereignty but domestic control.

> Petrodollar hypothesis hasn't been a thing for decades

Yeah, this has always seemed overstated. However it circulates in exactly the kind of rightwing paranoia circles which strongly influence the current US government.

	▲	JumpCrisscross a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Is there some implication that selling oil to China is constraining sovereignty? China helping Iran rebuild means China getting more say in Tehran than they have right now. And to date, nuclear non-proliferation has been a serious issue for Beijing. I can't see China being thrilled about a new nuclear power one country away. > it circulates in exactly the kind of rightwing paranoia circles which strongly influence the current US government When did it make the jump from the far left to the far right?