#usirancrisis — Public Fediverse posts

https://www.europesays.com/iran/268569/ From Security Talks to Strategic Mediation: The Munir Mission in Tehran #AsimMunir #Iran #IranPakistanRelations #MakkahDefenceAgreement #MiddleEastDiplomacy #PakistanForeignPolicy #RegionalSecurity #Tehran #TehranVisit #TFT #TheFridayTimes #USIranCrisis

President Carter tried to free them. Operation Eagle Claw failed. 8 men died. The hostages stayed.
#books #bookreviews #USIranCrisis #AmericanForeignPolicyBooks
https://thisgrandpablogs.com/iran-hostage-crisis-book-book-review/

https://www.europesays.com/3192915/ Fuel Subsidy: Nigerians Pay More Amidst Global Interventions #business #CostOfLiving #DieselPrice #Economy #EnergyCrisis #FuelSubsidy #InflationNigeria #NigeriaEconomy #NigerianGovernment #PetrolPrice #PetroleumProducts #USIranCrisis

https://www.europesays.com/uk/1147634/ Fuel Subsidy: Nigerians Pay More Amidst Global Interventions #Business #CostOfLiving #DieselPrice #Economy #EnergyCrisis #FuelSubsidy #InflationNigeria #NigeriaEconomy #NigerianGovernment #PetrolPrice #PetroleumProducts #UK #UnitedKingdom #USIranCrisis

Iran FM credits Türkiye with blocking efforts to destabilize Iran https://www.byteseu.com/2214804/ #AbbasAraghchi #HAKANFİDAN #Iran #Israel #MiddleEast #Mossad #Russia #Turkey #TürkiyeIranRelations #USIranCrisis

Crisis deepens in the Middle East as the US launches consecutive airstrikes on Iran, implements a naval blockade, and threatens infrastructure strikes. Tehran retaliates with regional missile and drone attacks. https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/world/us-renews-iran-strikes-reimposes-naval-blockade-as-regional-tensions-escalate-hke0cgc3?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #USIranCrisis #StraitOfHormuz #MiddleEastNews #Centcom #Geopolitics

پاکستان کے لیے سب سے بڑا امتحان: کیا اسلام آباد امریکہ-ایران کشیدگی میں غیر جانبدار رہ پائے گا؟ کے نیوز اردو کا اداریہ

https://kaynewsurdu.com/2026/04/21/us-iran-talks-islamabad-pakistan-mediation-diplomacy-analysis/

#KayNewsUrdu #PakistanDiplomacy #USIranCrisis #MiddleEast #Geopolitics #Islamabad #ForeignPolicy #Neutrality #StraitOfHormuz #BreakingNews

https://www.europesays.com/people/24677/ US–Iran Crisis Escalates: Trump’s Strait of Hormuz Naval Blockade Backed by Netanyahu as Tehran Warns It’s ‘Ready for War and Talks’ #BenjaminNetanyahu #centcom #DonaldTrump #InternationalLaw #IranNegotiations #IranSanctions #IranTensions #MaximumPressure #MiddleEastSecurity #NavalBlockade #OilChokepoint #ReadyForWar #StraitOfHormuz #USIranCrisis #USIsraelAlliance

https://www.europesays.com/iran/62207/ US and Iranian officials begin high-stakes peace talks in Pakistan to resolve war #Iran #IranWar #JDVance #Pakistan #Talks/Negotiations #UnitedStates #USIranCrisis

SHOCKING CLAIM: Unproven Claims Link Türkiye to F-15 Downing as Ankara Cries Disinformation  https://www.byteseu.com/1920629/ #Disinformation #F15Downing #GeopoliticalRisk #HAKANFİDAN #IranWar #MANPADS #MiddleEastConflict #NATOTensions #Turkey #Türkiye #USIranCrisis

The Long Ledger, Addendum

The Realignment Has Already Begun

The Iran Conflict, the Petrodollar, and the Economic Pivot Nobody Voted For

A caveat before anything else: this post was written in late March 2026, while the conflict is still active and the full picture is still forming. Some of what is documented here will look different in six months; responsible analysis of an ongoing situation requires being honest about that. What follows focuses on the economic and structural shifts already visible in the data, rather than on motivations that remain contested or unclear.

With that said: if you read the four previous installments of this series and found yourself thinking the argument sounded tidier than history usually is, the last few weeks have offered an uncomfortable amount of confirmation.

The Conflict’s Economic Footprint, Immediately

The strikes began on February 28, 2026. Within days, the economic consequences were visible across multiple markets simultaneously, and they did not resolve in the direction most analysts had anticipated.

Oil prices rose roughly 45% in the weeks following the initial strikes, with crude topping $110 per barrel. Goldman Sachs suggested those elevated prices could persist through 2027. Heading into 2026, the market had been soft: crude was trading near $58 per barrel in early January, most analysts expected it to stay near $60 through the first half of the year, and major oil companies had already announced cuts to dividends and share buyback programs as they prepared for a difficult earnings year. The conflict reversed that trajectory overnight.

The cost of the operation itself has been significant: estimates suggest roughly $11 billion was spent in just the first six days, with the Pentagon subsequently requesting $200 billion in additional war funding from the White House. That is a substantial fiscal commitment arriving on top of existing deficit pressures, and its long-term implications for U.S. debt carry costs are not trivial.

European natural gas markets swung sharply with each signal of potential de-escalation or renewed escalation, reflecting Europe’s particular exposure to Middle Eastern energy flows. Aviation and tourism across the broader region were disrupted almost immediately. The financial market volatility was global, but the pain was not distributed evenly.

Europe’s Deliberate Distance

One of the more structurally significant aspects of the conflict’s opening weeks has been Europe’s explicit non-participation, and the mechanism through which that non-participation was communicated deserves attention.

NATO airspace was not made available for the operation. That is not simply a logistical detail; it is a geopolitical signal of considerable weight. NATO airspace access is one of the alliance’s most tangible expressions of collective commitment, and its absence here communicated, without a formal statement, that European member states did not consider themselves party to this conflict and were not prepared to absorb its consequences as alliance obligations.

This matters economically as much as militarily. Europe’s energy infrastructure is heavily dependent on Gulf supply chains; European natural gas markets have been among the most volatile in the conflict’s wake. By declining to formally participate, European governments preserved their ability to pursue independent diplomatic and economic relationships with the conflict’s parties, including maintaining existing trade relationships and pursuing de-escalation channels that the United States and Israel were not pursuing. Whether that distance holds as the conflict develops is an open question, but the initial signal was deliberate and has been consistent.

The broader implication is a visible loosening of the assumption, central to the post-Cold War order, that NATO allies operate as a unified economic and security bloc. That assumption has been under strain since at least 2016; the Iran conflict has made the strain structural rather than rhetorical.

The Strait and the Currency Switch

Iran’s response to the military pressure has included a move that, in purely economic terms, may prove more consequential than anything that has happened on the battlefield.

By demanding that ships wishing to transit the Strait of Hormuz settle their cargo in Chinese yuan rather than U.S. dollars, Iran effectively turned the world’s most important energy chokepoint into a permissioned currency exchange. The strait does not simply close; it opens selectively, on terms that require yuan settlement.

The response from traders and exporters has been pragmatic and swift. An Indian tanker passed safely through the strait having paid for its cargo in yuan rather than dollars, in what market analysts are treating as a significant signal of changing norms. Iran is reportedly offering safe passage to vessels from countries it considers non-hostile, a list that includes China, India, and Pakistan. Ships carrying cargo for buyers willing to settle in yuan are moving; ships relying on dollar settlement are not.

This is not a theoretical challenge to the petrodollar system; it is a live operational one. Traders do not wait for geopolitical theory to resolve. They route around obstacles, and the obstacle in this case happens to have a currency denomination attached to it. Every cargo that clears the strait in yuan is a data point in a new settlement norm, and norms, once established in practice, are difficult to dislodge even after the emergency conditions that created them have passed.

Saudi Arabia had already, in June 2024, ended its exclusive commitment to dollar pricing for crude sales, signaling openness to accepting yuan, euros, yen, and rupees. The conflict has now applied direct pressure to accelerate that shift from occasional flexibility to structural practice, at least for Chinese-bound cargoes.

India’s Needle

India’s position in this situation is the most instructive subplot in the story, because it captures exactly the tension that defines the current global economic moment.

India is absorbing genuine pain. Ninety-one percent of its LPG comes from the Gulf; Qatar supplies roughly half its LNG; the rupee has dropped sharply, recently crossing 92 to the dollar, as roughly $3 billion was pulled from Indian equities. The disruption to Strait of Hormuz traffic is not an abstraction for India; it is an energy survival question.

And yet India is threading a needle. Its official posture is strategic non-alignment. Its practical behavior is the behavior of a nation that will use whatever currency Iran accepts to keep its energy supply moving. An Indian tanker paid in yuan and passed through. New Delhi has not announced a policy shift; it has simply done what its material circumstances required.

This is rational statecraft under constraint, and it is not a new pattern. Part 3 of this series documented the same dynamic operating across the developing world during the Washington Consensus era: nations formally operating within the American-designed financial architecture while quietly doing what their energy and trade realities demanded. What is new is the scale and visibility of the accommodation, and the speed with which it is happening.

The India-China dimension adds a layer of complexity that pure economic analysis cannot fully capture. Beijing and New Delhi are simultaneously BRICS partners, competing Asian powers with unresolved border disputes, and now co-participants in a yuan-based energy settlement corridor through the Strait of Hormuz. The yuan settlement arrangement works in the short term because both countries need it to. Whether it produces lasting economic alignment or simply a transactional arrangement that each party will abandon when circumstances allow is a genuinely open question, and one with significant implications for how the next phase of BRICS development unfolds.

Barclays is currently recommending positions that bet on rupee weakness against the yuan, noting that China has resilient exports and larger financial buffers against the oil shock while India faces relatively more structural vulnerability; the yuan has already rallied nearly 15% against the rupee since May 2025. If that divergence continues, it will create internal tension within the BRICS economic framework at exactly the moment when that framework is gaining its most visible momentum.

The BRICS Momentum Question

The conflict has arrived at a moment when the BRICS grouping was already undergoing its most significant expansion since its founding. The 2024 expansion brought in Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE, Egypt, Argentina, and Ethiopia, creating a coalition that represents a substantial portion of global GDP and an explicit shared interest in reducing dependence on dollar-denominated trade settlement.

The yuan-settlement corridor through Hormuz is, in effect, a live demonstration of what the BRICS economic architecture is designed to produce. It is happening under emergency conditions rather than as a planned institutional rollout, which is both its strength and its limitation. Its strength is that it has proven the infrastructure works: China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System processed the equivalent of $245 trillion in yuan-denominated transactions in 2025, a 43% increase from the prior year, and that system handled the Hormuz settlement routing without visible friction. Its limitation is that transactions conducted under duress, when the alternative is a blocked strait, are different from transactions conducted by choice, when dollar settlement remains available and comparably convenient.

The more durable question is whether the emergency demonstrates enough operational credibility to normalize yuan settlement in Gulf energy markets even after the conflict ends. If Saudi Arabia, which was already signaling flexibility on currency denomination before the conflict began, formally extends yuan acceptance to a significant share of its Chinese-bound exports, the petrodollar’s monopoly in the Gulf becomes a historical rather than a current fact. That shift would not require a dramatic announcement; it would happen incrementally, cargo by cargo, as traders and treasury departments update their default settlement practices.

That incremental process is, in fact, how the petrodollar itself was built in the 1970s. It was not a single agreement that changed everything overnight; it was a series of bilateral arrangements, practical accommodations, and institutional defaults that accumulated into a global norm over roughly a decade. The yuan’s path, if it has one, is likely to look similar.

What the Dollar’s Position Actually Is

The petrodollar’s resilience rests on three interlocking pillars: stable energy production in the Gulf, the predominance of dollar-based oil trade, and the broader security architecture maintained by the United States across the region. The current conflict is applying pressure to all three simultaneously.

That does not mean dollar collapse is imminent or even likely in any near-term horizon. The dollar’s structural advantages, including deep and liquid capital markets, a legal system that global investors trust for contract enforcement, and the sheer inertia of fifty years of financial architecture built around dollar settlement, are real and durable. De-dollarization, where it is happening, is a directional shift measured in decades rather than a cliff event measured in months.

What has changed is that the direction of travel is now clearly established and operationally demonstrated. The yuan has proven it can settle Gulf energy transactions through the world’s most strategically significant chokepoint. India, the world’s most populous nation and one of its fastest-growing economies, has used yuan settlement to keep its tankers moving. Saudi Arabia has already signaled currency flexibility. The BRICS expansion has created an institutional framework that gives these shifts political legitimacy and organizational infrastructure.

The unipolar moment in global finance, like the unipolar moment in global security, is not ending in a single dramatic event. It is ending in the accumulation of practical accommodations, each individually defensible as a rational response to immediate circumstances, that collectively describe a world organized differently than the one the Bretton Woods architects designed.

For the Classroom

The questions students are asking right now are the right ones, and they deserve answers grounded in the 125-year pattern this series has traced rather than in the news cycle’s daily noise.

“Why is gas so expensive?” Because the world’s most important oil transit route is now operating on terms that create friction in dollar-denominated markets; and because oil is still the hinge on which the global financial system turns, even in 2026.

“Why didn’t Europe join the war?” Because European governments calculated that the economic cost of participation, measured in energy market exposure, diplomatic flexibility, and alliance credibility with non-Western partners, exceeded the strategic benefit of solidarity. That calculation is itself a data point in the loosening of the post-Cold War Western consensus.

“Is BRICS actually important?” It is becoming more important in direct proportion to the stress being placed on the existing dollar-centered system. The Hormuz yuan corridor is not a BRICS policy; it is an emergency transaction. But it is exactly the kind of emergency transaction that builds the institutional case for the alternative architecture BRICS has been constructing.

“Will China take over?” The more accurate framing is that China is positioning to be one of several anchors in a multipolar financial system, rather than a replacement hegemon. Whether that system is more stable than the current one, or simply differently unstable, is a question that the next decade will answer.

Students who understand petrodollar architecture can read the India-yuan story and know what they’re actually seeing. Students who understand how Bretton Woods was built can understand how its successor might be built, and why the process looks messy and incremental rather than clean and deliberate. That is not cynicism about American power; it is literacy about how global systems actually change.

Further Reading

• Adam Tooze’s Chartbook (Substack) — the best near-real-time economic analysis of major geopolitical events; his ongoing work on dollar dominance and its challengers is essential context for this moment
• Asia Times coverage of the Hormuz-yuan dynamic — particularly strong on the Indian and Chinese dimensions and their structural implications
• Bloomberg Iran war financial coverage — strongest on oil market projections, European gas volatility, and the currency positioning data
• Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World (updated edition) — written before this moment but remains the clearest framework for understanding multipolar transition
• Odd Lots podcast (Bloomberg) — recent episodes on petrodollar fragility and yuan internationalization provide useful technical grounding for the currency shift arguments above
• Council on Foreign Relations ongoing conflict analysis — useful for documented facts on the military and diplomatic dimensions without the noise

This post is part of The Long Ledger series on BFWClassroom.com. The series examines 125 years of American economic foreign policy and its global consequences.

The Long Ledger: Part 2

The Shell Game

Cold War Geopolitics and the Redistribution of Colonial Wealth, 1945–1991

This post is part of The Long Ledger series on BFWClassroom.com. The series examines 125 years of American economic foreign policy and its global consequences.

The Cold War is usually taught as a clash of ideologies, and the ideologies were real. Liberal democracy and Soviet communism were genuinely incompatible visions of how human society should be organized, and both superpowers believed, at least partly, in what they were selling. Leaders on both sides made decisions based on genuine conviction. The fear of nuclear war was not theater. The Berlin Wall was not a metaphor.

But if you follow the money rather than the rhetoric, a different picture emerges alongside the ideological one: two industrial powers, standing in the rubble of a European colonial system that had just eaten itself alive, competing to absorb its markets, its resources, and its client relationships. The Cold War was, in significant part, a decades-long negotiation over who would inherit the economic infrastructure of empire. The shell was ideology. Underneath it, almost always, was a resource, a trade route, a labor market, or a currency arrangement.

That is not cynicism. It is accounting. And it is an accounting that makes the post-Cold War world considerably more legible than the purely ideological narrative allows.

What Decolonization Actually Disrupted

Between 1945 and 1975, dozens of nations across Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean gained formal independence from European colonial powers. This was, by any measure, a profound moral and political achievement. It was also an enormous economic disruption, and that disruption is the context without which Cold War interventions make no sense.

The European colonial system had been, among other things, a highly organized extraction network. British cotton came from Egypt and India; French rubber came from Indochina; Belgian copper came from the Congo; Dutch oil came from the East Indies. The metropolitan economies of Europe were structured around this inflow of cheap raw materials and the captive export markets that colonial relationships provided. When decolonization unraveled those relationships over the course of three decades, it didn’t simply change political maps; it left a vast, contested space of resources and trade relationships suddenly available for renegotiation.

The United States and the Soviet Union did not create this vacuum. European imperialism created it, and European weakness after WWII made it impossible to maintain. But both superpowers moved aggressively to fill it, each offering newly independent nations a development model, an alliance structure, and a set of economic relationships; and each understanding that the power that controlled more of that former colonial infrastructure would be structurally stronger in the long competition ahead. The Third World was not incidental to the Cold War. It was, in many respects, the primary arena.

The Marshall Plan as Economic Architecture

The Marshall Plan (1948–1952) is remembered, correctly, as a remarkable act of postwar generosity that helped rebuild Western Europe and prevented economic desperation from driving democratic governments toward communist parties. All of that is true. It is also true, and not in contradiction, that the Marshall Plan was the most sophisticated piece of economic foreign policy the United States had ever executed.

American manufacturers needed export markets. A devastated Europe could not buy American goods. The Marshall Plan rebuilt European purchasing power, and in doing so, it rebuilt the primary market for American exports. It was altruistic and strategic simultaneously, and the two motives were not in conflict; they pointed in the same direction. The economists who designed it understood that a stable, prosperous Western Europe would be a trading partner, a military ally, and a political bulwark against Soviet influence, all at once.

What the Marshall Plan did not do was extend those same reconstruction investments to the developing world, and that asymmetry shaped the next fifty years of global politics. When Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, or Jawaharlal Nehru in India sought comparable economic partnerships from the United States, what they generally received instead was strategic conditionality: align with us geopolitically, adopt our preferred economic policies, and we will consider assistance. The Non-Aligned Movement, founded at the Bandung Conference in 1955, was at its core a refusal of that conditionality; an assertion that newly independent nations should be able to pursue their own economic development without becoming pawns in someone else’s competition. The movement has been underreported in American history curricula, but it represented the political aspirations of the majority of the world’s population.

Collection of Posters promoting the Marshall plan and the sticker seen on most supply crates being delivered to European markets.

The Gold Standard’s End and the Petrodollar’s Birth

In August 1971, President Nixon announced that the United States would no longer honor the Bretton Woods commitment to exchange dollars for gold at $35 per ounce. This decision, often called the Nixon Shock, was one of the most consequential economic policy choices of the twentieth century, and it received relatively little public attention at the time.

The gold standard had functioned as a constraint on American spending. The Vietnam War, the Great Society social programs, and the general expansion of federal expenditure during the 1960s had created more dollars in circulation than American gold reserves could back at the agreed exchange rate. Foreign governments, particularly France under de Gaulle, had begun converting their dollar holdings to gold, draining American reserves. Nixon chose to sever the link rather than choose between military spending and domestic programs, and the global economy, having no viable alternative reserve currency, had little choice but to adapt.

What replaced the gold standard was not immediately obvious, but by the mid-1970s a new architecture was becoming clear. A series of agreements between the United States and Saudi Arabia, the details of which remain partially classified, established that Saudi Arabia would price its oil exports exclusively in U.S. dollars and would invest its surplus oil revenues in U.S. Treasury securities. In exchange, the United States would provide security guarantees and military equipment to the Saudi government. Other OPEC nations followed. The petrodollar system was born.

The implications were profound and durable. Any nation that needed to buy oil, which meant every industrialized nation on earth, needed to hold U.S. dollars to do so. Global demand for dollars was thus structurally guaranteed by the energy market rather than by any gold reserve. The United States gained the ability to run persistent trade deficits and finance its government debt at lower interest rates than any other country in the world, because the global economy had no practical alternative to holding its currency. This arrangement was not an act of economic genius so much as an act of extraordinary opportunism in a moment of structural necessity; but it became the financial foundation of American hegemony for the next fifty years. Understanding this system is essential for understanding nearly every major American foreign policy decision that followed.

The 1973 Oil Crisis as Proof of Concept

The OPEC oil embargo of 1973 demonstrated both the system’s power and its vulnerability in the same event. When Arab OPEC members cut off oil exports to the United States and the Netherlands in response to their support for Israel in the Yom Kippur War, the economic consequences were immediate and severe: gasoline prices quadrupled, long lines formed at filling stations across America, and the economy slipped into recession.

What the crisis also demonstrated, however, was that the petrodollar arrangement was structurally resilient even under attack. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf producers still needed a stable currency in which to denominate their exports and invest their surplus revenues, and no alternative to the dollar existed with comparable depth and liquidity. The crisis created short-term pain but ultimately reinforced the dollar’s centrality, because the remedy, paying more dollars for oil, generated more dollar demand rather than less. The petrodollar system survived its first major stress test, and American policymakers drew the conclusion that protecting Gulf energy stability was a core national interest; not primarily because Americans needed the oil, but because the dollar’s global role depended on oil being priced in dollars.

Proxy Wars as Resource Contests

The hot conflicts of the Cold War era, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and dozens of smaller interventions, are usually analyzed through the lens of containment doctrine and ideological competition. That analysis is not wrong. But it is incomplete in ways that matter for understanding why those conflicts happened where they did rather than somewhere else.

Vietnam sat at the intersection of Southeast Asian shipping lanes and held significant natural resources including coal and offshore oil potential. Angola contained some of the largest oil deposits and diamond reserves on the African continent; and in one of the Cold War’s more revealing episodes, American and Cuban troops were fighting on opposite sides in Angola while Gulf Oil, an American company, continued operating in the country throughout the conflict, paying royalties to the Marxist MPLA government the United States was officially opposing. The economics and the ideology were pulling in different directions, and the economics won.

Afghanistan sat at the crossroads of Central Asian trade routes that both superpowers and, later, Chinese planners recognized as strategically critical. The American decision to fund and arm the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet occupation was framed in the language of freedom and self-determination; it was also a calculated effort to impose on the Soviet Union the kind of costly, inconclusive military commitment that the United States had recently experienced in Vietnam. The long-term consequences of that decision, the arming of groups that would later reconfigure into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, were not part of the calculation at the time. They became the inheritance of the next generation.

The Soviet Model’s Fatal Flaw

The Soviet Union’s economic system had genuine achievements. It industrialized a largely agricultural society within a generation, produced world-class science and engineering, and provided basic material security to hundreds of millions of people who had previously lived in conditions of considerable poverty. It deserves a more honest accounting than it typically receives in American curricula.

It also had a structural flaw that no amount of political will or central planning could overcome: it could not price things accurately. A market economy uses prices to signal, imperfectly and often unjustly but continuously, where resources are needed and where they are being wasted. The Soviet command economy replaced prices with planning, and planning, however sophisticated, could not replicate the information-processing capacity of millions of simultaneous economic decisions. Shortages and surpluses accumulated. Misallocations compounded. The system grew brittle precisely where it most needed flexibility.

By the 1980s, the Soviet Union was spending roughly 25% of its GDP on military competition with an American economy roughly twice its size. It was sustaining that commitment on an increasingly dysfunctional economic base. Ronald Reagan’s defense buildup accelerated the strain, and that acceleration was deliberate strategic policy. But the Soviet collapse was not engineered from the outside; it was the outcome of internal economic contradictions that had been building for decades. The Cold War ended not because democracy defeated communism in a grand ideological contest, but because one economic model exhausted itself trying to compete with another that, whatever its significant flaws, was more flexible and more productive.

For the Classroom

“Why does the U.S. care so much about the Middle East?” The honest answer involves a fifty-year-old currency arrangement built on oil. The petrodollar system means that Middle Eastern energy stability is directly connected to the dollar’s global role, which is directly connected to the U.S. government’s ability to borrow cheaply and project power globally. Students who understand that connection can read current foreign policy headlines with considerably more clarity than those who don’t.

“Was the Cold War actually about freedom?” Partly, and genuinely in some cases; the people who lived under Soviet domination in Eastern Europe and elsewhere experienced real oppression, and American opposition to that was not purely cynical. But the Cold War was also a competition to control the economic infrastructure that European colonialism had built and could no longer manage. Both things are true, and students are sophisticated enough to hold both at once.

“Why didn’t the Non-Aligned Movement work?” It did work, to a degree, in terms of giving smaller nations diplomatic leverage they would not otherwise have had. What it couldn’t overcome was the structural reality that newly independent nations needed development financing, and the two superpowers controlled most of it. Economic dependency is harder to escape than political dependency, and many nations found that formal independence didn’t translate into economic sovereignty.

“What does it mean when people say the dollar is the world’s reserve currency?” It means the dollar is the currency most countries hold in their central bank reserves and use to settle international transactions, especially for commodities like oil. That status gives the United States enormous structural advantages: it can run trade deficits without the currency crises that would afflict other nations, and it can borrow money at lower interest rates because global demand for dollars is structurally guaranteed. Understanding reserve currency status is the key to understanding why challenges to that status, like the ones currently unfolding in Gulf energy markets, matter so much to American policymakers.

“Why did the Soviet Union collapse so suddenly?” It wasn’t actually sudden; the economic contradictions had been visible for decades. What looked sudden was the political unraveling, which happened quickly once the economic legitimacy of the system had collapsed. The lesson is that institutional systems often appear stable right up until they don’t, and the economic stresses that bring them down usually predate the visible political crisis by years or decades.

Further Reading

• Odd Arne Westad, The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times (2005) — the essential account of Cold War competition in the developing world
• Greg Grandin, Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism (2006) — carefully sourced on economic conditionality in Latin America
• Stephen Kotkin, Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970–2000 (2001) — clear-eyed on the Soviet economic failure without triumphalism
• Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power (1991) — the definitive history of oil’s role in modern geopolitics; the petrodollar sections are essential
• Vijay Prashad, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World (2007) — history of the Non-Aligned Movement from the perspective of its participants
• Documentary: The Commanding Heights (PBS, 2002), Part 2 — covers this period through the collapse of the Keynesian consensus

Next: Part 3 — Free Markets as Foreign Policy: Trade Agreements, Capitalist Hegemony, and the Limits of Economic Freedom, 1991–2008

https://www.europesays.com/iran/12632/ What we know about Ali Larijani, Tehran’s most influential powerbroker #AliKhamenei #AliLarijani #Iran #IranianPolitics #RevolutionaryGuard #Tehran #USIranCrisis

https://www.europesays.com/ie/364336/ European gas prices jump by as much as 45% as Qatar stops LNG production #Business #Economy #Éire #IE #Ireland #NaturalGas #NaturalGasExport #Prices #StraitOfHormuz #USIranCrisis

https://www.europesays.com/uk/799258/ European gas prices jump by as much as 45% as Qatar stops LNG production #Business #Economy #NaturalGas #NaturalGasExport #Prices #StraitOfHormuz #UK #UnitedKingdom #USIranCrisis

https://www.europesays.com/2817081/ European gas prices jump by as much as 45% as Qatar stops LNG production #business #Economy #NaturalGas #NaturalGasExport #prices #StraitOfHormuz #USIranCrisis

Can anyone in #Germany actually explain to me what #Mertz #friedrich_mertz is doing, trying to get involved in the shitshow in the #MiddleEastCrisis ? #Iran #USiranCrisis

Air India suspends Israel operations for a week from March 1 as Middle East tensions escalate. The airline says services will resume after a security reassessment. https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/india/air-india-suspends-flights-to-israel-from-march-1-for-a-week-citing-rising-regional-tensions-qn30ohdx?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #AirIndia #Israel #MiddleEastTensions #USIranCrisis #AviationNews

Europe Today: Albanese joins us live amid calls from France for her resignation https://www.byteseu.com/1814583/ #DonaldTrump #ECB #France #JeffreyEpstein #USIranCrisis

https://www.europesays.com/2746863/ Iran on Edge: Explosions, Diplomacy, and Trump’s Next Move #Conflicts #DonaldTrump #Iran #IranArmy #USIranCrisis

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hints at possible preemptive action against Iran as Washington boosts military presence in the Middle East. https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/world/is-the-us-preparing-a-preemptive-strike-against-iran-rubios-remarks-raise-stakes-gmhxu5ph?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=mastodon #USIranCrisis #MarcoRubio #IranProtests