The Dollar's Last Guarantee: What Comes After the Petrodollar?
One Professor's Three Predictions — And Why the Monetary Consequences Matter More Than the War
One professor saw what’s coming. The framework matters more than the outcome.
This video is really worth a watch if / when you have time, but not necessary to understand this piece. Although very compelling, I’m not arguing for or against his position or predictions. It does appear that regardless of the outcome, the end of the petrodollar system is inevitable at some point.
I’m not going to summarize it for you here — at least not yet. I want you to watch it first, because some arguments land differently when you hear them spoken, with evidence laid out in sequence, by someone who made three specific predictions in May 2024 and has watched two of them come true.
The third prediction is what this article is about.
Who Is Jiang Xueqin and Why Is He Worth Your Time?
Professor Jiang Xueqin is a China-based academic and strategist. He’s not a pundit and doesn’t appear on cable television. His methodology is called “predictive history,” and it’s worth understanding before we get into what he’s predicting.
Predictive history works from three inputs.
Structure — What are the deep, slow-moving forces — geography, population, economics — that actually constrain what’s possible? These things don’t change quickly, and they set hard limits on outcomes.
Incentives — What does each player actually want? Not what they say publicly. What their behavior reveals.
*I personally believe the incentives piece can be obscured not just by public statements, but also by behaviors that are intended to mislead-so desired outcomes are also masked.
Historical Pattern Recognition — Not because history repeats exactly, but because empires are empires and humans are humans. Certain dynamics recur across centuries. If you can recognize the pattern, you can see it playing out in real time.
In May 2024, Jiang used this framework to make three public predictions: Trump wins the 2024 election. The United States goes to war with Iran. The United States loses that war in a way that permanently reshapes the global order.
Two of three have come true.
This article isn’t about agreeing with Jiang. It’s about following the chain of reasoning — because if the third prediction is even directionally right, the consequences for money, Bitcoin, and every ordinary person trying to store the value of their work are significant enough to think through carefully.
The Petrodollar: What It Actually Is
Most people have heard the word. Almost no one can explain what it actually means.
Let’s start from scratch.
In 1971, President Nixon made a decision that permanently altered the global financial system: he closed the gold window. Up until that moment, the U.S. dollar was backed by gold at a fixed exchange rate. Other countries could bring their dollars to the U.S. government and receive gold in return. When Nixon ended that arrangement, the dollar became what economists call a fiat currency — backed by nothing physical. Just the faith and credit of the United States government.
That’s a shaky foundation. And the rest of the world knew it.
What happened next is where the petrodollar comes in. In 1973, Henry Kissinger negotiated a deal with Saudi Arabia — one of the most consequential arrangements in modern economic history, and one that gets almost no attention in conventional financial education. The terms were simple: Saudi Arabia would price its oil exclusively in U.S. dollars, and the United States would provide military protection for the Saudi regime. The other OPEC nations followed.
The result of that single arrangement: every country on earth that needs oil must first acquire dollars to buy it. And every country on earth needs oil.
That creates something extraordinary — a permanent, structural, non-negotiable global demand for the U.S. dollar. Not because America is especially virtuous or productive, but because the world needs oil and oil requires dollars. America gets to print its own currency and have the rest of the world absorb the consequences.
This is what economists call the “exorbitant privilege” — a phrase coined by France’s Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who meant it as a complaint, not a compliment. And it is extraordinary: a $900 billion annual military budget (which they now want to increase to $1.5 trillion). Over $2 trillion in annual deficits. More than $36 trillion in national debt that somehow doesn’t collapse the bond market. The ability to sanction adversaries by freezing their dollar assets. All of it runs on the same structural foundation.
The petrodollar isn’t a feature of American power. It is American power.
Think of it this way: the entire post-1971 financial architecture is an arch — massive, ornate, seemingly permanent. The petrodollar is the keystone at the top. The arch can be impressive in every direction. But pull the keystone, and everything above it comes down.
So the question Jiang is really raising isn’t about Iran.
It’s about the keystone.
Why Jiang Thinks It’s Ending
Jiang identifies four structural facts about the current conflict that he believes determine the outcome, regardless of what any individual leader decides to do.
The air war alone cannot produce regime change. American air superiority is real — advanced jets, precision targeting, serious damage to Iranian infrastructure. But no country in modern history has been regime-changed purely from the air. Germany didn’t surrender until ground troops were physically inside its territory. North Vietnam endured years of sustained bombing and didn’t capitulate. Air power can degrade and destroy. It cannot compel surrender from a population that has decided to endure.
The cost exchange is unsustainable. Iran fires a drone costing roughly $50,000. America fires an interceptor costing $3–10 million to bring it down. That’s a 60-to-200x cost disadvantage per exchange — and Iran fires them in swarms of hundreds. America is burning through its interceptor stockpiles faster than its defense industrial base can replace them. The most powerful military in history is racing against its own logistics clock.
The economic pressure is real and building. The Strait of Hormuz carries approximately 20% of the world’s oil supply. Iran effectively controls it. Yemen — an Iranian ally — is disrupting the Red Sea, through which another 12–15% of global trade moves. Both choke points threatened simultaneously pushes oil toward $150–$200 per barrel. At those prices, ordinary Americans feel it at the pump and at the grocery store, and political pressure on any administration becomes severe.
American political will is fragile and declining. Roughly 40% of Americans support this conflict, and that number trends downward as costs and casualties rise. This is the pattern from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan: every time America enters an expensive, inconclusive war, political will eventually collapses and the ability to sustain the fight collapses with it. Jiang argues that Iran has studied American political psychology for 20 years and has designed its entire strategy around pushing America past its pain threshold — not defeating it militarily, but outlasting it politically.
The historical parallel Jiang draws is Athens in 415 BC. The most powerful city-state in Greece sent its best ships, generals, and soldiers to conquer Sicily. Complete disaster. Athens never recovered. The empire declined not because it was conquered from outside, but because it overextended itself into a trap it couldn’t escape.
His prediction: no full ground invasion. America finds a face-saving exit within 12–24 months. The Middle East reorganizes around Iran and Israel as regional powers. American credibility — and with it, American leverage over global oil pricing — is diminished in ways that don’t reverse quickly.
And that’s when the keystone starts to wobble.
Short Term: Chaos and Confusion (0–2 Years)
If Jiang’s third prediction plays out, the immediate aftermath is messy — but not catastrophic all at once. Reserve currency transitions are slow. The British pound remained a major reserve currency for decades after Britain lost its empire. The dollar won’t go to zero overnight.
But the shaking starts immediately.
Central banks in Asia, the Middle East, and the Global South begin asking a question they’ve never had to take seriously before: do we still need to hold this many dollars? They start diversifying reserves — not in a panic, but deliberately and methodically. Countries that have been stockpiling dollars out of structural necessity start running the calculation again.
Energy markets get complicated fast. If America can no longer guarantee Gulf security, Saudi Arabia has no structural reason to price oil exclusively in dollars. Riyadh has already been publicly considering yuan pricing. That process accelerates from a quiet diplomatic flirtation into an earnest negotiation.
American interest rates rise. Here’s the mechanism: if global demand for dollars drops, global demand for U.S. Treasury bonds drops with it. To attract buyers, the government must offer higher yields. Higher Treasury yields ripple outward — mortgage rates, car loans, business lending costs, and crucially, the interest payments on the national debt itself. America starts paying more to service what it already owes at the exact moment its financial privilege is shrinking.
And risk assets get hit. All of them — including Bitcoin in the short term. I want to be honest about that. A genuine global liquidity shock doesn’t spare anyone initially. The short-term picture is confusion and pain. The important question is what the medium and long term look like.
Medium Term: The Repricing (2–5 Years)
This is where things get genuinely interesting if you understand how money actually works.
The “exorbitant privilege” unwinds. For more than 50 years, the United States has been exporting dollars and importing real goods. The rest of the world sent America cars, electronics, energy, food — and America sent back paper, or more precisely, digital entries in a ledger. That trade only works as long as the paper is universally accepted and trusted. When trust cracks, the terms of trade shift. America has to start producing real value to pay for real imports. The trade deficit either shrinks painfully or the dollar devalues enough to make American goods competitive again. Either path is uncomfortable for American living standards.
No single currency steps in to replace the dollar cleanly. What emerges instead is a messier, multipolar currency landscape: the yuan gaining ground in Asia and among commodity exporters, the euro potentially strengthening in European trade, gold repricing significantly as central banks scramble for neutral reserve assets, bilateral trade agreements proliferating — oil for yuan, commodities for rupees, swaps between parties who don’t want to touch the dollar. The world becomes more fragmented.
The U.S. government faces a fiscal reckoning it can no longer defer. Without the ability to run limitless deficits funded by global dollar demand, America faces a genuine choice: cut spending dramatically, or print money without the global absorption mechanism. The second option means domestic inflation — not the exported variety that has allowed America to run the printing press for 50 years without fully experiencing the consequences at home.
And here is where Bitcoin’s story changes.
In a world where the dollar’s reserve status is actively degrading, where multiple fiat currencies are competing for trust and none fully has it, where central banks are scrambling for neutral non-sovereign reserve assets — Bitcoin’s value proposition goes from “interesting theory” to “urgent practical question.”
Iran has already proposed requiring tolls for ships passing through the Straight of Hormuz - with Bitcoin as the settlement mechanism.
Think about it through Michael Howell’s liquidity framework: global liquidity doesn’t disappear when the dominant currency weakens. It migrates. It finds new containers. And when the container that has held the world’s liquidity for 50 years starts leaking, capital looks for something that can’t be debased, can’t be sanctioned, can’t be seized, and doesn’t require trusting any single government. That’s Bitcoin’s value proposition stated in its strongest possible form — not by advocates, but by the conditions themselves.
Long Term: The New Architecture (5–15 Years)
A multipolar monetary order is historically normal. The dollar’s unipolar dominance since 1971 is the anomaly, not the baseline. For most of recorded history, trade moved across competing monetary systems with neutral assets serving as the settlement layer between them.
That neutral asset has always been gold. Gold worked for thousands of years because it had properties no government could replicate: genuine scarcity, durability, divisibility, portability. Bitcoin carries all of those properties and adds something gold never had — it’s natively digital, and it can move anywhere on earth in minutes.
Consider what that difference meant even in recent history. When France wanted to redeem its gold from the United States during the Bretton Woods era, it had to send a ship across an ocean. Physical metal, physical logistics, physical vulnerability. The friction alone gave America leverage — time to stall, to delay, to manage the optics. With Bitcoin, possession is verified instantly and value transfers at the speed of the internet. No ship. No delay. No opportunity to stall.
In a multipolar world — where nations trading with each other don’t necessarily trust each other’s currencies, where the reserve currency issuer has demonstrated it will weaponize dollar access against adversaries — the demand for a neutral, non-sovereign settlement layer is structural. Not speculative. Structural.
The reserve currency transition pattern is worth understanding: Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Britain, the United States. Average lifespan of reserve currency dominance: 80 to 100 years. The dollar took the throne around 1944.
Do the math yourself.
America doesn’t disappear in this scenario. Britain after Suez is still an important, wealthy country. It still has productive capacity, genuine innovation, real human capital. It just no longer sits at the center of the monetary universe. It adapts. The question is what fills the vacuum — and whether that vacuum creates the conditions for a new kind of neutral reserve asset to take root.
What This Means for You
You don’t have to believe Jiang is right about the war to take the underlying argument seriously.
The petrodollar’s structural fragility predates this conflict. The Triffin Dilemma — identified by economist Robert Triffin in the 1960s — describes a contradiction built into the reserve currency role: the issuer must run trade deficits to supply the world with its currency, but running permanent deficits eventually undermines confidence in that currency. Triffin identified this problem in 1960. It hasn’t been solved. It’s been deferred.
The reserve currency transition pattern isn’t a fringe thesis. It’s monetary history. The dollar’s dominance is exceptional and it is aging.
None of this is a call to make dramatic moves with money you can’t afford to lose. That’s not what this is. This is a call to understand what’s at stake — and to recognize why Bitcoin’s specific properties aren’t just technically interesting. Fixed supply. Censorship resistance. Self-custody. Instant global transfer. No counterparty risk. These are answers to real structural problems that are becoming more visible, not less.
I came to Bitcoin because I felt trapped by debt and confused about money. The more I’ve learned about how the global financial system actually works — the debt cycles, the way new money flows toward those who are closest to its creation, the quiet erosion of purchasing power that most people feel but can’t name — the more I understand why those properties matter. Not as a get-rich story. As a serious response to a serious problem.
Jiang’s thesis is one version of how that problem gets forced into the open. His framework is worth understanding regardless of whether his specific timeline proves correct, because the structural forces he’s describing — America’s declining leverage over global oil flows, the fragility of a monetary system built on one country’s goodwill — aren’t inventions. They’re observable.
Watch the video. Form your own view.
But understand what’s at stake.
The question isn’t whether the petrodollar lasts forever. Nothing lasts forever. The question is what you hold when it doesn’t.
If this shifted something for you — subscribe below. Every week I trace what’s actually happening inside the financial system, and what it means for ordinary people trying to navigate it.