۱۴۰۵ اردیبهشت ۷, دوشنبه

 Qasim Olanrewaju Salahuddin

 
Follow

1d 
In the year 2000, Saddam Hussein made a curious move.
He began selling Iraqi crude oil using euros rather than U.S. dollars.
Three years later, American forces invaded.
No weapons of mass destruction were ever discovered.
But here's what was found: Iraq's oil sales had shifted back to dollars.
Strange coincidence.
Fast forward to 2009. Muammar Gaddafi proposed a new gold backed currency for Africa. He called it the dinar.
It would have allowed African nations to purchase oil without relying on the dollar.
In 2011, NATO launched an intervention in Libya, citing humanitarian reasons.
Gaddafi was killed. The gold dinar? Also dead.
Libyan oil? Back to being priced in dollars.
Yet another coincidence.
A pattern becomes hard to ignore.
Going back to 1971. Richard Nixon ended the gold standard. The dollar suddenly backed by nothing more than trust.
It should have collapsed on the spot.
But it didn't.
Three years later, Henry Kissinger struck a deal with Saudi Arabia:
"Sell your oil exclusively in dollars. In exchange, we will guarantee your regime's security."
Suddenly, every nation on the planet needed dollars just to buy energy.
That's not economic policy. That's extortion dressed up as finance.
And it works flawlessly, as long as the military can enforce the rules.
Russia demands payment in rubles for natural gas? Sanctions and military escalation follow.
Syria tries to route a pipeline priced in euros? Civil war intensifies. The pipeline never materializes.
Iran attempts to sell oil outside the dollar system? Decades of crushing sanctions.
I'm not passing judgment on whether these governments were good or bad. I'm simply pointing out: pay attention to what happens whenever anyone challenges the petrodollar.
Once you see it, the pattern is anything but subtle.
SWIFT is not a neutral payment network. It is a weapon.
Get cut off from SWIFT, and you cannot participate in global trade.
Russia, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela—each threatened dollar dominance in some fashion.
Each was subsequently cut off.
They don't teach this in schools because it's uncomfortable to face.
We don't send eighteen year olds overseas to die for "freedom."
We send them to preserve reserve currency status.
The currency finances the military. The military defends the currency.
Britain learned this lesson the hard way. The pound sterling served as the world's reserve currency for two centuries.
It lost that status after World War II.
The British Empire crumbled within twenty years.
The same cycle repeats. Every empire in history has followed it.
The Dutch guilder. The British pound. Now the American dollar.
Ray Dalio has been warning about this for years: we are in the late stage. Military overstretched. Currency weakening. Rivals building alternatives.
China's Belt and Road Initiative is not about uplifting poor nations.
It is about creating debt relationships denominated in yuan.
The BRICS nations aren't discussing a new currency because they are allies.
They are constructing an escape route from dollar dependence.
When the dollar loses reserve status—not if, but when—the ability to print unlimited money without consequences vanishes.
Then the military contracts.
Then the empire ends.
You may call this cynical. I call it financial history.
Every war in my lifetime had a currency angle, if you knew precisely where to look.
"Freedom and democracy" is just marketing copy.
The actual policy documents? Those talk about "maintaining dollar liquidity in global energy markets."
I am not anti military. I am anti dishonesty.
If we are sending young people to fight, let us at least be truthful about the reason.
ارسال شده توسط در