A moeda que se racha sozinha

Key Takeaways

• The Dollar is Rallying on a War That’s Destroying Its Own Foundation: The US dollar index hit 99.41 after the Kharg Island strikes, up 2.1% from end of February. Jane Foley at Rabobank declared the safe-haven debate “settled.” But the same war driving that rally is forcing China and India to build permanent non-dollar oil trade channels with Russia.
• Russia is Winning the Rerouting War: While the Strait of Hormuz chokes Gulf exports, Russia shipped 12.4 million barrels of crude to China in the week ending March 10, up from 10.3 million the prior week. India drew 8.6 million barrels, its highest three-week volume. These are bilateral deals. They do not need the dollar.
• The US Government is Running Out of Tools: The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) has released 172 million barrels. The IEA released 400 million. Brent absorbed both interventions and kept climbing to $103.47. The administration has now discussed directly trading crude futures, something the CME Group CEO called a “biblical disaster.”
• This is 1971 in Slow Motion: The petrodollar system was born when the dollar lost its gold backing and needed a new anchor. That anchor was oil. Now the wars fought to protect the oil-dollar nexus are the very thing teaching the world to trade without it.

The Dollar is Getting Stronger. That’s the Problem.

On March 13, 2026, as US cruise missiles struck Kharg Island and Brent crude surged past $103 per barrel, something happened that contradicts every “death of the dollar” headline ever written.

The dollar got stronger.

The US dollar index climbed to 99.41, a 2.1% increase from the end of February. The “flight to safety” trade kicked in exactly as the textbooks predict. When the world panics, it buys dollars and Treasuries. Jane Foley, head of foreign exchange research at Rabobank, stated that “the strong performance of the dollar over the past week has helped settle the argument about whether it is a safe haven currency still.” She added that this performance should “deter big bets against the dollar in the coming months.”

Read that analysis carefully. She is correct about the short term. And she is catastrophically wrong about the long term.

The dollar is rallying because the world is on fire. That is not a sign of structural health. That is an adrenaline surge in a patient with a chronic disease. The crisis generating the safe-haven demand is the same crisis that is permanently rewiring global energy trade away from the dollar system.

The Original Deal: Oil for Protection

To understand why the dollar’s war-fueled rally is paradoxically corrosive, you need to understand the deal that created the petrodollar system.

On August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon suspended the convertibility of the US dollar into gold, one of the most consequential economic decisions in modern history. The Bretton Woods system, which had pegged the dollar to gold at $35 per ounce since 1944, collapsed overnight. The dollar became a free-floating fiat currency, backed by nothing except the institutional credibility of the United States government.

The problem was immediate. If the dollar was no longer backed by gold, why would anyone hold it? Why would central banks keep dollar reserves? The answer came three years later, in February 1974, when Secretary of State Henry Kissinger flew to Jeddah and struck a deal with King Faisal of Saudi Arabia.

The terms were elegant in their simplicity:

1. Saudi Arabia would price all oil exports exclusively in US dollars
2. Saudi Arabia would recycle its petroleum surpluses into US Treasury securities
3. The United States would provide military protection to the Saudi kingdom

Every oil-importing nation on Earth now needed dollars, not because they trusted the US economy, but because they could not buy energy without them. The petrodollar recycling system created structural demand for the currency. Central banks held dollar reserves not out of love but out of necessity. The petrodollar replaced gold as the dollar’s anchor.

As of Q4 2023, the US dollar still represented 59% of global foreign exchange reserves, according to International Monetary Fund (IMF) Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER) data. That number was 71% in 1971. The decline has averaged roughly 0.24 percentage points per year, but the trajectory is unmistakable.

The petrodollar system rests on a single axiom: the US military protects the infrastructure that produces the oil that must be priced in dollars. In March 2026, the US military is bombing that infrastructure.

The Paradox: Protecting Oil by Destroying It

The Iran war has created a paradox that a coherent national security establishment would have flagged before the first missile was launched.

The stated objective of the military campaign is to secure the Strait of Hormuz and stabilize global energy markets. The actual result is the opposite. Brent crude has surged 46% since the war began on February 27, climbing from roughly $71 to $103.47 per barrel by March 13. The Hormuz blockade has caused war-risk insurance premiums for Persian Gulf shipping to spike to 2.5-10% of hull value per transit, with high-risk quotes exceeding 10%. The Platts Japan-Korea Marker (JKM), the benchmark for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) delivered to Northeast Asia, surged 40.86% in a single week starting February 27, hitting $15.068 per Million British Thermal Units (MMBtu), its highest level since February 2025.

The US military action designed to “free” global energy markets has instead created the most severe supply disruption since the 1973 Arab oil embargo.

The nations most damaged by this disruption are not sitting quietly waiting for the US Navy to fix it. They are building permanent workarounds. Those workarounds do not require the dollar.

Russia’s Foothold: The Rerouting Nobody is Watching

While analysts focus on the dollar index and Brent crude, the most consequential shift happening in global energy markets is far less dramatic and far more permanent.

On March 9, 2026, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a statement that deserves more attention than it received: “In the current economic situation, if we refocus now on those markets that need increased supplies, we can gain a foothold there.”

This is not bluster. The data confirms it.

In the week ending March 10, China imported 12.4 million barrels of Russian crude oil, up from 10.3 million the prior week. India drew 8.6 million barrels of Russian crude, its highest three-week volume, following a US sanctions waiver issued on March 3 that effectively allowed already-loaded Russian tankers to complete delivery.

Putin characterized the current high commodity prices as temporary, predicting a new “stable pricing reality” as supply-demand balances shift. He stated that Russia was willing to work with European buyers willing to provide long-term cooperation “free from political pressure.”

In 2025, Russia supplied approximately 13.9% of the European Union’s (EU) LNG imports and 10% of its pipeline gas. The EU plans to fully phase out Russian fuel by end of 2027. That phase-out pushes Russia permanently eastward, toward China and India.

The structural implication is severe: every barrel of Russian crude that flows to China through a bilateral pipeline, settled in yuan or rubles rather than dollars, is a barrel that no longer generates demand for the US currency. One barrel is irrelevant. Twenty-one million barrels per week (the combined China-India rate as of March 10) is a tectonic shift. The Hormuz blockade, the direct consequence of an American war, is the accelerant.

The Boring Explanation is the Correct One

The “death of the petrodollar” has been a favorite conspiracy theory of gold bugs and BRICS enthusiasts since approximately 2014. Every year, someone declares the dollar is about to collapse. Every year, the dollar remains dominant.

The data supports continued dominance: 80% or more of global oil trade is still conducted in US dollars, according to the 2024 Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Triennial Central Bank Survey. SWIFT, the global messaging system for international payments, processes roughly 42% of all transactions in dollars. China’s alternative, the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), handles less than 2% of international payments.

These numbers are real. Not China, not Russia, not India has a currency that can replace the dollar at scale. The yuan is not freely convertible. The ruble is a sanctioned currency. The rupee has never been a reserve asset. The structural advantages of dollar liquidity, legal infrastructure, and institutional depth are massive and real.

The mainstream position (“the dollar is fine because there is no alternative”) is reasonable. It would be dishonest to dismiss it.

But the mainstream analysis makes a critical error: it assumes the petrodollar system will be replaced by a single alternative. That is not how complex systems collapse. They do not get replaced. They get fragmented. The threat to the dollar is not the yuan. The threat is a thousand bilateral deals that each remove a small piece of dollar demand.

Russia and China do not need a “BRICS currency” to erode the petrodollar. They just need to keep settling oil trades in their own currencies, one pipeline at a time. Nobody planned this. Nobody conspired. The sanctions and the wars simply made it rational.

The Desperation Index: Burgum and the Futures Bombshell

If the petrodollar system were as healthy as the safe-haven rally suggests, the US government would not be discussing what it discussed on March 14, 2026.

US Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum confirmed that the Trump administration has discussed taking positions in crude oil futures markets to lower prices. Burgum stated he was “not aware of any US trading to date” but confirmed that taking positions in crude oil futures to lower prices was among the actions the administration had discussed. He acknowledged the practical constraints, noting that “an intervention, you know, to manipulate or lower prices would require enormous amounts of capital.”

The market’s response was immediate.

Terry Duffy, CEO of CME Group (the company that operates the world’s largest futures exchange) warned that US government intervention in commodity markets would risk a “biblical disaster.” He stated: “Markets do not like it when governments intervene in pricing.”

Read that exchange again. The US government is now openly discussing market manipulation of crude oil futures. The head of the futures exchange is calling that idea a “biblical disaster.” The administration has already exhausted more conventional tools:

• SPR release: 172 million barrels released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
• IEA coordination: The International Energy Agency (IEA) coordinated a 400-million-barrel release from member nations’ strategic reserves
• Insurance programs: A federal shipping reinsurance program created for tankers transiting the Gulf
• Jones Act waiver: Consideration of revoking the Jones Act for domestic shipping

The market absorbed the SPR and IEA releases in hours. Brent kept climbing. The insurance program has not restored shipping traffic; only four vessels transited the Strait of Hormuz on March 3. The Jones Act waiver addresses domestic logistics, not global supply.

When a government starts discussing direct commodity market intervention, it is not operating from a position of strength. It is signaling that every other tool has failed.

The 1971 Rhyme: Overextension, Weaponization, Collapse

History does not repeat, but the structural forces that killed gold-backed dollars in 1971 are remarkably similar to the forces currently hollowing out the petrodollar.

1971: The Gold Standard Collapse

By the late 1960s, the United States was spending far beyond its means, financing the Vietnam War, the Great Society programs, and a global military footprint that demanded constant dollar outflows. Foreign governments began converting their dollar reserves into physical gold at an accelerating rate. US gold reserves fell from 574 million ounces in 1945 to 282 million ounces by August 1971.

Nixon’s response was to weaponize the system: he unilaterally suspended gold convertibility, effectively telling the world, “The rules have changed because they stopped working for us.” The dollar survived because the petrodollar system replaced gold as the anchor.

2026: The Petrodollar Under Pressure

The parallels are structural, not superficial:

1971	2026
Overextension through Vietnam War	Overextension through Iran war
Dollar weaponized by suspending gold convertibility	Dollar weaponized through sanctions, SWIFT exclusions, and asset freezes
Allies begin converting dollars to gold (exit)	Trading partners begin settling oil in non-dollar currencies (exit)
US response: change the rules (end gold standard)	US response: consider changing the rules (trade crude futures)
Result: Petrodollar replaces gold	Result: Bilateral settlements erode the petrodollar

The critical difference: in 1974, the US had a replacement system ready. Kissinger’s Saudi deal created the petrodollar before the gold system fully collapsed. In 2026, there is no replacement system. There is only slow fragmentation, a thousand bilateral arrangements that individually mean nothing but collectively drain structural demand for the dollar.

The Vulnerability Map: Who Bleeds

The Hormuz blockade is not an equal-opportunity crisis. It is reshaping the competitive landscape of global energy trade along lines that will persist long after the war ends.

India: Acutely vulnerable. Approximately 25% of India’s total gas consumption (47.4 MMscm/d of 189 MMscm/d) passes through Hormuz-dependent routes. An energy analyst described this dependency as “a massive risk at the moment.” India’s increasing reliance on Russian crude (8.6 million barrels in a single week) is not an ideological pivot; it is survival arithmetic.

China: Facing a double squeeze. China cannot access US LNG shipments because of trade restrictions, and Middle East volumes are now disrupted by the Hormuz blockade. Beijing’s accelerating imports from Russia (12.4 million barrels/week and climbing) are a forced hand, not an adventurous currency experiment.

Japan and South Korea: Relatively more resilient because of rolled-off forward contracts that give them Freight On Board (FOB) exposure with more flexibility. But extended disruption erodes even their buffers.

The United States: Paradoxically positioned as both arsonist and beneficiary. The US produced crude oil at a record 13.6 million barrels per day in 2025, while maintaining net crude oil imports of only 2.2 million barrels per day, down from 2.5 million in 2024. The US is effectively a net energy exporter when factoring in LNG and refined product exports. High oil prices benefit the US as a producer. This is the dirty truth underlying the dollar’s safe-haven rally: the country whose war is destroying the petrodollar system is profiting from the destruction.

Russia: The clear strategic winner. Every barrel diverted from the Gulf to Russian terminals is a barrel of permanent market share. Putin’s “gain a foothold” language is not rhetoric. It is a business plan executing in real time.

The Wile E. Coyote Moment

The petrodollar is not dying. That headline is lazy and premature. The dollar is still 59% of global reserves and 80% or more of oil trade. It is still the currency the world reaches for when it panics.

But the system is in what engineers call a “Wile E. Coyote” state: running beyond the edge of the cliff without having looked down yet.

The structural supports (the 1974 bargain of “price oil in dollars, and the military will protect the oil infrastructure”) are being actively demolished by the actions of the US itself. The US is bombing the oil infrastructure it promised to protect. The sanctions it imposes to punish adversaries are the same sanctions that teach those adversaries to transact without the dollar. The wars it fights to stabilize energy markets are the wars that destabilize them.

The safe-haven rally is real. The dollar is strong in mid-March 2026. But a fever makes the body warm, too. That does not make a fever an indicator of health.

When the CME Group CEO describes his government’s proposed intervention as a “biblical disaster,” he is telling you something specific: the people who run the infrastructure of dollar-denominated commodity markets are afraid of their own government. The Burgum trial balloon (the suggestion that the US might directly trade crude futures to force prices lower) is not a policy proposal. It is an admission that the market-based mechanisms sustaining the petrodollar have failed to contain a crisis caused by the US government’s own military choices.

What Comes Next

The petrodollar will not end with a bang. There will be no announcement, no BRICS summit breakthrough, no dramatic de-dollarization event. It will end the way the gold standard ended: slowly, then all at once.

Watch these signals:

1. Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE) volumes: When yuan-denominated crude futures start capturing more than 5% of global oil trading volume, the tipping point is approaching.

2. Bilateral settlement announcements: Each new Russia-China or Russia-India deal that specifies settlement in local currencies is one more brick removed from the foundation.

3. IMF COFER data: Track the quarterly updates. The 71% to 59% decline took 50 years. If it accelerates to 55% in the next five years, the trajectory has fundamentally changed.

4. US government market interventions: If the Burgum trial balloon on futures trading turns into actual policy, the signal is unmistakable: the US has decided that the market-based petrodollar system cannot sustain itself without state manipulation.

5. Central bank gold purchases: If central banks accelerate gold accumulation (as China, India, and Turkey already are), they are hedging against the same fragmentation this article describes.

The 1974 petrodollar bargain was simple: oil for protection. The 2026 reality is that the protection has become the threat. The dollar’s strength as of March 15, 2026 is the symptom of a crisis that is teaching the world to live without it. The coin is cracking, not from the outside, but from within.