The Biggest Winners and Losers From the Petrodollar’s Decline

The Biggest Winners and Losers From the Petrodollar’s Decline

Nick Giambruno

The Iran war is straining US weapons stockpiles and raising doubts about Washington’s ability to protect the Persian Gulf.

If that weakens the petrodollar and pushes oil producers away from the US financial system, two assets face clear headwinds: the US dollar and US Treasuries.

The petrodollar system helped create structural demand for both.

If oil exporters sell more energy outside the dollar system, fewer oil dollars need to flow back through Wall Street and into Treasury securities.

At the same time, the US government needs to borrow staggering sums to finance its deficits, military commitments, entitlement programs, and interest expense.

That means rising supply of Treasuries could collide with weakening structural demand.

Watch the 10-year Treasury yield.

The 10-year Treasury yield is perhaps the most important financial benchmark in the global fiat system, as it drives valuations and market trends worldwide. It is widely—and erroneously—regarded as the risk-free rate of return.

The 10-year Treasury yield can be thought of as a key barometer of the US dollar-based fiat system—a critical measure akin to its beating heart.

Bond yields move inversely to bond prices. When bond prices fall, bond yields rise.

A rising 10-year Treasury yield signals trouble for the US dollar because it means investors are selling Treasuries, which pushes up the US government’s borrowing costs. That is why the 10-year Treasury yield is a major pain point for the US government.

The 10-year Treasury yield was 3.97% in late February 2026. Now it is around 5.26%, an increase of roughly 129 basis points. 129 bps might not seem like much, but with over $40 trillion in debt and growing, every basis point matters.

At today’s debt levels, every 1 basis point increase in the government’s average borrowing cost adds roughly $4 billion in annual interest expense. So a 129 bps rise is not trivial—it translates to nearly $516 billion in additional yearly interest costs, materially widening a budget deficit that was already around $1.8 trillion.

I expect the 10-year Treasury yield to keep climbing over the coming weeks and months—until it forces the Fed’s hand.

At that point, the intervention will be sold as “stability,” but the mechanism will be familiar: suppress yields by debasing the currency.

That feedback loop could become one of the defining investment stories of the years ahead.

That preparation makes much more sense when you view gold not as a commodity, but as a neutral settlement asset.

The last monetary transformation of comparable importance began when Nixon severed the dollar’s link to gold in 1971.

Gold traded at $35 per ounce under the old system.

By January 1980, it reached $850—a gain of more than 2,300%.

I think the monetary shift taking shape today could prove just as important.

For more than half a century, the petrodollar helped create structural demand for dollars and US government debt. It allowed Washington to run deficits and export dollars on a scale no normal country could sustain.

Americans have come to regard that privilege as a permanent feature of the financial landscape.

At first glance, depleted US missile inventories may seem unrelated to the future of the dollar. They aren’t. Both depend on the same thing: the ability of the US to convert its enormous financial power into real-world economic and military power.

Washington can create dollars without limit. It cannot create missile factories, rare-earth supply chains, control over the Strait of Hormuz, or confidence in the US security guarantee with a keystroke.

If the Iran war exposes the limits of US military power, pushes the Gulf states toward accommodation with Iran and China, weakens the dollar’s role in the oil trade, and accelerates the movement of global reserves toward gold, we could look back on this period as the moment the post-1971 monetary system entered its final stage.

What started with a shortage of missile interceptors leads to a much bigger conclusion: the Iran war is exposing the limits of both American military power and the monetary system that power has supported for more than half a century.

The signals to watch are clear.

Watch the oil producers.

Watch the dollar.

And above all, watch gold.

Rezaei: Iran Will Obliterate U.S. Tech Assets If Attacked

Rezaei: Iran Will Obliterate U.S. Tech Assets If Attacked

Edison Reed

Iran will destroy U.S. technology infrastructure in the Gulf if Washington attacks again, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Mohsen Rezaei, said in an interview aired over the weekend, according to a report by Russia Today (RT). ^[1]

Rezaei told Press TV that U.S. assets in the United Arab Emirates and around the Strait of Hormuz – including undersea cables, data centers and artificial intelligence (AI) facilities – are worth more than $2 trillion. He subsequently described them as the "pulse of the American economy in this region," the report stated.

"We have not yet included these assets among our targets. But if war breaks out, many of these cables, data centers, artificial intelligence facilities and numerous other sites will be destroyed," Rezaei said, according to the report. ^[1]

The threat follows a pattern of Iranian warnings directed at commercial data infrastructure in the Gulf. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared 18 major U.S. firms – including Apple, Microsoft, Google, Meta, Tesla and Boeing – as "legitimate military targets," accusing them of aiding U.S. defense operations against Iran, according to a separate report ^[2]. In April, the IRGC also explicitly threatened to destroy the $30 billion Stargate AI data center in Abu Dhabi, releasing a video that used satellite imagery to pinpoint the facility ^[3].

Security risks in the waterway persist. Last week, an oil tanker was struck near Oman, injuring 12 crew members, with no side claiming responsibility, officials said, according to the RT report.

Diplomatic contacts have continued through Pakistan, Qatar and Iraq, the report stated. Rezaei said Washington had accepted some of Tehran's seven conditions for resolving the conflict but left others unclear, making its response inadequate.

"We are not in the process of responding to the Americans. They have responded to us, and we consider their response inadequate," Rezaei told Iran's PressTV, according to a report by Antiwar.com^[4].

Iran's demands include lifting the naval blockade, ending hostilities on all fronts, and releasing frozen assets. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday, Oct. 12, that exchanges through mediators were continuing and Tehran was reviewing Washington's latest points, according to the RTreport.

Iran had previously issued a series of demands to Washington, calling for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the Middle East, the closure of every American base in the region, reparations for damages caused by U.S. military actions, and an immediate cease-fire with guarantees, according to a BrightVideos report ^[5]. The cycle of escalation and premature declarations of victory has repeated, with U.S. President Donald Trump asserting at least 37 times that peace had been achieved or that Iran had been conquered, according to a Health Ranger Report ^[6].

Trump previously rejected the Iranian proposal, saying that Tehran wanted "to make a deal, but it is not the deal that I want to make," and he has suggested U.S. strikes could resume, according to the RTreport. Trump also said the U.S. would not attack Iran before the November midterms ^[7].

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week that Tehran had "lost complete control" over the Strait of Hormuz and that oil flows were approaching prewar levels, the report stated. But Rezaei rejected Washington's claims that the strait was open, insisted Iran would retain control over the waterway, and accused the U.S. Central Command chief of directing oil-smuggling operations with Emirati military support, according to the report.

The competing claims come amid reports that Iran has rebuilt a significant portion of its ballistic missile stockpile and is working to expand it in preparation for possible renewed fighting with the U.S. and Israel in the coming weeks, senior Israeli security officials told Epoch Magazine Israel ^[8]

POWER GRID EMERGENCY across 13 states + D.C...

The Federal Government just declared a POWER GRID EMERGENCY across 13 states + D.C...

Patrick Humphrey

Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia... and Washington D.C. The Department of Energy just issued an emergency order to PJM, the grid that powers 65 MILLION people... running Oct 13 through Oct 16. Continued HOT temperatures are straining the grid... so power plants are now allowed to run PAST their pollution limits just to keep the lights on... And as a LAST RESORT before rolling blackouts... PJM can force data centers and other big power users off the grid and onto their backup generators. The grid could have as little as ~900 MW of cushion left...

This is NOT normal.

The Ultimate Convergence:

The Ultimate Convergence: Why the Planet is Pre-Staged for the End of Days

Video

This Bible prophecy update examines the concept of convergence and how current global events align with the end times prophecy. This report evaluates the convergence of natural disasters, geopolitical tensions, and shifting religious perspectives. We analyze how these indicators contrast with historical skepticism, providing a grounded look at how the world appears to be pre-staged for the final era. Our objective is to connect these diverse scenes to historical frameworks, ensuring you have a clear understanding of how these signals align with the prophetic clock. We maintain a biblical worldview as we navigate the complexities of our modern era, helping you recognize the broader context of these signs.

UN Adopts New Pandemic Preparedness Declaration in 153–3 Vote — Trump’s America Joins Israel and Argentina in Defiant Opposition

GLOBALIST POWER GRAB? UN Adopts New Pandemic Preparedness Declaration in 153–3 Vote — Trump’s America Joins Israel and Argentina in Defiant Opposition

Jim Hᴏft

The United Nations General Assembly rammed through another non-binding “political declaration” on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response on Tuesday by a lopsided 153–3 vote. The only countries that voted no were the United States, Israel, and Argentina. New Zealand and Paraguay abstained.

According to UN News, the declaration calls for stronger international cooperation on pandemic preparedness and welcomes the World Health Organization’s controversial Pandemic Agreement, adopted in May 2025.

The declaration is officially nonbinding, meaning it does not itself give the WHO legal authority to impose lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or other public health restrictions on Americans.

But the overwhelming vote raises a serious political question: How much influence should international health bureaucracies have over the decisions of sovereign nations?

For the Trump administration, the answer has been clear: America’s public health decisions must remain under American control.

More on Health Policy Watch:

During Monday’s debate, the US objected to the declaration’s use of “sexual and reproductive health (SRH) language” – ironically, finding common cause with Iran on this.

“While we support strengthening health systems and protecting women’s health, we do not support references to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights, and ‘sexual and reproductive health care service’s without caveats and qualification,” the US delegate said.

“The United States strongly opposes the inclusion of harmful gender ideology, including comprehensive sexuality education, as it is detrimental to the well-being and development of children and undermines parental authority.”

Echoing the US’s opposition to this language, Iran said SRH references “do not enjoy universal agreement and cannot be construed as creating an international obligation or commitment.”

The declaration commits member states to “mainstream gender equality” and ensure “universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services, including for family planning,” by 2030. It does not refer to “reproductive rights”, gender ideology, or comprehensive sexuality education.

Canada and Australia argued that the document’s language “weakened commitments” to gender equality and sexual and reproductive health and rights.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus welcomed the General Assembly’s decision, describing it as a major commitment to international cooperation.

“WHO welcomes this strong commitment by UN Member States to continue working together on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response,” said World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

"We urge countries to now fulfil the commitments they have made – especially to finalize negotiations on the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing system (PABS) annex, so the WHO Pandemic Agreement can be opened for signature, begin the process of ratification and enter into force as international law.”

The vote came after the Trump administration and several other countries objected to the declaration during a September 25 high-level meeting at UN headquarters in New York.

The objections prevented the document from being adopted by consensus, forcing the issue back to the General Assembly for a formal vote.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, the United States opposed provisions concerning WHO influence, contested terminology, and unfinished negotiations over international pathogen-sharing arrangements.

The Trump administration argued that the declaration contained politically divisive language and referenced negotiations that had not yet been completed.

The United States nevertheless maintained that it was prepared to cooperate with international partners to combat dangerous outbreaks at their source.

Italy also raised objections during the September negotiations, specifically challenging language concerning misinformation, disinformation, and what UN officials described as infodemic management.

However, Italy was not among the three countries that ultimately voted against the declaration on October 12.