Energy is to economy what blood is to humans.
This analysis in this Chapter reveals that what appears to be multiple separate “oil wars” is actually a single, century-long American strategic campaign for global energy control. It ultimately creates strategic disasters despite tactical successes. What we are examining is not multiple “oil wars” but one continuous American campaign for global currency/energy control, executed through strategic misdirection. Each conflict gets presented with different justifications, making them appear unconnected when they are actually coordinated moves in a larger game. The perpetual animosity with Russia is another fork in the USA's energy control ambitions.
The 1953 Iranian coup is not separate from the 2003 Iraq invasion. They are both tactical strikes in the same strategic campaign to prevent any Middle Eastern power from controlling their oil independently. When democratically elected Mosaddegh nationalized Iranian oil, Britain and America engineered a coup to reinstall the Shah.
Fifty years later, when Saddam and Gaddafi threatened similar independence by trying to launch a Petro linked currency. The Result was direct invasion instead of covert action. Same strategic objective, different tactical approach based on changed circumstances. After all, energy is the most important commodity.
Petrodollar
The USA has a special relationship with Saudi Arabia and was closely associated in the founding of it. In 1931, the U.S. became the first nation to recognize the newly unified Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The timing was not coincidental. King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud granted American oil companies exploration rights in exchange for diplomatic legitimacy. He chose America over Britain, who had backed his enemies. The deal cost about $250,000 and gave Standard Oil a 60-year lease. The acceptance of US dollars for oil and other assets made it petrodollar 1.0 benefiting both sides.
The relationship deepened in 1945 when Roosevelt met Ibn Saud aboard the USS Quincy. Perhaps it was the petrodollar 2.0 which made dollar attractive due to its peg to gold.
When the US exited from the gold standard, the dollar lost its fixed value and began fluctuating. As the dollar’s value fell, oil exporters earned less in real terms for the same amount of oil, since their sales were priced in dollars. The supply of oil plummeted.
In 1974, after the oil crisis, Secretary Kissinger formalized economic cooperation with Saudi Arabia, which also entered into a secret deal to invest in US Treasury Bonds. By 1975, all OPEC nations traded oil in dollars. This was petrodollar 3.0. It is not clear if there was any formal treaty requiring dollar-only oil sales. It was not just about pricing oil in US dollars but it was a two-way arrangement. First, all countries buying oil had to pay in US dollars, creating constant global demand for the currency. Secondly, oil exporters, mainly the Saudis, agreed to recycle their dollar earnings by investing heavily in US Treasury bonds, banks, and other dollar assets. This loop stabilized the dollar. In 2025, Saudi has again committed to invest $600 billion in the USA. The loop continues.
Deceptive Presentation
Classic diplomatic war operates through what can be called “event fragmentation.” Present connected strategic moves as separate crises with different causes. This is the pattern:
In 1953, the Iranian coup was justified as democracy threatened oil access.
Arab-Israeli wars because Arabs use oil as weapon.
The Iran-Iraq War is a regional rivalry.
The Gulf War was due to Iraqi aggression.
2003 Iraq invasion was due to WMD threat
Each gets its own justification, its own timeline, its own supposed logic. But step back and you seethe pattern. Any attempt at independent control over oil resources gets crushed through military, economic, or covert action. The specific method varies, but the strategic goal remains constant.
Tactical Adaptation Within the Framework
Look how American tactics evolved based on opposition strength and the international climate:
Against weak states like Guatemala or Iran in the 1950s: covert action and puppet regimes
Against stronger opponents like Iraq: direct invasion
Against peer competitors like Russia: economic warfare and proxy conflicts
But it's all the same strategic campaign.
The Syrian example is particularly revealing. ISIS provides a brutal war threat that justifies intervention, then American forces remain to “protect” oil infrastructure from future threats. Brilliant deceptive war execution.
Case Studies in Strategic Evolution
Afghanistan: The Dollar War
Terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon by al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001 and USA launches war on terror. Osama bin Laden is in Afghanistan, managing al-Qaeda operations.
Started on October 7, 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan was completed in a few days pasta month on 13 November 2001. Actual Fighting started on 9 November and Mazar-e-Sharif was conquered. The month-long pause at Hairatan border, before Mazar-i-Sharif was not about fighting. It was about negotiating, coordinating, and distributing cash to secure cooperation. Once those deals were made, the advance to Kabul took less than a week. Thereafter cash payments of dollars ensured loyalty all the way to Kabul.
It was a CIA led operation code named “Jawbreaker”. Gary C. Schroen, the officer who led the team has written in his book about "peeling off wads of cash" to secure support of local warlords all the way to Kabul. The USA essentially fought this war not with bullets but raw power of cash in dollars.
In 20 years of occupation, trillions spent with hundreds of thousands of dead. The initial Taliban removal was textbook deceptive war, quick and surgical. But then came the wedding bombings, night raids, detention without trial, torture at Bagram.
Afghanistan does not have much oil but it is crucial for Central Asian energy transit routes. Osama was not found in Afghanistan. Navy SEALs kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011 but USA did not leave Afghanistan till August 2011.
After two decades of brutal war tactics, the Taliban returned to power and immediately started negotiating with China and Russia instead of America. The sovereign fund of Afghanistan remains blocked till the writing of this book.
After over 2300 dead USA soldiers and over 20500 injured the Commanding Officer Douglas Lute, a three-star Army general had this to say about the war:
“ We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan — we didn’t know what we were doing,”
Invasion of Afghanistan started as war against terror and was used as excuse to invade Iraq which was declared a potential terrorist holding weapon of mass destruction or WMD. In 2025, President Trump expressed desire in public to get Bagram Airbase back again. Why? He did not tell. More about this later.
Iraq (2003): The Classic Pattern
The initial invasion was a sophisticated deceptive war. It started with decapitation strikes, precision targeting, the “shock and awe” method of psychological warfare. But then came the occupation phase and with it the Abu Ghraib torture, indiscriminate bombing of residential areas, checkpoint killings, the whole Blackwater rampage. When you are killing wedding parties with drone strikes and calling it intelligence failures, you have crossed into brutal war territory. It is desperation to win not strategy.
It was at actical military victory but a complete strategic disaster. Sunni resistance, Shia militias, eventually ISIS filling the vacuum. No local legitimacy, endless occupation costs and regional destabilization. The oil infrastructure got secured but requires permanent military protection because locals see Americans as occupiers, not liberators.
Libya (2011):
Started as elegant deception of “Humanitarian intervention,” air support for rebels, international coalition legitimacy. But quickly devolved when NATO started targeting civilian infrastructure, bombing Gaddafi's family compounds, turning a limited intervention into regime destruction.
The aftermath shows the consequences of a brutal war. Libya became a failed state with competing militias controlling different oil terminals. Instead of stable oil access, you got chaos. Now production depends on which warlord controls which pipeline on any given week. It got settled on the oldest concept of survival of the fittest.
Syria: Then and Now
America's strategy in Syria broke down completely. Support the moderate rebels, create an ISIS crisis to justify intervention, then use the ISIS threat to justify staying on the oilfields. Aftr years of bombing destroyed cities like Raqqa refugee crises spread across the region. Civilian casualties mounted. The result was pure tactical failure. Russia and Iran gained influence. Assad stayed in power. American troops sit on oilfields surrounded by hostile populations who remember the bombing campaigns.
Then America did something worse. Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, a man withAl Qaeda connections and designated terrorist status is recognized as President. All he had to do was to put on a suit, trim his beard, promise to be diplomatic, and suddenly he is a legitimate political leader meeting an American President int he White House. The image transformation is pure political theatre. Having abandoned Islamic fatigues for Western clothes, he appears like a diplomat. America played along perfectly, accepting his pledges about not allowing terrorists to threaten the West.
This is deception so brazen it shows strategic collapse. You are relying on someone whose core ideology opposes your interests. You welcome him just because he learned to wear Western clothes and say the right words. The Syria disaster did not end with tactical defeat. It ended with America embracing the people who defeated it.
Venezuela
Venezuela largely avoided the brutal war trap that consumed the Middle East. Sanctions, coup attempts, support for opposition politicians, but mostly covert action instead of direct military invasion. American ships patrol the shores, destroying small boats on the pretext of fighting drug trafficking.
The economy collapsed. Oil production plummeted. But there was no massive anti-American insurgency because civilians weren't systematically targeted through bombing campaigns.
The result is mixed. Maduro survived but Venezuela's economy is destroyed. American companies wait for eventual access if the government changes. No systematic destruction of infrastructure meant no generation of fighters committed to long-term resistance.
3rd January 2026, in wee hours of the morning USA marines committed a stealth strike on Caracas, the capital of Venezuela and captured Nicolas Maduro, the President of Venezuela and his wife Cilia Flores and both were taken away to USA. This is a terror strike under the flag of sovereignty. In a press conference held later President Trump stated the US will “run” Venezuela temporarily for a safe transition, involving American firms in its oil sector. Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, later took over as President of Venezuela
Iran
On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes on Iran under Operation Epic Fury, resulting in the death of Supreme Leader Khamenei. In response, Iran declared the Strait of Hormuz closed on March 4, 2026, laying mines and charging merchant transit tolls exceeding $1 million.
Despite massive US naval deployments (centered on Carriers USS Abraham Lincoln and USS George H.W. Bush), a military deadlock ensued:
1. Asymmetric Deterrence: Iranian hypersonic missiles keep Carrier Strike Groups beyond 1,000 km, while threats of a dirty bomb radiological event and subsea internet cable severance prevent a direct invasion of energy assets.
2. Sovereign Fund Custody: The core negotiation deadlock centers on Iran's refusal to route oil revenues through US-monitored banking channels, avoiding the sovereign asset seizures suffered by Iraq, Libya, and Venezuela.
3. Domestic Theater: The conflict remains managed and unresolved, serving domestic arms sales and political calendars rather than achieving a clean strategic victory.
The Friendship Betrayal Pattern
The most devastating aspect of this campaign is the systematic betrayal of former allies. America arms leaders, uses them, then destroys them while claiming moral authority.
Libya: Gaddafi's Betrayal
Gaddafi went from partner to victim. He gave up his nuclear weapons program. He cooperated on counter terrorism. He opened Libya'soil markets to Western companies. He paid compensation for the Lockerbie bombing.
Then he was captured, tortured, and murdered by rebels with NATO support. This was Hillary Clinton's response while laughing: “ We came, we saw, he died. ”
The deception wrapped the brutality in the language of humanitarian intervention. “Responsibility to protect” civilians from Gaddafi's supposedly imminent massacre. The man who had become a partner was betrayed and murdered under the guise of human rights protection. His plans to break free from the dollar were the motivation which caused his end.
Saddam Hussein: The Best Friend Phase
Int he 1980s, the US and Britain backed Saddam against Iran. They gave him arms, money, satellite intelligence, and chemical weapon precursors. As many as 90 American military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for air and missile attacks.
America knew Saddam was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history. They gave him targeting intelligence anyway. They provided the precursors. They helped plan his military campaigns. He was doing exactly what Washington wanted.
For eight years, Saddam was the good guy. The moment the Iran threat was contained, he became expendable. Worse than expendable. He became dangerous because he knew too much about American complicity in his chemical weapons program. His ambition to launch a petro currency proved fatal.
The Transformation
The same press that had been silent about American support for Saddam suddenly became very concerned about theoretical WMDs. Nobody mentioned that America had helped build the very capabilities they were now condemning.
Saddam told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged, about WMDs. He told that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran. He was playing his own diplomatic game, pretending to have weapons he had destroyed, to deter Iranian attack. But this gave America the pretext they needed for invasion.
They captured him, controlled the country, setup the tribunal, advised the proceedings, and then claimed it was independent Iraqi justice. They tried him for crimes against Kurds in the 1980s for the very chemical attacks America had helped him execute. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
America's strategy was simple. Arm the leader. Use him against your rival. Then destroy him when convenient. Make it look like justice. Make it look like liberation. Make the public forget your role in his rise. The USA did not care for the world opinion or its own reputation as untrustworthy.
Regime Change Operations have been used for along time. The British used it to save its own regime but the USA has perfected it to topple Governments and install its stooges. However, it is falling short of that objective recently. Let us study more about these Regime Change operations in the next chapter.
Leave a Response