The Theory of Invading Saudi Arabia to Save the Petrodollar

The Theory of Invading Saudi Arabia to Save the Petrodollar

It sounds like a dinner-table idea and has been circulating for years among those who truly understand oil: the United States will not invade Iran because there's nothing left worth taking there. The real prize is in Saudi Arabia. This scenario was set a decade ago by a veteran Spanish oil analyst who met an investment banker from the sector and an Iranian interlocutor in a café. When he asked when Washington would attack Tehran, he was corrected instantly. The target is Riyadh.

The logic behind the prediction is presented as a textbook win-win: save the petrodollar, cut reliance on foreign diesel, and pass the bill to those who have been financing themselves with dollars for decades. The problem is that no one agrees on whether this is achieved with tanks or a subtle maneuver.

What is the Petrodollar and Why is it Defended by the Carter Doctrine

The petrodollar is the mechanism by which crude oil is priced and paid for in dollars, and through which the greenback maintains its status as the benchmark for global trade. If Riyadh were to accept payment in another currency, the argument goes, the US would face a bigger problem than any tariff. Hence, the invocation of the Carter Doctrine, the commitment made in 1980 by which Washington reserves the right to use force to prevent an outside power from controlling the Persian Gulf. It's cited as a trump card and, at the same time, an excuse.

Fracking No Longer Covers the Diesel Shortfall

The second pillar of the theory is the end of the shale miracle. Some argue that US fracking production has ceased to serve as a shield and that, without sufficient light crude, diesel becomes the weak point for the world's largest economy. The extreme scenario considered is that diesel might end up being paid for in rubles, with Russian dependence as leverage. In this context, the attempt to privatize ARAMCO and the uproar it caused are recalled: the operation was previously attempted through other means and failed.

Saudi Sweet Crude vs. Venezuelan Extra-Heavy

One of the most repeated counterarguments is that Venezuela is closer and already subject to sanctions. The response from the other side is geological: Venezuelan crude is extra-heavy, expensive to refine, and at best, only buys time. Saudi crude is light, sweet, and cheap to process. It's the oil worth having, and in large quantities. The entire hypothesis is built on this difference: whoever controls the Saudi wells depends on no one.

Buying a Coup Costs Half as Much as an Invasion

The practical objection comes from another angle: if the country is already controlled de facto, why invade? The dynasty owes Washington part of its external support, and with this leverage, some calculate that financing a friendly regime change—a tonalidad revolution, in the common parlance—costs half as much or less than a military campaign, with the wells pumping the next day. A discomforting fact weighs against this: if they haven't been able to subdue a poorly armed guerrilla in Yemen, occupying the world's largest desert doesn't seem like a walk in the park.

China, World War III, and the Map Redrawing the Gulf

The biggest obstacle isn't the Saudis. It's China. Middle Eastern crude is more strategic for Beijing today than for Washington, and touching Saudi Arabia would break the precarious balance that sustains half the planet. Based on this, speculation turns to the worst-case scenario: an open conflict. And a regional reorganization map is circulating, attributed to a US consultant, which separates Shiites and Sunnis, gives territory to the Kurds, and, above all, fragments resources: the holy sites—Mecca and Medina—would end up on the side without oil, and the wells, on the other.

None of this is mentioned in any official document. What is happening, however, is that the bet has been on the table for years and hasn't been withdrawn, and those who uphold it warn they intend to recall it if they are ever proven right. How much of this logic is analysis, and how much is the old reflex of seeing conspiracies in every barrel?