The Petrodollar Is a Myth: Financial Analyst Explains New Rules of Global Trade

Pravda.Ru special correspondent Daria Aslamova conducted an interview with financial analyst and Candidate of Economic Sciences Mikhail Belyaev to discuss whether Iran legally controls the Strait of Hormuz, why the "petrodollar” is a journalistic myth, how wartime insurance works, and what could happen if the Houthis close a second strategic chokepoint.

Photo: commons.wikimedia.org by Cpl. Gary Jayne III, https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/pdm/

Strait of Hormuz

Blackmail Against the World — But Iran's Plan Has Been Accepted

Q: This is week five of the war with Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. Iran sees it as a legitimate trophy and intends to charge for passage. What surprised you most about this conflict as an economic analyst?

A: The most unexpected thing was precisely that it would lead to the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz. It was assumed there would be fighting, missiles flying-but that it would result in this, essentially blackmailing the entire world, with two hundred ships accumulating and Iran saying: "Until you accept our terms, no one passes anywhere” – that was unexpected. Especially from nations that claim to stand for justice and condemn unilateral aggressive actions by the United States, yet themselves adopt a position of force and dictate. That surprised me. Though in hindsight, perhaps it could have been anticipated. At the beginning, it seemed it would not go that far. Just as the scale of the aggression itself, in my view, became truly monstrous.

Q: You seem to criticize Iran's harsh methods. But in war, all means are justified, especially when survival is at stake.

A: I'm not criticizing – I'm discussing what was expected and unexpected. In war, war is war. Be the first one to attack – that rule hasn't been canceled. If you are hit, respond twice as hard so the other side thinks twice next time. In terms of war logic, everything is consistent.

Q: Iran's position is rather striking. They told neighbors: "We respect you, but you host our enemies' bases. So we will strike until you expel them.”

A: From a logical standpoint, it makes sense. And most importantly-it worked. Donald Trump, being an emotional figure, predictably framed it as his own victory. He declared a ceasefire, claiming all objectives were achieved. From a PR perspective, he is right. But the Iranians celebrated it far more intensely. Like the Battle of Borodino-each side reports victory.

Q: Still, two nuclear powers attacked a sanctioned country, eliminated its leadership, and yet it held out and dictated terms. Isn't that victory?

A: Yes, Iran won. Not the one who celebrated louder.

Legally, the Strait Belongs to All Humanity

Q: Iran compares Hormuz to the Suez Canal. Are its demands legal?

A: There is a fundamental legal difference between a strait and a canal. Natural straits belong to all humanity. Artificial canals belong to those who built them. That is the difference between the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz. Egypt can charge fees-it built the canal. Hormuz is natural, so Iran's claim is legally questionable.

Q: But Turkey charges for passage through the Bosphorus.

A: Yes, but not as rigidly. Still, you are right-we are witnessing the decline of maritime law. Tankers are seized, ships attacked. It is practically collapsing.

One Hundred Billion for Transit — And That's Cheap

Q: Analysts say Iran could earn up to $100 billion annually by charging $2 million per tanker. Is that realistic?

A: Why not? Many ships pass through. Experts say $2 million is affordable – even cheap – compared to cargo values. Passage through the Suez Canal costs at least $1 million, plus pilot services. Maritime services are expensive. So yes, $100 billion is achievable.

They are already planning a collective investment fund, one of ten points in their strategy. Revenues from transit will go there to rebuild the economy. It is logically structured.

The Petrodollar Never Existed — Journalists Invented It

Q: If Iran demands payment in yuan, is the petrodollar era ending?

A: The petrodollar never existed. It was a journalistic term for dollars circulating in Europe in the 1970s-80s. Oil revenues in dollars are something else.

Q: Will this weaken the dollar?

A: No. Global dollar trade is enormous. Payments in yuan for oil through Hormuz are just a pinch. And not all transactions will be in yuan anyway.

The strength of a currency comes from its national economy. As long as the United States maintains steady growth, moderate inflation, and a large share of global GDP and trade, the dollar is secure. Moreover, the financial sector – far larger than trade – is almost entirely dollar-based. Yuan, yen, or pound cannot penetrate it. So this is just a minor irritation.

Without Insurance, No Cargo Moves

Q: Could countries bypass insurance and deal directly with Iran?

A: Tempting, but impossible. Insurance is mandatory in international trade. Ships and cargo must be insured. No captain will accept uninsured cargo, and no port will receive it.

Q: Is London still dominant in insurance?

A: The system works through reinsurance. Risks are distributed through chains that often end at Lloyd's in London. That's why it appears centralized. But policies can be issued elsewhere.

What will change is cost. Insurance premiums will rise significantly. Freight rates will rise. Oil prices will follow.

The Houthis Haven't Even Started Yet

Q: What about Bab el-Mandeb?

A: It is controlled by the Houthis. Another chokepoint. Easily blocked.

Hormuz on one side, Bab el-Mandeb on the other-two bottlenecks. Iran has already stated that if necessary, the Houthis will close the second one. So any attempt to bypass Hormuz could also be stopped.

Q: What happens then?

A: The entire system changes. That's why negotiations with Egypt have already begun to create a grain hub in Alexandria. Land routes bypassing both straits are being discussed. For now, it's about grain-but it could expand.

Maritime Law Is Seriously Ill

Q: Is modern maritime law dead?

A: Not dead, but rather seriously ill. International law in general is in trouble. The WTO dispute system hasn't functioned for years. Maritime law is deteriorating. Some provisions are effectively frozen. But trade law still holds-for now. The key word is "for now.”