Oil and Blood: Iran, the U.S. and the Petrodollar

Welcome to American Power from Findout Media.

“I'm your host Nat Tousen, stand up comedian, speechwriter, many other kinds of writer,”

and most likely to survive the Annals of History. Professional podcast host, I'm here with my panel of experts as usual, our military and policy expert, Chad Scott, Chad, say hello. Hey, everyone got to be here. And our energy expert, both, oil and renewable, you know,

Mr. Global, Matt Randolph, hi, Matt. Hey, Matt, how are you? Oh, I'm doing well, great question. We're going to make today's episode a little bit different, because we've been responding to the news so regularly, obviously,

there's a lot going on that relies on your expertise. But I wanted to take a step back and look a little bit of the history of how we got here. So later on this episode, we're going to talk a little bit about the history

of Iran's oil industry and how the U.S. and Western powers of intervene.

In the meantime, we're recording this on Monday, April 20th, 2026 in the afternoon. And as of right now, there are some very major news stories that we want to at least touch on before we get into the history. And Matt, I was hoping you could fill us in on what's happened since our last recording.

>> That's the last recording? >> Well, what's happening recently.

“>> All right, all right, I can tell you-- >> I'm going to do half, bro.”

>> Well, well, what are the-- >> We've been in the past 24 hours, but like-- >> What's everything's happening in the world, but also America, but also with the energy industry in the past seven days? >> Since the last recording, we've had three ceasefires.

We've had four market manipulations and a partridge in a pair of tree, and oh, by the way, someone put the straight-of-formers on Google Maps with the times that it's open and closed. So that was fantastic. I don't know if you guys saw that, but that was my favorite thing

that I was like, this guy's a genius. Like, I just-- >> And of course, Google Maps took it down, because they're the psychos that they are. >> You know, when I had to register my business with Google Maps, they sent me a postcard.

So I like the idea that whoever pulled that prank had to receive the Google Maps postcard and scan a little QR code and be like, all right, I got nothing else to do on this boat, while we're just sitting around. >> I want the people on all those cruise ships that's been racing

through there, through the mines and fire and everything, to leave reviews on the straight-of-formers.

“And that's what I want to see on that page is the reviews.”

But now, as of today, we're still under a ceasefire, even though we've knocked a big hole in a ship and took it and found apparently supplies for weaponry. They attack us with drones. Maybe, or maybe not, 90% of this information we get is shaky.

Is that a great way to say it? >> A lot of misinformation that there's what I'm talking about. We either are not currently having peace negotiations with Iran, depending on who you ask in Iran. Some people say, absolutely, some people say not, who knows.

That's my headlines. I mean, one thing we're definitely learning is this blockade is solving nothing. There's nothing being solved right now by either side. These talks that are supposed to take place in Pakistan,

the second round, both the US is saying they're not happening, but then other officials are saying. So it's both sides have now structures and the escalation cycle is starting. So I don't foresee us doing any kind of meaningful negotiations,

whatsoever.

And the problem is, as then I kind of mentioned this,

the last podcast we discussed. We're now eight days from when Congress is supposed to decide whether we should be at war or not. The war powers resolution comes into effect. I don't think they're going to do anything on the other side.

There's a third ceasefire that we haven't really talked about. And that's the Israel 11 on within the first 24 hours. Both have claimed that the other side has violated it. So that's on it's kind of last leg at this moment. >> It's just a small market.

And I'm betting which is less likely to be respected. Another ceasefire or the war powers act. Where am I putting my money? If whatever is the opposite of what Trump says, you'll probably just probably going to get money that way.

Because that's the other thing. And maybe that's kind of the big top line that a lot of people are really focusing on is this market. Manipulation is out of control. It's starting to just become blatant.

We're starting to just see a specific times that directly impact when the market goes up or goes down, these tweets go out like everything's great. So the market, the oil market drops, massive investment, floods in, everything's falling apart, rises.

And then they pull their money and make huge amounts of money. And I know I saw a year post about this map where you're talking about how this is just overtly fraudulent behavior, it's absolutely wild. >> And if they're listening to this, the day it came out,

What do you think that they can expect to see out of Trump tonight?

“>> He's going to lean on the fact that Iran has struck vessels.”

He's going to lean on the fact that the deals aren't being made. And he's going to find a way to escalate. It goes back to kind of what we talked about a couple of episodes ago where we are still flooding troops and material and logistics into the zone. And that means something's going to happen.

You don't flood that much stuff in. You don't build that big of a hammer and don't start hitting nails when things don't go your way. And nothing right now is going Trump's way. In fact, they're so not going his way that the minute he says

something the exact opposite happens. And it's frankly a slap in the face to him every time he says, "Straight of Hormuzes" open.

Ships start moving through and they get hit by not just drones,

but by Iranian gunboats. And that just shows that the United States was either unprepared or unable to defend the shipping through the straight at that moment in time. And immediately that shut everything down. No one's going to trust anything anyone says, whether it's Trump,

whether it's the Iranians doesn't matter. Both sides are now shooting at ships from the other side. And third party ships. And we're just now in a complete, kind of a stalemate. There's just no one's going to move.

Nothing's going to move.

“And I think that's going to be the way it goes for the next few weeks”

to break through that Trump is going to have to escalate. And it's going to probably be ugly, unfortunately. Well, we can get a little bit more in this back half of our episode when we talk more about current events. But if it's all right with you guys, I'd like to take a turn right now

and take a little bit of a look at the origins of this conflict. And we've talked about this a little bit off the air. While both of you have a lot of career expertise and education surrounding the subject, I did write a paper on Iran's oil privatization in my freshman year of college history of the Middle East class.

So I think that makes me the raining expert on the podcast. So I was hoping-- I'm going to stick my headphones off and call today. Yeah, if you guys want to sit this one out, I was hoping that maybe I could give a break down or get us started and you could tell me how right I am.

And if not, why I probably got it wrong for a good reason. OK, so if I'm getting this correctly, in my memory, it seems like a lot of our conflict with oil and the West conflict with oil surrounding Iran comes back to the early 1950s when Muhammad Mosadek,

the leader of Iran at the time, chose to nationalize the oil industry, which dealt a very major blow to the UK, to British petroleum. And the US decided to back the UK for whatever reason, which perhaps you can explain to me even though--

I was explained to the listener. I mean, of course, I understand it myself perfectly. And then the US chose to back the UK and overthrow Mosadek and install the Shah and in order to back-- I'm sorry, in order to back British oil interests.

Am I getting this correct so far? Would anyone like to expand? OK, OK, yeah. Excellent. If you want some of the gaps of my expertise, please.

You know, I'm glad you brought this up because a big question I've gotten the last couple of days is a statement that I've seen many times. It's people are having a hard time believing. And they don't understand why Iran doesn't just give up.

“And they're like, why isn't-- why aren't they just giving up?”

So let's look at the history we're going to go back before Mosadek. So it's not in the paper, but I'll allow it. OK, oil was discovered-- I believe it was 1908 in Iran. And the British-- not BP in particular-- but the British immediately went in and started extracting

those natural resources from Iran. And for over 40 years, Britain got very wealthy on Iran's oil while Iran lived in poverty. And the analogy that I like to use is that Britain and the United States did to Iran what Maduro did to Venezuela.

It's literally the exact same thing.

So Britain goes in to Iran basically steals a lot of their natural resources.

They're living in poverty. Iran was getting less than 10% of all the oil revenues that were generated in their country for 40 years, little over 40 years. Then we introduce your guy, Mosadek.

Mike, he comes in, Muhammad Mosadek. He comes in, and nationalizes Iran's oil, and basically kicks, Britain out. The response from the West, now this is where the US comes in, Britain and the US completely sanctioned

and blockade all of Iran's oil. And that goes on for two years as Iran

And you know, because now they can't sell their oil.

They finally got their oil, and now they can't sell it.

So then the United States and Britain used the CIA and MI6 to enact a coup in Iran. They used all kinds of tactics, the propaganda, everything. They funded it, and they installed the show. The show was, what would you call them?

A sympathizer to the West or a friendly of the West. So Iran got their oil back, but then the West immediately sent in all the US companies to take it. So big US oil companies went in and started producing all of Iran's oil. And it was basically still enriching the West.

So they essentially set up a public government that allowed them to do

what they'd been doing before most of the nationalized the oil industry. Yeah. And what was, what was it called? Sorry. Operation Ajax, so that was called.

“Yeah, um, checks out. It's in the paper, I believe.”

And, but a question, I'm curious, um, what did that do for life in Iran? Because, uh, you know, how, how did the shot differ as a leader, for most of it, I got, aside from just if we can take a up, we could say, aside from the oil industry, how did that change life in Iran or, you know, the experience of the people's there?

Well, within Iran, there was just this growing frustration that the oil wealth, as Matt was saying, was not benefiting the country. And it was the Anglo-Aranian oil company. They effectively controlled the production of profits. And so in the early 1950s, that nationalization was seen as something that they were really

happy with. When the, the, the coup took place for Washington's perspective, is about stability, about keeping Iran aligned with the West.

“You have to remember, this was during the Cold War. And it was preventing”

Soviet encroachment, but from the Iranian people's perspective, this became about a colonialist empire trying to move in and take their, their oil. The United States is no longer seen as neutral or even as a helpful partner. Because you have to understand, going back all the way to World War II, there was generally a favorable relationship between the United States and Iran.

We weren't always adversarial. They helped us in World War II, helped us get equipment through

their sector into the Soviet Union to fight the Nazis. So all of this kind of, how we've taken advantage of their reshapes, their views. And this is where the, the relationship within the Iranian people, not the, not the Shah starts to move from cooperation to suspicion. They started to realize that the relationship was souring because the Shah was being seen as this, this puppet of the United States.

Our military aid, our economic support, it wasn't actually helping the people. It was helping, it's kind of a pseudo-alligarchy. And it's interesting inside note,

“where the military aid, that's why we saw F-14,”

U.S. F-14 is being struck by U.S. F-35s and F-18s. People were wondering why are there U.S. aircraft being struck by the U.S. Well, the Iranians under the Shah used to get military aid from us. And so that rapid modernization took place. And unfortunately, it didn't help anyone at the level of the, what we would call the middle class to lower class. It became such a problem that the Shah's regime started to have heavy, heavy

handed approaches to maintain control. They built an intelligent service called the Savak, which was built with U.S. support tech. They monitored. They detained. And often they tortured political opponents and things like that. So even though the Shah at the state level was getting stronger and growing closer to the United States, many Iranians view the Shah's brutal product of foreign intervention, especially when they had just felt that they had gotten

through this, this 1953 influence campaign by the United States. So by the 1970s, that resentment was widespread. And the economic inequality that was taking place kind of became the gasoline, for the fire that was already burning. And that led to coup number two. And it was far, far bigger than the one in 1953 when the Iatola took power in 1979. So right before we get to that, if I can recap a little bit, you're saying that essentially while Iran was under the British

thumb of the British, starting in, as we were saying, 1908, when they started drilling for oil there, that send them in towards the U.S. and allyship of the U.S. existed pretty much into the mid-20th century. And that sort of in-typathy towards more than activity. But the seat of the activity was planted with when U.S. intervention came to back the British presence where we became aligned with those western powers that were exploiting them. And then, meanwhile,

in addition to that growing sentiment, you're seeing this installed puppet dictator, essentially,

autocratic in terms of the way he's holding onto power is, you know, you know, have within that time, a generation of people growing up with that image of the U.S. as well, right? You're in the time between these two revolutions. You have these people who are who's suffering and the decreases in quality of life are directly linked back to the U.S. So then tell me what happens during this

during this second coup. Well, before I do that, I just want to say something that's very key.

U.S. history books love to paint the Iranians before 1979 as totally supporting the U.S. in loving us and everything. The distinction here is the Shah's regime loved us. So from our perspective, our news perspective, it seemed like Iran was very favorable to the U.S. But the people very much were not because they were being exploited and they felt exploited. So I just wanted to give that

“distinction before Matt wants to take us into the-- I think that's important too. And even the language”

that we-- because occasionally we say, we refer to the U.S. military, and I don't personally condemn their actions. And also the way the U.S. is different-- the way I say we, because I not served in the military, but also when we say, when I say Israel, I don't necessarily mean the average Israeli journalist. I mean the state of Israel. So I think it is really valid. That's why I wanted to ask how did the-- it's a valid comparison and a valid distinction.

And it's part of why I ask how the quality of life and attitude changed at these different pivotal points in history. Yeah, for sure. Because we matters because before the Iatola came into power, Israel Iranian relations were actually pretty good. The Iranians used to sell oil to Israel. So it was just-- it is good to distinction, to show that distinction. Because the U.S. of the Pantheist broad handed, oh, it was the singular event. And the rise of the Iatola,

no, there was animosity before then. So I just wanted to point that out. And so this whole time Israel has been created in the meantime, and then Iran-- most of it has been overthrown, but under the Shah, Iran is still selling oil to Israel. Yeah, they were a key player in countering the Soviets. They were very helpful in countering the Soviets up until 1979. Right. And it was like overnight the switched flip.

Well, let's talk about what happened in 1979, page three of my essay.

Well, basically, '79 is where we are today. Like so '79, I had the coup.

Yeah, I told it took over. And every since then, it's basically been like it is now. Sanctions, no investment of any kind from the West and to their part of the world, isolating them from markets and technology. So basically since 1979,

“it's been like it has been right now. It's been that for the last, what is that?”

40, almost, 47 years or whatever. So to sum it all up and put a little ribbon on it, for 71 years, the West loaded the country of their natural resources and left them penniless. And then when they took back their country, we spent 47 years punishing them with sanctioned and isolationism and refusing to let them participate in markets. And yes, they've done a lot of things. They've done a lot of terrorist attacks and all the things they have done,

but it's important that we understand the history of how Iran became Iran. They just didn't wake up one day and hate the United States in the West. That's not a thing. They woke up every day for 71 years with people stealing their resources to build their own superpowers. While they were sitting there in the desert penniless, that is what happened to Iran.

So I don't want it at all for even a second to sound like I'm defending Iran. I'm saying,

this is what happened. Oh, you also don't have to defend the US and Iran. We're not taking the one position or the other. And as much as I defer to the authority of this paper, I wrote in college,

“I do think culturally, I remember growing up and Iran being depicted in media as this,”

sometimes even as this barbaric Islamic Republic where these people are all religious fundamentalists and this is a dangerous country that breeds terrorists. This is just American media and news and entertainment in the 90s. Just sort of Iran was in the same breath as a lot of countries that we were demonizing at the time. Obviously, mostly Muslim countries it wasn't really until learning about this after maybe in high school into college, but what I

actually read a couple books about this and learned, oh, there's a direct reason that Iran is ruled by an Islamic Republic and also that that depiction is pretty much directly propaganda,

arts culture and sports and Iranians cinema is very well regarded,

which is not to say that I ever thought these people didn't have culture, but the way that US media depicted Iran was as if it was a country that was stuck in the stone ages rather than a country where we enabled a revolution that we were we enabled authoritarianism and then religious fundamentalism in a way that was hurting all that cultural freedom. I didn't learn that, of course, until I started a research it for myself. Well, I will say that

to kind of counter that a bit, the regime didn't do anything to help themselves right off the bat.

“If you want to, their goal was never to bridge anything. They could have had the opportunity to”

try to work with the US to write whatever wrongs and they had no interest in doing that. And probably because it was just this real anger and I understand why there's this real anger, we were

looting them, but the first, you're talking about Khomeini when they, when they first,

yeah, when Khomeini with Khomeini came out, he, his first clear I'm not, I'm not defending Ayatollah Khomeini in this. I'm more saying that the, in the time of this conflict depicted by growing up was, oh, well, all these evil Iranian guys are like the Khomeini's and that's, you know, that's why Iran's enemy. We had to fight with you saying that. And only that I learned that, you know, not that many years before I was born, it was a, you know, all of this,

they only had recently seized power due to a, you know, a reaction to previous US intervention.

“Yeah, and it's, it's unfortunate because the Ayatollah was reactionary to a colonial”

position that a lot of countries had taken advantage of Iran, but he came out right off the bat

calling us the Great Satan. And then he, they immediately seized those 440 American, 44 American diplomats and had them, they were hostages for a year. So they didn't really come out with the best intentions either, but I also will say that the United States has started, they had an opportunity to build a diplomatic bridge as well. And we just decided to kind of burn the, the relationship to the ground when we went into the Iran Iraq war and we just started

backing Iraq. We started giving them dual use tech and Intel, but it wasn't so clean a situation that we were absolutely helping Iraq because we would publicly oppose Iran, but we had have limited covert dealings with them. So you kind of end up with this contradictory approach,

“which is the US always tries to do this, where they try to have their cake and eat it to.”

The, the way we were, the reason we were trying to help, or, help Iraq was to contain Iran and prevent it from dominating the region, but later stages of that war, the United States just started directly attacking Iran. And so that pressure helped build this build more animosity against the United States, and eventually the pressure built so much that it caused the ceasefire in 1988. But the, that's kind of the, the 1988 point is where you can kind of stick a pin in the

timeline to where the United States moves from just kind of being an outsider with influence and things like that to they're just now directly involved in the Middle East. And then you cut to 91 and the US turns on Iran completely, or excuse me, turns on Iraq because they were supporting Iraq, then they turned on Iraq because Saddam Hussein, who they were supporting against Iran decides to invade Kuwait. And Bush senior does not take out Saddam completely. For the singular reason

that he wants to counterbalance Iran. So we're like having the US absolutely is pulling puppet strings with Iran with Iraq. And then we, we are surprised that when our puppets turn on us, when we aren't very good puppet masters. I want to actually ask, when you say we're surprised, are you being Kuwait? Are you saying that the US leadership is actually caught off guard or so much as we should expect this and, and they have every right, or they would expect it as well. And,

you know, use it as propaganda, for example. Well, for us, hindsight is 2020. So we can look back and go, well, this was obvious. But in, when you look at it from when you read the memoirs of things, people like Condoleezza Reich, or people who are in the room, shorts, coffee, things like that, they truly believed that they were in the right by switching sides back and forth and controlling things. So they, they didn't think, we're going to, we're going to cause future problems. I don't,

it's just like Donald Trump today. I don't think he foresaw all of the problems that we're going to be caused with his, his war. It's just a lack of the contingency planning. It's just, you can't, and you see this all the time, where it's, it's some form of Mike Tyson's, everyone's got a plan until you get punched in the face. And that's, that's kind of where we're at. And when

cannot contend with the most military powers in the region. They cannot definitely contend with

“the military powers around the world. About the time, the Soviet Union was still somewhat a thing.”

I mean, 91, they'd already fallen, but I'm talking kind of before that after the Iran Iraq war. And this led to them developing proxies. They just said, we're not going to build tanks anymore. We're just going to use proxies, missiles, and indirect strategy. And it eventually led to them using proxy forces to deploy to Iraq in 2003 to help the Iraqi Shia militias fight the US military there. And they brought the explicitly formed projectile, which was extremely devastating. And so

kind of that's where the animosity comes from. We are fully responsible for our part of it. It's just, and so is Iran. So is Iran. It's just, there's just been a series of bad leadership, obviously out of Saddam Hussein, obviously out of the Iatola. And then we had just bad leadership coming out of the, the consistent, whether it was Desert Storm Desert Shield,

whatever, not, and there's just no way to bridge gaps, because it was just always escalatory.

Yeah, I have to imagine that for, you know, an Iranian yearning for an open society, that's probably doubly insulting to, you know, if you're an enemy of the Iatola, if you're a citizen, you know, yearning for freedom under the Iatola. And then also the US, you know, I feel you have a, anyone who is broken free from the, the messaging of the Iatola of the Iatola regime is also probably anti US as well at this point. And I can only imagine that,

you know, as you were talking about, in the first half of the 20th century, you know, even culturally,

“there was a lot of sympathy towards the US and Iran. But you have to imagine that, as I said,”

you know, people growing up and experiencing people who grew, I've experienced the revolutions children, for example, and experiencing the way of life completely change, whether or not it's rational, whether or not you blame, you know, well, hey, that's, that's not, that's on the shot or that's on, you know, and, you know, of course they've done horrible things. I can imagine how the average citizen could easily have, you know, generations at this point of just day and for the US.

Yeah, I wanted to ask Matt, because it's kind of fascinating, because originally they were using oil as a weapon somewhat. They had the oil strikes, I believe, in the 70s or whatever I can't remember, but the, but now they're learning a new tactic, the straight is their weapon, almost like it's better than a nuclear weapon. I mean, what are your thoughts on that, where they don't even, they don't even potentially need nuclear weapons. Their nuclear option is

shutting the straight down. And how, I mean, am I on base with that, where the oil is so critical,

coming through there, that's good for them, that's their plan? No, you're, I mean, and what's bad is we've known this for like 30 years or like we've known this. This, you know, why didn't anyone else do it? Donald Trump did, well, this is why. Like we've known this, this is, you know, but yeah, the straight of foremost, their geographic location in the world and that straight is their ultimate weapon. And in the beginning of the war, every day, they were talking

about how, you know, Iran's missile launches were dropping drastically. Like, oh, look, they're not launching nearly as many missiles and they're not, you know, drones. And I'm just saying, they're like, they don't have to. They have the one thing you don't have. They have the straight of foremost. They have all the ships trapped on one end. I mean, what else, what other weapon do you need? Is that, you know, what other weapon do you need? They have the ultimate mouse trap.

They have the, the world's greatest mouse trap right there off their shores. And they don't, I mean, so all this talk about how many missiles they're firing like, who cares? I mean, this war is

“about the economy for them. That's the only way they can win. They've known that for decades”

that this would always be an economic war. And we're fighting a military war with our, you know,

unmatched strength. And we think we're winning, but we're not, we're in an economic war. We're not in a military war. That's, we just use our military for economic wars. That doesn't work well. So however this ends, it's not us winning. It's because, you know, getting back to where they started is not us winning. So let me ask you to draw, go ahead. Now I'm just saying like, it's like, hey, if we can just get the straight open, we won. No. Right, of course. What did we win? Like,

that was open six weeks ago. I mean, hey, I could have opened the straight. I could have just declared it open with a scroll. Oh, the straight's open. Like it was already open. Who gives a shit? Like, you've got to double stay over there. But that is just a weapon. And it will always be their weapon.

power dynamic shift in the history? We're just talking about, you know, the history of this conflict

and how we get there. How does the US go from strong-arming Iran to essentially being economically

“vulnerable to Iran in the modern era? Is that a turning point happened after the Iotola takes over?”

And like, essentially feels like Iran has the, you said, we've known for 30 years that Iran can do that. We've known for more than 30 years, of course. But yeah, how do we get ourselves, if you can talk a little bit more about historical progression, how do we get ourselves in a situation where we're so economically reliant on Iran? Is that because more of our goods come through the straight now? I mean, I know that so much, you know, the US is not manufacturing. We're importing

more than we were in the 50s or the 70s. Are we more reliant on that kind of shipping than we used to be?

No, I would say the huge thing that changed the straight-of-formers was one discovery of massive amounts of oil in Saudi Arabia followed by the introduction of the petro-dollar. That changed the straight-of-formers because now that the petro-dollar, which, you know, everyone is suddenly so worried about, I don't know why. But now that that, once that became in existence, that made the straight-of-formers a thousand times bigger than it was before,

there was a petro-dollar. And that the petro-dollar is really what gave the straight-of-formers at strength and it's very ironic because you can use the straight, you can use the straight against

“the petro-dollar. Can you explain this for listeners? What is the petro-dollar?”

That's any oil that's traded in US dollars is a petro-dollar. And so there was a time when all

oil was traded in US dollars and that gave the dollar a lot of strength that helped it achieve its reserve currency. But it's not as important now as it was back then. You know, everyone's worried about the dollar in the petro-dollar and, oh, what if we lose the petro-dollar? You know, the dollar's place in financial markets is 10,000 times bigger than its place in the oil market. That is what maintains the US dollar now, not oil. So everyone's freaking out about the dollar in oil,

but the power or the influence of the petro-dollar has shrunk significantly over the last few decades. But now that we have global financial markets, it's not really a huge deal because that's where the dollar lives and dominates. Yeah, and if I just kind of piggyback on Matt with this idea of the petro-dollar, I see a lot of people discuss the petro-dollar as it's the ending of the petro-dollar bricks, which is the Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and then a smattering of other

countries is going to end the dominance of the petro-dollar. People need to understand that it's no longer the petro-dollar. It is the everything dollar. Everything is bought and sold in the US dollar. Now, granted, it is going down largely because of Trump's policies. We are seeing a lower rate of dollar usage than we have historically since the United States became kind of the economic

“hedgehog. But you have to understand that there's a subset of finance and lending that the United”

States does not even see. So we have the real world of the dollar, which is everyone's trading. I want Australia wants to buy US cars. They use the dollar if we want to buy Australian beef. We use the dollar. But there's a subset where countries like China, they want to buy something from Australia, but Australia doesn't want Chinese yuan. So they're like, no, we want US dollars. So what ends up happening is China will look and I'm derailing this our whole agenda here. But

this is kind of a fascinating thing where you have Australia looking at China saying, "We don't want you on. We want US dollars." So what the Chinese will do will say, "We don't have enough US dollars on hand, but we'll write you an IOU in US dollars." And what they've effectively done is created US dollars out of thin air via an IOU and outside of the US Treasury's purview. So what happens is you have all of these IOUs, Japan wants Indian spices. But they don't want,

but India doesn't want yen. They want US dollars. So they can spend it in the US. So another IOU is written. That IOU market, that sort of shadow market that the United States dollar is being used, is something like four times the size of the actual dollar market. And that is why that is the absolute power of the US dollar, where there's so much strength underlying these IOUs. And people want their dollars. They want to pay it that if the physical dollar market fluctuates,

that underlying kind of IOU dollar market, it stays the same. And it's huge mungus, like an order of

anytime soon. So this idea of the petrador dying. Yeah, no, it's the everything dollar. And everyone has promised to pay each other in these dollars when they don't have them. And the US by proxy controls

all of that. So it's a very powerful tool. I went off on a tangent there, but I wanted to kind of,

it was a cool thing that I've read about. The dollar, this I can't remember, it's like the

“shadow economy of the US dollar being way bigger than the actual economy. And that's why it's not”

going to go anywhere. Yeah. And to piggyback off of that, when that doesn't happen, they just exchange whatever currency they receive for US dollars. So if some country sells something and receives, you know, the Chinese you want, they just immediately take it and exchange it for dollars. They don't hold it. They get rid of it immediately and get their dollars. So I think what Chad's talking about is more prevalent than what I'm talking about. But it just further reinforces the point that

there's nothing that you, you know, bricks don't even have a currency. I don't even know what we're

talking about bricks. Yeah. It's a no-conspiratorial type BS. There's not anything that's going to shake the dollar down and be thrown at. We can damage to our dollar than bricks. I keep hearing about the yuan or the renmin be unseeding the same currency. It just depends on who you're asking. Unseeding the US dollar. It's like the fifth largest currency. It's not even close to the US. Like the euro. It goes like dollar does like 55 to 60% of all trade. Then the euro does like 30%

“and then you have like the yen, the pound. And then you have, I think you have like it basically”

depends on the quarter, Canada's dollar and then the Chinese you want. So this idea that the yuan is going to oversee the dollars nonsense. But understand that this kind of tying it back to the Warren Iran, Iran is now leveraging their position with the state of our moves to say you only pay us in yuan and an attempt to try to get at least some of the margins of the US dollar chip away at it. So there we wrap all those youtubers that that make hundreds of thousands of not millions

of dollars a year talking about the fall of the petro dollar. Everyone of them get paid in dollars. You don't think they're, you don't think they're getting it in Corona. They're not as good as Google. They're not asking Google for, you know, Malaysian ring it to dollar to US dollar. Yeah, you know, well, straight off for beaver pelts. Yeah. Well, here's another reason the dollar ain't going anywhere. You know who else gets dolled the dollar? Cartelts. Ain't no cartels receiving

like check currency or the pound, the dark world of the like of things like cartels, unfortunately trafficking, human trafficking, it's all done in dollars. And I know crypto is trying to unseat that, but a lot of crypto is just people sitting on it as like it's gold or something. So and like I said, we have derailed this whole thing. So now I just want to move back to beaver pelts because as much as Matt's, you know, talking down to that as an investment. Furs are still selling,

Matt. Oh, man. In the current economy, you're talking about assets that don't depreciate. I don't know. You could, there are currencies that could do a lot worse than putting your money into furs. Not that I ethically supported. Yeah, I won't do a little bit of research before we write that off as a part of the investment portfolio. Yeah. This is about money. I don't know why you're

“bringing up ethics. No, he's no joke. Now, I think it's the side of uh, I apologize for”

the urge of your efforts. That should be beaver based. 60 or more. Lays 5%. Yeah. Lays 5%. Yeah. You know, magnets, commemorative coins, but you're going to want to, you're going to want some first. Yeah. Well, none of this is going to matter unless we win this war, or unless this war comes going to end, there's just, I don't think there's a way to win it at this point. But yeah. Well, I think we did win it because we've changed what the goal and when I say we, I mean me,

Donald Trump, I've changed the goal enough times that most people don't remember why it started and I have a podcast about it and you could, you know, see a little bit of a fuddleman in my own face when I search for the original messaging. So I could say, I think they've won at least three times along the way. Haven't we declared victory enough yet? Yeah. The straights open

or wasn't ever closed or was never open. There's a ceasefire that there wasn't, but we didn't

uh, and then we sent JD Vance to Pakistan. So leave them there. Say we won. Well, the problem is get out of there. If, if we're really, if we're trying to be serious about getting out of this mess,

we're never going to go back to what was the status quo. We're just going to have a lesser

situation. We need to shoot for the least bad outcome, essentially, is what it is. And the problem is, is both sides rightfully think they have leveraged to force major concessions. Obviously, the United States has the ability to to inflict incredible violence. But Iran has proved it in a bizarre several massive attacks. Not just this one, but we've attacked them last year with their on a nuclear strike. We attacked them with Israel or Israel attacked them previously in

their 12-day war. This is all happened in a span of just 18 months roughly. And they've they've discovered that they can survive. They can survive attacks from Israel from the U.S. They're their

Iatola can be killed, but the regime itself survives. And somewhat might get a bit stronger and

more closed in because the Iatola was more of a more of an aspirational leader for the future,

“whereas the IRGC is just a regime survival tool. Is the rest of the world learning from this?”

Like, ours is exposing a weakness. You know, you come at the U.S. economically versus, I mean, obviously, we understand that we are the military superpower, but is this exposing what some of our weaknesses are to other countries in the world? Well, I'll let Matt out to this because I can tell you that, yes, there's there's some military weaknesses, but it's not strategic enough. One thing that is eye-opening from a military aspect,

the straight aside, we have shown once again that we can bring to bear pretty incredible firepower

with pretty minimal loss, but the problem is the military aspect is only one pillar of

going to war. The other being economic and then the third being the people's will. And so I think we're losing on those other two, which means we'll lose the war, but Matt might be able to speak to the economic side a bit more as to why we're losing that. No, I agree, you know, the U.S. has a history of the people not having the will. And it's because the U.S. has a history of going to war kind of against the will of the people

that live in the United States. And if there's anything, every other country in the world knows about the United States is that eventually U.S. politicians fold prematurely, because their job is more important than whatever their quest is in some war or in the other side of the

“world. So I think that's pretty common knowledge around the world that the United States”

will, you know, fold to political pressure. Especially if we're unilaterally going at it, absolutely. So, and that just kind of makes me think about how we would actually get out of this. And I just don't think we have an administration that is willing to, I guess humble itself to the reality of what is necessary to get out of this war, because we have to understand that there's not going to be an outcome that absolutely gets our maximalist demands, the demands that Trump has.

And I think he's already starting to recognize that because he's already moved from absolutely no nuclear development forever and ever to now we're hearing, well, maybe just for 20 years. That was a pretty quick shift. A little bit of nuclear development as a change. Yeah, and that's the thing is like when you see that board, you can make some nuclear. And that's the thing is it's like that was a quick turn. Like he did that in the span of like three days, where he was like no

no nooks, maybe nooks in 20 years. And now you see Iran see the crack in the door. They're starting to see the ability. And we can actually, if we were smart, which we aren't right now, but if we were smart, we could slam that door shut if we were to bring on our allies and partners to our

“negotiations, because we just we just aren't. That's I think that's a big problem with how we're going”

at this is that we are not only in the fighting itself, but now the negotiations, we're bringing too much emotion, both Iran and us. We're bringing too much emotion. And so we need the logical counterbalance of allies from Europe, allies from the Gulf States. And if Iran needs to bring in allies to help them bring in the Russia, even though I'm really not a fan of Russia, bring in China, bring in the Pakistan. And there's a little bit of a secret here. Russia was actually

key in helping bringing Obama's joint comprehensive plan of action across the finish line. So if we can get everyone in a room, we can kind of temper the emotions. Oh yeah, and Israel has to be involved too. Because they have to understand that for there to be a successful outcome for the United States, they whatever happens to them directly impacts our ability to have a positive outcome. So we need to constrain them as necessary. That seems like the least likely part of

region. Yeah, there's no understand that these suggestions I make about how we get out of this.

“I want to say by the way, I've been trying to use sanitized news like we're going to try to create”

World War III to take over several new nearby countries and using U.S. firepower to do. So I don't see they're getting what they want with Iran in many ways. So I don't see Israel sitting down at the table. It correct me if I were on, but that feels like one of the least likely elements in this path forward is that Trump, much like Biden before have seems to continue to allow Netanyahu to shape foreign policy in ways that our counterproductive or our

gonna prevent us from reaching any kind of deal. Is that something that you can see reversing anytime soon or how would you bring Israel on board for that? Well, I would argue that I think Donald Trump is probably going to have a limit to his tolerance of Netanyahu getting in his way eventually. I think it might be a long time, but I think eventually as we have in the past, we'll have to drag Israel along whether whether that what that looks like for Trump. I don't know.

I think it becomes too much of a economic escalation. I think the straight of hormones becomes just too toxic. That's a really great look at the least bad way that we can get out of this situation, which brings me to a segment that I like to call the least worst part of the week, where we highlight

“if not the best thing that we've heard or the best news we've heard all week, some of the least”

horrible things that we've heard in the past week that relate to our topics here on the show or things that we think that you should know. Matt and Chad, either of you have a least worst story of the week that you'd like to hit me with. I mean, we start with Beaver Pelt's Go for a Matt. You guys are going to love this. Oh, sweet. Here's a so good last time. Like, I don't even know why I go. You got such good ones. What do you guys think of meat raffles?

New to me. New constant. Okay. I'm a form of an opinion. In these polarizing times, the great people

of Minnesota have found something that they can finally agree on, and that is meat raffles.

And for the last, I think, 40 years there's been a limit on how much meat could be given away in a meat raffle in Minnesota. I thought this was America. I'm making me cough this. This is

“great news, especially if you live in Minnesota. Okay. Now, albeit has been, you know, influenced by”

inflation and the price of beef, the fine legislators in the state of Minnesota have gotten together and passed their signature piece of legislation this year. And that is to up the limit on the value of the meat you can give away in a meat raffle from $70 to $200. So you can get like at least eight hamburger patties now at a meat raffle. It's a huge story. Republican Jim Nash led led all of this. And he says this is probably the best feel good bill that we have going on

in the legislature in Egypt. Now, Sean, this show. These people have had ice in their state for months. Standing on their quarters at 30 degrees below freezing weather with an assault rifle just trying to direct like defend the guy who runs the gas station down the block. Let me give away some fucking meat. Raised the limit. It's like, oh, this is a good theory. It's a good theory of it. Things have been feeling very good in your area for a while. That's, I love that attitude from

our of Minnesota Republican being like, yeah, this is like one of the, one of the better stories we've had lately. Yeah, bro, what's been going on lately? You've been in the news, dude. Like nationally, we're, we're watching that stuff. I can't wait for Nick Shirley to go to Minnesota to investigate meat raffle for. I mean, you know, that's coming. These people, you're going to get rolled up in that daycare investigation. They're going to be like, oh, see, meat raffles,

ribs. Yeah, is that a, is that a conservative gripe of like all the liberals are limiting

the amount of of meat that you can give away? Mine is not nearly as good as this. It never is.

Like last week, it was laser hippos. Now, we got meat raffles and beaver pills. This one sound more grounded somehow. But go. All right. So mine is just lately helping people. But the international monetary fund in World Bank are actually doing something progressively here. They're moving to stabilize countries that are actually being hit by energy trade disruptions from this worn Iran before that pressure turns into something much worse. Before starvation and crop loss and

things starts happening. And they've already pre-positioned like $150 billion in emergency financing for countries that need it for spikes and fuel. And we didn't talk about this, but obviously fertilizer

world. And there's a lot of people that are food insecure. And so what's happening is this, this is

“the IMF, the World Bank who get a lot of crap for being a part of whatever the quote unquote”

call, which is all nonsense. But what is different about this and why this is so good is because in past crises, whether it was the 2008 financial crisis or COVID, they were too late. They moved way too late. And the system was already broken and people were already starving. And by the time they had gotten this funding to countries that needed it. There was already people dying. And it was medication was being delivered. Things like that. And they're already getting ahead of it. So

it's just, I was just really happy to see that. And it's just proves that international bodies, they do work, whether it is NATO, whether it is the IMF. For all the gripes that you have and China potentially controlling things like the World Health Organization, which is valid, the a lot of these bodies will do very good things such as this. And it's actually leading, and I saw this is just kind of a segue quick headline. It actually stuff like this is leading to,

once again, we're in 2026 hitting a year of the lowest level of extreme poverty across the globe, despite the fact that there's these wars going on. So I thought that was some good news. And maybe these people can get some money from the emergency funds and put it into a raffle tickets for me. All right. That's also important, Chad. I guess you're right. You sleep NATO and they're not getting me signed off on NATO just because the WHO is doing good things. But I agree.

“Let's end some poverty. No, I think that's excellent and you are not going to believe”

Where my story sits? You don't want this time. I got one for you. Yeah, I'm gonna use my platform. I might be the only person who cares about this So I'm gonna use my platform to spread this But the 2006 with chow skis film speed racer just got a 4k restoration and is in theaters and I'm max for a few days

And if you've never seen this film, I'm not just bringing it up because I love it. It's a cult classic and it's anti-capitalist and

Not just in the messaging of the film. It also cost like $130 million to make and did not earn that much money back So it's getting a capitalist and so much as they stole money from Warner Brothers and it's an excellent movie It was so forward thinking that people are just catching up to it But the reason that I mentioned it is because the plot of the movie And we'll be so crazy that you may forget that the plot of the movie is about

Capitalist intervention messing up with messing with stock prices Intentionally manipulating markets for fuel cells for automobiles and that's the central plot Conceit is that they are trying to win car races to influence the price of the emerging fuel cell market Because this this is apparently movie takes place in a post-boiled world Which is a thing that we talk about that in a world without oil there will still be capitalism

So it's an examination of what capitalism would look like in a post-oil world that just happens to be appropriate for seven-year-olds So do yourself a favor and go see the anti-capitalist masterpiece by the Wichowski's speed racer We'll be discussing it on the podcast for three hours next week And that with our with our meat raffled with our winnings with our meat winnings just up to my neck and up two hundred dollars worth of frozen patties

That's been the least worst part of the week and that brings us to the end of our podcast before we go I want to let our listeners know where they can find us all for the rest of the week because some people are just clamoring for more Mr. Global They're clamoring for more Chad Scott. They're trying to remember my name

“It's Nat Towson. Thanks so much for trying. Doesn't really seem like the focus here. I agree Chad. Where can people find you on social media?”

So my personal handle for Tiktok is at CP Scott 15

It's basically an extension of what you hear here as well as on

YouTube confusingly. I have a separate handle called CP Scott 16 Mainly because YouTube banned my last one for talking about Wagner group and Everywhere else at CP Scott 15, but I also want to plug the fact that we have and I know you hate the word plug, but I'm gonna say it I want to play the fact that we have a we have a specific dedicated Tiktok for this channel for American power podcast. We have a Tiktok go check it out

It's at American power podcast that are awesome editors and stuff cut up the The videos and put stuff that's relevant on that. So if you don't want to sit through us Talking about meat raffles and beaver pelts and laser hippos You can go find the real meat of what we're talking about there as well So I encourage everyone to go see that

Don't counter program watch the whole video Yeah, but you're gonna give us a five star review that really helps. I was gonna plug. I will I will plug all our socials at the end Don't worry. Yeah, Mr. Global where can people find you in the time between episodes?

World life you just know where I'm like Carmen San Diego like I'm everywhere

He's on news nation. Hey, let me try that again. Mr. Global. What specific platforms can people use to find you? What are your handles on those platforms? My handles are Mr. Global and I'm on Tiktok Instagram Facebook YouTube blue sky threads What's that one there's Substack yeah, I'm on substack. I'm on LinkedIn. I'm on LinkedIn

Hello, I don't know why

Networking opportunities in exciting new fields like tech and crypto, obviously

Maybe a way I love it when people I love it when people look at my LinkedIn and I like you're not an expert

“I'm like look dude. Here's the thing people at my level. Don't give us shit with their LinkedIn looks like”

I'm not trying to get a job at McDonald's. Let's not look at my LinkedIn My LinkedIn gives you a perfect a perfect picture of the person I was pretending to be For the last job. I was applying to all right and the next time I do apply to a job That's for the kind of people if you want to call them people who check LinkedIn regularly

If you see the all I'm going to do is just change the entire profile to make it sound like I'm the person for the next job

Before they have a chance to research me. That's what LinkedIn is for. It's a Personal revision history. I'm number here. I have to say this. So you can find out nattoes and LinkedIn dot com slash nattoes You guys know Gary v is right. Yeah, I don't know is yeah About a year ago, maybe two years ago. He said LinkedIn

“It was gonna be the biggest thing. He said it was gonna pass everything. I remember that and that's when I quit listening”

I was like okay, he's on the sauce. I thought you said that's what he drank all of his grandpa's wine He's a social media a crammer is to stalks whatever. He does opposite gen alpha Loves LinkedIn they know that they're not gonna they're gonna be working Five jobs by the time they're ten years old and they're into networking and that's just what it's good So on the rare occasion, I decide to write a Forbes article

I do go to LinkedIn just to stick it on there and every time I do it I'm just like what am I doing this for like this is a complete waste of my time Are you sticking it to any high school class mates? Oh, I mean just put anything on LinkedIn It's like, why am I wasting this precious three minutes of my life like I could be Composting or something like I could be doing anything

That is it. That's the next step of the tip and we're going to have to talk about that next time is calm Folks, you can follow me at Nat Towson to your WSEN unconventional spelling on Instagram and other social media that I use less frequently Don't follow me on LinkedIn. I'd like you to use the time that you would have spent looking me up on LinkedIn to start a compost And you're gonna you're gonna need it We all gotta be doing it whether or not they give us fees in New York they keep giving us fees and not giving us fees

“Go start a compost and delete your LinkedIn account or just ignore it forever until you have to apply for a job again”

Actually don't give them the daily active users So find me on Instagram and elsewhere at Nat Towson You can also follow the podcast on social media follows at American Power podcast on TikTok and Instagram And you can find our episodes on the find out media channel on YouTube as well as shorts from Power episodes. Make sure you give us a rating wherever you go five stars. Please for Chad Scott and Mr. Global Matt Randolph

I'm Nat Towson. This has been American Power from Findout Media and remember power corrupts but American power corrupts American Lee