I. Introduction
US global supremacy is the product of deliberate long-term strategy, not historical chance
Integration of finance, energy, military power and maritime control
The US dollar as the operating system of the global order
Revival of Monroe Doctrine logic under Trump as the “Donroe Doctrine”
II. Post–World War II Financial Foundations
US emergence as dominant power after WWII
Bretton Woods system (1944): dollar–gold link and financial leadership
Structural strains due to Vietnam War and trade deficits
III. Reinvention through the Petrodollar System
Nixon's 1971 abandonment of the gold standard
US–Saudi agreement (1971–74): oil priced in dollars
Security guarantees in exchange for dollar-based energy trade
Petrodollar as the backbone of US financial dominance
IV. Maritime Control and Strategic Chokepoints
Importance of global sea lanes for oil and trade
Key chokepoints: Hormuz, Malacca, Suez
Role of naval power, port access and overseas bases
V. Networked Power: Soft and Hard Instruments
Military aid, alliances and security partnerships
Strategic interventions: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela
Venezuela as a case study of Donroe Doctrine in action
VI. Emerging Challenges and Limits of Rivals
China, Russia and India expanding maritime reach
BRICS financial alternatives and de-dollarization efforts
Structural limits: trust, cohesion and naval dominance
VII. Conclusion
Dollar's endurance rooted in energy pricing and sea power
Multipolarity emerging but US dominance remains intact
Control of money, energy and movement continues to shape global order
As the Trump administration dramatically escalates its efforts to reassert predominance in the Western Hemisphere, the newly coined 'Donroe Doctrine' has dominated headlines. As laid out in the recent National Security Strategy (NSS), the US will leverage its hard power capabilities to “assert and enforce a 'Trump Corollary' to the Monroe Doctrine” – now perhaps more infamously self-coined the “Donroe Doctrine.” The recent US military intervention in Venezuela, resulting in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, represents a direct and forceful application of this Doctrine. This push for hemispheric dominance signals a shift away from a rules-based global system toward a fragmented, multipolar order defined by competing regional hegemonies.
Introduction
US global dominance is not accidental; it is the result of decades of strategic planning, adaptation and integration of finance, energy, military power, technology, maritime control and global resource flows. Central to this dominance is the US dollar, which functions not merely as a currency but as the operating system of the international order. Since 1973, the petrodollar system has solidified the dollar as the backbone of global power, allowing the United States to anchor finance and act decisively whenever its interests are challenged.
Post-World War II Foundations
After World War II, the United States emerged as the strongest global power, while Europe and Japan were devastated. The 1944 Bretton Woods system pegged the dollar to gold at $35 per ounce, establishing the US as the anchor of global finance. This arrangement provided stability for nearly 25 years but faced strains in the late 1960s due to heavy Vietnam War expenditures and persistent trade deficits.
Strategic Reinvention after Bretton Woods
In 1971, President Nixon ended the dollar-gold link, creating a potential crisis for US dominance. Henry Kissinger recognized the need for a new anchor for the dollar: oil. Between 1971 and 1973, the US negotiated a strategic arrangement with Saudi Arabia, ensuring that oil would be priced exclusively in US dollars, with other OPEC nations following. In return, the US guaranteed the security of the Saudi regime. This agreement, formalized in 1974, established petroleum pricing in dollars as central to US financial dominance, a principle still underpinning US foreign policy from the Persian Gulf to Latin America.
Oil, Maritime Control and the Petrodollar
Oil only maintains its strategic value if it moves freely across the world's oceans. Tankers traverse critical chokepoints, including the Strait of Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb, Malacca Strait, Suez Canal and Panama Canal. Dollars alone cannot secure these routes; enforcement requires aircraft carriers, warships, port access, insurance markets and political agreements. Thus, the petrodollar system fuses finance, energy and maritime control into a single, coordinated mechanism of global dominance.
Soft and Hard Power: Networked Control
The US does not dominate coastlines directly but builds relationships with governments controlling key maritime routes. Soft power tools include military aid, development financing and security partnerships. Egypt exemplifies this, with US military aid ensuring reliable access to the Suez Canal. Hard power is exercised through military interventions and regime changes, exemplified by Iran (1953), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011) and Venezuela (2026), often to protect energy access and prevent rival control of strategic sea routes.
Naval Presence and Overseas Bases
Through alliances, port access, overseas bases and joint naval exercises, the US projects power across the Indian Ocean and South Pacific. Key bases in Japan, Guam, Diego Garcia, Singapore and Djibouti allow long-range power projection, surveillance of critical waterways and enforcement of the rules-based global order. This networked influence is more effective than traditional empire, protecting dollar-based trade while constraining rivals.
Emerging Challenges to Maritime Supremacy
China, Russia and India are expanding overseas presence. China's Belt and Road ports in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea, Russia's Arctic and Mediterranean outposts and India's naval partnerships with Indian Ocean island nations highlight the centrality of maritime control in contemporary multipolar competition. In response, the US maintains a forward-deployed footprint to prevent rivals from dominating chokepoints or undermining the dollar-based trading system.
Strategic Chokepoints and Coastal Influence
Coastal influence is critical because even the most advanced fleets require access to ports for refuelling, resupply and maintenance. The Strait of Hormuz, Malacca Strait and Suez Canal illustrate why great powers compete not only for maritime control but also for political influence over adjacent states.
Preserving the Dollar and US Economic Power
Attempts to bypass the dollar-based system face consequences. Iraq's 2000 Euro-based oil trade, Libya's 2011 gold-backed pan-African currency and Venezuela's Euro/Yuan oil sales illustrate that preserving the dollar is inseparable from US economic power. Venezuela's vast oil and mineral reserves, linked increasingly to China and BRICS, demonstrate the stakes involved: successful de-dollarization could encourage others to follow.
Limits of Rival Systems
Even partial alternatives face structural challenges. Saudi Arabia's use of Yuan, Russia's Ruble oil settlements, China's Belt and Road currency swaps and BRICS Pay face limits of scale, trust and interoperability. India integrates the rupee into bilateral trade with partners like Russia and Iran, but these systems remain secondary to the global dollar network. Meanwhile, US control over shipping routes and chokepoints allows continued influence without direct conflict.
The “Donroe Doctrine” and Strategic Transactionalism
Trump's 2025 National Security Strategy equated economic power with national security, reviving the Monroe Doctrine in a modern form. Alliances are assessed not only by shared values but strategic and economic contributions. Venezuela and Greenland exemplify this doctrine: US leverage over oil revenues and control of Arctic chokepoints ensure influence without formal colonisation.
Africa and Indirect Global Control
Africa's rich oil, gas and mineral resources largely move through dollar-denominated, US-influenced systems. While alternative currencies are occasionally used, the majority of strategic commodities remain within the dollar framework, reinforcing US influence across continents even without direct territorial control.
Structural Limits of Rival Powers
China lacks uncontested maritime dominance and full global trust; Europe has credibility but no unified naval power; BRICS members show ambition but lack cohesion. While multipolarity is emerging, these powers cannot yet match US integrated maritime, financial, and energy control.
Conclusion
The dollar endures because it is embedded in global energy pricing, backed by resources and enforced through maritime power. Petrodollars combine finance, energy and naval supremacy into a resilient system: energy moves because ships move, money moves because energy moves. While the world trends toward multipolarity, the US retains dominance by controlling money, energy and movement. De-dollarization remains aspirational, and US global power continues to shape the international order.
The writer is a London-based academic.
From Monroe tTo “Donroe”: Doctrinal Shift
Historical Continuity: The original Monroe Doctrine (1823) asserted hemispheric exclusion of Europe, whereas the Donroe Doctrine converts influence into direct coercive intervention beyond diplomatic pressure. This evolution parallels the shift from preventive to curative approaches in environmental clearance processes.
Unilateral Assertion: The Maduro operation reflects assertive unilateralism, bypassing multilateral institutions and undermining sovereign equality, a foundational principle of the United Nations Charter. This approach echoes concerns about ex post facto environmental clearances undermining regulatory frameworks.
Strategic Signalling: By formalizing the act as doctrine, Washington signals normalization of extra-territorial enforcement in the name of security and regional primacy. This bears similarities to how retrospective environmental clearances can signal a relaxation of environmental standards.
Shock Doctrine: The operation mirrors “shock and awe” tactics, designed to deter rivals, intimidate weaker states, and demonstrate the speed of American power projection. In environmental terms, this could be compared to sudden policy changes that disrupt established environmental impact assessment processes.
Normative Erosion: Such reinterpretations blur boundaries between collective security and regime coercion, weakening international legal predictability and restraint. This erosion mirrors concerns about weakening environmental democracy through policy changes.