What Does The Post-War Future Of The US Dollar Look Like? | Brent Johnson
TL;DR
Brent Johnson argues that despite narratives of US decline, America's military dominance remains unmatched and the Iran conflict reinforces global dollar demand through swap lines, while the shift to an "America First" foreign policy marks the end of the globalization era.
⚔️ Military Reality and US Power Projection 3 insights
US dominated Iran despite taking hits
Johnson compares the situation to Mike Tyson—getting hit doesn't equal getting knocked out, and the US has achieved military objectives while Iran remains defiant but strategically damaged.
Recent demonstrations of unchecked power
Johnson cites US bombing Iran unopposed, compelling NATO allies to increase military spending, and influencing UK policy on the Chagos Islands as evidence that American global influence remains absolute.
Rejection of 'paper tiger' narrative
Despite claims that the US has proven militarily ineffectual, Johnson argues no country has successfully stopped American actions, only opposed them rhetorically.
💵 Dollar Demand and De-dollarization Myths 3 insights
Swap lines validate dollar dependence
Countries requesting dollar swap lines demonstrates increased need for dollars, as these are loans requiring repayment in dollars, creating additional demand rather than reducing reliance.
Gap between desire and reality
While nations discuss diversifying away from dollars, Johnson notes that even Russia seeks to return to the dollar system, and four decades of de-dollarization talk have produced little actual abandonment.
Conflict accelerates dollar appetite
Rather than triggering de-dollarization, the war is validating dollar supremacy as global instability typically increases demand for US currency and emergency liquidity mechanisms.
🌍 The End of Globalization 3 insights
Abandoning rules-based order
The US is shifting from the post-WWII order that prioritized global stability toward an "America First" approach that exposes hard truths for both America and its trading partners.
Return to power politics
Johnson argues that understanding the next decade requires a Game of Thrones mindset rather than business school theory, as the globalization era was a historical aberration now ending.
Analyst versus advocate
Johnson emphasizes he chronicles these power shifts as an analyst with long-term dollar concerns, not as a policy cheerleader, acknowledging the strategy carries significant risks despite its military effectiveness.
Bottom Line
Global instability and the shift away from rules-based cooperation will likely strengthen near-term dollar demand through swap lines and safe-haven flows, even as the US embraces a more confrontational foreign policy that exposes long-term structural vulnerabilities.
More from Adam Taggart | Thoughtful Money
View all
"I'm A Buyer Of Oil Here" | Jeff Currie
Jeff Currie argues that despite recent peace deal announcements, global oil inventories are racing toward "Day Zero" by mid-July as the SPR hits critical lows, creating a compelling buying opportunity in oil and energy assets due to persistent supply constraints and logistical bottlenecks.
Can We Trust This US-Iran "Peace Deal"? | Michael Every
Michael Every argues the US-Iran "peace deal" is largely performative—a vague memorandum with contradictory interpretations that masks deep skepticism about Iran's nuclear concessions, while Gulf states quietly prepare for future conflict by building infrastructure bypassing the Strait of Hormuz.
Ted Oakley: Wall Street Is Running Investors Off A Cliff
Ted Oakley warns that current market behavior resembles 'limming markets' where investors chase speculative momentum toward a cliff, evidenced by an IPO frenzy (SpaceX, OpenAI) and semiconductor chasing that historically marks late-cycle tops, though massive fiscal and AI spending flows may delay recession until after a typical mid-year election-year swoon presents buying opportunities.
Colliding Market Headwinds & Tailwinds Make This A Time For Caution | Michael Lebowitz
Portfolio manager Michael Lebowitz argues that conflicting market forces—ranging from speculative AI chasing to massive IPO supply and geopolitical uncertainty—create a volatile environment where investors should exercise caution and consider reducing exposure over the next six months.