This article is part of an ongoing series of analyses on the war against Iran and the wider war against the emerging multipolar world. Other sections include:
Economic Chemotherapy: America’s Desperate Plan to Save Hegemony
The Strait Logic: Is the War on Iran a Dress Rehearsal for Blockading China?
The Petroyuan Trap: The U.S. Plan to Break China’s Economic Sovereignty
The Blowback Machine: America’s War on Iran and the Ticking Clock
The following is a brief update on how the late Senator Graham’s “Bone-Crushing Sanctions Package” reinforce the Petroyuan Hypothesis and below is a brief Q&A to address some of the well informed and insightful comments and questions I have received about the work.
On the surface, the revised sanctions legislation currently before congress looks like a conventional escalation of economic pressure on Russia. In practice, this is only partly true. Its most consequential effects lie elsewhere. By codifying sanctions into statute—making them harder for a future administration to unwind—and by authorizing secondary tariffs of up to 100 percent on major purchasers of Russian oil and gas, the bill is less about punishing Moscow directly than about constraining the choices available to Beijing and New Delhi. This, in itself, adds credence to the hypothesis that the coming inflation shock is a weapon aimed at primarily at China but also at dismantling BRICS.
Russia is already the most heavily sanctioned country on Earth. The new bill does not suddenly cut off its oil exports. What it does is make it possible for Washington to punish those that buy them. China and India, which between them absorb the vast majority of Russian crude that formerly went to Europe, now face a formal threat: that continued purchases of Russian energy may result in steep tariffs on their exports to the United States.
Within the Petroyuan Trap framework, this is the sixth signal. It does not prove the hypothesis. But it is precisely the kind of political manoeuvre we would expect if a coordinated financial operation were being assembled.
The Pincer Tightens
The bill functions as a pincer mechanism. The first arm is the existing EU sanctions regime, which severed Russia from the dollar and euro-denominated financial system and forced its energy trade almost entirely into yuan settlement. The second arm is this legislation, which now threatens to penalize the yuan-denominated energy purchases that the first arm made necessary.
China cannot easily abandon Russian oil. The ESPO pipeline and discounted seaborne crude are now structural components of its energy import mix. If the secondary tariff threat is enforced—or even credibly brandished—China faces an unappealing choice: continue buying Russian oil and risk damaging its access to the U.S. market, or reduce purchases and increase its exposure to the dollar-priced global spot market, where prices are already will likely soon rise and physical supply will tighten due to Gulf infrastructure destruction.
Both paths are intended to increase pressure on Beijing’ dollar reserves and make an potential energy supply squeeze more acute. Within the framework of the trap, the most likely time for Washington to play this sanctions card will be when the inflation shock hits, most likely in September.
The sanctions, in and of themselves, are not an existential threat as China has massively reduced its dependence on U.S. markets and diversified its export trade. However, combined with a multifront threat posed by the petroyuan hypothesis it is potentially a real danger. China’s predominantly private-sector export manufacturing industry operates on notoriously thin margins and unput price rises are usually absorbed by the factory owners who have in recent squeezes relied heavily upon government support policies. Export sanctions in the form of tarrifs on top of an import cost rise would put the sector under real pressure. The charts below from GEI’s China Industrial Value-Added Report show how producers in China were compelled to absorb import cost shocks during the COVID era. More on this in the Q&A section.
Russia’s Role: Trapped in the System It Was Forced to Build
For Russia, the legislation deepens an existing predicament. Sanctions have already made the petroyuan system not a policy choice but an operational necessity. The new bill ensures that this necessity will continue by making sanctions statutory. In doing so it greatly reduces the possibility that a future administration might quickly normalize relations in exchange for Russian concessions—however unlikely that scenario was before.
By expanding measures against the shadow fleet and LNG projects, it raises the cost and complexity of moving Russian energy to any market, yuan-denominated or otherwise. It also reinforces the Trap hypothesis that Washington is orchestrating a coordinated constriction of global energy supplies.
The sanctions package means Russia is now structurally locked into the petroyuan system but also structurally unable to defend it. The swap line with the PBOC offers a partial escape, but at the cost of deeper financial subordination to Beijing. The bill does not create this dilemma but it does make escaping it almost impossible.
The Pattern Accumulates
The sanctions bill is the sixth signal. Beijing is fortifying its currency architecture. The bunker doors are closing on offshore debt. Capital is flowing into the United States at record levels. The yuan is quietly appreciating, providing cover for accumulation. Berlin has invoked the Plaza Accord. And now Washington is legislating a sanctions pincer that tightens the energy squeeze on China while locking Russia into the petroyuan system from which there is no easy exit.
None of this is proof. Each signal, taken in isolation, has a conventional explanation—although not necessarily a benign one. But a hypothesis is not tested by any single data point. It is tested by the accumulation of signals that, in aggregate, converge on a pattern. That pattern is becoming harder to dismiss. The pieces are moving. The question remains toward what end.
The Petroyuan Trap: Your Questions Answered
I have received a number of thoughtful and well-informed questions about the Petroyuan Trap hypothesis in recent weeks. These are serious questions that deserve a serious answer. Rather than respond piecemeal, I have collected the most incisive questions here and addressed them directly. The hypothesis may yet prove wrong. But these criticisms, while important, do not dismantle it.
Q: China runs a massive current account surplus and holds over $3.3 trillion in dollar reserves. It also almost certainly has opaque collateral arrangements with neutral countries to protect those reserves from seizure. How can you cause a currency crisis in a country that is accumulating more dollars every day than it knows what to do with?
This is the most important question, and it goes to the heart of what the trap is designed to achieve.
The trap does not require China to run out of dollars. A currency crisis is not a bankruptcy. It does not require the target to exhaust its reserves. It requires the target to face a choice between two unbearable options: spend reserves to defend the currency—tightening domestic financial conditions, slowing growth, and potentially triggering a recession—or let the currency fall, importing inflation on everything from oil to food. This a particularly unpleasant option in a global inflation crisis.
China can indeed buy up all the yuan that speculators sell. It has plenty of dollars. But defending a currency under sustained speculative attack requires more than just buying yuan. It requires raising interest rates to make holding yuan attractive relative to dollars. It requires tightening liquidity to prevent the yuan that are bought from being sold again. It requires imposing or tightening capital controls, which signals to the world that the yuan is not, in fact, a freely usable international currency—undermining the very ambition the petroyuan project was designed to achieve. And it requires doing this when the energy and food price spike that triggers the trap is simultaneously crushing Chinese households and businesses with higher fuel and food costs.
China can defend the yuan. But the cost of doing so could be a deep domestic recession. The hypothesis doesn’t argue that China is defenseless. It argues that the defense will cause the damage.
Q: If China has moved dollar assets into opaque structures with neutral countries, aren’t those reserves protected from seizure? Doesn’t that make them available for currency defense?
The observation about opaque collateral arrangements is astute and probably correct. But it cuts both ways. If China has moved significant dollar assets into complex structures with neutral third parties—pledging bonds as collateral for loans, with side agreements for commodity repayment if assets are seized—those dollars are not readily available for currency defense. They are tied up. The fact that they are hidden protects them from seizure but also limits their immediate usability in a crisis; it impairs their liquidity. The PBOC cannot easily mobilize dollars locked into tri-party arrangements with sovereign counterparties. The visible reserve number may overstate the genuinely liquid reserves available for intervention.
Moreover, the assumption that China’s current account surplus will continue at current levels is precisely the assumption the trap is designed to disrupt. The trigger is an energy supply shock that drives the dollar price of oil sharply higher. As the world’s largest oil importer, a sustained price spike would dramatically increase its import bill, narrowing the trade surplus and potentially swinging it toward deficit. The dollars arriving every day are a function of a stable energy price environment. The trap targets that environment directly.
Q: China learned from the freezing of Russian reserves in 2022. Hasn’t it adapted?
Yes. And that is itself evidence of vulnerability. The lesson China learned—to move assets into opaque, hard-to-seize structures—is a lesson born of the recognition that the dollar system is a weapon and that holding large dollar reserves is not an unalloyed asset. The structures China has built protect against one kind of attack: asset confiscation. They do not protect against the kind of attack the trap hypothesis describes: a speculative assault on the offshore yuan that forces the PBOC to spend liquid reserves and tighten domestic policy until something breaks.
Q: How would a fuel and food price spike affect China’s domestic economy specifically?
The COVID era provides a revealing precedent. During the pandemic, China’s private sector manufacturers—the backbone of its export engine—proved acutely vulnerable to input price rises. Producer price inflation surged, margins were compressed, and the sector required significant government intervention to maintain stability. The state had the fiscal capacity to provide that support because the crisis was, in relative terms, contained.
A synchronized fuel and food price spike would be materially worse. It would hit manufacturers on two fronts simultaneously: energy costs for production and transport, and food costs that drive wage pressure and erode household purchasing power. The government would be forced to provide substantial assistance to the private sector at precisely the moment when its fiscal resources and policy attention would be stretched across multiple fronts—currency defense, strategic reserve management, food import security, and social stability maintenance. The trap does not merely drain dollar reserves. It forces Beijing into a series of competing fiscal and monetary commitments, each of which makes the others harder to sustain. The private sector’s vulnerability to input costs, well-documented during COVID, is the channel through which the energy shock becomes a domestic political and fiscal crisis.
Q: The real crises will be in net debtor countries—the UK, the US—not in China. Doesn’t that undermine the hypothesis?
No. It is consistent with it.
This observation aligns with a component of the hypothesis that has received less attention: the blowback risk. The same financial architecture that transmits the energy shock to China also transmits it back into the American financial system through private credit, insurance balance sheets, and the banking system. The trap, if sprung, will not spare its architects. The question is not whether China alone suffers. The question is which system is better prepared for the shock. A question I addressed directly in Economic Chemotherapy.
The observation that the US and other net debtor countries are vulnerable is correct. That vulnerability is not a refutation of the hypothesis. And I’ve covered it extensively in an ongoing series of articles. The most recent of which is The Blowback Machine.
In summary: These criticism are serious and well-informed. It correctly identifies China’s substantial reserves and its likely adaptations since 2022. But it conflates two different things: the ability to defend a currency, and the ability to do so without severe domestic economic damage. China can defend the yuan. The trap does not argue otherwise. It argues that the defense itself will be so costly—in terms of growth, employment, and the credibility of the yuan as an international currency—that Beijing will be forced to significantly moderate its currency ambitions and accept conditions from the U.S. Forcing that choice, not the depletion of reserves, is the trap’s goal.
This article is part of an ongoing series of analyses on the war against Iran and the wider war against the emerging multipolar world. Other sections include:
Thank you, Ryan. It is beyond depressing, but clear.
Sometimes the best defense is a strong offense. Instead of defending the Yuan, China could -and perhaps should- kill the Dollar.
Do you think the Dollar can survive China dropping billions of Dollars on the market in one day? I don´t think anybody could survive that, let alone the ailing United States.