The Unfolding Energy Crisis: Analyzing Competing Theories

With growing unrest in energy-producing nations, analysts have long warned of an impending energy crisis. While the exact magnitude remains uncertain, the reality of the situation has undeniably arrived. Various interpretations strive to explain why this predictable outcome has manifested.

Recently, Donald Trump attributed rising petrol prices to Ukraine’s attacks on Russian diesel infrastructure. While aspects of his argument hold validity—especially considering Russia’s prolonged export ban—he overlooks other factors. The ongoing conflict with Iran, which has severely disrupted oil and gas production in the Gulf and obstructed shipping routes like the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb, is also a significant contributor to the crisis.

Additionally, there are structural issues at play, such as increasing electricity demand driven by AI technologies, the aging power grids across large swathes of the U.S., and investments skewed toward AI instead of consumer goods. Notably, the rapid advancements in oil, gas, and shipping disruptions have been driven further by the Trump administration. While the Biden administration initiated these changes with the Ukraine conflict and the Nord Stream sabotage, the current U.S. government has escalated actions starting with Venezuela. But why?

Three primary competing narratives have emerged, with multiple nuances between them. The first posits that the U.S. is deliberately creating circumstances to dominate energy markets, reinforce dollar supremacy, and counter the rise of a multipolar world. The second suggests that nations pursuing multipolarity—particularly Russia and Iran, backed by China—are instigating an energy crisis to hasten the decline of U.S. power. The third proposes that this scenario constitutes a planned systemic transition, with various motivations behind it.

While some of these theories are not mutually exclusive and could share components, most narratives I’ve encountered fall into one of these three categories. However, it’s essential to consider a fourth possibility: that all these dynamics are unfolding simultaneously, exacerbated by human folly and hubris across the globe.

Before diving into these competing theories, we must reject the simplistic narratives promoted by Western media. The claim that the U.S. intervention in Venezuela aimed to dismantle a drug trafficking network, that military actions against Iran were solely to prevent nuclear proliferation, or that the Ukraine conflict was purely an expression of Russian imperial ambitions is overly reductive. It is evident that these are not the primary catalysts, even if they contain elements of truth.

Richard Medhurst’s article, titled How the US Pulled Off an Armed Robbery of the World’s Energy Supply and Created the Petrogas-Dollar, serves as an illustration of the first viewpoint. In an interview with Paul Buitink, Catherine Austin Fitts from the Solari Report expands upon these ideas, intriguingly linking the first and third hypotheses.

Medhurst argues that the U.S., leveraging its status as the world’s largest oil, gas, and refined products producer, is transitioning away from the old “Petrodollar” system, which relied on Middle Eastern stability, toward a “Petrogas-Dollar” or “LNG-Dollar.” This new model suggests that soaring global energy prices, market disruptions, and supply setbacks now predominantly benefit Wall Street and American energy firms rather than impeding them.

He contends that energy instability is part of a calculated strategy: high energy prices no longer pose a threat to the U.S. economy. As the leading producer and exporter of oil and LNG, the U.S. stands to gain from wartime energy price surges, drawing global capital into its financial systems.

The U.S. has also engaged in a series of actions aimed at undermining its energy competitors—namely Russia, Qatar, and Iran—transforming Europe and Asia into reliant and permanent purchasers of expensive U.S. fuel. Through a mix of physical destruction (such as the Nord Stream incident), maritime blockades, and corporate expansion (for instance, Chevron), the U.S. aims to compel nations, including China, to depend on American energy supplies, thereby neutralizing initiatives like BRICS and the Belt and Road Initiative.

A compelling timeline of global energy infrastructure and trade route disruptions presented in the Solari Report adds credibility to this thesis. Fitts further suggests that a centralized financial elite, which she terms the “dollar syndicate,” is deliberately engineering instability to push society into a fully digitized control framework. By constraining global energy, enforcing trade restrictions, and creating market upheaval, these planners aim to siphon financial resources from small and mid-sized businesses, transferring wealth towards major corporations and defense contractors.

As foreign entities offload U.S. Treasuries, the elite hopes to engage retail investors globally through stablecoins, crypto mechanisms, and tokenized assets, ensuring continued funding for the empire. This strategy aims at a future where comprehensive transaction control can be exerted over the populace, limiting economic activity without inciting significant rebellion.

However, this analysis risks oversimplifying the influence and capacity of U.S. planners and the “dollar syndicate,” while downplaying the agency of other actors like Russia, China, or Iran.

On the other end of the spectrum, a provocative theory by Russian analyst Victor Leonov, as discussed by Simplicius, suggests that Russia and Iran are actively collaborating to dismantle the Western monetary and economic framework.

He argues that “Russia and Iran have agreed to destroy the Western capitalist system by instigating an energy crisis through attacks on energy facilities and transportation routes.” This strategy elevates fuel prices, leading to widespread inflation and forcing central banks to raise interest rates to stabilize prices, inevitably weakening economic growth and production capabilities.

Consequently, “this method jeopardizes industries, economic growth, and the existing world order, potentially resulting in factory shutdowns and a collapse of current industrial models.” As industry serves as the backbone of modern capitalism, the progressive energy crisis indicates a move toward systemic collapse.

I share some skepticism with Simplicius regarding the notion of a coordinated effort aimed at undermining capitalism. Firstly, both Russia and Iran were previously content to supply energy to the West, supporting capitalist structures until they were subjected to the capitalist system’s pressure. Additionally, the requisite level of macro-level planning to execute such a strategy raises questions about achievability. Likely, they are “reacting defensively to exploit their adversaries at vulnerable points.”

This presents an extreme interpretation of the transition to multipolarity perspective. Brian Berletic, who supports this transition, advocates that actions targeting Gulf energy supply aim to hinder Asia—particularly China—from accessing energy resources to curtail the rise of a multipolar world. Arnaud Bertrand even refers to the Iran conflict as “The First Multipolar War.” Neither suggests that Russia and Iran are deliberately sabotaging energy infrastructure to expedite the downfall of the West, yet they do indicate a collaborative effort towards a multipolar order exemplified by BRICS.

The hypothesis that a world order shift is underway—and that the energy crisis is part of this transition—holds substantial merit. It may not stem solely from an intention to undermine the Western order but rather be a consequence of evolving geopolitical realities compounded by the U.S.’s attempts to maintain hegemony in areas where it can no longer assert control.

I have previously expressed a distinction between a “world order” and a “world system.” The world system, from this perspective, encompasses the fundamental frameworks that most nations operate within. These can include fiat-based financial systems, centralized political control, and petroleum dependence as a primary energy source. The world order, on the other hand, refers to the current balance—or imbalance—of power derived from various factions overseeing any combination of these aspects across different regions.

Analyses from thinkers like Simon Dixon, James Corbett, Simplicius to some extent, and Catherine Austin Fitts in the Solari Report, suggest a significant change in the world system. They attribute ongoing energy crises and changes in world order to this systemic evolution.

Dixon emphasizes the importance of “following the money.” Instead of seeing global upheavals (wars, financial crises, trade conflicts) as random occurrences, Dixon claims they represent a scripted transition. The elites governing the Financial Industrial Complex (FIC), Military Industrial Complex (MIC), and Technological Industrial Complex (TIC) are orchestrating a phase-out of the unipolar U.S.-dollar environment while transferring real capital and control into a multipolar framework. Thus, the energy crisis becomes a tool for transition—not by the U.S. or its allies, but by those who wield control over critical operational aspects.

James Corbett, of the Corbett Report, who often describes himself as a “conspiracy realist,” takes a more cynical view of the shift from unipolarity to multipolarity. He asserts that the emerging multipolar world is not an antidote to a globalist agenda, but rather its next stage towards a global technocracy. The distinction between globalists and sovereignists (unipolarity versus multipolarity) is a superficial framework designed to capture both sides of the geopolitical landscape. In his analysis, the energy crisis serves as a catalyst for further monopolization of resources, positioning a select few technocrats in power.

The tension between “globalists” and “sovereignists”—often interpreted as synonymous with unipolarity versus multipolarity, or the West versus the Global South, or even NATO versus BRICS—suggests two main factions vying for dominance in establishing a world order. Depending on one’s perspective, the energy crisis has been instigated by one of these factions, motivated by either systemic change or an illusion fabricated by systemic change to conceal the true dynamics at play.

Understanding that the energy crisis, along with much of today’s global upheaval, could stem from a series of ill-conceived or naïve strategic decisions is undeniably challenging. Yet, this possibility exists. I do not intend to imply that all these factors are mutually exclusive; rather, I believe that many are operating at various levels of significance.

On one hand, no one possesses perfect information—meaning they are unaware of all the nuances affecting a decision, combined with the capacity to anticipate every eventuality and select the ideal outcome. Analysts—including intelligence experts—function based on probabilities and scenarios. On the other hand, the decision-makers, comprising the elites—whether globalists or otherwise—appear to share a materialist perspective, placing material concerns at the forefront. Even where they profess alternative beliefs, those do not substantially affect their actions.

As René Guénon articulates in his book, The Crisis of the Modern World: “Materialism represents a comprehensive mental framework… characterized by prioritizing material concerns, regardless of their speculative or practical nature; this approach undeniably influences the vast majority of contemporary society.”

These two facets clarify why, once a course of action is chosen, decision-making inertia may lead to what otherwise appear to be glaring strategic blunders, or choices guided purely by arrogance and ignorance.