No, it doesn't make any sense. For example, if the prospect of the euro as an alternative reserve currency is so threatening, such that the USA would engage in

No, it doesn't make any sense. For example, if the prospect of the euro as an alternative reserve currency is so threatening, such that the USA would engage in a hugely expensive war to stop Iraq selling oil in euros, then why didn't the US take other, far less controversial actions to block the euro's development in the first place? The single currency was a well-known plan for decades in western Europe, where the US enjoyed massive political and economic leverage during the cold war. If the entirety of the US' foreign policy is designed to defend the petrodollar, then why tolerate the development of an alternative global currency at all? And yet, they didn't just tolerate it, they encouraged it. For example, here is a quote from an interview with Romano Prodi, former president of the European Commission, in 2002, about the US attitude to the euro[1]: "But I tell you, in that moment, U.S., they could have destroyed the euro if they wanted, and they never did. They always helped it. And I'm very grateful for that because I think that the American Treasury understood that the euro is useful for all the world to have a strong currency. I think that in this moment, in these two years of crisis, without the euro, you know, Asian crisis, Argentina, September 11th, we could have a lot of-- of turbulence that we avoided because of the euro." [1] https://charlierose.com/episodes/27900 https://charlierose.com/episodes/27900 Far from explaining US foreign policy, looking at everything through the lens of the petrodollar makes it totally inexplicable.