Walter, that article (assuming we're talking about the same article) is built on the belief that an oil-backed US$ is a tax on the world. How? There is no need to accumulate US$ reserves to purchase oil. You can purchase $ as required, or use a Eurodollar mechanism, and it is common to purchase options to buy $ at a given future rate if somebody needs to lock-in their future costs. So you really don't need to buy and hold $. Nor is there any requirement for OPEC members to retain their payments in US$: they can convert the $ straight back to Euros or buy gold or otherwise spend/invest the $ as they see fit. So where's the benefit to the US?

Actually, the big change from trading oil in multiple currencies probably will be arbitrage opportunities for our darling merchant princes who can make themselves rich exploiting momentary microscopic currency mismatches. Converting European currencies to the Euro wiped out the riches to be had from inter-country arbitrage; presumably the same is true for a single currency oil market. If we welcome them into the oil market, the fortunes they make will in the end be carved out of the consumer. And we're doing it for what reason again? ;-)

I can see that the US might be concerned to see the $'s place at the head of the table overtaken by the Euro, Yen or Yuan, but a protracted war and currency devaluation is an own goal if that's the motive.