Yes, It’s About Oil
Here in America, only about 22% of Americans believe that President Bush’s imminent war on Iraq is about oil(1). This is in direct contradiction to the popular opinion throughout much of the rest of the world, where the figures are roughly inverse. Although it is true that there may be other reasons to consider attacking Saddam Hussein, notably his human rights record and his past ownership and use of biological weapons (which were developed with aid from the United States), the oil motivation has been mostly ignored in the mainstream press. Could it be that Americans cannot believe that our government would stoop so low? However, I believe that a case can be made that the desire to secure a large and reliable source of oil not under OPEC control is at least as likely a motivation for this war as some of the other reasons, and probably more likely than the “they have weapons of mass destruction that they will give to terrorists” reason cited ad nauseum by President Bush and Colin Powell.
First and foremost, there is an oil crisis brewing in America. You don’t have to take my word for it; you can read about it in “Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century(2),” written by James A. Baker III and an all-star cast of oil industry executives. Baker’s report was submitted to Vice President Dick Cheney in April of 2001, and contains the following assertions:
“Strong economic growth across the globe and new global demands for more energy have meant the end of sustained surplus capacity in hydrocarbon fuels and the beginning of capacity limitations. In fact, the world is currently precariously close to utilizing all of its available global oil production capacity, raising the chances of an oil-supply crisis with more substantial consequences than seen in three decades. These limits mean that America can no longer assume that oil-producing states will provide more oil. Nor is it strategically and politically desirable to remedy our present tenuous situation by simply increasing dependence on a few foreign sources.” (pg. 4)
This one paragraph contains several important truths: world production is at or near capacity in most countries we buy from. There is a good chance of a crisis, and the party in power doesn’t get re-elected when there is an economic crisis. And finally, one thing that he doesn’t say openly but rather hints at is the fact that most of the world’s oil supplying countries are either potentially unstable or marginally hostile to the U.S. Baker goes on to state:
“[T]he United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma, suffering on a recurring basis from the negative consequences of sporadic energy shortages. These consequences can include recession, social dislocation of the poorest Americans, and at the extremes, a need for military intervention.” (pg. 34)
“Iraq remains a destabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.” (Pg. 42)
Recall that Iraq is woefully underproducing while sanctions are in place, and if regime change is accomplished Iraq becomes a friendly swing state producer with very low production costs. This is important for two reasons: if other OPEC nations try to raise prices, a friendly Iraqi regime can simply pump more oil to bring down prices. Conversely, if a country like Saudi Arabia tries to freeze out other suppliers by lowering prices (Saudi Arabia has very low production costs), such a state would have to split the market with Iraq. This discourages prices from going too low, which is important for keeping Texas and other domestic oil producers happy, since their production costs are not low(3). There is a definite political benefit for Mr. Bush in this.
There is also clear evidence regarding the motives and intentions of members of the Bush cabinet from the period pre-dating the current “crisis.” All of the current administration’s hawkish members, including Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz and others, were founders of a group that organized under the name The Project for a New American Century. The Project is dedicated to the idea that America should take up the mantle of global leadership using “military strength, diplomatic initiative, and commitment to moral principle.” In 1998 this group sent a public letter(4) to then-President Clinton, outlining the case for military action against Iraq. The central thesis of their argument in 1998 was that sanctions and inspections were not working, and military action was needed to ensure the stability of the Middle East. They pointed out the “danger to U.S. forces in the region, to neighboring states, and a significant portion of the world’s oil supply.” The letter reads, in part, “We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf” (emphasis added). In 1998, at least, it was about oil.
Consider that many of the significant players in the Bush administration come from an oil background(5): G.W. Bush himself (Harken Energy), Vice President Dick Cheney (Halliburton), Condoleeza Rice (Chevron), to name a few. When the Center for Public Integrity examined the financial disclosure forms of the 100 top Bush administration officials they found that collectively these men and women have a majority of their holdings in the energy sector(6), to the tune of a $150 million dollar stake in the industry. Consider that Dick Cheney’s energy policy, written in secret consultation with industry men he refuses to name, emphasizes production of conventional energy sources(7) (where is that production going to come from?). Consider that oil companies gave George W. Bush nearly $2 million dollars in campaign contributions during the 2000 election (as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics). Consider that Taha Hmud Moussa, a former Iraqi deputy oil minister, claimed last November in an interview(8) with a British newspaper, the Guardian, that Iraqi reserves would top 300 billion barrels of oil, which, if true, would represent one-quarter of the world’s oil reserve (the U.S. Department of Energy is only willing to project 200 billion barrels(9)). Consider that U.S. domestic oil production is well beyond peak, and in fact will be close to depletion in 10 years(10). Consider that as lesser oil fields such as the North Sea ramp down in production, only the core Middle East oilfields will remain with significant reserves.
Given Saddam’s vulnerable record on human rights and weapons development, Iraq’s enormous reserves, and our nation’s insatiable appetite for cheap energy, is there any doubt that opportunity has met motive?
Sources: