CB, it is certain that the USA conned Saddam into doing what he likes to do by taking over Kuwait.
The profits from increased oil prices due to Iraq's oil being off the market were enormous. Simply stupendous! Oil could have been, in a freely-traded market, around $10 or $12 a barrel for the past 10 years.
Superficially, one would think the USA benefits from cheap oil. But one would be wrong. The USA is not a single entity, despite the breast-beating of patriots [many of whom are scoundrels]. The USA is made up of many competing and conflicting interests.
For example, the owners of Alaskan oil and other high-priced USA wells do very well when low-cost middle east supplies are taken off the market. It is excellent news when a competitor is shut down.
Well, they got the trifecta with Saddam invading Kuwait. Way back in the 1980s, while pondering the oil world from Zwijndrecht in Belgium [which is another one of those suspiciously weird names], my colleague and I [geopolitical amateurs] decided the best thing for the oil industry [BP Oil] would be a 'bullet through the middle east'.
It didn't surprise me when a bullet went zinging.
When interests lie in a certain direction, it's difficult not to be influenced in that direction. Which is apparently why judges and other lawyerly types sometimes take themselves off a case if they have an interest. Doctors too prefer not to deal with their families [so I hear].
Kuwait's oil got set on fire. Iraq's exports were stopped and are still stopped [to a great extent]. Only once did oil prices sag down to $10 during the 1990s.
One would have to ask why on earth the USA ambassador did not emphatically point out to Saddam that it would certainly NOT be acceptable to have him annex Kuwait. Ambassadors sometimes confer with HQ, though perhaps in such a sensitive site with such a big question [more than an appointment for a garden party] the female, with no ego or brain, didn't consult HQ for instructions.
Of course 'we stopped there'. If Saddam had been replaced, there would have been no reason to stop the oil flowing. Or, maybe there was a threat that Saddam would let rip with a nuke if the USA came a step closer and nobody knew whether he was bluffing or not so thought they'd just stop. Or, something else.
Anyway, it has been amazingly profitable for oil prices to stay nicely high. Saudi Arabia is a very good friend of the USA in that regard and has cheerfully restrained their output which has resulted in a substantial cut in their market share, but has kept prices high. If the USA was as upset about that bit of market gerry-mandering as they make out they are upset by Microsoft anti-trust issues, you can be sure that Saudi Arabia and OPEC would be told just what they could do with their quotas.
Let's not be too naive about who benefits from high oil prices and whether "the USA" wants high or low prices. As an SUV driver, I dare say you like half-price gasoline. As a Exxon shareholder, high prices are excellent news and if competitors' oil fields are out of business, well, that's even better. I heard that King George II and George I and even the Vice President have friends who are involved in the USA oil industry.
Of course, once the Twin Towers went down, there were more important issues than managing oil supplies to keep a steady long term price at a good level. It's disconcerting if not downright annoying to have thousands murdered by oil business associates and family of your 'friends'.
So, now there are a few changes afoot.
Mqurice |
