The unifying element in an often-contradictory US foreign policy is the dream of toppling OPEC and controlling the world oil market. And Iraq is the key, writes Paul McGeough from Riyadh.
World oil market is also the subject of a cartel which is so incompetent it can't even figure out how to set prices and make them stick. The members all cheat on each other, anyhow.
Don't have to control the market. World's awash in oil. The problem, short term, is that that Saudi is the swing producer but that status is being challenged by Russia in the near future.
If you put yourself in the position of the US government after 9/11, then can see it wants to stop, or at least reduce hugely the amount of money going into Saudi. Solution: encourage the Russians and invest in their oil production, which they are doing.
Iraq also could be a swing producer. I think this is actually inconvenient for the US in terms of getting the Russians totally onside about Iraq, but then the Russians aren't as dependent as Saudi or some other oil prducers on oil revenue, so I expect after some horse trading Russians will come around.
In no case does US have to control oil market. It's just in its interest there's lots of oil being produced.
Sure it'd be nice for some US oil companies to have a piece of Iraq pie but it's not necessary in terms of US security or prosperity.
One more thing. Given Saddam is a nitwit, it's entirely possible the concessions he's selling to Chinese, etc, are on really bad terms for Iraq. So all these etcs may have some interest in not seeing his regime go down.
Given the Bush family history it's very easy to impute the Shrub is doing everything for Dad and pals. I don't think that's likely and it's certainly not provable. What some people think about that depends on their politics, I think. |
