The War in Iraq Was Always About Oil

July 19, 2007 at 12:52 pm | Posted in American politics, Iraq, Middle East, oil, Paul Wolfowitz | 4 Comments

Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the war in Iraq said so himself back in 1992.

While the U.S. cannot become the world’s “policeman,” by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the pre-eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations. Various types of U.S. interests may be involved in such instances: access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking.

In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security.


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. As demonstrated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region.

    Excepting the United States, of course.

  2. well said Mark. That is the truly contradictory part of neo-conservatives’ ideology. We can’t be having a hegemon take control of the Middle East, unless it is us, because, trust us, we’re pure.

  3. I was of the belief that the war in Iraq was more about Iran. Iraq only involves Al qaeda now because Al qaeda operatives are trying to disrrupt any progress there.

    The argument for going into Iraq in my mind was that in a post-911 world, a country like Iraq, Iran or North Korea could use and sponsor terrorist groups like Al qaeda to hit the US. Al qaeda is nothing without financial resources.

    The decision to go against Iraq was made because the CIA gave bad info that Iraq was developing WMD’s (Clinton defanged the CIA and made them techno-desk jockies). The CIA told Bush that they were a threat. The UN asked Saddam to account for certain WMD making equipment we knew he had purchased. Saddam did not comply and did not dislose the information and so we invaded.

    We would have had the support of the UN except for France and Germany who railroaded UN support and were later found to be violating the oil for food program and were influenced by their businesses who had huge investments in Iraq and who were building all the underground palaces, labs and bunkers.

    Bush was hoping that a democratic and free Iraq would put more pressure on Iran.

  4. Broz,

    What indications did you get back in 2002 that the war in Iraq was about Iran? What evidence is there that even earlier than that this war was about Iran?

    Where does Al-Qaida get most of its financial resources? Al-Qaida is a strongly Sunni organization. Why would a strongly Shi’ite country fund Sunnis who kill Shi’ites?

    The CIA did not tell Bush that Iraq was a threat. What they actually said is that they were incapable of assessing Iraq’s actual situation. They had nobody on the ground in Iraq. So they had to trust informants like Curveball, an insane drunkard, the most appropriately named informant ever.

    However, common sense and an unbiased look at Iraq could have told you that they were not only not a threat, but also in a very weak position. In fact, Colin Powell said this very point in a press conference in February 2001 in Egypt. He said:

    And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…

    Was Colin Powell lying?

    You say:

    Bush was hoping that a democratic and free Iraq would put more pressure on Iran.

    What evidence do you have of this? What out there makes you think this was his reasoning?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: