Dan Baum’s lengthy, but inciteful piece in Salon this week explains in depth why he believes any possible war in Iraq is not about oil. Or at least not in the interests of the American oil giants.

Quoting various industry sources, he explains how a ‘regime change’ in Iraq could see the country’s oil output rise by between 3 and 5million barrels a day. To the American public, which burns a quarter of the world’s consumption of oil every year, the subsequent drop in prices would be a welcome result. Bush, too, would benefit - a drop in oil prices could do much to improve his chances of re-election.

But of course, the oil companies would not like it. Neither would they welcome the instability a war and ‘regime change’ could bring, and that will do little to encourage them to invest in the rebuilding of the country’s infrastructure and industry.

So what does Big Oil have to gain from a war in Iraq? There is a temptation to say that Bush and Cheney, being oil men, are waging war to feather the nest of their cronies in the oil patch. After all, the oil industry gave more than five times as much to Republicans in 2000 as to Democrats. But Big Oil craves one thing above all else: stability. The oil business is so capital intensive that the ability to plan investments — in exploring, drilling, transporting and refining — can be as important as the price of crude… “Will any company plunk a billion dollars and 300 employees into Iraq, knowing that they won’t be safe and that at end of the day the commitment they made might not be delivered on?” [oil journalist Youssef] Ibrahim asks. “I don’t think so.”

So who would gain? Well, in Baum’s analysis that rather depends on the outcome of negotiations in the UN Security Council over the next few weeks.

France and Russia, the two veto-wielding permanent members of the Council most opposed to a war have many interests in the country. France’s TotalFinaElf has the most contracts to export Iraqi oil, while Russia’s LUKoil comes in second. Baum wonders whether the price of cooperation might be American assurances that existing contracts will be honoured. Is this what they are holding out for? Is this why Blair is so sure the second resolution will eventually be passed?

In the long run, says Baum, we could see a situation where the United States gains no benefit from ‘regime change’ in Iraq. All available contracts may be promised to France and Russia in exchange for them resisting the urge to exercise their right of veto, while the US and Britain may be tied into a lengthy peace-keeping role.

Sadly the piece doesn’t explain Germany’s interest in fronting opposition to the war so clearly as it does Russia and France (and the Middle Eastern states that border Iraq and may see the ‘liberated’ country as a mere staging post for further America military advances in the region). Neither does he explain why Britain and America are interested in waging war against the country, leading to the assumption that in his eyes - or at least in his argument - it is as plain cut as they say it is: the elimination of weapons of mass destruction or the desire to use them.

But while it is a piece that clarifies the true facts behind - and largely discredits - the ‘war for oil’ rumours it does muddy the waters significantly. It seems that the war for oil is taking place already, on five fronts - Washington, London, Paris, Berlin and Moscow.

French newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique, meanwhile, reports that:

It is rumored that Saddam Hussein is also making oil deals in an attempt to remain in control. So he appears willing to do anything to hold on to power, even if this means sacrificing Iraq and the dignity of the people.

And while all this is going on, France is busily prowling the eastern Mediterranean. Its nuclear-powered aircraft carried the Charles de Gaulle, has been on ‘exercises’ within striking distance of Iraq and should now be back in port in Toulon (see Guardian story on this). Is this a Gallic warning shot, aimed less at Iraq than at the West? Could it be that France was proving to Britain and America that, should should war break out, it would be willing and able to defend its oil interests in Iraq.

1. The fall of Baghdad
   What a strange day. No moreso than for the people of Baghdad, of course, who today have been pulling down the statues of Saddam Hussein...
   
   
2. Iraqi damages
   In an unbelievable story in the Sydney Morning Herald an American judge has ruled that "Iraq provided material support to Osama bin Laden and his...
   
   
3. Human shield
   Three Canadians and fourteen American peace campaigners travelled to Iraq on boxing day, willing to risk their lives to act as a human shield in...