Perhaps Mr Bush has some designs on Iraqi oil. But the idea that
this is the main motive for an attack on Baghdad is fanciful. The
reality is the US is condemned by its extravagant lifestyle to
remain dependent on oil from far more than one Middle East
producer.
Launching a war against Iraq could expose that dependence. If oil
prices rocket - and the disorder in Venezuela has already raised
them - it could be a serious setback to the US economy and with it
Mr Bush's chances of re-election in 2004. It is arguable that the
rise in oil prices that accompanied the last Gulf war tipped the US
into the recession that cost his father a second term.
The real economic damage would depend not only on how high prices
went but also on how long they stayed there. The International
Monetary Fund's rule of thumb is that if a $5 rise in the oil price
is sustained for a year, world gross domestic product drops 0.25 per
cent. Mr Bush may calculate that a quick US military success would
cause only a brief increase in the oil price. But he cannot be sure
of avoiding a long conflict that would send prices soaring and keep
them there.
Toppling Saddam Hussein might open Iraq to US oil companies. The
Iraqi opposition has talked of taking existing contracts out of the
hands of Russians and others and giving them to US companies. But
Washington has downplayed such statements to maintain Russia's
support on Iraq at the United Nations.
More far-fetched are some suggestions by the Iraqi opposition
that in power it would take Iraq out of the Organisation of
Petroleum Exporting Countries. A post-Saddam Iraq might be
temporarily excused by its Opec partners from the cartel's quotas
for a time, in order to rebuild its oil industry. An Iraqi
government that quit Opec altogether would risk appearing as a US
puppet in the eyes of its own citizens as well as its
neighbours.
Meanwhile, there is no short-term prospect of the US, or any
other country, weaning itself off oil as the near-monopoly fuel for
transport. Cars may run on hydrogen cells some day but the initial
source for that hydrogen will be oil. And the US will continue to be
the world's largest oil importer.
Even if Mr Bush gets his plan to open Alaska up to drilling
approved by Congress this year, it will not dent the US appetite for
foreign oil. The US is taking more oil from Russia and west Africa
but the bulk of low-cost reserves still lies under the Opec members
of the Middle East. And the latter are likely to account for up to
half of world production by 2030 as non-Opec output falls in coming
years. US control over Iraq's oil would not change these fundamental
realities.
