Response to Cash

2007-09-28 (Friday) by Gregory Tucker.

Response to Jim Cash’s “Middle East Imperative” that has been making its way around the Internet.

Ever wondered why the French were so vehemently opposed to the US invasion of Iraq? Beyond the normal hyperbole, the answer is simple: French companies would have been the largest recipients of oil Iraqi oil rights once the sanctions were lifted. The other recipients were to be predominantly Chinese, Russian, German, and Japanese.

Fortunately, Cash’s essay confirmed something that, until recently, was politically inexpedient to say: the invasion of Iraq was about oil. Greenspan’s recent book, “The Age of Turbulence” confirmed this in so many words. Let’s forget all this nonsense about democracy and terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Let’s banish them once and for all from our public debates about Iraq.

Nevertheless, the US is not about to suddenly run out of oil, even if embargoed by Iran and Iraq. In 2005 Iraqi energy production was 1.9mbpd, or 2.23% of the world total output. (Source: Energy Information Administration). Iran’s 2005 production was 4.24mbpd, or 5.01% of world production. In contrast, US production was 8.2mbpd, and all of North America, including Canada and Mexico, produced 15.2mbpd. And very little of Iranian oil goes to the United States. These facts are public; they are produced by our own government. Why does Cash ignore them?

The invasion of Iraq was not just about securing the supply of oil–it was about securing Iraqi reserves for American oil companies. And they have done a pretty poor job of developing those reserves. Iraqi energy production peaked in 1989 at 2.9 million barrels per day (mbpd), just prior to the first invasion. It peaked again in 2001 at 2.6mbpd, just prior to the second invasion. Since then it has declined 25% in 2005–and production was much worse in 2003. Again, I gleaned all this from the EIA. By any measure of oil except one, the invasion was a failure. The one exception? The stabilization of oil production from the Kurdish province.

Cash asked: “Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran, which they will obviously do if we pull out?” Why is this obvious? The world’s largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia (13.1%), is predominantly Sunni and a major rival to Iran. It can already be seen gearing up for its post-US role in Iraq to counter Iranian influence. Iraq’s most stable region, the Kurdish province, the home of much of Iraq’s production and reserves, is opposed to both Baathist (Syrian) and Shiite (Iranian) interests. Syria’s alliance with Iran seems stable, but there are few theological or ideological bonds. Rather, theirs is a relationship of convenience, much as the US was allied with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. And Syria has relatively little in energy reserves. It is obvious to me that Iran and Syria are isolated, and will remain isolated.

What Iran threatens, more than anything else, are the generous contracts given to US oil companies by Iraq’s US-sponsored provisional government.

Cash throws around the partisan politics like confetti. He accuses the Democratic Party of being on the extreme left. Well, it certainly is to the left of Atilla the Hun–this much is true. Pres. Bill Clinton has been accused by his enemies as both a left-wing radical and a poll chaser. Which is it? Or is that a tacit acknowledgment that the American public itself is to the left of American politics? Cash notes that modern Democrats are the most self-serving and corrupt ever. I agree. But why exclude Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, or any of the current field of Republican candidates?

I don’t know what the truth is. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, or even any of them. I know that complete withdrawal is not an option, but I also know the status quo is not either. However, I don’t see anybody running for office–or Cash himself–offering an objective, unbiased assessment of how to get us out of the mess that Bush got us into.

Posted in Energy | Print | No Comments »