The invasion of Iraq by United States (US) and its allies was aimed at justifying possession of weapons of mass of destruction by the Iraqi state and to break its alleged ties with Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Saddam Hussein regime was marred by bad leadership which brought about immense suffering and pain to the Iraqi population and also the country provided base for terrorist groups to plan and conduct their training. However, as a motivator to US invasion of Iraq, these reasons are discredited by a plurality of political analysts since they are not sufficient.
A factor that led US to invade Iraq leans towards America maintaining its position as the global economic giant rather than bringing democracy in Iraq through elimination of bad leadership. Embracing a simplistic notion that US invasion is associated with high profits to be incurred by American oil companies to a significant extent ignores the fact that early projections of financial costs regarding invasion and occupation exceeded by far additional profits to be reaped in future.
Moreover, Saddam was willing to sell oil at a reasonable price which was satisfactory to the Western buyers. In addition to that his standing with respect to OPEC members was considerably low to such a point that wielding sufficient influence on oil cartels to adopt policies detrimental to American interest was impossible (Zunes, 2004). However, this does not imply that economic factors never played a critical role in US invasion; they were the key elements which prompted US into invading Iraq.
The vast majority of governments which were victims of US intervention were nationalists and superpower rivalry was just an excuse not reason. With neo liberal model enforced through international financial institutions such as International Monetary fund (IMF) being the dominant force in the global economy, crude forms associated with hegemonic domination were no longer required (Hinnebusch, 2007). The hegemony of US capitalism and that of its allies reached unprecedented heights without use of military force.
Consequently, it resulted in the collapse of nationalism which was dominant in the Arab world as Arab countries transformed their policies by adopting free market reforms. Such changes were accompanied by significant reduction in support provided to terrorist and insurgent groups, and a subsequent decline in anti-Western rhetoric. To America such transformations enabled it to maintain its position in the global economy while nations which resisted adopting free market reforms were considered a threat to US economic position.
In the Arab world, Iraq was the only state which resisted change from nationalism and comprised of a significant portion of well educated population, sufficient water supplies and enormous oil reserves. Such qualities enabled Iraq to maintain independent foreign and domestic policies in spite of America imposing sanctions on Iraq for more than twelve years as way of overthrowing the Iraqi government (Zunes, 2004). Such efforts by the American government were in vain as the Iraqi government was still stable thus could not cooperate with America’s strategic and economic agendas. As a consequence, US felt deeply obliged to revert to cruder forms of interventions to eliminate the threat to its economic power.
America depends primarily on fossil fuel as source of energy. Despite US not depending entirely on Persian Gulf oil as East Asian and European nations, controlling Iraq which comprised of the world’s second largest oil reserves would have provided America huge economic leverage (Klare, 2003). In the case of trade wars with European Union or military rivalry with China, having an effective control over oil in the Persian Gulf would provide US with an upper hand. From such perspective, America’s invasion of Iraq is reflective of the return of nineteenth century power politics which entailed controlling major economic resources.
US dollar has been the de facto international trading currency for decades. Regarding OPEC agreement since 1971, US dollar has been the flat currency for trading oil (Heard, 2003). If countries had to hoard dollars in order to buy oil, they would want to utilize the same hoard for other trading also. This therefore gave America an enormous trading advantage thus the dominant economy in the world. Iraq was a threat to the US dollar monopoly on oil trading as it initiated the change from the US dollar to the euro.
Initially, the idea was viewed a mistake but after two years euro begun rising against the dollar giving Iraq a huge economic advantage. This led other oil-rich countries such as Iran and Venezuela to consider switching to euro in order to reap the benefits associated with. Losing grip on oil trading and on world trade could have led to the collapse of US economy and its world trade dominance thus America had to stamp on this threat immediately before it got out of hand.
In conclusion, bad leadership and weapons of mass destruction were just a mere excuse to invade Iraq and gain control over its resources. America’s monopoly on the oil trade was under threat and US economy would have suffered immensely as a result of Iraq and other nations breaking ranks and commencing to trade oil in euro’s rather than dollars. Invading and conquering Iraq therefore enabled America to hurl back European Union and its euro into the sea thus making America’s position as the world’s dominant economic power impregnable.
References
Heard, G. (2003). It’s not about oil or Iraq: it's about the US and Europe going head-to-head on world economic dominance. Energy Bulletin.
Hinnebusch, R. (2007). The US invasion of Iraq: explanations and implications.
Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, 16(3), pp. 209–228.
Klare, M. T. (2003). For oil and empire? rethinking the war with Iraq. Current History 102(662),
pp. 129–135.
Zunes, S. (2004). The US invasion of Iraq: the military side of globalization? Common Dreams.
Additional Resources
