Invading Iraq, benefits of:

There has been considerable discussion by neocons about what Kissinger's position is, and how it was reported in the press - particularly in the New York Times. Those who are pro-invasion point to this OpEd by Henry, and as New York Times (!) columnist Bill Keller wrote:

Among the many blessings Dr. Kissinger sees in a Saddam-free Iraq, he even offers some consolation for possibly anxious business clients: "a better balance in oil policy within OPEC."

The message is that once Saddam Hussein is gone, OPEC will keep oil prices down. Why? Perhaps because the U.S. colossus demands such things. Perhaps out of gratitude.

Or perhaps not.

It would seem that with the constant threat emanating from Iraq, the Saudis and other Gulf States are eager to keep the U.S. on their good side by being moderates within OPEC. After all, they may need help if they're invaded (or simply menaced). But with the removal of Hussein - and the threat(s) he poses - other issues will come to the surface (e.g. Israel/Palestine), and it's entirely possible that OPEC could get uppity and cause trouble.

Now, that's not to say it's a good idea to have a troublemaker around so that your allies stick with you. After all, a troublemaker is a troublemaker. But it's clear that you can't accept blithe assurances of good economic times once he's gone. Especially in a region with so many unresolved tensions as the Middle East.

posted by Quiddity at 8/24/2002 04:37:00 PM