Amir Tehari reviews the bidding two years after the toppling of Saddam's brutal regime.

The most ardent advocates of the anti-war case are remnants of the supposedly revolutionary left that, in almost every other case, regard the law as nothing but a bourgeois prop to keep the masses in check. The spectacle of Leninists, Trotskyistes and Maoists beating their chests about the legality of toppling a tyrant is surely a treat for all students of politics.

Indeed.

One thing that bugs me here is how nearsighted the arguments are on both sides. The argument that the US went into Iraq explicitly to steal oil or merely to have cheap oil is retarded. But OTOH, Iraq's tremendous oil reserves are a key reason that Iraq under Hussein was far more dangerous than North Korea. I think a better argument would have been to explain how oil contributed to this invasion and why that helped make the war necessary.

Long term I see the US gearing its foreign policy to neutralize the OPEC cartel. Perhaps part of the reason for the invasion was to reduce the future power of this cartel, I don't know.

Privatization of Iraq's oil reserves might do that. If such a large amount of oil is freed from the cartel's decision making process, then it might significantly weaken a host of players who are for the most part undemocratic governments. I don't know how that will work out since it's pretty much in the interests of Iraq to continue participation in OPEC.