Will US oil companies invest in Iraq with a nuclear armed Iran next door?

[NNN0LHI]

My guess is no. That is the Chimps big problem here I think?

[Warpy]

1. Sure, but their corporate headquarters will be out of range

along with everybody above the level of oil field worker and lowest rung supervisor.

[Toucano]

2. Don't underestimate the power of greed.

Nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, regardless of the country in question.

[punpirate]

3. Doubt it...

On edit, I should add that this is in response to your suggestion that Bush's biggest problem is nukes in Iran because it will deter oil companies from exploiting Iraq.

... look at other evidence--US investors were racing to get into the Russian oil business, even as the Soviet Union was collapsing (which did cause, at the time, a great deal of instability in some regions--some with Russian nuclear weapons), but there was little chance of one region of that collapsing region using nuclear weapons on another.

In Iraq, what appeals to US companies is minimal risk--if the government assures their profits, they would go there in a heartbeat. The political situation in Iraq is far from stable, and the greatest threat to US oil companies is not nuclear weapons in Iran, but the risk of re-nationalization by the new Iraqi government. At some point, there will be enough strength in one faction to throw out all of Bremer's interim laws, and, certainly, the next step will be re-nationalization--because in the Middle East, who controls the government controls the oil. That's the real power base for any government.

That's part of the reason why both the US and the oil companies helped create the percentages of parliament seats as they were drawn--Kurds are 15% of the population, but they get 27% of the seats in parliament. If the Kurds demand autonomy (which is likely) or eventually use their strength in the coalition to completely split from Iraq, the northern oil fields (with very large reserves and undeveloped capacity) will remain accessible to western oil companies.

It's not about nuclear weapons in Iran. Rather, it's about who controls the government in Iraq.

Cheers.

[NNN0LHI]

4. I am not suggesting Iran would need to ever use nukes

But just having nukes ties the US hands. They can formant all the trouble they wish to in Iraq, maybe even arm Iraqis to fight against their occupiers and there would be nothing that the US could do about it accept maybe complain.

Don

[punpirate]

5. Just don't think so....

This isn't about nukes. It's about control of the region for oil. Does the suggestion that Iran with nukes makes life more complicated for the Bushies with regard to Iran? Yes. But not with regard to Iraq. There are different problems there.

As long as the Bushies can control the political climate in Iraq, and preserve the business climate they want, oil companies will go there, whether Iran has nukes or not. Right now, they aren't diving in head first because the political situation is unstable, and that's largely to do with not knowing whether their investments will pan out--they simply don't want to put money into Iraqi oil fields right now if there's a possibility that the Iraqi government will suddenly get independent and re-nationalize those fields.

As for Iran fomenting trouble in Iraq, that's probably already happening, and that's got nothing to do with nukes. It's likely happening inside the Shia political majority, not out on the streets with car bombs--that appears to be the work of Sunnis.

Iran is never going to use nukes on American troops in Iraq. It would mean their obliteration. Nor would they risk using them on a neighboring Arab country.

Iran's seemingly loose talk about their nuclear capability is meant to be a deterrent to Israel--that's it in a nutshell. That's what's got the US neo-cons panties in a bunch, not that Iran's possession of nukes might threaten US companies ability to extract Iraqi oil.

That's the way I see it.

Cheers.