LONDON: While Washington hawks depict a war against Iraq as achieving security of oil supplies, Western oil companies are worried about the short-term danger and the supposed long-term benefits of intervention.

Left-wing critics in Britain depict the proposed invasion as an oil war. Former Cabinet Minister Mo Mowlam has called it a ‘war to secure oil supplies’ as a cover for a ‘war on terrorism’. And the fact that President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have both been enriched by oil companies raises suspicions about their motives for war.

But oil companies have had little influence on US policy-making. Most big American companies, including oil companies, do not see a war as good for business — as falling share prices indicate; while the obvious beneficiaries of war are arms companies.

Western oil companies have differing attitudes. The French want to maintain their special relationship with Iraq, while seeking links with Iraqi opposition leaders who may form a post-war government.

The Russians are performing a more difficult balancing act. Worried that their previous friendship with Saddam might exclude them from a post-war share-out, they have sought assurances from Washington in return for their diplomatic support for a war. But Saddam has counter-attacked by cancelling the Russian contract for developing new oilfields.

The British believe they are specially entitled to share in the development of Iraqi oil supplies. BP (then known as Anglo-Persian) was involved in the discovery of oil after the British and the French invented Iraq as a separate state, carved out of the Ottoman Empire in 1920.

But BP is worried about being displaced by US companies. As Lord Browne, its chief executive, said in October: “We would like to make sure, if Iraq changes its regime, that there should be a level playing-field for the selection of oil companies to go in there.”

The Americans, if they won the war, would be in the strongest position to insist on access to Iraqi oil and exploration. But they cannot ignore the interests of the Iraqi opposition. The State Department has convened a working group on oil and natural gas in Washington this week. It will include representatives of Iraqi groups and the US Energy Department, which will present proposals to a transitional government.

A State Department spokesman said: “There is a misconception that the US is trying to orchestrate the post-Saddam oil market in Iraq. That’s not at all what we are doing.” But European companies fear the Americans are trying to do just that, while using the promise of future oil supplies as leverage to ensure support for the war.

James Woolsey, former CIA director, said: “The French and Russians should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq towards decent government, we’ll do our best to ensure the new government and US companies work with them.”

Some companies are worried that the opportunities for developing Iraqi oil will lead to a free-for-all. “I’ve had one opposition leader offering a commission in return for access to oil,” said one oil executive. “I showed him the door, but there will be many more.”

Many neo-conservatives in Washington are indicating they want the US intervention to go beyond Iraq; and to redraw the diplomatic map of the Middle East. They look to a realignment of US foreign policy, to intervene in both Iran and Saudi Arabia, ensuring both the security of American oil supplies, and the security of Israel.

Above all, they see the development of Iraqi oil as lessening US dependence on Saudi Arabia, which they see as a dangerous source of future terrorists.

The oil companies are much less confident that this escalation will protect supplies. Shell and Exxon-Mobil have made huge investments in natural gas in Saudi Arabia, which could be at risk in a confrontation with the Saudi government. All oil companies in the Middle East would face a more dangerous political climate, caught between the American-Israeli intervention and nationalists fearing reversion to a neo-colonial system.

Oil companies dread having supplies interrupted by burning oilfields, saboteurs and chaotic conditions. And any attempt to redraw the frontiers could increase the dangers in both Iran and Iraq, as rivals seek to regain territory.

Hawks in Washington believe military intervention could bring about the demise of Opec, thus cutting oil prices. But collapsing prices would be devastating, not only for regional producers, but for Russia, which depends on exporting oil for its economic survival.

Bush insisted last week that America must become less dependent on foreign oil producers ‘who don’t like America’; but last month the US Department of Energy forecast that, by 2035, 51 per cent of world production would come from Opec — compared with 38 per cent today.

When Anthony Eden invaded Egypt in 1956, with France and Israel, he claimed to be defending British interests — without consulting the oil companies which opposed the invasion. The Suez war proved a great setback for BP and Shell, which faced angry nationalist reactions throughout the Middle East, while the Americans made the most of their advantage.

Many oil executives now fear a war against Iraq could have more dangerous repercussions; if it goes wrong, they will be among the first to blame the governments that launched it.—Dawn/The Guardian News Service.