According to The Guardian, U.K. left-wing critics depict the proposed invasion as an oil war. Former British cabinet minister Mo Mowlam called it a “war to secure oil supplies” as a cover for a “war on terrorism”. Further, the fact that United States President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have both been enriched by oil companies raises suspicions about their motives for war.

However, 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, the paper said.

Other 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 Guardian reported.

Worried that their previous friendship with Saddam might exclude them from a post-war share-out, the Russians have sought assurances from Washington in return for their diplomatic support for a war.

However, “Saddam has counter-attacked by canceling the Russian contract for developing new oilfields,” the paper added.

For their part, 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,” the British daily said.

BP is worried about being displaced by U.S. 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.”

James Woolsey, former CIA director, explained to the daily that “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 American companies work closely with them.”

According to the Guardian, 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.”

The Guardian added that 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 convened a working group on oil and natural gas in Washington this week. It will include representatives of Iraqi groups and the U.S. Energy Department, which will present proposals to a transitional government.”

A State Department spokesman said, “There is a misconception that the U.S. is trying to orchestrate the post-Saddam oil market in Iraq. That's not at all what we are doing.”

“However, 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,” the Guardian said.

“Many neo-conservatives in Washington are indicating they want the U.S. intervention to go beyond Iraq; and to redraw the diplomatic map of the Middle East. They look to a realignment of U.S. 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,” the paper added, “they see the development of Iraqi oil as lessening U.S. 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.”

The Guardian reported that “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 (the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries), 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. A low oil price would massively increase unemployment and poverty in producing countries.”

The paper said that “Saudi oilmen recall how George Bush Senior, when he was Vice-President, was so concerned about the declining oil price that he visited Saudi Arabia to persuade its government to restrict production. After a war, Bush Junior might need to repeat the exercise to try to stabilize the market; but the Saudis might be less willing to help him out.

“Bush insisted last week that America must become less dependent on foreign oil producers “who don’t like America”; but last month the U.S. 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 paper said.

“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,” recalled the British paper.