"We've discussed the many downsides of an invasion. I think it would be interesting to discuss motives and benefits as well -- Who would profit, and how. And I'm not referring to some unsubstantiated premise of national security, but rather war profiteering."
Yes well on that point you get into two issues. One is the fundamental "captains of industry vs robber barons" question (but which is a philosophical question that is superfluous here.
The second issue must be clarified however before we can proceed: what scope (and result) are you asking about?
If you mean initially after the invasion or attack (could be two weeks to a year, depending on what kind of assault), almost no one profits. Actually the only people who profit are those individual investors who have stock in oil companies (yes, that could be you) and the oil companies themselves. Of course, this is assuming that oil exports from Iran are interrupted, which is a logical assumption considering that it's not typical for troops, equipment, and strategy to be diverted so that the oil flow may be maintained. A great example of this is in Iraq, where the oil export level is still well below pre-invasion levels. And even though we now have a sizable military contingent (both US Navy and a lot of British troops) focused on maintaining that oil, this is only because (militarily speaking) major combat operations have ceased, except in western al Anbar province near Syria. But whatever your opinion about our initial motives regarding Iraqi oil, the fact is that now the oil is being maintained in hopes that it will significantly pay for Iraqi reconstruction - and Bush will be able to stop going in front of Congress and requesting an additional 50 to 100 billion to fund the war/reconstruction efforts. Basically, we're now protecting it because it is part of our only ticket out. Of course, a good oil flow also theoretically lowers the price of oil, which does benefit oil consumers like the US and hurts oil producers like Venezuela, Iran, and Russia.
But back to Iran. Again, what type of war and how it goes is crucial. If it is a purely western-led war, then Russia presumably loses big time over the long term - as they currently have the most substantial and hopeful oil contracts with Iran. That is why, if Russia enters the war, pay close attention to where they do it. If it's in the same region most of their tenders are located in, which is closed to Russia anyway (n'eastern Iran), this is no coincidence.
The second main losers are Pakistan and India. Neither produces enough oil to supply themselves, and w/ India especially, if they are to grow long term, they need a large supply. That is why there are large scales plans currently being developed to build a pipeline from Iran through Pak to India. When you hear about India being on the fence and being pressured from both sides, this is the main reason why.
On the winning side, you've mainly got the UK and the US. The UK since they've got the longest history of oil projects and interests - although none currently - in Iran. The US because, if we were to attack other than just bomb, it'd be doing most of the fighting, which means that it'd hold most of the territory. Thus, it'd mainly influence who got the tenders afterward (which would be favored in US). This is biased, sure, but maybe not unreasonable, since the US troops would also do most of the dying.
Then you've got the reconstructors which mostly comes down to one or two corporations. Most likely, Halliburton and their subsidiary, Kellog, Brown, and Root (now KBR). This is the "robber baron vs captain of industry debate" simply because, yeah they're probably sleazy and prone to pushing profit, but then again, there is simply no other corporation with the manpower, resources, and experience to get this job done. In short, you don't like it, tough. (That'd be their thinking and not mine, btw.) After all, it's not like the average small business owner or even start-up corporation has the ability to purchase, ship, and construct hundreds of billions of dollars worth of facilities and infrastructure. Other corporations might say they could, but in short, they're either bullsh**ing or overestimating. Building stuff on a semi-timely basis during war time - where you control start to end process - is tough work. And there's a strong case to be made that controlling all aspects of production is necessary in wartime construction simply because this stuff needs to be built cause it impacts stability and security. T/f the haggling, delaying, and bidding that makes the free market so cost-effective and ultimately desirable might simply not be the best choice in war, solely because things are tied so closely to security ops and fighting. Now, the flip side is that there is little impetus for competition and therefore little force to improve services - which is what we've seen in Iraq. But again, tough. If someone else has a company that can do it faster and cheaper, by all means get started. But the reality is that there is little room for error and it's a lot easier for the gov't/DoD to light a fire under a single corp's ass than try to speed up an entire process. **My apologies b/c this last issue is a very debated one, sometimes politically and other times economically, which doesn't bode well for keeping the thread on track. Who knows what hell I've called down now.
**
(unrelated, it might be wise to create a sequel to this long and important thread - if nothing else to peak back interest. If so, feel free(/please) to copy and paste these points.)
