To be fair (if only briefly) the newly discovered memos only say that:
'We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq'
Nothing in the article says that we went to war because of oil (that doesn't mean we did or we didn't - it's just that the article doesn't help either way), what it says is - having spent UK blood and treasure invading the place isn't it reasonable that UK should get a fair share of the rewards?
I accept that I am a bluff old traditionalist, but that doesn't sound like big news to me. A 'leaked' memo showing Tony B had said 'the oil is why we are invading - I made up the WMD thing to fool everyone' would be interesting; this is not.
Exactly. BP et al would be negligent
not to consider the post-Saddam landscape and try and gain some advantage. I'll bet the world's tobacco producers are in the wings for an opportunity if Mugabe loses Zimbabwe, but it wouldn't be the 'tobacco revolution' if he went. It must be a quiet news week.