He said in his book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
He later elaborated:
His main support for Hussein’s ouster, though, was economically motivated. “If Saddam Hussein had been head of Iraq and there was no oil under those sands,” Greenspan said, “our response to him would not have been as strong as it was in the first gulf war. And the second gulf war is an extension of the first. My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day” passing through.
Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel — far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week — and the loss of anything more would mean “chaos” to the global economy.
Given that, “I’m saying taking Saddam out was essential,” he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.
“No, no, no,” he said. Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of “making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will.”http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep…http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2969…http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo…