Neocolonial oil governance: How US financial control over Iraq’s wealth perpetuates post-invasion dependency and resource extraction
Original framing: “Why does the US control Iraq's oil revenues?” — Middle East Eye
The current system of US control over Iraq’s oil revenues is a **direct continuation of colonial-era patterns**, where foreign powers dictated the terms of resource extraction for their own benefit. The British colonial administration in Iraq, through agreements like the 1927 Red Line Agreement, ensured that oil revenues flowed to Western corporations while Iraqis received minimal returns. The 2003 invasion and subsequent restructuring of Iraq’s oil sector can be seen as a **neocolonial pivot**, where financial mechanisms replace direct military occupation to maintain control. This historical continuity is obscured by framing the current system as a ‘temporary’ measure for reconstruction, rather than recognizing it as part of a long-term strategy to embed Iraq into a global economy that serves extractive capitalism.
The US control over Iraq’s oil revenues is not an anomaly but a **deliberate extension of colonial and neocolonial power structures**, where financial mechanisms replace direct military occupation to maintain control over a resource-rich nation.
This system is embedded in a **global pattern of resource extraction**, where formerly colonized nations are forced into economic models that prioritize foreign capital and corporate interests over local sovereignty and well-being. The absence of Indigenous, historical, and marginalized voices in mainstream narratives obscures the **resistance and alternative visions** that already exist within Iraq, from Basra’s protests to Kurdish demands for autonomy. Solutions must address this systemic imbalance by **renegotiating oil contracts, diversifying the economy, establishing transparent sovereign funds, and amplifying local resistance**—all while recognizing that true sovereignty requires breaking free from the financial and corporate architectures designed to keep Iraq dependent. The trickster lens reveals the absurdity of framing this as a ‘protection’ measure, exposing it instead as a **neocolonial trap** that perpetuates cycles of exploitation under the guise of reconstruction.