"Americans remain optimistic that a last minute deal can be reached," reported The Wall Street Journal in its June 14-15, 2008 edition, describing an impasse over an extraordinary long-term "security" deal between the United States and Iraqi governments that would keep U.S. troops in Iraq for many, many years.

Gina Chon, reporting from Baghdad, was not referring to the American public. She was referring only to a statement by the State Department's Iraq coordinator, David Satterfield, who, she said in breezy style, "is in town for the negotiations" on the deal, which is opposed by an increasing number of Iraqis because it would make Iraq a captive state of the United States.

Oil was not mentioned in connection with Satterfield's negotiations. Nor was oil mentioned in the negotiation reports in The New York Times (NYSE:NYT) or Financial Times. In fact, it has been the practice of the major media to avoid mentioning oil in connection with military activity in Iraq; something also common in the Congress, all following the lead of the Bush administration.

But it is no coincidence that news of negotiations over the "security" agreement comes with news on June 19 that the occupied Iraqi government is getting ready to sign contracts with ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and Total to assist in developing Iraq's vast oil fields, holding the world's third-largest reserves. Although the contracts are simply for services, not long-term production agreements, the contracts give the major oil companies a foot in the door.

That they are no-bid contracts given to these Western firms over Russian, Chinese and Indian competitors is exceptional and clearly a matter of an occupied government responding to pressure from the occupier.