It doesn't matter where the oil is coming from or going to, what matter is supply and demand.. so the US makes sure that the Middle East gives enough oil to Europe so that Canada won't overcharge on the US oil bill.

Tipping Sacred Cows

I never considered Iraq a war for oil and, considering how things have gone, it's still not.

The strange thing is Mayor, that there is a very good argument to be made that it was a war for oil, but not in the way that most people think. The theory goes a little like this:
Iraq has the 2nd largest reserves of easily available oil after the Saudis. The Saudis control OPEC regardless of who is technically/officially in charge (IIRC, the Saudis are the ones who set production quotas for everyone in OPEC)- thus the Saudis largely determine the starting price for oil. Should anyone exceed the production limits imposed by OPEC because they want to pick up quick cash by selling below market price, the Saudis can flood the market with oil for as long as needed to quash any price insurrection, because they have the largest reserves.

The Saudis realized that should Hussein-controlled Iraq ever get its shit together long enough to get sanctions lifted and start being a player in the oil game, he had enough reserves to make trouble for the Saudis, even if it was just temporarily. Indeed, even with Iraq's sanction-controlled production capacity, Hussein's saber-rattling and provocative behaviour often caused temporary price fluctuations that drove the Saudis nuts as it interfered with their direct control of oil's price.

Saddam was jerking the oil market up and down. One week, without notice, the man in the moustache suddenly announces he's going to "support the Palestinian intifada" and cuts off all oil shipments. The result: Worldwide oil prices jump. The next week, Saddam forgets about the Palestinians and pumps to the maximum allowed under the Oil-For-Food Program. The result: Oil prices suddenly dive-bomb. Up, down, up, down. Saddam was out of control.
Within days of Bush's election in November 2000, the James Baker Institute issued this warning:
In a market with so little cushion to cover unexpected events, oil prices become extremely sensitive to perceived supply risks. Such a market increases the potential leverage of an otherwise lesser producer such as Iraq...

The tinpot despot was, almost alone, setting the weekly world price of oil and Big Oil did not care for that. In the CFR's sober language:
Saddam is a destabilizing influence... to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East."

With Saddam gone and Iraq unstable, everyone in Big Oil, including our very own companies benefits by that oil in Iraq staying right where it is: underground and unavailable. So we didn't go into Iraq to get the oil out, we went there to keep it securely locked away and unavailable. Just like the Saudis and Big Oil wanted it to be. The less oil available, the higher the price consumers have to pay for it.

 I often wonder had 911 not happened could Dubya have gotten the support to mount a regime change in Baghdad.

Most certainly, if you buy into any part of the theory above. Considering Bush's overly-friendly stance in regards to Saudi Arabia and Bush's allegiance to Big Oil, then the impetus for regime change was gonna happen regardless of circumstances or merit. Bush is a loyalist first and foremost - he helps those who've helped him. And it's worth remembering that his friends in Big Oil and his friends in the Saudi govt have been the ones who've bailed him out of all his previously failed business endeavors.
Is that the way it happened? I dunno, but it's certainly an interesting theory, in any case.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer