From Tuscaloosa, Alabama to Tucson Arizona, from London England to Logansport Indiana, more than one hundred demonstrations are taking place today at gas stations in the United States and United Kingdom to send the message of 'NO WAR FOR OIL'. Demonstrators are condemning military action and are calling on the Bush and Blair Administrations to reduce their nations' dependence on oil, as a key step towards sane national security and energy policies.

The Bush Administration, backed up by a chorus of pundits, vehemently denies that oil provides any rationale for war. The denials are so absolute, so acerbic in tone, that it is hard not to conclude that they protest a bit too much. No conflict can ever be understood by looking at just one factor - but the peace movement's rallying cry of "No Blood for Oil" has resonance and power because it holds more than a grain of truth when talking about any proposed military action in Iraq.

Since the Arab oil embargo of 1973, successive US administrations have equated national security with access to, and control of, oil - particularly in the Persian Gulf, which holds an amazing two-thirds of global oil reserves. In January 1980, the lingering fear generated by the embargo, combined with events such as the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan forced US strategists to draw a line in the sand. During what would become his last State of the Union address, President Carter first specifically articulated the Persian Gulf as a "vital interest" of the United States, and pledged to defend that interest by "any means necessary, including military force."

Twenty years later, newly appointed Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham unveiled the Bush/Cheney administration's process to create a new National Energy Strategy "founded on the understanding that diversity of supply means security of supply." Although the Administration knows that there is simply not enough excess oil in the world to displace the central role of Saudi Arabia, the hope is that by maximizing sources of oil from elsewhere, the power of the Saudis to influence the market will be somewhat diminished.

Because of this fact, US military and energy strategies have become intertwined around the world. In the Caspian region, Georgian President Schevardnadze recently noted that "the prospect of using the U.S. military to guard transportation routes for the Caspian's energy resources to the world markets is quite realistic." In Colombia, the Bush Administration's recent decision to allocate $98 million to train a "Critical Infrastructure Brigade" of Colombians explicitly to protect Occidental Petroleum's pipeline fuels the idea that our involvement in the region (including neighboring Venezuela) is about oil. Similarly in West Africa, which could soon supply 25% of US oil imports, credible rumors are swirling regarding the establishment of a US military base in Sao Tome.

If "security of supply" is indeed the Bush/Cheney administration's goal, "securing" Iraq's oil goes a long way towards achieving it. Iraq holds the world's second largest reserves of oil. The US Energy Information Administration estimates Iraq's possible reserves at 220 billion barrels, or approximately 80% of current proven Saudi reserves.

Post-Saddam Iraq, would soon be in a position to dramatically increase production to at least six million barrels/day by 2010. In other words, in the worst case scenario that the flow of Saudi oil was slowed or stopped, an increase in Iraqi oil production could, at least for a time, begin to make up for the loss. Apart from any disaster scenario, a revitalized Iraqi oil industry will certainly lessen the power of Saudi Arabia to manipulate the oil market, and the global economy.

Thirty years ago, when the oil embargo shocked America, or twenty years ago, when the Carter Doctrine was just taking hold, alternative energy was in its infancy. Today though, hybrid cars are being mass produced, and prototype hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are being driven in California. The solutions to our dilemma are here now - now more than ever, the only barriers to a clean energy economy that frees us from dependence on oil are political, not technical.

Whether oil is the most important factor in going to war, or merely one of many considerations is a debate that may never be settled. But by any objective standard, the body of evidence that oil is a factor in the rush to war in Iraq far outweighs the evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, or that it is connected to Al Qaeda. The burden of proof that oil is not a factor should now be on the Administration - not on those who are merely drawing logical conclusions based on available evidence.