A wall along the Iran-Iraq border in Wasit Province. (image: cheeseitz87 via flickr.com)

The border dispute between Iraq and Iran over an inactive oil well that began in mid December has been taken up as a cause by some Iraqi nationalists. The Washington Post reports that the fighting for Fakka oil well No. 4 in Iraq’s Maysan province has “inflamed passions in Iraq.”

Differing reports surfaced about the showdown over this oil well, with conflicting reports about whether or not the dispute had actually been settled. The New York Times reported that, despite claims the skirmish was over, officials from Iraq were claiming there were still Iranian soldiers in the region. Then Reuters ran the news that the incident had ended, with Iranian officials dubbing the affair a “misunderstanding.”

Whether or not the issue is resolved—the Post says forces from both countries are still dug in on opposing sides of the well, which is outside of Baghdad—the dispute has put a spotlight on the tense relations between the two countries, issues which some worry could spark a larger conflict. As the Post’s Michael Hastings noted in his piece, the dispute over the inactive well has touched on two very sensitive topics for Iraqis in particular: “sovereignty and oil.” Hastings went on to say that the showdown in Iraq has “turned into a litmus test” for politicians and parties looking ahead to the national elections in March.

Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran’s influence in the country has grown and many Iraqis are concerned about what will happen when American troops leave the region. As Hastings elaborated: “Many of the Iraqi leaders installed early on by the Americans spent years in exile in Iran, and Iranian money, weapons and intelligence agents have flooded across a border that neither the Iraqis nor the Americans have been able to control.”

While different factions in the two countries are claiming different things—some say the showdown is a sign of an impending eruption of violence and others have dismissed it—there is no question that the Iran-Iraq border has been unstable for some time. The Post notes that the U.S. has spent over $1 billion on security there since 2003 and that “part of the U.S. withdrawal strategy involves arming Iraq with new weapons, border surveillance systems and aircraft to defend against Iran and other regional threats.”

While the Iranians are saying the issue is over, Iraqis still have their concerns—and fears. And, of course, the issue is ultimately about more than who controls one inactive oil well. As one Iraqi leader told the Post: “This is not an issue of resolving a dispute. We are quite sure this is our land. We have proof this is our land.”

Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior. (image: treehugger.com)

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar unleashed a vehement attack on critics within the oil and gas industry, the New York Times reported on Tuesday. Salazar said that the Department’s “oil and gas leasing program is robust…[b]ut you wouldn’t know it if you listened to the untruths coming out of” the oil and gas industry. He went on to slam the industry for acting as if it, not the taxpayers, owns public lands; for not developing areas already under lease and instead trying to lease additional acreage; and for taking out leases ripe for challenge, protest, and litigation, which wastes taxpayer and shareholder money. He also stated that 38 onshore oil and gas leases are scheduled for 2010, and that 32 lease sales were held this year, to demonstrate that his Department is not stonewalling on leases.

Salazar was reacting to public criticism from the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS), which last week released a report critical of Department actions. As Kristin Miller reported, the IPAMS report criticizes the Department’s decision to cancel or hold for further review 60 of 77 Utah oil and gas leases granted by the Bush Administration. The report claims that there was “no evidence” of environmental or procedural issues that would support withdrawing the leases, as well as a “’lack of regard’ for the seven-year public planning process” that preceded the leases.

IPAMS offered extensive detail to support their contention that withdrawing the leases was not justified. For example, one of the leases was for a parcel buffered from a national park by existing, previously granted leases, and which had been subject to planning and review to prevent impacts on air quality, paleontology, and engendered species.

Salazar has taken considerable heat for actions that slow the tempo of development; apparently, after the IPAMS report, he’d had enough and decided it was time to hit back.