Recently the press has been surveying critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, both at home and abroad. One consistent theme, articulated by the critics, is that America’s real motive in going to war with Iraq is to secure American access to Iraqi oil. This allegation is part of a broader critique that faults America for professing its allegiance to noble goals (peace, democracy, human rights) while in practice pursuing its narrow self-interest.

The charge that America’s Middle Eastern policy is driven by its appetite for oil is one that we heard in the early 1990s. During the Gulf War of 1991, critics charged that America’s motive in ejecting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was not to help Kuwait but to guarantee American access to Middle Eastern oil.

But in reality America had two objectives in the Gulf War. One was to protect the oil fields from falling into the hands of Saddam Hussein. The second was to liberate the Kuwaiti people from invasion by a barbarous dictator. The outcome of the Gulf War illustrated that American foreign policy can simultaneously protect America’s interests while also serving larger humanitarian and moral goals.

It is not reasonable to ask a nation to conduct a foreign policy that operates against its self-interest. The reason is that the foreign policy of a nation is aimed at advancing the welfare of its people. In a democratic society, we elect leaders who will act on our behalf: we don’t want our leaders to be neutral between the welfare of Americans and, say, the welfare of the Jordanians or the Moroccans. This principle is universally understood, which is why the foreign policy of every other country is directly calculated to advance the interests of that country.

Consider French and German criticism of the coming war against Iraq. The French and Germans have lucrative economic interests in Iraq. They have a financial stake in maintaining the status quo. Indeed, they have an interest in keeping Saddam Hussein in power. Yet the French and German foreign ministers never invoke this as a reason for their objection to President Bush’s policy. It is the most prominent critics of America who profess lofty ideals (“give peace a chance”) while their actions are to a considerable extent guided by the profit motive.

The French and Germans have not been criticized for their financial motives because it is universally understood that self-interest controls the foreign policy of nations. Only America is required, by its critics, to demonstrate that self-interest is not the guiding force behind its foreign policy. The right answer to this charge is not to deny self-interest but to show how, now as in the past, the protection of American self-interest can also advance the welfare of humanity.

Saddam Hussein, who seized power by force, has no right to rule Iraq. No one can deny that he is a dangerous man who would be more dangerous if he had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. It is hard to disagree that both peace and human rights would be more secure if Saddam was out of power. The Iraqi people would be better off, and so would the rest of the world.

Consequently a successful American war against Saddam, even if it strengthened American oil interests in the Middle East, would also make the world a safer and better place.