I think his point is that they now have a large oil reserve so the US will be needing a reason to invade and take control of said reserve.
Basically it is a joke/comment on the Iraq war just being about oil I think. Unfortunately for me - as a history student - that argument doesn't hold up. Now I may be pretty left-wing, but that hasn't blinded me to a few facts which don't sit well with that point. Even during the 1990s when the USA had imposed an embargo on Iraqi oil, it was still the world's largest consumer of it (if you want I can find the reference for this point later). Now fast forward to after the invasion of Iraq when the Iraqi oil fields were sitting unused and insurgency makes it pretty hard to get the oil out of there. Either that demonstrates a stunning lack of foresight on the part of every member of the administration - a point which I suppose you could level but wouldn't be entirely fair - or it suggests that it wasn't just about oil. For me it is the latter. I am not sure what the overall reasoning behind the war was, but I don't think the facts hold up a wholly oil-based interpretation.
Many events indicate that the US is going to stay in Iraq for a long time. Obviously the oil is underused at the moment, but this may change in the future. And with oil production set to decline in the next years, it's imperative to seize major oil supplies as soon as possible. I confess that I'm worried about Brazil...
