Alright, so let's accept that the US is urging other nations to join them in their "war on terror" so that they can help in the occupations of these nations. Somehow, then, the US is going to lay sovereign claim to the oil resources of all of these nations - even when US troops aren't occupying the country?? Even if the US took "handovers", they STILL wouldn't be able to provide enough troops to successfully occupy all of these countries. Especially since, once they start *stealing* the oil, the inhabitants are going to singularly rise up against them. I also can't imagine the rest of the world, including the US' titular allies, standing by while this happens.
Don't overestimate the US' military power.
The strategic interest in the Middle East is partly because many of those in the current US cabal have very close ties to Israel, not to mention that the two nations have been very closely Allied for some time now. Iraq was at the top of their hit-list, coinciding with Israeli concerns quite closely. They're interested in promoting US global hegemony to the rest of the world - "We're the only superpower left, and we're not going away, so you better fall in line." They picked an easy target for demonstrating their will to wage "preventive" war, in opposition to the will of the UN.
As for why not Northern Africa, well, again, they had a better target. Iraq was an easy sell to the American people, and they have close allies in the region already - although perhaps Saudi Arabia and Turkey weren't quite so far into the US sphere of influence as they thought, as Israel was. There was "unfinished business" with Iraq, a ready-to-hand enemy (Saddam) to lend a moral suasion to the enterprise, vague UN resolutions which would give an invasion some thin veneer of legitimacy, and most important of all, a standing army that hadn't yet recovered from a recent thrashing waiting to be destroyed in a land which favoured the use of US military technology.
I have no doubt they have vague plans about expansion elsewhere as well - Asia, for instance. Sudan, though, doesn't remotely fit. They're in the grips of a civil war, and the US has had bad experiences in Africa in the recent past (Somalia). This would have been a very difficult sell, both to the American public, and to others in the administration. They'd been talking about Iraq from the minute they'd come to power.
Haiti isn't in Northern Africa. And Sudan has lots of oil.
You haven't explained how oil is a "political weapon". It isn't, despite vague historical threats from "Islamists" that Muslim countries should use the denial of oil supply as a weapon against the US. Nobody took them seriously then, and nobody should take them seriously now. The US certainly doesn't, despite even *their* increased anxiety level about Muslim governments in general.
It just doesn't make sense. It's NOT about oil, except perhaps very tangentially to the minds of those in charge, and in precisely the same sort of vague, malformed notions that you have. If you think it is, you need to explain why - more than just saying "US hegemony". If the "war on terror" *is* about oil, why did they start with Afghanistan? Why was North Korea put on the hit list?
