#anglo-iranian oil company

[mossadegh]

• Mossadegh media: newspaper & magazine articles, editorials

[encyclop3dia]

if i had a nickel for every time the CIA has helped boot a well-loved and supported politician out of office in another country (where said politician was either democratically elected or fairly appointed to their position) because some company didn't like that the politician was looking out for human rights, i would have AT LEAST two nickels. there may be more.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

End of the line for corporate sovereignty

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me next weekend (Mar 30/31) in ANAHEIM at WONDERCON, then in Boston with Randall "XKCD" Munroe (Apr 11), then Providence (Apr 12), and beyond!

Back in the 1950s, a new, democratically elected Iranian government nationalized foreign oil interests. The UK and the US then backed a coup, deposing the progressive government with one more hospitable to foreign corporations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Iranian_oil_industry

This nasty piece of geopolitical skullduggery led to the mother-of-all-blowbacks: the Anglo-American puppet regime was toppled by the Ayatollah and his cronies, who have led Iran ever since.

For the US and the UK, the lesson was clear: they needed a less kinetic way to ensure that sovereign countries around the world steered clear of policies that undermined the profits of their oil companies and other commercial giants. Thus, the "investor-state dispute settlement" (ISDS) was born.

The modern ISDS was perfected in the 1990s with the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). The ECT was meant to foam the runway for western corporations seeking to take over ex-Soviet energy facilities, by making those new post-Glasnost governments promise to never pass laws that would undermine foreign companies' profits.

But as Nick Dearden writes for Jacobin, the western companies that pushed the east into the ECT failed to anticipate that ISDSes have their own form of blowback:

https://jacobin.com/2024/03/energy-charter-treaty-climate-change/

When the 2000s rolled around and countries like the Netherlands and Denmark started to pass rules to limit fossil fuels and promote renewables, German coal companies sued the shit out of these governments and forced them to either back off on their democratically negotiated policies, or to pay gigantic settlements to German corporations.

ISDS settlements are truly grotesque: they're not just a matter of buying out existing investments made by foreign companies and refunding them money spent on them. ISDS tribunals routinely order governments to pay foreign corporations all the profits they might have made from those investments.

For example, the UK company Rockhopper went after Italy for limiting offshore drilling in response to mass protests, and took $350m out of the Italian government. Now, Rockhopper only spent $50m on Adriatic oil exploration – the other $300m was to compensate Rockhopper for the profits it might have made if it actually got to pump oil off the Italian coast.

Governments, both left and right, grew steadily more outraged that ISDSes tied the hands of democratically elected lawmakers and subordinated their national sovereignty to corporate sovereignty. By 2023, nine EU countries were ready to pull out of the ECT.

But the ECT had another trick up its sleeve: a 20-year "sunset" clause that bound countries to go on enforcing the ECT's provisions – including ISDS rulings – for two decades after pulling out of the treaty. This prompted European governments to hit on the strategy of a simultaneous, mass withdrawal from the ECT, which would prevent companies registered in any of the ex-ECT countries from suing under the ECT.

It will not surprise you to learn that the UK did not join this pan-European coalition to wriggle out of the ECT. On the one hand, there's the Tories' commitment to markets above all else (as the Trashfuture podcast often points out, the UK government is the only neoliberal state so committed to austerity that it's actually dismantling its own police force). On the other hand, there's Rishi Sunak's planet-immolating promise to "max out North Sea oil."

But as the rest of the world transitions to renewables, different blocs in the UK – from unions to Tory MPs – are realizing that the country's membership in ECT and its fossil fuel commitment is going to make it a world leader in an increasingly irrelevant boondoggle – and so now the UK is also planning to pull out of the ECT.

As Dearden writes, the oil-loving, market-worshipping UK's departure from the ECT means that the whole idea of ISDSes is in danger. After all, some of the world's poorest countries are also fed up to the eyeballs with ISDSes and threatening to leave treaties that impose them.

One country has already pulled out: Honduras. Honduras is home to Prospera, a libertarian autonomous zone on the island of Roatan. Prospera was born after a US-backed drug kingpin named Porfirio Lobo Sosa overthrew the democratic government of Manuel Zelaya in 2009.

The Lobo Sosa regime established a system of special economic zones (known by their Spanish acronym, "ZEDEs"). Foreign investors who established a ZEDE would be exempted from Honduran law, allowing them to create "charter cities" with their own private criminal and civil code and tax system.

This was so extreme that the Honduran supreme court rejected the plan, so Lobo Sosa fired the court and replaced them with cronies who'd back his play.

A group of crypto bros capitalized on this development, using various ruses to establish a ZEDE on the island of Roatan, a largely English-speaking, Afro-Carribean island known for its marine reserve, its SCUBA diving, and its cruise ship port. This "charter city" included every bizarre idea from the long history of doomed "libertarian exit" projects, so ably recounted in Raymond Craib's excellent 2022 book Adventure Capitalism:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/14/this-way-to-the-egress/#terra-nullius

Right from the start, Prospera was ill starred. Paul Romer, the Nobel-winning economist most closely associated with the idea of charter cities, disavowed the project. Locals hated it – the tourist shops and restaurants on Roatan all may sport dusty "Bitcoin accepted here" signs, but not one of those shops takes cryptocurrency.

But the real danger to Prospera came from democracy itself. When Xiomara Castro – wife of Manuel Zelaya – was elected president in 2021, she announced an end to the ZEDE program. Prospera countered by suing Honduras under the ISDS provisions of the Central America Free Trade Agreements, seeking $10b, a third of the country's GDP.

In response, President Castro announced her country's departure from CAFTA, and the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes:

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/19/honduras-crypto-investors-world-bank-prospera/

An open letter by progressive economists in support of President Castro condemns ISDSes for costing latinamerican countries $30b in corporate compensation, triggered by laws protecting labor rights, vulnerable ecosystems and the climate:

https://progressive.international/wire/2024-03-18-economists-the-era-of-corporate-supremacy-in-the-international-trade-system-is-coming-to-an-end/en

As Ryan Grim writes for The Intercept, the ZEDE law is wildly unpopular with the Honduran people, and Merrick Garland called the Lobo Sosa regime that created it "a narco-state where violent drug traffickers were allowed to operate with virtual impunity":

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/19/honduras-crypto-investors-world-bank-prospera/

The world's worst people are furious and terrified about Honduras's withdrawal from its ISDS. After 60+ years of wrapping democracy in chains to protect corporate profits, the collapse of the corporate kangaroo courts that override democratic laws represents a serious threat to oligarchy.

As Dearden writes, "elsewhere in the world, ISDS cases have been brought specifically on the basis that governments have not done enough to suppress protest movements in the interests of foreign capital."

It's not just poor countries in the global south, either. When Australia passed a plain-packaging law for tobacco, Philip Morris relocated offshore in order to bring an ISDS case against the Australian government in a bid to remove impediments to tobacco sales:

https://isds.bilaterals.org/?philip-morris-vs-australia-isds

And in 2015, the WTO sanctioned the US government for its "dolphin-safe" tuna labeling, arguing that this eroded the profits of corporations that fished for tuna in ways that killed a lot of dolphins:

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/24/wto-ruling-on-dolphin-safe-tuna-labeling-illustrates-supremacy-of-trade-agreements/

In Canada, the Conservative hero Steven Harper entered into the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, which banned Canada from passing laws that undermined the profits of Chinese corporations for 31 years (the rule expires in 2045):

https://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/harper-oks-potentially-unconstitutional-china-canada-fipa-deal-coming-force-october-1

Harper's successor, Justin Trudeau, went on to sign the Canada-EU Trade Agreement that Harper negotiated, including its ISDS provisions that let EU corporations override Canadian laws:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-eu-parliament-schulz-ceta-1.3415689

There was a time when any challenge to ISDS was a political third rail. Back in 2015, even hinting that ISDSes should be slightly modified would send corporate thinktanks into a frenzy:

https://www.techdirt.com/2015/07/20/eu-proposes-to-reform-corporate-sovereignty-slightly-us-think-tank-goes-into-panic-mode/

But over the years, there's been a growing consensus that nations can only be sovereign if corporations aren't. It's one thing to treat corporations as "persons," but another thing altogether to elevate them above personhood and subordinate entire nations to their whims.

With the world's richest countries pulling out of ISDSes alongside the world's poorest ones, it's feeling like the end of the road for this particularly nasty form of corporate corruption.

And not a moment too soon.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/27/korporate-kangaroo-kourts/#corporate-sovereignty

Image: ChrisErbach (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UnitedNations_GeneralAssemblyChamber.jpg

CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

[ghelgheli]

To understand the full context of the American-led ‘53 coup against Mosaddegh in Iran it is imo critical to recognize anti-communism as a proximate cause. Write-up below:

It is commonly understood that the early decades of the 20th century in Iran are characterized by British colonial extortion of material resources (mostly oil) within the boundaries of “Persia” (pre-1935) / “Iran” (post). The penultimate monarchical dynasty, the Qajars, were ousted in 1925—but the exile of the last Qajar Ahmad Shah was the direct result of the 1921 military coup led by then-Reza Khan (later the first “Pahlavi”, Reza Shah) which was directed by Britain. And at this time, British anxieties heavily featured concerns about Bolshevik encroachment from the Caucuses (not just through the newly-formed Azerbaijan SSR, but also through domestic sympathizers that fueled such projects as large as the transient Persian SSR, put down by Reza Khan after Soviet withdrawal).

This is stage-setting. Of course, by the 50s, in tandem with Cold War thread-pulling, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company constituted a thirsty tentacle of British imperialism sucking Abadan dry and contributing pittances to the local economy. It was in the midst of decades of growing resentment against this presence that Mosaddegh became Prime Minister in 1951 as the leader of the broad National Front coalition, and we are familiar with how intensely he campaigned for nationalizing the country’s oil and how pissy this made the British (here’s one and another post on the subject if not).

Here’s the detour: you may know that it was the CIA, an American institution, that orchestrated the ‘53 coup to oust Mosaddegh. But we were just now discussing threats against British colonial power in Iran. How did things get from B to A, as it were? We can’t take this for granted.

The British in fact spent the intervening two years trying to get Mosaddegh out by mobilizing the Shah and various right-wing (often clerical and mercantile) interests in Iran (this point, and much of what follows, draws from bits of Darioush Bayandor’s Iran and the CIA and Mostafa Elm’s Oil, Power, and Principle). They spent the same two years desperately trying to get the Americans on board with their efforts. But—here it is—the Truman regime and American foreign policy was in general intensely hostile to this strain of British interventionism in Iran, going so far as to issue warnings against it.

Why? Well, as you would expect, the Americans were concerned about Soviet influence in the region. Then-U.S ambassador in Tehran Henry Grady claimed that “Mosaddegh’s National Front party is the closest thing to a moderate and stable element in the national parliament” (Wall Street Journal, June 9 1951). This summarizes the American position at the time: Mosaddegh’s nationalist movement constituted the bastion against communism, and the US was very interested in the survival of this bastion lest Iran align with the USSR. 

What happened between 1951 and 1953 is that British pressure, operating through the Shah and more conservative elements of the Iranian government, jeopardized moderate support for Mosaddegh. With the right and center-right against him an entire wing of National Front coalition was falling off, and Mosaddegh found himself leaning more and more on the strengthening Tudeh Party, which had grown in numbers to militaristic significance during Mosaddegh’s tenure (including a network of at least 600 officers in the state military). Tudeh, of course, was the pro-Soviet communist party in Iran. And now the threads come together.

It was in this context of Mosaddegh, backed into a corner with almost only the communists behind him, that the CIA released a memo on November 20th, 1952 singing a very different tune:

It is of critical importance to the United States that Iran remain an independent and sovereign nation, not dominated by the USSR...

Present trends in Iran are unfavorable to the maintenance of control by a non-communist regime for an extended period of time. In wresting the political initiative from the Shah, the landlords, and other traditional holders of power, the National Front politicians now in power have at least temporarily eliminated every alternative to their own rule except the Communist Tudeh Party...

It is clear that the United Kingdom no longer possesses the capability unilaterally to assure stability in the area. If present trends continue unchecked, Iran could be effectively lost to the free world in advance of an actual Communist takeover of the Iranian Government. Failure to arrest present trends in Iran involves a serious risk to the national security of the United States.

And (!!!)

In light of the present situation the United States should adopt and pursue the following policies:...

Be prepared to take the necessary measures to help Iran to start up her oil industry and to secure markets for her oil so that Iran may benefit from substantial oil reserves...

Recognize the strength of Iranian nationalist feeling; try to direct it into constructive channels and be ready to exploit any opportunity to do so

It took two tries for the CIA to bring about a coup that removed Mosaddegh from power, but the objective of this coup was not the preservation of British control over Iranian resources; it was the maintenance of the Western sphere of influence against communist revolution (this was further prioritized by the arrival of the Eisenhower administration). In fact, after the coup the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now renamed British Petroleum) had to make room for six other companies from the US, France, and the Netherlands as part of a consortium, and this consortium would split profits with Iran 50/50. This is, to be clear, still colonialist extraction! But it constitutes a huge blow to British economic interests, because they were never the CIA’s goal. This is part of why the post-coup government is characterized far more as a US puppet than a British one.

It does remain that this was a sequence of events very much set in motion because of actions taken by the British government; by the time they managed to get shit to hit the fan, though, it was very much no longer in their control where the shit was flying.

[probablyasocialecologist]

During the 1930s business in Germany, including both Anglo-Iranian and Shell, was increasingly dominated by Nazi ideology. In places this was embraced. The Shell company Rhenania-Ossag adopted anti-Semitic policies, with Jewish members of the board being forced to resign two and half years before this was demanded by the Nuremberg Laws. This would have required the consent of the Shell Group board, upon which sat Sir Andrew Agnew. These changes took place not only at the level of senior executives but all the way through the company at drilling rigs, oil terminals, refineries, distribution depots and petrol stations. The nature of the Nazi regime was well understood by Shell and Anglo-Iranian both in Germany and outside it. This was a time when concentration camps, such as Dachau and Buchenwald, were operational and the rule of the Gestapo absolute. However, as long as trade could flow in and out of Germany the companies continued operating. Shell imported crude from, for example, its fields in Venezuela and refined it in Hamburg, while BP refined crude in Abadan in Iran, and shipped it into the German market.

James Marriott and Terry Macalister, Crude Britannia: How Oil Shaped a Nation

[invisibleicewands]

A new film voiced by Michael Sheen chronicles Dylan Thomas’s relatively unknown journey through Iran on assignment to write a film script for an oil company.

Many people are familiar with Dylan Thomas as a popular Welsh poet whose most famous work was the ‘play for voices’ Under Milk Wood, produced just before his death in 1953.

But he is perhaps less well known for his film work.

During his life he wrote 23 film scripts – 14 of which were documentary wartime and post-war propaganda films.

In 1951, his work took him to Iran where he was commissioned to write a propaganda film for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known as BP) – a project that was eventually completed but for which Dylan Thomas never penned the script.

This, relatively unknown chapter of the writer’s life is now the subject of a short film written and directed by Dr Nariman Massoumi, a Senior Lecturer in Film and Television at the University of Bristol and voiced by the award-winning Welsh actor Michael Sheen.

Sheen described his involvement in the project, saying: “I think it’s a beautiful and fascinating film about a chapter of Dylan Thomas’s life I knew nothing about. It was a pleasure to be a part of it.”

Entitled ‘Pouring Water on Troubled Oil’ – a direct quote from Thomas to describe the dangerous or futile nature of the job he was assigned to do, the new film is screening at a number of international film festivals and recently came runner up in the The British Association of Film, Television and Screen Studies (BAFTSS) Practice Research Awards

It will get its Welsh premiere on Monday 20 May at the BAFTA-recognised Carmarthen Bay Film Festival and screened at Cinema Rediscovered festival in Bristol in July, as well as appearing at festivals in Germany, Italy and Brazil. [...]

[dailyanarchistposts]

The Pahlavi Regime

The coup of February 1921 that brought General Reza Khan to power set into motion the creation of the modern centralized Iranian nation-state. The Pahlavi state should be seen alongside the other right-wing nationalist regimes that arose around this time in response to both the dissolutions brought about by WWI and the threat of the October Revolution. Reza Shah may be fruitfully compared to his contemporary in Turkey, Atatürk, as well as the models of authoritarian nationalist development seen in Germany, Italy, and Japan. As with these latter cases, the Pahlavi regime was “the product of a counter-attack by a weak capitalist class against a revolutionary movement, in a country that has slipped behind in the process of capitalist development. This class could only redress this position by repression and state-directed economic growth.”[10]

The political logic of this period can be summarized as state-building. Once the new government negotiated the withdrawal of Soviet and British troops, it moved to crush all remaining forms of opposition and centers of power. The powerful tribal armies were brought to heel, while autonomous and local powers, as well as rival officers in pursuit of power, were all crushed. A modern army capable of effectively asserting state power was assembled, followed soon after by nationwide conscription, government ID cards, the abolition of aristocratic titles, and the imposition of formal sur-names. Since the central pillars of the “new order” were a modern army and bureaucracy, the regime sought to extend the power of the state to all realms of society. Local languages were banned, and Persian was made the official language of the country. A modern educational system operating beyond the control of the clergy was established, and something similar was done with the courts, ushering in a modern legal system independent of the religious orders. Perhaps the most symbolic of these changes was the ban on the chador, which, alongside the rest of such reforms, provoked the ongoing ire of the clergy.[11]

Many reformists, and even some to their left, initially supported Reza Khan. Like the Lasalleans in support of Bismark, they thought that by supporting Reza Khan they could push through many of the reforms that ran into dead ends when employing exclusively democratic channels. In 1925, the Qajar Dynasty was abolished, but unlike Attaturk, who founded a republic, the following year he crowned himself Reza Shah Pahlavi and founded a new dynasty.[12] Reza Shah continued solidifying his rule with an iron fist. The regime promoted a chauvinistic nationalist ideology that appealed to the imperial glories of pre-Islamic Persia. The state in this period can be best summarized as a monarchical-military dictatorship.

While the environment was repressive, the industrialisation projects of this era increased the size and importance of the working class, within which communists organized successful union drives. This culminated in 1929, when a massive strike broke out at the Abadan oil refinery complex, which was under the ownership and control of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The strike shook the ruling classes in both Iran and Britain, and served not only as a key event in the history of the working class movement in Iran, but also as a test for the state’s ability to maintain social order. The government responded with a great show of force, ratcheting up repression against communists. In 1931, a new law was enacted that criminalized the teaching and promotion of “communist” ideologies, banned trade unions, made striking illegal, and initiated a new wave of repression of socialist activists and intellectuals were imprisoned.[13]

Although the Pahlavi state enjoyed a degree of independence from the dominant classes, this also tended indirectly to facilitate the latter’s rule. Under both Pahlavi Shahs, it was through the state that capitalist development and industrialization took place. It was through the state that the modern capitalist class was consolidated and expanded, a fact that would remain no less true under the current day Islamic Republic. In many respects, it could be argued that both the Pahlavi regime and the Islamic Republic share features with the imperial state of Napoleon III after the coup of 1852: the latter built a state that was relatively autonomous from the ruling classes, yet which was in the end to the benefit of those classes as a whole, having “destroyed the political domination of the bourgeoisie only to preserve its social domination.”[14]

The reign of Reza Shah came to an end with World War Two. In the intervening years, the Iranian regime grew closer to the axis powers, particularly Germany, with whom it had affinities both political and ideological. The number of German advisors, engineers, and workers had increased greatly. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, the Allies wanted to use Iran to send weapons from the Persian Gulf to the Russian front. When Reza Shah refused, the Allies promptly invaded and occupied the country. Reza Shah abdicated in favor of his young son, Muhammad Reza, and lived the rest of his life in exile.

The Allied invasion of 1941, which caused the fall of Reza Shah’s dictatorship, opened up a period of popular political mobilization and activity. Political prisoners were released, trade unions reconstituted themselves, and political parties began to come into shape. While the invasion caused the fall of Reza Shah, the Allies still maintained the state, particularly the monarchy and the military. The Allies would occupy Iran until after the end of the war, with once again the Soviets occupying the north and the British occupying the south. This is also the beginning of the American involvement in Iran, with a military mission sent to Iran to rebuild the army.

When the communist prisoners were released a core of them founded the Tudeh [masses] Party, which would be the official pro-Moscow communist party in Iran. The party had a democratic-populist platform and attracted many intellectuals and middle-class elements. It was also a major presence among the industrial working class, organizing what would be by the end of the decade the largest trade union confederation in the Middle East.

After the war, Iran would be the stage for the confrontation of many social struggles, as well as the first conflict of the cold war. In 1946, the Soviets continued to occupy the north after the agreed upon allied withdrawal. Two autonomous republics were founded in Mahabad and Azerbaijan under the protection of the Red Army. At the same time, a number of communists were included in the post-war coalition government. The Soviets withdrew their forces, and the imperial army moved in with great repression. The communists were also pushed from government, as would be the case with the fall of the coalition governments of France and Italy in 1947. This was the first victory of the new US-Iran military alliance that had begun during the war.

Following the Second World War, the movement for Iranian national independence experienced an upsurge, focused on the demand to nationalize Iranian oil. At the center of this surge was the National Front, led by Dr. Muhammad Mossadegh, who soon gained a mass following and was made Prime Minister in 1951. The National Front was not a party with a single ideology, but an alliance of various parties united around national independence through the oil question. When parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry, the British reacted immediately by imposing an economic blockade on Iran. The result was a great strain on the economy and a major increase in social tensions. The Tudeh Party was increasingly showing their strength. The United States feared that the uncertain situation would create an opportunity for Tudeh to seize power. This was the beginning of the successful coup by pro-Shah rightist military generals in 1953.[15]

The 1953 coup closed the door on the social movements that had opened up with WW2. The period that followed was one of severe repression. The coup would solidify the position of the Shah and the military against all rivals and competing sources of power. It also established the United States as the dominant imperialist power, supplanting the British. The main weight of the repression came against the communists in the Tudeh Party. The party’s network was rooted out and the trade union confederation destroyed. Many militants were imprisoned, executed, or went into exile. It was in order to facilitate this new order that the US helped the regime set up a new secret police force, the Organization for Information and Security of the Country, known commonly by its Persian acronym, SAVAK. Its name would come to be synonymous with repression and torture under the Shah’s dictatorship.

[ptseti]

african_stream GALLOWAY BLASTS SUNAK OVER ISRAEL-IRAN STANCE

Why can’t Britain admit Israel’s attack on the Iranian embassy compound in Syria was wrong? In this clip you’ll see MP George Galloway call out Prime Minister Rishi Sunak during a parliamentary session.

Sadly, he was a lone voice criticising Tel Aviv’s destruction of the consulate in Damascus on April 1st. An action that’s in clear violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Galloway lambasts other politicians for failing to challenge the government’s position. And he also lays into the media, for remaining silent. A recent interview of the UK’s top diplomat by Sky News’ Kay Burley being a rare exception.

It was Israel’s strike that provoked Iran’s retaliatory response that saw hundreds of drones and missiles launched at Israel. The UK government was quick to denounce Tehran, but gives Tel Aviv a free pass. Mind you, have the British ever been worried about right and wrong when it comes to Iran?

Galloway reminds the PM how Britain overthrew Iran’s democratically elected socialist leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh, in 1953. He was targeted by the British and Americans for working to keep oil in Iranian hands for the benefit of his country. Apart from exploiting Iran’s oil wealth for decades through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Britain also looted archaeological treasures dating back to the Persian empire, which are kept in British museums. But all that seems to be lost on Rishi Sunak.

[sharpened--edges]

Again and again [in the 1950s], the oil companies acted as indistinguishable agents of their home states or as sovereigns over the oil. The maritime boundaries between states were decided in conversations between competing oil officials in the US or UK rather than between the rulers of those states. For example, to decide the seabed frontiers between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, British and US diplomats mobilised the officials of BAPCO and Aramco to speak to one another. In many of the contracts allocating Gulf subsea resources in the 1950s, British oil companies called for arbitration of disputes to take place in English forums. A prominent clause of their contracts stipulated that the arbitrators for any dispute be chosen by ‘His Majesty’s Government and the Company’ and for British commercial laws to be sovereign in these cases. British Petroleum, its antecedent Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and their subsidiaries acted as an arm of the British state because they were.

Laleh Khalili, Sinews of War and Trade: Shipping and Capitalism in the Arabian Peninsula (Verso, 2021), p. 103.

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 3.15

474 BC – Roman consul Aulus Manlius Vulso celebrates an ovation for concluding the war against Veii and securing a forty years truce. 44 BC – The assassination of Julius Caesar takes place. 493 – Odoacer, the first barbarian King of Italy after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, is slain by Theoderic the Great, king of the Ostrogoths, while the two kings were feasting together. 856 – Michael III, emperor of the Byzantine Empire, overthrows the regency of his mother, empress Theodora (wife of Theophilos) with support of the Byzantine nobility. 897 – Al-Hadi ila'l-Haqq Yahya enters Sa'dah and founds the Zaydi Imamate of Yemen. 933 – After a ten-year truce, German King Henry the Fowler defeats a Hungarian army at the Battle of Riade near the Unstrut river. 1311 – Battle of Halmyros: The Catalan Company defeats Walter V, Count of Brienne to take control of the Duchy of Athens, a Crusader state in Greece. 1564 – Mughal Emperor Akbar abolishes the jizya tax on non-Muslim subjects. 1672 – King Charles II of England issues the Royal Declaration of Indulgence, granting limited religious freedom to all Christians. 1783 – In an emotional speech in Newburgh, New York, George Washington asks his officers not to support the Newburgh Conspiracy. The plea is successful, and the threatened coup d'état never takes place. 1820 – Maine is admitted as the twenty-third U.S. state. 1823 – Sailor Benjamin Morrell erroneously reported the existence of the island of New South Greenland near Antarctica. 1848 – A revolution breaks out in Hungary, and the Habsburg rulers are compelled to meet the demands of the reform party. 1874 – France and Vietnam sign the Second Treaty of Saigon, further recognizing the full sovereignty of France over Cochinchina. 1875 – Archbishop of New York John McCloskey is named the first cardinal in the United States. 1877 – First ever official cricket test match is played: Australia vs England at the MCG Stadium, in Melbourne, Australia. 1888 – Start of the Anglo-Tibetan War of 1888. 1907 – The first parliamentary elections of Finland (at the time the Grand Duchy of Finland) are held. 1917 – Tsar Nicholas II of Russia abdicates the Russian throne, ending the 304-year Romanov dynasty. 1918 – Finnish Civil War: The battle of Tampere begins. 1919 – Ukrainian War of Independence: The Kontrrazvedka is established as the counterintelligence division of the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine. 1921 – Talaat Pasha, former Grand Vizir of the Ottoman Empire and chief architect of the Armenian genocide is assassinated in Berlin by a 23-year-old Armenian, Soghomon Tehlirian. 1922 – After Egypt gains nominal independence from the United Kingdom, Fuad I becomes King of Egypt. 1927 – The first Women's Boat Race between the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge takes place on The Isis in Oxford. 1939 – Germany occupies Czechoslovakia. 1939 – Carpatho-Ukraine declares itself an independent republic,[27] but is annexed by Hungary the next day. 1943 – World War II: Third Battle of Kharkiv: The Germans retake the city of Kharkiv from the Soviet armies. 1951 – Iranian oil industry is nationalized. 1961 – At the 1961 Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, South Africa announces that it will withdraw from the Commonwealth when the South African Constitution of 1961 comes into effect. 1965 – President Lyndon B. Johnson, responding to the Selma crisis, tells U.S. Congress "We shall overcome" while advocating the Voting Rights Act. 1974 – Fifteen people are killed when Sterling Airways Flight 901, a Sud Aviation Caravelle, catches fire following a landing gear collapse at Mehrabad International Airport in Tehran, Iran. 1978 – Somalia and Ethiopia signed a truce to end the Ethio-Somali War. 1986 – Collapse of Hotel New World: Thirty-three people die when the Hotel New World in Singapore collapses. 1990 – Mikhail Gorbachev is elected as the first President of the Soviet Union. 1991 – Cold War: The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany comes into effect, granting full sovereignty to the Federal Republic of Germany. 2008 – Stockpiles of obsolete ammunition explode at an ex-military ammunition depot in the village of Gërdec, Albania, killing 26 people. 2011 – Beginning of the Syrian Civil War. 2019 – Fifty-one people are killed in the Christchurch mosque shootings. 2019 – Beginning of the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests. 2019 – Approximately 1.4 million young people in 123 countries go on strike to protest climate change. 2022 – The 2022 Sri Lankan protests begins amidst Sri Lanka's economic collapse.

[betshy]

Iran-Britain Conflict: Oil, Nuclear Program, and Escalating Tensions

Over the past few decades, tensions between Iran and Britain have been at an all-time high. The conflict between these two nations dates back to the early 20th century, when Britain played a significant role in Iran's internal affairs through its control over oil resources. One of the major sources of conflict between Iran and Britain has been the issue of British intervention in the Iranian economy and politics. In the early 20th century, Britain controlled much of Iran's oil industry through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, now known as BP. This control over Iran's oil resources gave Britain significant leverage over the Iranian government, leading to resentment and hostility from the Iranian people. Another point of contention between Iran and Britain has been the issue of Iranian nuclear capabilities. Britain, along with other Western nations, has been critical of Iran's nuclear program, fearing that it could be used to develop nuclear weapons. As a result, Britain has imposed economic sanctions on Iran in an effort to curb its nuclear ambitions. This has further strained relations between the two countries, with Iran viewing Britain's actions as meddling in its internal affairs. In recent years, the conflict between Iran and Britain has escalated, with incidents such as the seizure of a British oil tanker by Iran in 2019. This incident led to increased tensions between the two nations and prompted the UK to deploy warships to the region to protect British interests. Despite these tensions, there have been efforts to improve relations between Iran and Britain. In 2016, Iran reached a landmark nuclear deal with world powers, including Britain, in which Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. This deal was seen as a step towards easing tensions between the two countries, although it has since been threatened by the withdrawal of the United States in 2018. Overall, the conflict between Iran and Britain remains a complex and ongoing issue that is influenced by a range of factors, including historical grievances, political differences, and regional tensions. It is crucial for both nations to engage in dialogue and diplomacy to address their differences and work towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Read the full article

[mossadegh]

• Mossadegh media: newspaper & magazine articles, editorials

[chahargah]

Figure 5.1 Scene of Tehran supporters hauling down AIOC sign on June 24, 1951. The company captions the photo as "Angry mob, incited and supported by the Islamic groups and the National Front, tore down the signs above the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's store yard, Information Centre and Central Office and paraded them upside down in lorries around the town." Source: INP P 277 Special 53961, 1951, 78148, BP Archive. Reproduced with the permission of the BP Archive.

[dan6085]

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, ruled from 1941 until his overthrow in 1979 during the Islamic Revolution. His reign was marked by efforts to modernize Iran, increase its international stature, and maintain close ties with the West, particularly the United States. However, his policies also led to significant social unrest and opposition, ultimately leading to his downfall. Here’s a detailed timeline of his life and reign:

### **Early Life and Ascension to the Throne**

- **October 26, 1919**: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is born in Tehran, Iran, to Reza Khan (later Reza Shah Pahlavi) and Queen Tadj ol-Molouk.

- **1931-1936**: Mohammad Reza is sent to Institut Le Rosey, a prestigious Swiss boarding school, for his education.

- **1936**: Returns to Iran and attends the local military academy, following his father’s wishes.

- **September 16, 1941**: Following the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran during World War II, Reza Shah Pahlavi is forced to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who becomes Shah at the age of 21.

### **Early Reign and Post-War Period**

- **1941-1946**: Mohammad Reza’s early reign is marked by limited power as Iran is occupied by British and Soviet forces. The young Shah struggles to assert his authority in a politically unstable environment.

- **1946**: The Soviet Union refuses to withdraw its troops from northern Iran, leading to the Azerbaijan Crisis. With American support, Iran successfully pressures the Soviets to withdraw, enhancing Mohammad Reza’s international standing.

- **1949**: Survives an assassination attempt by a member of the Tudeh Party, a communist group. This event leads to the banning of the Tudeh Party and the Shah consolidating more power.

### **Nationalization of Oil and the Mossadegh Crisis**

- **1951**: Mohammad Mossadegh is elected Prime Minister and moves to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, challenging British control over Iran’s oil resources.

- **1953**: The Shah faces a major political crisis as Mossadegh’s popularity grows. After a failed attempt to dismiss Mossadegh, the Shah briefly flees Iran. However, Operation Ajax, a CIA and MI6 orchestrated coup, successfully overthrows Mossadegh, and the Shah returns to power with increased authority.

### **Consolidation of Power and the White Revolution**

- **1953-1963**: The Shah consolidates his power, suppressing political opposition and expanding the role of the SAVAK, the secret police, to enforce his rule.

- **1963**: Launches the White Revolution, a series of reforms aimed at modernizing Iran and reducing the influence of traditional elites. These reforms include land redistribution, women’s suffrage, and educational reforms. While these efforts lead to economic and social progress, they also generate opposition, particularly from religious leaders like Ayatollah Khomeini.

### **Economic Growth and the Persepolis Celebration**

- **1960s-1970s**: Iran experiences rapid economic growth, fueled by oil revenues. The Shah embarks on ambitious infrastructure projects and strengthens Iran’s military with substantial purchases from the United States.

- **October 1971**: Hosts the lavish 2,500-year celebration of the Persian Empire at Persepolis, showcasing Iran’s ancient heritage and the Shah’s desire to position himself as the heir to a glorious past. However, the extravagance of the event sparks criticism both domestically and internationally.

### **Increasing Opposition and the Islamic Revolution**

- **1975**: The Shah abolishes the multi-party system in favor of a single-party state under the Rastakhiz Party, further centralizing power. This move alienates many Iranians who see it as a step towards dictatorship.

- **1976**: In an attempt to modernize Iranian society further, the Shah introduces reforms like changing the calendar from Islamic to an imperial calendar. These moves alienate religious leaders and traditionalists.

- **1977**: Opposition to the Shah’s rule intensifies. Human rights abuses by SAVAK, economic difficulties, and the widening gap between the elite and the general population contribute to growing discontent. The Carter administration in the U.S. pressures the Shah to allow for more political freedom and human rights, leading to limited liberalization.

### **The Decline and Fall of the Pahlavi Dynasty**

- **January 1978**: Mass protests begin, initially sparked by an article attacking Ayatollah Khomeini. These protests, fueled by a combination of religious, economic, and political grievances, grow in scale and intensity.

- **1978**: The situation in Iran deteriorates rapidly as strikes and demonstrations paralyze the country. The Shah tries various measures, including concessions and repression, but fails to quell the unrest.

- **January 16, 1979**: Facing massive opposition, the Shah and his family leave Iran for exile, marking the end of the Pahlavi dynasty. He travels to Egypt, Morocco, the Bahamas, and Mexico in search of a permanent home.

- **February 1, 1979**: Ayatollah Khomeini returns to Iran from exile, and the Islamic Revolution quickly takes control of the country.

### **Exile and Death**

- **1979**: The Shah’s health deteriorates due to cancer. His request for asylum in the United States, primarily for medical treatment, exacerbates the situation in Iran, leading to the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis.

- **1980**: After being denied asylum by several countries, the Shah finds refuge in Egypt under President Anwar Sadat’s protection.

- **July 27, 1980**: Mohammad Reza Pahlavi dies of complications related to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Cairo, Egypt. He is buried in the Al Rifa'i Mosque in Cairo, alongside other members of the Egyptian royal family.

### **Legacy**

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s reign is remembered for its significant modernization efforts, economic development, and the secularization of Iran. However, his authoritarian rule, reliance on the West, especially the United States, and failure to address the grievances of various social groups led to widespread opposition. His overthrow in 1979 not only ended the Pahlavi dynasty but also transformed Iran into an Islamic Republic, marking a significant turning point in the country’s history.

His legacy remains deeply contested, with some viewing him as a progressive leader who sought to modernize Iran, while others criticize him for his autocratic rule and the repression of political freedoms. The consequences of his reign and subsequent overthrow continue to influence Iranian politics and society to this day.

[el-smacko]

There is a bumper sticker not uncommon on Teslas which says something like “I got it before we knew [about Elon Musk].” He had a cameo in Iron Man 2 where “his” design for something is praised by Tony Stark. The latter character goes on to single-handedly invent time travel, while Elon. Well. If I had a nickel for every Anglo figure for whom “genius” was merely a carefully curated brand… would be rad if we could somehow ever at all realize that detail before we put them in unaccountable positions of power, but the people always saying “I told you so” usually have their politics called “utopian.” There was literally never a liberal reckoning for being wrong about Elon Musk. He said “I make electric car” and Al Gore voters literally fucking launched him into the stratosphere. He said, “America, don’t ever change, just ~switch to renewables~,” like? Our way of life is toxic.

People on the left and right hear the unofficial motto of Iran, “Death to America,” and, because their Americanness makes them epistemologically vacant, they never bother to ask: shit, what did we do? Because ending a nation’s sovereignty for oil and then bullying them out of nuclear energy—so they wouldn’t have to worry about oil!—when they become self-governing is fucking bleak dude. The Ayatollah is an Islamic Extremist? Weird! I wonder if that’s because the native Persian military and kingship had become so tainted by hostile European influence that the only governmental medium left for the executive was ecclesiastical? They used to be Persia, does that sound familiar? It was the name of the country for decades of my parents’ life! Notice though how Persians are treated in the American movie 300–yes, the Zach Snyder one. The British and the Russians are the ones who ended Persian sovereignty (this latest independence came after almost a millennium of dominion by khans and caliphs), then America’s “market.” Imagine being a Persian in a bipolar world, Anglos on one side, Russians on the other, both of them the ideological descendants of Greek civilization, the original polity to brand them as the paragon of barbarity. No, they would be Iranian, “comrade.” I’m not Iranian, I don’t agree with the Ayatollah, this digression was to point out that if we would have a little humility and patience, we could understand a person’s reasoning, no matter how inimical to us it might be.

Maybe someone has a point when they say “death to America”? Have you seen this place? Everybody puts up with being tired, depressed, anxious, and broke with the worst healthcare, education, and life expectancy in our income bracket, which is the fucking highest. Literally the very top. Our preferred mode of travel kills north of 500 people a week. A week. To say nothing of injuries and the fucking ludicrous cost of all these wrecks. Not for nothing, car travel is that deadly and guns are still the leading cause of death for American children. Our “War on Terror,” most recently manifesting as an ongoing genocide, is waged for oil for these fucking cars. And Elon fucking Musk says: “Keep building roads, we’ll just stop using oil,” and then sold his carbon credits to car companies not making electric vehicles while torpedoing large-scale non-car infrastructure. His individualistic, carbon-footprint-centered propaganda wagons are therefore worse for the environment than any pickup truck, with none of the sex appeal.

Did you know that so many Japanese people lived in Hawaii, an indigenous nation whose independence we robbed in the 20th century, that the entire state was put under martial law for the duration of the war? Less Japanese people lived in internment on the mainland than under martial law in Hawaii. Together they are approximately the number of Japanese massacred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just so we’re all on the same page, America murdered with atomic fire almost as many people of the same ethnicity as they had in internment camps domestically. But that wasn’t genocide and Hawaii is not an imperial province under apartheid? I long for the day that an international criminal court awards even a fraction of the proceeds from Disney’s Lilo and Stitch or Moana properties as reparations. Hawaiians would be able to have free healthcare, public transportation, a military, and a space program just from that. Considering the mere—well, I say “mere,” but I must emphasize: nihilistically cynical, numbingly unintellectual—mere existence of American Godzilla movies, we should consider ourselves lucky that “Death to America” is not a much more common sentiment in Japan. Godzilla, a dinosaur, is an antediluvian reptile made a fire-breathing devil by the crime of the men living in a place they style Eden. As an atom bomb incarnate, he must be killed by the only deadlier weapon, one meant to signify supreme hostility to life: the “Oxygen Destroyer.” You do not have to believe in God to know that atomic weapons are Satanic and that it is literally diabolical that their Nazi-assisted inventor and only ever user appropriated the tragic atomic monster invented by their victim, especially as some kind of objective moral paragon when for the majority of his history he had been a specifically Japanese tutelary figure. They place him beside King Kong while entirely erasing the latter’s history as a parallel for African Americans: taken from their home to be exploited in chains, then murdered for scaling a tower of industry and “stealing” a white woman.

These examples are prototypical, not outliers. America as the heir of Britain is the Great Satan, the propaganda calumniator, the single greatest fountain of evil in human history, a Rome and a Babylon to countless people… but it says it is all worth it because of the benefits of “civilization” and the market which floats it. You will not convince me that any of its geopolitical objectives are righteous, done in good faith for the common good. That is Edenic naivety.

[guam-671-dv8]

Let us not forget Palau.

"



MENU

HOT TOPICS

Donald Trump

Climate Crisis

Immigration

Israel & Palestine

Abortion

Gun Control

Ukraine

Police Brutality

Supreme Court

Coronavirus

From Iran to the US: Our History of Coups Has Come Home to Roost

ColumnAUGUST 24, 2023



Listen

Media Options

RELATED

Topics

By Amy Goodman & Denis Moynihan

August 19th marked the 70th anniversary of the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh, the first democratically-elected prime minister of Iran. It was the first coup d’état in the modern era orchestrated by the United States, launching decades of coups, assassinations and “regime change.” While Iran’s grim anniversary generated scant attention in the U.S., one attempted coup was in the news, as defendants in the Fulton County, Georgia election interference case against former president Donald Trump and his 18 co-conspirators began surrendering for arrest. This is the second indictment served on Trump for his attempted coup against the United States following his 2020 election defeat. The Trump-summoned mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol almost stopped the peaceful transfer of power. The violence on January 6th, 2021, though, was just a shadow of the bloodshed that accompanied countless U.S.-sponsored interventions around the globe.

Pres. Dwight Eisenhower’s administration was directly involved in Mossadegh’s overthrow. But it had help. The CIA was just six years old in 1953. Britain’s spy agency, MI6, by comparison, had been around for decades, had two world wars behind it and had fomented uprisings and intrigue the world over as Britain struggled to maintain its waning empire. By the 1950s, the British empire’s lifeblood was petroleum, pumped from Iran’s oil fields by the British-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. In 1951, tired of being plundered, the Iranian parliament nationalized its oil industry. The movement was led by Mohammad Mosaddegh, who not long after was elected Prime Minister. He would remain in office for just over a year, as the US and the UK plotted to retake control of Iran’s oil.

The extent to which MI6 partnered with the CIA in Mossadegh’s ouster was revealed when a remarkable documentary, “Coup 53,” premiered in 2019. The film, directed by Taghi Amirani, an Iranian-born physicist turned filmmaker, uncovered the coup’s long-concealed direction by an MI6 operative named Norman Darbyshire.

“We all grew up with the story of the CIA coup run by Kermit Roosevelt,” Amirani said on the Democracy Now! news hour. He was describing Kermit Roosevelt, recruited by CIA Director Allen Dulles and his brother, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, to be the CIA’s point person on the Iran coup. He was the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt. Kermit Roosevelt gave numerous interviews, practically bragging that he brought $1 million into Iran for the coup, but only spent $60,000 of it.

“Kermit …was more of a bagman and an adventurist,” Amirani said, going on to describe MI6’s principal Iran operative: “Darbyshire was in Iran from the age of 19 as a soldier. He spoke probably better Persian than me. He knew the Iranian street. He really understood the psyche of the Iranian mob, as he says in the interview in our film. He knows how to turn them, what buttons to press.”

Amirani’s research for “Coup 53” uncovered troves of forgotten material. He found a transcript of an interview with Darbyshire. When the initial CIA-led coup attempt failed, a mercenary mob hired by Darbyshire swept through Tehran, surrounded Mossadegh’s house, and, with the help of rebellious army officers, attacked the residence and arrested Mossadegh.

The U.S. and Britain installed a puppet, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as the Shah of Iran. He ruled for a quarter century, guided by the CIA in the creation of SAVAK, a brutal state security apparatus that terrorized and killed Iranians who dared speak out. In 1979, the Shah was overthrown during the Iranian Revolution, ushering in strict theocratic rule that persists to this day.

Amirani’s research brought him to the non-profit National Security Archives in Washington, DC, which pries classified documents from the U.S. government for public access. One key CIA document obtained by the Archive in 2013 reads, “The military coup that overthrew Mossadeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.”

In one chilling interstitial in “Coup 53,” document boxes that line the wall of the Archive’s reading room scroll by, listing successive US-sponsored coups, attempted coups, and military interventions that followed the overthrow of Mossadegh:

Arbenz (Guatemala, 1954), Lumumba (Congo, 1961), Trujillo (Dominican Republic, 1961), Diem (Vietnam, 1963), Goulart (Brazil, 1964), Sukarno (Indonesia, 1965), Salvador Allende (Chile, 1973), and others from the invasion of Grenada in 1983 to the wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s, the ongoing attempts to overthrow the governments of Cuba and Venezuela, to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Hopefully, confronting a homegrown attempted coup, with the multiple prosecutions of Donald Trump and his co-defendants, will hasten a reckoning with our nation’s violent history plotting coups abroad. On the 70th anniversary of the coup in Iran, such self-reflection is long overdue."