As Argentina nationalzes its oil industry what else we can learn from Mussadegh?

As Argentina nationalzes its oil industry what else we can learn from Mussadegh?
by mahmood delkhasteh

Some are calling Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the Argentinian president, the Mussedegh of Argentine. Why? After the Argentinean economy collapsed, the country kicked the IMF out and successfully reconstructed its economy. Now, it is seeking to deepen these structural changes by nationalizing natural resources –a policy previously deployed by Mussadegh (the Iranian prime minister who nationalized oil in 1951 before being overthrown in an American-British coup) and nationalized its natural resources.

More and more, we are learning that Mussadegh is not just a name from the past, but a man whose political ideas offer inspiration for how governments might responds to the current, and deepening, economic disaster. What else might we have to learn from him?

His policy of negative equilibrium, I suggest. I will elaborate on this at some point in the future.



more from mahmood delkhasteh

Well P_J here's what I take from all I have learned :)

by aynak on



What I am trying to say is that smaller nations/countries have no other alternative but to rebel against these atrocious injustices.   And when these rebellions become large and CONVULSSIVE, they turn into REVOLUTION!   Case and point Iran, Russia, Cuba, half of African Continent and South America etc. etc. etc."

 P_J aziz,  I think we are in agreement but here's the problem that has been from the get-go or even in nature:

In nature, the strong will always pushes the weak around.  There is no real "morality" if we look at how a tiger hunts and kills a prey.   Tiger has to do it, because it won't survive otherwise.

 From our own attack on other countries and others on us, we know through out history, it is the fight over control of resources.   Of course here human behavior deviates from the nature:   Where az in nature, killing is done for survival, humans do it intitally for sae reason but also for greed.

 Now is were pragmatism comes to view.    If you know the contenter is stronger than you, what will you do?

 --Accept it and accomodate it?

 --Fight it?

This is what all the wars (almost all) originate from.   In my view there is no right or wrong answer, because human interaction somewhat follows a chaos model than a set model.   That's how we can explain sometimes even in the face of bad odds a much weaker party can defeat a stronger one (like Vietnam).   Then you look after 30 years and see may be how pointless the whole Vietnam war was.  I have a investor friend who finds Vietnam even more hospitable than China or India to investment.


When it comes to Mossadegh, if one subscribes to theory that the battle is lost, before it is started, then they may question why he fought so hard, when after the coup we got back pretty much to the pre nationalization deal.   What they fail to see and understand is, the opposite side also learns that in order to contain say this particular "subject" they will have to let loose and accept the ultimate change will happen.  (Realist).   Net U.S help between 53-62 in terms of money out/in of Iran was more in net -IN.   So already since 1908-1950 we get less than 16% of profit from oil.   Between 1950-1953 we get the whole control, except Brits are putting an equivalent of Mongols attack this time in the form of sanctions and embargo on Iran.

And then from 1952-1962 not only Iran is not giving it is on the recieving end of aid.

 In this particular case, I see huge similarity between our struggle with American struggle for independence against the Brits.   Unfortunately, too many factors worked against Iran at the time, or else we *could* have started on a democratic path.

 On the other hand, not every round thing is Gerdu.  Saddam or even Islamic Regime are also supposedly fighting interest of outsiders.   But the problem is they divide their own citizens to non-citizensand citizens.  So an internal dictator is no better than a dictator imposed from the daily lives of peoples perspective.   That's why I mentioned accountability.   Knowning Mossadeghs uncorruptable character, his strength in knowledge of finance and economics, I knew at least his vision was a free democratic independt Iran.

  When viewing any of the countries of the world and their disagreement with outside forces, their leadership action must be viewed from how they will counter and up to what point they stand on their ideas.    From my view of history, at some point Mossadegh realized that unfortunately the only option left in front of him was to become like his enemy and once he realized that he accepted defeat. 




Same great man, no matter how you spell his name

by MM on



Ten Lessons Cristina can learn from Mossaddekh (Mo)!

by anglophile on

  • Lesson1: Never suck up to the Brits first and the pretend to be against them as Mo did. They don't "like" it.
  • Lesson2: Never suck up to the clergy and then try to smart them out as Mo did. Grave consequences!
  • Lesson3: Never suck up to the Yanks in the hope that they go against their best ally (and former masters) the Brits. Shows how stupid Mo was.
  • Lesson4: Don't lie to the nation as Mo did. They call your lie.
  • Lesson5: Don't lie and hide affairs of the government from your own government as Mo did with his dismissal decree. They betray you.
  • Lesson6: Don't hold illegal referendum against the advice of your own government as Mo did. You'll "pay" for it.
  • Lesson7: Don't ride on the back of other political and religious leaders and then claim the credits for yourself as Mo did. They desert you.
  • Lesson8: Don't lie about your age as Mo did. You'll be caught red handed! 
  • Lesson9: Don't hold cabinet meetings in bed with nighties on as Mo did. You can't deceive the nation for long and become the laughing stock of all.
  • Lesson10: Don't take anti-aging drugs as Mo. did. Mind you they work better these days than in the days of Mo. I can go on forever and ever but can't be bothered. One last lesson for Delkhasteh: Don't write comedy, you ain't the type!


Good point Bahmani

by anglophile on


The adopted name of the man (I say adopted because his real family name was Ashtiani) is an Arabic word which is pronounced in the same way in Persian. The emphasis in pronouncing the word is on letter "d" and not on "s" as is commonly mitaken in its English writing. Therfore whther we spell it on the basis of Arabic pronounciation or its Persian version the emphasis (tashdid) must be on "d"). Here are some common variations:

Mosaddegh (Iranian spelling)

Mosaddeq (Iranian Arabic spelling)

Mossadegh (Iranian incorrec spelling - the most common)

Mussadegh (Arab Iranian incorrect spelling)

Musaddeq (Arabic corrrect spelling)

Musaddegh (Arabic Iranian seplling).


My suggested and the most fitting spelling:


Mossaddekh (to show the man's alliance with the Khomeini faction of the mullahs both in 1950's and as his followers did in 1979).


But I couldn't bother so I stick (in this site) to the most common and erroneous spelling. Why the hec should I care about Mossadegh?  


Aynak I could not agree more, but...

by P_J on

Your assumption would be correct if and ONLY if colonial powers were just, or believed in accountability!

Trouble is/was that hegemonies are ONLY interested in one thing and are SINGLE minded about it; how to ROB smaller helpless nations/countries…and you can see that even today.   They resort to varieties of tactic, including threat of WAR, staging coup, bringing  FEROUCIOUS TRAITORS to power and all other kinds of skims...when these tactics fail, they either resort to BULLYING, or pick a traitor to do their dirty DEED.    The whole idea lies in OBTAINING/STEALING all they want FREE of COST, and ultimately don't mind IMPRISONING a nation(s), i.e. Iran.   As the saying goes; SEE THE SHERIEF, AND ROB THE COUNTY!

What I am trying to say is that smaller nations/countries have no other alternative but to rebel against these atrocious injustices.   And when these rebellions become large and CONVULSSIVE, they turn into REVOLUTION!   Case and point Iran, Russia, Cuba, half of African Continent and South America etc. etc. etc.

So, all these actions are done as a measure of self-defense! 

Shazde Asdola Mirza

Mosaddegh did the right thing ... but could have done better

by Shazde Asdola Mirza on

What he did was for the Iranians ... and for Iran's future.

Too bad that under pressure from West and East; he couldn't perform the best that was required for winning the day, and placing Iran in the right course and a victorious future.

Darius Kadivar

I always believed in the preservation of our Natural Ressources

by Darius Kadivar on





Welcome aboard Mahmood

by aynak on


Nationalization of any resource by a government needs to be looked at in terms of the overall benefit it will provide to the populace, and as well how accountable the government is.

In this regard and obviously if you have a Finnish like government, you know the money will go back directly to improve the lives of citizens.

In the case of South America, we have mixed bag.   But I follow both development in Argentina and Brazil (which has created numerous hydroelectirc dams inspite of advice from IMF to do otherwise) and appears to be competing in global market in new areas (Beef export is one major one), and generally move away from recomanded austerity measures.

in summary:

When there is accountability, I think it won't make that much difference if resources are public or private.   When there is no accoutnability again it does not.  But certainly to own your own resources will be the first step to make sure there is eventual accoutnability.






Darius Kadivar

By the way I always suspected something Jewish about Mossad ;0))

by Darius Kadivar on


We can learn how to spell Mossadegh

by bahmani on

Since 1953 he's been an inspiration and an icon, and you still insisted on misspelling his last name 4 times?

Wow! Now I am dying to know how you spell Mohammad.

To read more bahmani posts visit: //