MM

I was being cynical but it's still a valid point

 When you lease out part of your land as did the Shah of Iran,you are obligated to that lease.That is why you sign it.

I guess MM thinks that signature was worth nothing neither was the word of Iran.No instead he think's it was 'robbery'.

Well if you think it is robbery and uneven why don't you think the Shah robbed Iran's oil and gave it to the British?

Re: Company?

Dr.Mossadegh has a speech on that Esacpe.   In it he says, if we don't have the technology to extract oil, we should rely on other sources and leave it for the day when we CAN extract oil.   In the 2+years of bloackade, he turned to income from taxes, exports of services and the net budget saw an actual balance.   (Inspite of the fact that there was no extra income from oil, the defecit from the year before was shrunked).

One of the thing about oil in Iran, is that you do not have to have heavy equipment to drill deep.   So the technology is certainly not rocket science and could be developed.   Also remember, the Brits, could have pulled theirs out and Iran could have negotiated with others (like Shell and Total).   But the Brits would not allow for that.

At any rate, It does not appear you even know the so unenven treaty that existed, where initially (~1910)  of te 100+ million in oil income Iran receive about 3 million.

May we all have good dreams.

Aynak

Yes,

In the CIA published documents, I also read that the US operatives were hesitant to act since they saw Mosaddegh as a democratic Iranian, but the turns of events (some orchestrated by the Brits) convinced the US government that the coupe was against communism.

Of course the money from NIOC was pure profit since they paid Iran pennies on a BP, and they used it to have a comfortable life for the stiff upper-lipped Brits while Iran suffered.

escape

Your argument is analogous to a robber who takes a blind's jewels by force, asks for a reciept, and claims that the blind could not see/enjoy the jewels to begin with?

Iran would have eventually got around to exploring her natural resources, without the Brits stealing the oil outright, giving pennies on a BP to Iran and totally controlling Khoozestaan with a governor (a government within a government).

Who BUILT the Iranian Oil Company?

 The TRUTH is,if someone hadn't came and BUILT the Oil company for Iranians,my guess is they would still be digging in the dirt...........How's about a little respect for that eh? There is none,you know why? Because you don't appreciate.........

 Who BUILT the Iranian Oil company?

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company

In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with the Shah Mozzafar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange the Shah received £20,000, an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future profits.[1]

Of course

I read for some 40-50 years, bulk of British pension plan was from Iranian oil profit.   But their days are numbered.   They have bought heavily into the mortgaed back securities and it is surprising they have not collpased financially yet.

Contrary to what people may think U.S involvement in 53 coupe had very little to do with Iranian oil, but the fear of Communism.   Remember this is the Mcharty era, and U.S was pulled into that because Brits managed to convince them it was really about the threat of communism, and not really nationalism.   And the U.S fell for it.   This is confirmed, when you look back that for the next 10 years or so, U.S was providing huge financial aids to Shah regime!

So yes, we do owe it to the Brits in a big way.

During the "Independent" Islamic regime, they have managed to make 29th of Esfand our biggest source of pride, which used to be a holiday, not to be one.   Interesting, how the Islamic Regime and Brits are bothered by the same thing:  Oil nationalization, and TRUE independence!

May we all have good dreams.

Mehrdad

I personally did not know about the Brit's own nationalizations.  The Brit hypocracy just 1. made me angry, 2. made me think what if... and, 3. finally, we should learn from history and try to look for hidden motives of internal/external forces since no one holds Iran's interests closer to heart than Iranian Diaspora and Iranians inside Iran.

bot-shekan - MPD

MPD: I did not know about their hypocrisy and the fact that the Brits nationalized their own industries before opposing Iran's nationalization.  My retorical question was: What path Iran would have taken if the Brits had acted civilized?

BS: The Brits also opposed sharing the oil money fairly and they rejected many FAIR divisions from Mosaddegh's government.   They were hypocrites because nationalization made sense to them when it served their interest, and they deemed it illegal and went to court when it did not serve their interests:

hypocrite: a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Hypocrisy is the act of persistently pretending to hold beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually hold. Hypocrisy is thus a kind of lie.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrite

MM jaan: Do we really need to go some 60 years back

To see the depth of hypocritical attitude of the Britain in particular and the West in general Vise a vie Iran and middle east as a whole?

Just look at the unwavering support and backing for all the dictators in ME which goes at least 60 years back and continues to the present day

Mehrdad

I see no hypocrisy at all

Are you serious? Brits did it because it served their interests to do so (influenced by the war and the socialization of the industries by the coalition of labor and conservatives). Besides these were their own industries managed and constructed by their own people. They opposed the same process in Iran AGAIN because it served their interests.  It was a foreign investment in an industry that they had built and manged it as well.

Where is the hypocrisy in this? 

I think there is a question in your blog

... or maybe it is a rhetorical statement, but if there is one, my answer is, yes I knew.