
'Coup 53' tells the story of 1953 campaign by MI6 and CIA to oust Iran's leader - AndrewBissell
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/18/903505983/coup-53-tells-the-true-story-of-the-cia-s-campaign-to-oust-iran-s-leader
======
haltingproblem
The CIA/MI5 coup is fascinating not only because it overthrow a democratically
elected government of a Middle Eastern country in 1953 (!) but also because of
its consequences. There is not a single democratic government in the ME sans
Israel. No, tiny Tunisia does not count, it is in the Maghreb (N. Africa).

What would the middle east look like if the Mosaddegh government had
continued? No revolution, No Ayatollah, no Iran-Iraq war, no Hezbollah?
Instead we got the Shah who forced his people to modernize, secret police
pulling veils off women was common and generally unleashed a reign that was
anathema to most of the conservative population outside Tehran. Most of the
anger you see is towards the US is from that reign rather than the coup.

The Iranians who are Persians, and not Arabs, have a civilizational history
going back 1000s of years. Expat Persians have achieved great success in the
US and UK. Going further back, the Zoroastrians, who fled the Islamic conquest
and arrived in India more than a millennia ago are the richest, most educated
and economically successful minority group by an order of magnitude, or two.

The Shah's reign lasted 25 years. A generation that grew up under the Shah's
tyranny led the revolution in 1979. The Islamic revolution is now 40 years
old. There have been almost two generations that grew up under the Islamic
govt's misrule and grandiose projects of power projection. Hopefully they can
take charge and lead Iran back to civilizational greatness. Iran, the middle
east and the world needs it.

And I would really like to visit the gardens of Shiraz or the markets of
Isfahan which have been around for 1000s of years ;)

Edit: As pointed out in the comments, instead of Arab world, I should have
used Arab speaking. There are Arab speakers who are Arab and there are Arab
speakers who are not Arab.

~~~
quercusgrisea
>There is not a single democratic govt in the ME sans Israel

The millions of Palestinians unable to vote for the government that controls
their movement, trade, and lives in general would probably disagree with your
characterization of Israel as a democracy.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
Unfortunately, "democracy" doesn't mean "liberal democracy" and it certainly
doesn't mean "nice democracy".

For instance, in the Athenian democracy women and metics (immigrants) couldn't
vote and slavery was legal. In modern times, the USA, the model of modern
democracies, has the largest military in the world (in history!) and does not
hesitate to use it to crush lesser nations.

I wouldn't be able to tell you what "democratic" means exactly (I'm not a
political scientist) but I susepect having elections without limits on who can
vote and who can stand for office, having independent courts and the rule of
law are important criteria and under those Israel sure checks out as a
democracy. Its people are free. It just happens to keep crushing some other
people, who are not its own people, under its heel.

~~~
frenchyatwork
I think what the GP was getting at was that having a sizable population of
people living within the de-facto boundaries of a state who are unable to vote
(in this case, because they lack citizenship) makes it less democratic.

That's a slightly different problem than the fact that democracies can be
terrible if the voters choose terrible things.

------
DonaldFisk
There was a documentary about the coup shown on Channel 4 in the UK in 1985:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhCgJElpQEQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhCgJElpQEQ)

Just before it was shown, the role of Norman Darbyshire, the MI6 officer
involved in the coup, was leaked to the Observer:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/mi6-the-
coup-i...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/02/mi6-the-coup-in-iran-
that-changed-the-middle-east-and-the-cover-up)

The Observer received a D-notice which prevented its publication.

The makers of Coup 53 made use of the unpublished Observer material.

Briefly, the UK Government wanted Mosaddegh overthrown because he wanted to
nationalize a British oil company (Anglo-Iranian). It tried to get the CIA
involved but Truman opposed American involvement. This changed when Eisenhower
was elected president.

~~~
blmurch
Yup a lot of Age of Empire is used in the documentary. Finding that Observer
material in Microfilm set them down the merry path. My father was excitedly
telling me about it when they discovered it. He really couldn't believe it.

------
post_below
I love this. Our decades of oil wars still don't seem to be common knowledge.
All of the wars have of course been sold to the public as something else and
it's a pretty important thing to understand about modern western power.

~~~
jhallenworld
Much is clarified once it is understood that Germany lost WWII due to lack of
oil:

[https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-Oil-Defeated-
The-N...](https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-Oil-Defeated-The-
Nazis.html)

[https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/oil-
denial-p...](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/oil-denial-
policy-cia-middle-east-cold-war-united-states-britain-soviet-union-213983)

~~~
bleepblorp
There's more than enough oil in the US, Canada, and Mexico to support not only
US military needs but the entire North American civilian economy indefinitely.
There is no risk of the US ever losing a war due to an oil shortage.

When the US 'goes to war for oil' in the Middle East, it's going to war not to
protect its oil supply but rather to make sure the profits of oil accrue to US
companies and to ensure that oil remains priced in US dollars, which is vital
for the US Dollar to continue to be the world's reserve currency.

~~~
dsl
You can't value oil under your own soil the same as imported oil, and it has
nothing to do with profit.

Oil demand is never going away (we need it for plastic, lubricants for wind
turbines, etc) but the supply is. When you are talking about macroeconomic
nation state scales of oil, the only logical decision is to acquire foreign
oil. Not only are you helping to speed the depletion of their reservers, you
are holding yours.

The last barrel of oil on earth will be worth more than all the barrels that
came before it.

Edit: I did some math. As of 2018 there were 43.8 billion discovered barrels
of oil in the US, in 2019 we consumed 20.46 million barrels a day
domestically. So we are self sufficient for a little less than 6 years.

~~~
jandrese
This assumes you don't discover alternatives to fossil fuels before running
out of them. Historically this is a bad bet. As the price increases people
search harder and harder for alternatives. It seems impossible now because
cheap oil means there's no demand for alternatives, but people are clever and
if there's demand they'll usually find a solution.

~~~
dsl
To understand the economics of oil you have to think of it as a raw ingredient
rather than a fuel source.

Even if you stop burning it (which I think is a terrible idea), you can't live
without oil. Antiseptics, rubbing alcohol, paint, aspirin, toothpaste, shoes,
pens, bike tires, computers, etc. require it for modern production.

Heck, a standard solar panel plopped on top of your home requires just shy of
a full barrel of oil to produce.

~~~
andybak
> Even if you stop burning it (which I think is a terrible idea)

It's possible to interpret this sentence to mean two opposite things.

------
The_suffocated
> For years, I thought the CIA was the prime mover of the coup, but I was
> wrong.

I think the CIA was indeed the prime mover of the coup, at least according to
the CIA's official history. Derbyshire, the person who was in charge of SIS's
Iran branch, came up with the idea of a coup, but the Brits had not the
capacity to pull it off and so they asked the CIA for help. The whole
operation was very well documented by the declassified report entitled "CIA
Clandestine Service History, Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran, November
1952-August 1953", which is downloadable from

[https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/](https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/)

~~~
saghm
I think you might have a different understanding of the phrase "prime mover"
than the author. Aristotle used the term[1] to refer to the source of all
motion, the idea being that motion had to begin with some entity moving
without having been moved from something else, and then all other motion
flowed from it. According to the history you give, Derbyshire would fit the
definition of the prime mover here; he had the idea without it having come
from another source, and so the CIA's action only came about as a result of
that initial idea.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover)

~~~
The_suffocated
You are right. I did learn this term in high school decades ago but have
forgotten it. Thanks for the explanation.

------
ajtulloch
It's not explicitly mentioned in the article, but the documentary has been
released for streaming today at [https://coup53.com/](https://coup53.com/).

~~~
blmurch
Thanks for the link! I'm working on the documentary and as we don't have a
distributor we're doing what we can. We know that people all over the world
would like to see it. We have to develop subtitles and reach out to theaters
in each country to partner with them. It's a lot of work. If anyone has
suggestions of art houses in the country they are located, please send them to
us! We are partnering with independent cinemas because they are really hurting
because of the pandemic, so any venue that partners with us gets 50/50 split
of profits.

~~~
ajtulloch
I watched the documentary last night and it was fantastic. Wonderful work and
thank you.

~~~
blmurch
I'm so glad. I will pass on your comment to the film-makers. We've been a bit
overwhelmed. I updated the website today with almost 100 cinemas we're
partnering with and I'm hoping it doesn't crash. ::fingers-crossed::

------
neutrinoq
There's a web comic version of this story being developed:
[http://alpha.operationajax.com/](http://alpha.operationajax.com/)

~~~
the_af
Marjane Satrapi's awesome autobiographical comic "Persepolis" [1] also
addresses this as the setup to the chain of events that would lead to Iran's
current theocracy.

I recommend this comic as well as the movie based on it.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_(comics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_\(comics\))

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Worth noting that Satrapi's family were part of the US supported-side and so
the story might be slightly slanted to one side, covering more the time period
where a conservative religious group cane in to power as a backlash.

------
AndrewBissell
> How that happens is the heart of the film, which paints a fascinatingly
> detailed picture of how, in practical terms, you go about toppling a popular
> foreign leader. It all starts with spreading around money and maybe
> arranging a couple of assassinations.

"The Jakarta Method" by Vincent Bevins delves into how the CIA adapted and
shifted course to address some of the weaknesses of its in-plain-sight coup
approach in Iran and Guatemala in the 1950s. The ideal is always to preserve
as much as possible the impression that the change in regimes is driven by
local, endogenous political forces. The recent coup in Bolivia is a good
demonstration of how this can be pulled off while almost entirely avoiding
accusations of U.S. involvement.

~~~
chishaku
Other recent attempts in "America's backyard"

\- Venezuela 2019

\- Ecuador 2010

\- Honduras 2009

~~~
jessaustin
Personally I would also argue for Brazil, 2016. _Operação Lava Jato_ was
publicized as an anti-corruption effort, but more recent information indicates
it was more of an anti-socialist coup. Sérgio Moro was in IVLP, and the
highlight of his first trip to USA after becoming Justice Minister was a
courtesy call at CIA headquarters. [0] This was an unmistakable public
statement of Moro's allegiance and actions.

[0] [https://www.brasilwire.com/in-plain-sight-bolsonaro-moro-
and...](https://www.brasilwire.com/in-plain-sight-bolsonaro-moro-and-the-cia/)

------
_el
A great book on this topic is "All the Shah's Men" by Stephen Kinzer.

~~~
oxymoron
I liked it a lot, although I’ve later found the depiction of the Eisenhower
administration a bit simplistic. Another good and fun read on that is Evans’
_Ike’s bluff_, which paints a more detailed picture on John Foster Dulles in
particular.

~~~
082349872349872
All the Dulles siblings are interesting in their own ways.

------
pmoriarty
To anyone interested in this, I'd highly recommend Stephen Kinzer's
_Overthrow_.[1]

It covers not just this incident, but many others throughout history when the
US has overthrown foreign governments.

[1] - [https://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-
Cha...](https://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-
Change/dp/0805082409)

------
lucas_membrane
The story that the CIA did this is mostly myth created by CIA people to
enhance the reputation of the CIA in the eyes of US White House and Congress.
CIA had Kermit Roosevelt Jr. (Teddy's grandson) in Iran working on it, but he
accomplished little, and the CIA sent him orders to stop a couple of days
before the coup. He pretended not to get the message and kept trying, but
probably without much effect. Mohammad Mosaddegh lost power when the
ayatollahs raised their opposition to his rule. Roosevelt then returned to the
US and collected all the credit.

This PR coup led to Eisenhower giving Dulles of the CIA a couple of fighter
planes to use in Guatemala to remove Jacobo Arbenz from power, which was the
CIA's pinnacle of success, strengthening the CIA's reputation even more and
leading to the agency's mediocre record thereafter.

------
lehi
There was an interactive graphic novel of these events for iPad/iPhone:
[http://www.cognitocomics.com/project-
ajax.html](http://www.cognitocomics.com/project-ajax.html)

The free apps are still present in the App Store, but are now incompatible
with recent iOS versions.

~~~
jessaustin
The fact that this project succumbed to bitrot, and is now being relaunched as
a website, seems to say something about the longevity of phone apps.

------
blmurch
Thanks for posting this. I'm working on the documentary. We're having a live
Q&A in 5 hours with the director Taghi Amirani, the editor and co-writer my
father Walter Murch, and actor Ralph Fiennes who portrays Darbyshire. The Q&A
is moderated by Jon Snow of Channel 4 news. This is exclusive access if you
buy your ticket to our online premiere now! It's on our website.

We're having our general release on Friday. It's available in the USA, UK,
Ireland and Canada. We're going country by country because we don't have a
distributor.

------
shirakawasuna
I don't necessarily trust NPR to do that great of a job telling this story. I
do recommend listening to the Iran section (all the sections, really) of Safe
for Democracy:
[http://safefordemocracy.com/podcast/6/](http://safefordemocracy.com/podcast/6/)
. (Note: that's part 1 of 9).

RSS feed here:
[http://safefordemocracy.com/feed/podcast](http://safefordemocracy.com/feed/podcast)

~~~
AndrewBissell
Appreciate the additional sources. I share your skepticism about NPR's take on
this sort of thing but have found that sometimes dodgy-but-mainstream sources
can still be quite useful for kicking off productive discussions where some of
the more salient facts can be explored.

~~~
shirakawasuna
Useful to start discussions, yes! Sometimes risky because they can spread
common myths, and it can be very difficult to supplant them. It's so much
harder to unlearn something than to learn the right thing the first time, of
course.

Safe for Democracy does thorough and sourced deep-dives into the histories of
a few American "interventions", disrupting or controlling or supposedly
attempting to create democracy in other countries. It goes through the
background of the countries, often 100+ years prior to the events in question,
and sets the stage thoroughly so that you can get a sense of the cultural
forces and context. It also emphasizes the humanity of those involved and what
violences were done beyond rattling off death counts so that you can
understand the long-term cultural impacts and often genocides involved that
are easier to miss if you only hear numbers.

------
lefrenchy
For a longer read on the history here, "All the Shah's Men" is a great read.

------
devenblake
The most fascinating part of Americanism to me is that America regularly
compromises and helps compromise any country that doesn't share the same
interests, and America's citizens (mostly) think it's fine. The society lives
in fear of its government, its representatives live in fear of its military,
and the military is controlled by higher-ups who probably shouldn't have been
given power. Often people accuse the leaders of these compromised nations of
being dictators as if America doesn't have a track record of instilling even
more evil leaders (for example, Pinochet[1]).

Why can't America just leave other countries alone and tend to its own sorry
affairs? America tries to make other countries "more free" and then treats
Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Mexicans, other people of color, women,
transgenders and other gender-nonconformists, homosexuals and anyone else that
isn't heterosexual, Communists, Socialists, and anyone who isn't their form of
"normal" as second-rate citizens in their own country. America (rightfully)
accuses other countries of tampering in their election and then tampers in
others' elections.[0] Their actions often contradict the values they claim to
purvey.

I hear often that if another country was doing as poorly as America is right
now, America would have "liberated" it already.

[0]: I found a source here: [https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-interfered-in-
elections-of-...](https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-interfered-in-elections-of-
at-least-85-countries-worldwide-since-1945/5601481) for my claims, however
it's questionable due to accusations of spreading propaganda. Here's a
relevant article from a more trustworthy source:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/the-us-
has...](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/the-us-has-a-long-
history-of-election-meddling/565538/)

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#U.S._backing_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#U.S._backing_of_the_coup)

~~~
refurb
_Why can 't America just leave other countries alone and tend to its own sorry
affairs?_

Should the US just ignore the issues with Hong Kong? Honest question.

The US was quite isolationist in the early 1900's.

~~~
smallchungus
Maybe you should.

~~~
refurb
No doubt the US would be trashed if they did.

Maybe the US should have stayed out of WW2, or at least the European theatre?
Western Europe would have fallen under the yoke of a communist dictator for 50
years.

~~~
devenblake
WWII was different though because America joined the war after the Pearl
Harbor attack, which was a direct offense by the axis powers. In my opinion
America should actually have joined the war effort when Poland was invaded by
Nazi Germany because Poland was (iirc) an ally to America. The situation is
different with Hong Kong because China already controls Hong Kong. The
conflict happening there is more of a civil war.

------
x87678r
Fascinating how demographics change. Back then the UK population was bigger
than Iran/Iraq/Syria/Israel/Palestine/SaudiArabia combined and much wealthier
and powerful. Now those countries combine to hundreds of millions of people.

------
coldtea
Now imagine for a second another country overthrowing the US elected
government and installing their own dictator.

How exactly would Americans feel for that country later? (even just from that
incident alone, let's ignore half a century of later meddling).

When Americans consider other countries' reactions towards them, they seldom
consider the impact of their own actions, as if the toppling some sovereign
country's government (the worse thing you can do) is no big deal, and others
should just sit and take it...

~~~
PJDK
It wasn't very many years earlier that Germany waged total war against the US
but a grudge hasn't held out there...

~~~
coldtea
Germany hardly waged war against the US, toppled their governmnent, occupied
it, bombed it, etc.

Japan did a few of those, though after much provocation to achieve exactly
that and give an excuse to the US to sell the war to its public.

The US intervened in the European war (and not even decidely so, that's
another myth), to ensure their improved role in the post-war environment, as
the old European colonial powers were weakened by the war.

~~~
ceilingcorner
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_ag...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States)

~~~
the_af
What exactly do you mean? It's just a description of Hitler's declaration of
war on the US. It did not result in _total war_ being waged on US soil, and it
was mostly a strategic blunder on Hitler's part.

~~~
ceilingcorner
The Nazis had numerous attempted sabotage operations in the continental US.
They also sunk many ships off the eastern coast.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Theater_(World_War_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Theater_\(World_War_II\))

Their lack of ‘total war’ on the US is mostly the consequence of a lack of
resources / more pressing concerns.

~~~
the_af
Let's see, as per your link:

> _20,000 Killed, 45,000 Wounded, 100 Captured_

Note the count includes actions by Japan against the US. Compare it to the
European theatre of war.

> _Their lack of ‘total war’ on the US is mostly the consequence of a lack of
> resources / more pressing concerns._

But this is irrelevant for this discussion. The fact remains that the US
didn't suffer total war waged by Germany on their soil during WW2, and this
might explain the comment which sparked this thread:

> _It wasn 't very many years earlier that Germany waged total war against the
> US but a grudge hasn't held out there..._

It's easier to hold a grudge with millions dead, bombing campaigns destroying
your cities, etc, don't you think? Arguing formalities such as whether Germany
and the US were at war seems pointless in this context, doesn't it?

~~~
ceilingcorner
No, I think you are vastly underplaying the extent to which Germany was
America’s enemy. Don’t forget that Jews had escaped Germany to the US,
especially prominent scientists like Einstein. The US didn’t ‘hold a grudge’
because the Cold War power struggles didn’t allow for it. West Germany needed
to be an ally.

~~~
the_af
> _West Germany needed to be an ally_

Oh, I definitely agree with this! This attitude also helped shape the
narrative of WW2, especially of the Eastern Front [1], by former Wehrmacht
officers in the employ of the US Army Historical Division. The Cold War made
friends of former enemies, and let them tell their story in an unprecedented
way -- an instance of history being told by the _losers_.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Eastern_Front](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Eastern_Front)

------
as300
Once again, behind a bad geopolitical situation is a Brit. History is unduly
kind to the U.K., ignoring all of the atrocities of their colonialism for the
sole reason that they suffered and overcame in WW2. Israel Palestine, India
Pakistan, and Iran are all direct results of their racism and chicanery.

~~~
0x262d
The British have a horrible history of imperialism, but just to be clear, this
was mostly carried out the by US, who also have a horrible history of
imperialism.

~~~
as300
Agreed, but I'd argue that the US's imperialism is fairly well-known. The
British managed to avoid that via shrewd and destructive campaigns of divide-
and-conquer that stacked the odds against future democracies.

~~~
Ar-Curunir
? I don’t know if you’ve lived in any British colony, but tons of people
despise the British Empire to this day

------
jsjjsjshsh
And yet Trump is doing basically same thing. Toppling our government, this
time with sanctions.

50 years later when Iranian did see US as enemy, don’t act surprised. This is
what Trump sows.

~~~
plandis
We will have to agree to disagree.

I’m American and all I’ve ever seen from Iran is people chanting for my death
and the death of the people I love. I was born in the 90s and had no bearing
on foreign policy.

If sanctions prevents Iran from accomplishing those goals then I personally
will consider that a good thing.

~~~
boudin
First, not all Iranian people are chanting your death. This is the propaganda
from both sides that says that.

Sanctions currently have the effect at making people in Iran even more
dependant of the government, and plays well into the Iranian government
propaganda.

~~~
plandis
> First, not all Iranian people are chanting your death.

Yeah I have no problem with your average Iranian. But the Iranian government
routinely organizes protests where people are _literally_ calling for the
death of Americans.

Sanctions also have the benefit of preventing the Iranian government and their
terrorist revolutionary guard from harming Americans as well as they could
without sanctions.

~~~
Udik
> the Iranian government routinely organizes protests where people are
> literally calling for the death of Americans.

 _Literally_ is the keyword here, because the translation "death to something"
is just the literal mistranslation of the Iranian idiom meaning "down with
something". As if someone believed that when you say "I'd die for a beer" you
really meant it.

------
rshnotsecure
I see this story often, and it is basically true.

I would like to remind everyone though that for every regime change the US
engineered, the KGB was responsible for many times more.

Part of the USSR's philosophy after all was worldwide revolution that was to
be exported to all countries.

~~~
0x262d
Please substantiate your claim with a source. I'm pretty sure the US is
responsible for more, although I don't have the numbers at hand. It is a much
longer-lasting empire that used the Soviet Union as an excuse to knock over
any neocolonial country, such as Iran, that even thought about taking money
from the profits of international companies and spending it on its own
citizens.

------
euix
Americans are winners as were the Brits before them. History will always favor
the winner. The only practical lesson out of this sad story and countless
others through history is: learn to be strong and so you can be a winner.

~~~
croes
Learn from history. Every empire falls.

~~~
hindsightbias
The Roman, Pandyan and Byzantine Empires had pretty good runs.

~~~
croes
Still fallen

------
oh_sigh
By "Iran's Leader", surely they mean "Iran's dictator", right?

Mossadegh convinced the government to give him 6 months of "emergency powers",
ostensibly to fix the financial problems of Iran. In reality, he did a little
of that, but also used his powers to further entrench himself by diminishing
the power of the Shah. And then he got another 12 months emergency powers, and
used it to redistribute land to the poor. Unfortunately at that time, Iran was
also incredibly insolvent (due to the British boycott), and so the poor were
not happy.

You might argue that Mossadegh would have succeeded if not for the British
boycott.. sure, maybe he would have. But what do you expect to happen when you
forcibly take all of the British resources? Should they just have said "Oh
fine, have them, let's keep doing business together"?

The clerics, at this point, were already the proverbial kingmakers in Iran.
They backed Mossadegh when he was expedient, and they backed the Shah when
Mossadegh failed them. There's no reason to believe that Iran would have
continued under Mossadegh into some kind of Socialist paradise - he probably
would have just been deposed by the religious nuts a few years later
regardless, just as happened with the Shah.

~~~
wz1000
> But what do you expect to happen when you forcibly take all of the British
> resources?

Very strange how oil underneath the Iranian soil can be considered a "British
resource".

~~~
bananabreakfast
Not strange at all when you consider the Iranians had absolutely no means of
extracting it themselves.

They gave willing access to their natural resources in exchange for a
relatively massive revenue windfall then seized the sizable British capital
investments with no compensation.

~~~
as300
Right, so if BP drills for oil in South Texas that means that the Texas oil
reserves should be under their control? This viewpoint reeks of racism and
Anglo-Saxon exceptionalism.

