So why didn't the US impose sanctions on the Saudis after they nationalized US oil companies in Saudi Arabia? Or (checks notes [1]) Sri Lanka, Turkey, Bolivia, Bahrain, etc.?
The problem with this theory is that it doesn't account for all of the nationalizations that the US didn't respond to with sanctions or invasions. Which is, I believe, larger in number than the reverse.
For Saudi Arabia, it seems they didn’t nationalize anything but demanded 50 % of profits, which is not too far off from being considered a tax. They then bought the other 50 % decades later.
For Sri Lanka, it seems it wasn’t oil production but merely the domestic petrol distribution? Also unclear how much of it was British and not American.
For Turkey I can’t find the company at issue, but it apparently happened before the Second World War and I’d guess American interests just weren’t very substantial at the time? The article suggests the US was supporting Turkey in getting out from under existing relationships with the old powers of Europe.
The problem with this theory is that it doesn't account for all of the nationalizations that the US didn't respond to with sanctions or invasions. Which is, I believe, larger in number than the reverse.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_co...