7 ms·

> 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 "B

by wz1000 6y ago

> 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 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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.
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  Those investments were made in a country which was unstable so I don’t see how these companies are owed anything back.
- Ar-Curunir 6y ago
  Yes, let’s destroy a country’s sovereignty because a few oil rigs were lost. The imperialism in your comment is disgusting.
oh_sigh 6y ago
The oil rigs, refineries, and pipelines were the British resource, not the oil.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Then surely all the British were asking for was a fair market price for the nationalized equipment, right?
  - totalZero 6y ago
    British companies would not have purchased/built that equipment without the resource access that had been established via contractual agreements with the Iranian government.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Sure. But the Iranian government has sovereignty, just like the US government. That means that they cannot be bound by any contract if they decide to change their mind, the most that can be done is that you might press for a fair market value. Why do you hold the Iranian government to a standard no other government in the world is held? Would you expect the American government to be forever bound to treaties signed by the British, or to agreements made by the executive alone ranging from two decades to a century ago?
totalZero 6y ago
It is a fair statement because ownership was granted via concession to the British, originally by the Qajar dynasty. Moreover, a company is allowed to own resources and infrastructure outside of its country of domicile, just the same as Royal Dutch Shell is allowed to own resources and infrastructure in the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Arcy_Concession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Arcy_Concession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company I often see on HN that, when the topic of Iran comes up, people who don't know much about the history of the country try to interpret its facts through a modern lens that is tinged with a hint of leftism. The reality is that the development of the global petroleum market was a fiercely capitalistic and competitive phenomenon that yielded immense wealth for major oil companies and host governments alike. That context cannot be amputated when discussing topics like Mosaddegh and the British sphere of influence in Iran during the first half of the 20th century.
- wz1000 6y ago
  Why should a concession made by a monarch pre-constitutional revolution be expected to be upheld by a democratically elected leader operating after significant changes in the form and nature of government? I have noticed all such principled defenses of "property rights" and "capitalism" are built upon a very specific and convenient view of what exactly counts as "legitimate property". Was the oil even the Shah's to give away in the first place?
  - totalZero 6y ago
    Why should a treaty signed by Obama be expected to be upheld by Trump? Continuity of governance, honoring good-faith agreements, maintaining confidence of foreign investors...the list goes on. Are you suggesting that all governmental responsibilities ought to be thrown out the window every time power changes hands? This is not a realistic perspective in most of the third world, where power changes hands frequently and change of government is often established via change of regime. Ultimately Iran made a killing on the oil business, and that would never have happened without petroleum concessions. In the parlance of the oil business, a "concession" is a deal where the host government allows oil rights in return for profit share, ownership, or some other financial benefit. It is an asymmetrical but symbiotic contract, and the term doesn't carry the same pejorative connotation as it would in standard parlance. Not to mention that the monarch in question was also the one who ratified the Persian Constitution of 1906.

by wz1000 6y ago

> 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 6y ago

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 6y ago
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.
heavenlyblue 6y ago
Those investments were made in a country which was unstable so I don’t see how these companies are owed anything back.
Ar-Curunir 6y ago
Yes, let’s destroy a country’s sovereignty because a few oil rigs were lost. The imperialism in your comment is disgusting.

oh_sigh 6y ago

The oil rigs, refineries, and pipelines were the British resource, not the oil.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Then surely all the British were asking for was a fair market price for the nationalized equipment, right?
- totalZero 6y ago
  British companies would not have purchased/built that equipment without the resource access that had been established via contractual agreements with the Iranian government.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Sure. But the Iranian government has sovereignty, just like the US government. That means that they cannot be bound by any contract if they decide to change their mind, the most that can be done is that you might press for a fair market value. Why do you hold the Iranian government to a standard no other government in the world is held? Would you expect the American government to be forever bound to treaties signed by the British, or to agreements made by the executive alone ranging from two decades to a century ago?

totalZero 6y ago

It is a fair statement because ownership was granted via concession to the British, originally by the Qajar dynasty. Moreover, a company is allowed to own resources and infrastructure outside of its country of domicile, just the same as Royal Dutch Shell is allowed to own resources and infrastructure in the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Arcy_Concession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Arcy_Concession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company I often see on HN that, when the topic of Iran comes up, people who don't know much about the history of the country try to interpret its facts through a modern lens that is tinged with a hint of leftism. The reality is that the development of the global petroleum market was a fiercely capitalistic and competitive phenomenon that yielded immense wealth for major oil companies and host governments alike. That context cannot be amputated when discussing topics like Mosaddegh and the British sphere of influence in Iran during the first half of the 20th century.

wz1000 6y ago
Why should a concession made by a monarch pre-constitutional revolution be expected to be upheld by a democratically elected leader operating after significant changes in the form and nature of government? I have noticed all such principled defenses of "property rights" and "capitalism" are built upon a very specific and convenient view of what exactly counts as "legitimate property". Was the oil even the Shah's to give away in the first place?
- totalZero 6y ago
  Why should a treaty signed by Obama be expected to be upheld by Trump? Continuity of governance, honoring good-faith agreements, maintaining confidence of foreign investors...the list goes on. Are you suggesting that all governmental responsibilities ought to be thrown out the window every time power changes hands? This is not a realistic perspective in most of the third world, where power changes hands frequently and change of government is often established via change of regime. Ultimately Iran made a killing on the oil business, and that would never have happened without petroleum concessions. In the parlance of the oil business, a "concession" is a deal where the host government allows oil rights in return for profit share, ownership, or some other financial benefit. It is an asymmetrical but symbiotic contract, and the term doesn't carry the same pejorative connotation as it would in standard parlance. Not to mention that the monarch in question was also the one who ratified the Persian Constitution of 1906.