5 ms·

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 resou

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.
  - wz1000 6y ago
    I expect you to be cheering when Iran assassinates Trump for reneging on the nuclear deal and killing a high level general (among a laundry list of aggressive actions) and installs its own puppet. > Are you suggesting that all governmental responsibilities ought to be thrown out the window every time power changes hands? Governments have responsibilities to their own citizens, not foreign corporations. In the end the person with the biggest stick wins, but lets not pretend like overthrowing democratically elected governments for access to natural resources from their land is a moral imperative.
    - totalZero 6y ago
      > I expect you to be cheering when Iran assassinates Trump I understand that the HN zeitgeist is not circumspect about topics like Iran and petroleum because there is a strong distaste for anything that seems imperialistic here, but that's not a reason to make uninformed arguments and accuse me of cheering the idea of someone's death. I'm making some fairly informative and historically accurate comments. If you disagree with the substance then please do so without accusing me of being inhumane. > Governments have responsibilities to their own citizens, not foreign corporations. Governments ensure citizens' prosperity by protecting economy and trade via foreign-facing agreements. The beneficiaries of smart foreign trade are the citizens themselves. Iran is an example of this; its government's budget has been funded almost entirely by petroleum revenue for decades.
      - wz1000 6y ago
        > If you disagree with the substance then please do so without accusing me of being inhumane. I'm not accusing you of being inhumane. I'm wondering if you would apply similar moral standards when the shoe is on the other foot, or if you are a hypocrite.
    - oh_sigh 6y ago
      > I expect you to be cheering when Iran assassinates Trump for reneging Trump pulled a lever that was explicitly listed and offered in the treaty. It was not "reneging" on the deal any more than using a backout clause is reneging on a home purchase. Yes, it is rarely used, and yes, you may piss off the counter party who was really hoping for their payday, but the fact remains that the possibility is explicitly listed in the contract.

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.
- wz1000 6y ago
  I expect you to be cheering when Iran assassinates Trump for reneging on the nuclear deal and killing a high level general (among a laundry list of aggressive actions) and installs its own puppet. > Are you suggesting that all governmental responsibilities ought to be thrown out the window every time power changes hands? Governments have responsibilities to their own citizens, not foreign corporations. In the end the person with the biggest stick wins, but lets not pretend like overthrowing democratically elected governments for access to natural resources from their land is a moral imperative.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    > I expect you to be cheering when Iran assassinates Trump I understand that the HN zeitgeist is not circumspect about topics like Iran and petroleum because there is a strong distaste for anything that seems imperialistic here, but that's not a reason to make uninformed arguments and accuse me of cheering the idea of someone's death. I'm making some fairly informative and historically accurate comments. If you disagree with the substance then please do so without accusing me of being inhumane. > Governments have responsibilities to their own citizens, not foreign corporations. Governments ensure citizens' prosperity by protecting economy and trade via foreign-facing agreements. The beneficiaries of smart foreign trade are the citizens themselves. Iran is an example of this; its government's budget has been funded almost entirely by petroleum revenue for decades.
    - wz1000 6y ago
      > If you disagree with the substance then please do so without accusing me of being inhumane. I'm not accusing you of being inhumane. I'm wondering if you would apply similar moral standards when the shoe is on the other foot, or if you are a hypocrite.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    > I expect you to be cheering when Iran assassinates Trump for reneging Trump pulled a lever that was explicitly listed and offered in the treaty. It was not "reneging" on the deal any more than using a backout clause is reneging on a home purchase. Yes, it is rarely used, and yes, you may piss off the counter party who was really hoping for their payday, but the fact remains that the possibility is explicitly listed in the contract.