Skip to main content

Iran: Mossadegh Forces the Oil Companies to Hand Over the Baton


Arrigo Cervetto (15 January 1953)
L’Impulso


The publicity machine is getting under way again to draw attention, in the direction desired by the parties concerned, to the still unresolved problem of Persian oil. After the almost total silence of the Press in recent weeks—a silence that has not prevented the continuation of covert action—the American and British governments have submitted a new offer («a strong warning») to the Tehran government. This consists in entrusting the charge of looking after oil sales, as well as extraction and refining, to an American oil consortium. Stripped of all such convoluted propaganda as the communist threat, the need to improve Persia’s catastrophic economic situation, British rights, etc., this is the tone and content of the proposal: the blackmailing of a crisis-wracked nation, a veiled threat of more drastic measures.

It is worth noting how the new proposal insists on the almost total lack of interest that the deal represents for the British and Americans, given increased production in other places: this is to divert people’s attention from the heart of the problem. «The British and Americans want to help Persia selflessly, the British and Americans are truly democratic»: in truth, oil strategy is much more complex than this propagandistic rehashing of humanism and liberalism belied by the facts.

And the facts speak much more clearly than this false propaganda.

One need only think of the appalling decline in American oil reserves (4 billion tons—enough for 10–12 years at the most) that have to be kept for «emergency» situations, of the steady decline in American production (down from 60% to 40% of the world total in 12 years), and of the high prices of its oil in comparison with the Iranian (a US well produces 11 barrels, and an Iranian well 4–5,000 per day). If this was not enough to belie this «disinterest», there are the huge profits that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and the British government derived in taxes from Persian oil: the workers were paid 50 cents a day, the full amount of the interest due to the Persian government was not paid (only 33 of the 57 million tons produced were denounced), and the AOIC increased its capital from 4 to 200 million pounds from 1914 until the present. And then there is also the fact that only one-third of the production (1,600,000 barrels) of the seven biggest oil companies with mainly Anglo-American capital occurs in the US. This makes it necessary to hang on to the wells of subject countries, including Iran’s, at all costs.

The joint Anglo-American communiqué formalises the planned division of interests, not only among the big companies, but also between the two states, and demonstrates yet again how much truth there is in the formula «The state is the guard dog of the bourgeoisie».

Together with the interests of Anglo-Iranian, the big US companies that offer to sell Persian oil know how to defend their own interests, i.e. the general interests of the seven big companies (Standard, Shell, AIOC, Gulf Oil, Standard California, Socony and Vacuum) that form an international “state”, a complex network of interests that links the companies together: AOIC and Gulf Oil have joint control of Kuwait Oil; Socony and AIOC control Iraqi oil (Iraq Petroleum); Standard (NJ), Standard (California), the Texas Company and Socony control Arabian American Oil, etc. … just to give a few examples that certainly speak more clearly than Anglo-American «disinterests».

This thousand-tentacled octopus that dominates almost all of the world’s oil production, refineries, pipelines, tankers, etc. is now seeking to present itself to Persia under the paternalistic aspect of democracy. Yesterday this was the UK’s trademark, while today it is America’s … so long as it doesn’t harm the interests of the AIOC shareholders (whether English, American, or even Chinese) in any way.

It may well be that, behind this smokescreen, Mossadegh will accept the new proposals in order to break away from his dangerous method of using the proletariat to defend the interests of the bourgeoisie. We doubt, however, that the Abadan workers and the millions of starving peasants will make do with a simple change of flag after having fought and shed their blood.

(“L’Impulso”, 15 January 1953)

Source: Unitary Imperialism, Volume I, pp. 209-210.

Popular posts from this blog

Leapfrogging: The Chinese Auto Industry’s Leap Forward

Internationalism No. 73, March 2025 Page 15 From the series The world car battle It is predicted that next year in China the sales of electrified vehicles (mainly battery-powered or hybrid) will for the first time overtake those of cars with an internal combustion engine. This development will mark a historic about turn which will put the world's biggest auto market years ahead of its Western rivals [Financial Times, December 26th]. Meanwhile, the growth in sales of electric vehicles in Europe and the United States has slowed. BYD's leap forward Another important development in 2024 was the record sales of Chinese brands in China: they rose from 38% of the total in 2020 to 56%, a sign of the maturation of the national auto industry which is now able to challenge the Japanese, American, and European manufacturers. BYD's leap forward is impressive, comparable to that of Ford Motors after the First World War, when with the Model T, introduc...

Cryptocurrencies, Tariffs, Oil and Spending in Trump’s Executive Orders

Internationalism No. 73, March 2025 Page 8 Douglas Irwin, economist and historian of American trade policy, writes for the Peterson Institute that the tariffs announced by Donald Trump, if implemented, would constitute a “historic event in the annals of US trade policy” and “one of the largest increases in trade taxes in US history. One has to go back almost a century to find tariff increases comparable”. Irwin limits himself to providing us with a historical dimension to the planned duties. But the bewilderment and turmoil created, especially among Washington’s allies, derives from the fact that the tariffs being brandished are accompanied by a hail of presidential decrees and declarations that mark a profound political discontinuity, both in the balance of internal institutional powers and in the balance of power between nations. The watershed was expected, but the speed and vehemence of the White House’s assaults are setting the scene for a change of era i...

The Works of Marx and Engels and the Bolshevik Model

Internationalism Pages 12–13 In the autumn of 1895 Lenin commented on the death of Friedrich Engels: "After his friend Karl Marx (who died in 1883), Engels was the finest scholar and teacher of the modern proletariat in the whole civilised world. […] In their scientific works, Marx and Engels were the first to explain that socialism is not the invention of dreamers, but the final aim and necessary result of the development of the productive forces in modern society. All recorded history hitherto has been a history of class struggle, of the succession of the rule and victory of certain social classes over others. And this will continue until the foundations of class struggle and of class domination – private property and anarchic social production – disappear. The interests of the proletariat demand the destruction of these foundations, and therefore the conscious class struggle of the organised workers must be directed against them. And every class strugg...

The Party and the Unprecedented crisis in the World Order: A Crucial Decade

This first quarter-century has seen an epochal turning point in inter-power relations, triggered by China's very rapid imperialist development. Arrigo Cervetto recognised this process from the very early 1990s: Today history has sped up its pace to an unpredictable extent. [...] Analysis of the sixteenth century, as the century of accelerations and rift in world history, is a model for our Marxist vision ( La mezza guerra nel Golfo [The Half War in the Persian Gulf], January 1991). The course of imperialism was speeding up, and China's very rapid rise was opening up a new strategic phase with the new century. The United States, the leading power in the world, is being challenged by an antagonist with comparable economic strength which, moreover, openly states that it wants to provide itself with a "world class" military force within the next decade. Favoured by the 2008 global crisis and also by the pandemic crisis, China has forged ahead with its rapid rise for ...

European Imperialism and Imperialist Scission

Internationalism No. 50, April 2023 Pages 1-2 The postwar vicissitudes of European imperialism - from the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 to the Treaty of Rome leading the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, and then to the Maastricht Treaty and the European Union in 1992, the euro federation in 1998 and the institutional Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 - provide an exemplary charting of the dialectic of unity and scission of unitary imperialism. The big concentrations of capital, and the powers in their grip, demonstrate the aspect of the unity of the global imperialistic system in its common interest to guarantee the production of surplus value and the conditions for exchange and circulation connected with it, together with the class rule on which it is premised. At the same time, the shares of the world’s social capital and the powers are permanently divided by the scission of the struggle to share out surplus value, markets and sources of ...