The Damage of the Nationalization of Petroleum

At the beginning of the 1950s, the nationalization of petroleum was a political, economic, and social error.  Those who, in so far as deputies, praised the nationalization of petroleum, were consciously in the service of foreign powers while unconscious to the consequences of their actions.  Basically, if the majority hadn't been under the control of the foreigners, it would have been incapable of distinguishing the interests of the country.

            Still today, some think that we are capable of governing the affairs of the country without any knowledge or experience.  The result will not be any different.

            The placement of the propriety of the Iranian government on the petroleum industry and its annexed installations, while it might have been popular, did not lead to the results that were hoped for.

            On one hand, the goods and the properties of the Petroleum Society will through force of expropriation become properties of the Iranian government and on the other hand, the organizers of this unfinished drama will never be able to, despite their studies in the European countries, keep their promises.

            The wells were closed and the largest refinery of the world in Abadan with its 60,000 workers unemployed was a burden on the State.  Without the authorization of the Parliament, Mossadegh ordered the emission of bills and drove the economy to the disorder.

            A minority entitled the National Front, through which some of its leaders, through the bias of political maneuvers, inflamed discussions, violent and insulting writings, achieved the approval of the law of nationalization of petroleum by the Parliament.

            Today, those who claim to be inheritors of this movement which trails behind the name of their movement the adjective “national” believe that Mossadegh was a “national” leader who resisted until the end of his days, while neither during this time nor later, neither during his support for Khomeiny nor at the time of his participation in the election of Khatami did this political formation act in a national manner.  It was quite the contrary.

            The bad luck and the politic of the leaders of the Anglo-Persian Petroleum Society, their ignorance and their negligence in view of keeping the promises stipulated through the treaty of 1933 and their interventions in the interior politic of Iran have created a general hatred within the population.  If, in place of the “Anti-national” Front, competent, patriotic, and economist persons had received the destiny of the country within their hands, they would have genuinely succeeded in so far as rights of the Iranian people.

            The negligence of financial rights of Iran within its annexed societies and those of the Anglo-Persian Society with respect to the Iranian government through Mossadegh can only be considered as a simple lack of consciousness of the leaders of the National Front.  Even though at the time the competent journalists and observers exposed the problems before the leaders as well as the media, any opinion contrary to that of Mossadegh and his principle leaders of the National Front, even if economically beneficial for the country, was systematically discarded.

            The toll of December 31, 1951, of the English Petroleum Society shows that the value of goods of the abovementioned society throughout the world rose to 268,500,000 pounds of which only 28,000,000 went to Iran.

            In fact, Mossadegh and his friends only nationalized these 28,000,000 and hardly thought of the remaining capitals which were found scattered elsewhere.

            The goods of the Society abroad were 8 times larger to those which belonged to him in Iran.  What Society other than the English Petroleum Society could have in return paid the government and the Iranian people or put back into effect this nationalization?

            In fact, the nationalization of petroleum was beneficial to the English Petroleum Society which economized all its other goods.  The rest, like the complaints deposited before the international organizations, was but a staging.

            The documents of the British Foreign Office show that the disquiet of Great Britain came from the fact that it feared that Iran would insist in having its share in the annexed societies, but Mossadegh was there!

            Moreover, during his trip to Iran, Stoks' mission, in case of an Iranian demand, was to immediately pay a certain sum to the Iranian government and to then proceed to the purchase of shares.

            The mission of Mossadegh and his friends was to deprive the Iranian people of their inalienable rights, and this while the Vice-Minister of Finances wrote an article in the journal “Dad” through which he interpolated the Prime Minister of this question.

            Mossadegh and his companions had carried much success in their treacherous mission and Great Britain was delighted by their stupidity!

            Mossadegh had succeeded in creating a system of dictatorship on a road where any contestations were threatened.

            Great Britain was also prepared to pay a sum equivalent to half of the value of the shares of Iran so that it could give up its shares in the annexed societies.

            Mossadegh demonstrated that popularity was more important to him that national interests.  He sacrificed several million pounds of Iranian goods for the profit of his personal visions.

            Farmanfarmaïan, known for his submission to Great Britain (and therefore the entire family is suspicious, as the treason of Mossadegh had surpassed that of their own and we can also affirm that Mossadegh had been the biggest traitor in the history of the Iranian people) wrote:

            “Mossadegh and his partisans, all of society, have closed their eyes and were intoxicated by their self-proclaimed victory, and they mocked the English…”

            At Parliament, Haérizadeh declared:  “In accordance with the D'Arcy treaty, we were shareholders of the petroleum of Iraq, Argentina, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Cuba, Kuwait, Albania, New Guinea, and Qatar, and we were shareholders of the petroleum of the Company whose quantity we ignored.”

            During the petroleum campaign, Abbas Golchaïa, who was qualified as a traitor by the left party dependant of the Soviet Union, the socialist groups, Marxist groups, and above all by the partisans of the National Front, could not despite his efforts salvage the 51,000,000 some odd pounds of Iran's profits.

            That which Mossadegh and his companions forgot was the 20% of Iran's participation in the annexed societies.  Nevertheless, the partisans of Mossadegh, defenders of the nationalization of petroleum, affirmed that Iran was not the proprietor of 20% of shares of the annexed societies and therefore it had received no damage!

            Are they truly up to speed with the contents of the D'Arcy treat and later with the ill-fated codicil of Armitage Smith?  They avoided making reference to the treaty between Armitage and Mochir ol-Dowleh, Nasr ol-Dowleh, and the Mossadegh family, that is, King Qadjar.

            They have always hidden this treaty and left it in a conspiracy of silence.  They forget that Mossadegh accepted the ill-fated money from Armitage Smith when he arrived at the Ministry of Finances.

            After the conclusion of the Armitage Smith treaty, through the bias of the nationalization of petroleum, Mossadegh destroyed this revenue

            At the same time the national feelings of people such as Hossein Makki, Haérizadeh, Abdolghadir Azad, and Mozaffar Baghaï became national heroes the following day meanwhile those like Golchaïan and Mohammad Ali Movahed, who considered the nationalization of petroleum as an expropriation of Iran, were accused of being paid agents of Great Britain.

            In our history, almost all the agents at the service of Great Britain have been considered to be national heroes while all the genuine national persons who consider Great Britain as the true enemy of Iran have been accused of being “English agents” and of “collaborating with foreigners.”

            For three years, since the nationalization of petroleum until the approval of the Consortium treaty by the Parliament, the petroleum wells have remained closed and Iran has been deprived of all revenue.  The unemployment of thousands of workers and employees of the petroleum industry was sustained by the State as was the disappearance of the 20% of Iran's profits from the annexed societies.

            There can be no denying that the petroleum revenue of Saudi Arabia before nationalization was inferior to that of Iran and succeeded in signing treaties with the United States on the basis of sharing profits 50-50.

            Before the nationalization of petroleum, Saudi Arabia collected 16 shillings and 8 pence for each ton of petroleum, Kuwait 13 shillings, and Iraq 12 shillings while the total revenue of Iran for each ton of petroleum was 21 shillings 3 pence.

            If the loss of Iranian interests constitutes an honor, Mossadegh and its collaborators are allowed to be proud.

            Mossadegh was the principle actor in the coup d'état scenario.

            The coup d'état of August 19 was destined to divert the Iranian public opinion of the ill-fated consequences of the nationalization of petroleum towards the conflict between the paid agents of the English within Iranian society.

            In this affair the principle roles came back to Mohammad Réza Chah and Mossadegh.

            Colonialism succeeded in progressively eliminating the elements which could do no more than be useful to him and allow him to prepare the Iranian society in order to achieve his planned objectives…