Walk through the bustling bazaar of Tehran today, past the scent of saffron and the murmur of Persian poetry, and you’ll feel a current beneath the surface – a deep, enduring wariness towards London and Washington. It isn’t mere paranoia; it’s forged in the fiery crucible of history, a story where oil, sovereignty, and betrayal intertwined to shatter Iran’s faith in Western promises. To understand Iran’s present stance, one must trace the black gold that stained its soil and its soul.
The tale begins not with revolution, but with a concession. In 1901, a financially strained Qajar Shah, desperate for funds, granted British entrepreneur William Knox D’Arcy exclusive rights to explore, exploit, and sell Iran’s vast petroleum reserves for 60 years. The terms were scandalously lopsided: Iran received a mere 16% of net profits (later reduced to a pitiful fixed sum), while Britain, through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC, later BP), reaped colossal wealth from a resource that lay beneath Iranian feet. For decades, APOC operated as a state within a state, its British managers living in privileged enclaves, Iranian workers paid fractions of their British counterparts’ wages, and the lion’s share of Iran’s nascent oil wealth flowing steadily to London. This wasn’t just business; it was economic colonialism, a constant reminder that Iran’s greatest natural bounty was not its own.
By the late 1940s, nationalism stirred. Iran, having narrowly avoided outright colonisation during WWII, watched as neighbouring Saudi Arabia negotiated a lucrative 50/50 profit split with Aramco. Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, a revered nationalist and democrat, rose on a wave of popular demand: Iran deserved half the profits from its own oil. In 1951, parliament unanimously voted to nationalise the APOC facilities. Mosaddegh wasn’t a communist; he was a secular liberal seeking economic justice and true independence. Britain, however, saw red – not the red of revolution, but the red of threatened profits and imperial prestige. APOC’s income constituted a significant chunk of Britain’s post-war economy. London’s response was swift and vicious: a global boycott of Iranian oil, freezing of Iranian assets abroad, and relentless diplomatic pressure, portraying Mosaddegh as a Soviet puppet (a blatant falsehood, as he fiercely opposed both communism and monarchy).
Desperate and isolated, Iran’s pleas for fair negotiation fell on deaf British ears. Britain, unable to crush Iran alone, turned to its nascent superpower ally: the United States. Initially wary, the Truman administration sympathised with Iran’s plight. But the election of Eisenhower in 1952 changed everything. Fuelled by Cold War paranoia and slick British lobbying (which exaggerated the communist threat while downplaying Mosaddegh’s popular support), the US agreed to joint action. Operation Ajax was born. In August 1953, a CIA-MI6 operation, involving bribes, propaganda, street agitators, and the strategic deployment of tanks, successfully toppled Mosaddegh’s democratically elected government. The Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, fled briefly but returned triumphantly, his throne now firmly rested on the bayonets of foreign powers.
The immediate aftermath was a bitter pill sweetened only by illusion. Under US-British pressure, Iran agreed to a new consortium: APOC (now 40% British, 40% American, 20% other European) would manage Iranian oil, and Iran would receive 50% of the profits. On paper, it was the 50/50 split Mosaddegh had demanded. In reality, Iran had no real control over operations, pricing, or production levels – the foreign consortium held all the keys. The nation’s sovereignty over its most vital resource remained a facade, administered by the very powers that had just destroyed its democratic experiment. The Shah, now utterly dependent on Washington and London for his survival, launched a frenetic, authoritarian modernisation campaign (the White Revolution), alienating traditional clerics, bazaaris, and the rural poor while lavishing wealth on a Westernized elite. The secret police, SAVAK, trained and equipped by the CIA and Mossad, became synonymous with terror.
This is the direct lineage to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The revolution wasn’t merely a religious uprising; it was a explosive rejection of nearly half a century of perceived foreign domination and corrupt, puppet rule. The memory of Mosaddegh’s overthrow – the moment Britain and America actively destroyed Iran’s chance at peaceful, secular self-determination – was a potent rallying cry for Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers. They framed the Shah’s regime not just as corrupt, but as foreign-imposed, illegitimate because it owed its existence to the very powers that had stolen Iran’s oil and its democracy. The revolution’s fervent anti-Americanism and deep suspicion of British motives weren’t born in a vacuum; they were the logical, trauma-filled outcome of 1953.
This historical wound festers in Iran’s contemporary worldview. Current problems – the US-Iran war, crippling US sanctions, regional proxy conflicts, and the pervasive belief that Western diplomacy is inherently duplicitous – are viewed through this lens. When the US withdrew from the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) in 2018, reimposing sanctions that crippled Iran’s economy, many Iranians didn’t see merely a see a policy shift; they saw a replay of the 1951-53 oil boycott – economic warfare designed to force submission. When Britain, France, and Germany struggle to act as independent mediators in talks with Iran, their historical role as architects of the 1953 coup and long-time beneficiaries of Iranian oil had already cast a long shadow, making genuine trust extraordinarily difficult. The USA’s current illegal war upon Iran has made the situation infinitely worse. The narrative isn’t that Iran is inherently antagonistic (even though the repercussions of these events have led to a brutal terrorist dictatorship taking hold of Iran) it’s that the foundational experience of modern Iran-West relations – the theft of sovereignty, the crushing of democracy for oil, and the installation of a tyrant propped up by foreign power – taught a painful, enduring lesson: that engagement with Britain and America often means surrendering control, and that their promises of partnership are frequently preceded by the shadow of the derrick and the sting of betrayal. For Iran, the past isn’t prologue; it’s the very ground they stand on, and it remains slick with oil and mistrust.
—
See also: Aljazeera: Iran: The Making of a War. (Shockingly this programme states that US companies provided the constituent parts necessary to create the Sarin gas that was used by America’s ally, Saddam Hussain, in his proxy war on Iran.)
—
