[lazide]

You’re all missing the point.

Iran’s oil company was mostly owned by foreign interests (eventually just the British Gov’t) and the Shah (king). [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company]

It was never meaningfully privately owned while it was producing, and the British (and Russians!) eventually just forced a coup - before being overthrown by a democratic government, which was then overthrown by the Shah (with the help of the CIA), which was then overthrown by the Ayatollahs in turn.

Because foreign interests were taking almost all the profits and abusing their position.

At no point, including today, were the common people of Iran meaningfully in control of the oil or had anything resembling a meaningful ownership stake.

Though there is significant socialized benefits under most modern regimes, where oil and energy costs are dramatically subsidized, and revenues get pushed into the economy in various make work type schemes.

This is similar to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. though with varying flavors of current socio/religious ruling framework.

It’s essentially buying population compliance through bribes of cheap energy and easy jobs, and it’s not just the Middle East that does it. The vast majority of oil producing nations do it.

Though notably, Russia is pretty bad at actually delivering to the population, despite being a major exporter.

Also Notably? That oil company became what is now known as British Petroleum, or BP.

[wesselbindt]

Your comment seems to be predicated on a falsehood, namely that the Iranian oil industry was not meaningfully privately owned. I hate to play wikipedia here, but see the first line in

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization_of_the_Irani...

[lazide]

Read my Wikipedia link. It was owned by Britain and the Shah - who was defacto ruler of Iran. Everyone else had been pushed out at that point.

Which the article you linked to doesn’t dispute. It also provides no examples of any other private owners, interestingly.

Can you provide any?

The talking point of ‘theft! Theft!’ was one justification the CIA used to overthrow the democracy. Which hey, usually most nationalizations are. And this one basically was.

But in context, it was kicking out abusive control. Which, for anyone familiar with abusers, is the worst thing someone can do. And so, the expected outcome occurred.

Then, when it got bad again, the Ayatollahs came in and counter-reacted. But have managed to keep control, albeit with some messy incidents.

And everyone has been angry since, with Iran working to sabotage US and British interests, and US and British interests working to sabotage the Iranians.

[wesselbindt]

Ah yeah for sure. It was largely controlled by the Anglo-Persian Oil company, which was a private company. Even worse for the Iranians, it was mostly foreign owned. The second example I have of a private individual owning it is of course the Shah.

Also, taking back your natural resources from former colonizers is theft as much as me getting my stolen bike back is.

[lazide]

Anglo-Persian was majority owned and controlled by the British gov’t at the time, as per the link I posted (and the BBC).

“Shortly before World War I, Anglo-Persian managed to find a new backer - and good customer.

After lengthy negotiations, the oilmen promised Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, secure supplies of oil.

In exchange the British government injected £2m of new capital into the company, acquired a controlling interest and became de-facto the hidden power behind the oil company.”

Anglo-Persian was no more a private company at the time than In-Q-Tel [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel].

So your ‘stealing back my bicycle’ analogy is even more apt than you’re giving it credit for, IMO.