a good read by the brits: http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > 1. I don't remember who said in an earlier thread that there was a > democratically elected government in Iran in 1953, that is incorrect. > > 2. There was an attempt to nationalize the oil industry in Iran in the > early 1950s, as well as a threat of a communist takeover of the Nation by > Soviet backed political groups withn Iran. Once again, *See* The Truman > Doctrine. > > 3. There was in fact an Iranian military in 1953, (and prior to that > also) to include an Iranian Navy, Army and even an Air Force. It is true > that most of the Iranian Navy was destroyed in WWII, but was rebuilt > especially under the Shah. Just as important, (and what I was mainly > referring to in my post above) was that during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, > there was clearly a military. > > 4. Whether there was an Iranian military or not, the logistics of the > area is what is critical. Today, the Iranians can pretty much end Persian > Gulf oil shipments, by closing down the Persian Gulf. > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The US had no investment in oil in the 1950's a few corporations did. >> Iran had no naval or armed forces to speak of in the 1950's nor did any >> other country in the area. Egypt, who had and has no oil had the cat by the >> tail... the Suez... and they closed it by sinking a few ships in it due to >> undue western "influence" over oil in the area. >> >> There is never anything prudent about interfering in the internal policies >> of another nation over oil. Iraq who produces more and exports more oil than >> Iran then and again now was shut down for 8 years with little to no effect >> on the price of oil and the US ended up with squat... including the >> mysterious WMDs. >> >> >> The question of oil imports presented U.S. policymakers with a strategic >> dilemma. If what would be needed in an emergency was a rapid increase in >> production, oil in the ground was of little use, and even proved reserves >> would not be particularly helpful. The need could only be filled by spare >> productive capacity. Too high a level of imports would undercut such >> capacity by driving out all but the lowest cost producers. Moreover, >> reliance on imports, especially from the Middle East, was risky from a >> security standpoint because of the chronic instability of the region and its >> vulnerability to Soviet attack. However, restricting imports and encouraging >> the increased use of a nonrenewable resource would eventually under-mine the >> goal of maintaining spare productive capacity and preserving a national >> defense reserve. >> >> Rising oil imports led to demands by domestic producers and the coal >> industry for protection against cheaper foreign oil. In contrast, the >> President's Materials Policy Commission, appointed by President Truman in >> January 1951 and headed by the chairman of the Columbia Broadcasting System, >> William S. Paley, had called for a policy of ensuring access to the >> lowest cost sources of supply wherever located. The commission's report, >> issued in June 1952, rejected national self-sufficiency in favor of >> interdependence, arguing that the United States had to be concerned about >> the needs of its allies for imported raw materials and about the needs of >> pro-Western less developed countries for markets for their products. Although >> the commission admitted that self-sufficiency in oil and other vital raw >> materials was possible, it argued that it would be very expensive, that the >> controls necessary to make it possible would interfere with trade, that it >> would undercut the goal of rebuilding and integrating western Europe and >> Japan under U.S. auspices, and that it would increase instability in the >> Third World by limiting export earnings. >> >> Nevertheless, after attempts to implement voluntary oil import >> restrictions failed, the Eisenhower administration, in March 1959, >> imposed mandatory import quotas, with preferences given to Western >> Hemisphere sources. Although the Mandatory Oil Import Program (MOIP) seemed >> to be a victory for advocates of national self-sufficiency, the result, >> ironically, was to make the United States more dependent on oil imports in >> the long run because the restrictions meant that increases in U.S. >> consumption were met mainly by domestic production. >> Great policies that are contingent first on the needs of others without >> assuring their own position continues to be the US policy today. >> >> Read more: Coping with change - >> Oil<http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Oil-Coping-with-change.html#ixzz1VUL0Frou> >> >> http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Oil-Coping-with-change.html#ixzz1VUL0Frou >> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Keith In Tampa >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> The United States has not only a duty, but an inherent right to >>> "intervene" when its interests or citizens are threatened or somehow placed >>> in jeopardy. Collectively, our Nation has used great restraint, and its not >>> as if the United States is known for sticking its nose in other Nations' >>> business or affairs, unless our liberty interests are somehow affected. >>> >>> The support of the Shah and his family was a prudent political move and >>> kept stability in that Nation for almost thirty years. A Nation that >>> America had an abundance of interests in, (as did Great Britain) as Iran >>> supplied the bulk of crude oil to the West in the 1950s, and we had a ton of >>> money invested in that oil, its exploration, the technology to retrieve it, >>> and the supply chain to get the product to market. Just as important, >>> geopolitically, Iran sits at the Straights of Hormuz, and it was critical >>> especially during the 1950s and 1960s that the Persian Gulf and the >>> Straights of Hormuz remain a viable shipping lane. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Mark M. Kahle H.* >> * >> * >> * >> * >> >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- *Mark M. Kahle H.* * * * * -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
