Mossadeq Out — Shah (& Anglo-lranian?) In
From ‘Freedom: Anarchist Weekly’, August 29, 1953, London, UK
Events in Persia have moved with a rapidity which has startled political commentators. Most of them have shown little grasp of affairs and only a superficial analysis of the political struggle which recent weeks have brought to a head. It was not perhaps to be expected that the mass circulation papers would do otherwise than make sensational accounts of the Shah’s creased suit and his Queen’s torn dress, only to turn attention again to the “weeping [illegible text] Mossadeq” a few days later.
But it is more surprising to find such papers as the New York Times or the Manchester Guardian so completely in the dark. The former, in an editorial written after the apparent failure of General Zahedi’s attempted coup of August 16, described Mossadeq as having made himself “absolute dictator of Iran”. The Manchester Guardian on August 18 declared that he held “in an iron grasp the reins of all the effective forces in the country — the army, the police, the town mobs, the electoral machine . . .” Yet the next day, Mossadeq was under arrest.
Events in Persia were discussed in Freedom at the time of the nationalization of oil and the expropriation of the Anglo-lranian Oil Company’s £300,000,000 plant at Abadan. Control of Persian oil was clearly not simply the interest of the Persians and the Anglo-lranian. British government was obviously involved, but the United States and Russia were also keenly interested parties. Hence a variety of very powerful factors were operated behind domestic politics in Persia.
British Imperialism Can Wait
The apparent ease with which Mossadeq and the Persian Nationalists took over the Anglo-lranian Company was widely regarded at the time as evidence of the degeneration of British Imperialism (under the Labour Party) into a spent force. Others saw the British Government as in the pocket of the United States, having to go cap in hand asking for help. Freedom did not subscribe to these views. British Imperialism has the longest history and the most experience of any international force except perhaps the Roman Catholic Church. American and Russian power may have increased in the international sphere, but that does not mean that British Imperialism has fallen back into insignificance. Freedom ventured to doubt the completeness of Mossadeq’s apparent success with the oil fields. British oil interests could afford to wait.
How different was the weighing of economic interests has been shown in the event. In two years Persian economy has been brought to virtual bankruptcy. One of the contributory causes of Mossadeq’s fall was the fact that government salaries had in many instances not been paid. Virtually no oil had been sold and the government’s income of £16,000,000 annually from Abadan had ceased. How different the situation of Anglo-lranian! In 1952 it paid a dividend of 30 per cent, and despite the loss of a three hundred million pound capital asset it paid a cash bonus of one shilling per one pound share! The nationalists may have won in prestige, but relative economic strength was very different.
The Shah has said that Persia needs economic help from abroad in the shape of an outright gift. But such things are unknown except as propaganda. Such a “gift” may materialize and the giver fix no interest payable, yet conditions will in fact be attached. Similarly with the oil nationalization, the decree may not be reversed for political reasons, but it will be surprising indeed if British technicians do not return to Abadan and some measure of control be retained by British oil interests.
Behind the Scenes
So far there have been no reliable reports of affairs behind the scenes in the governmental reshuffle in Persia. If the Manchester Guardian and the New York Times are so poorly informed it is hardly likely that Freedom could have such information. Our analysis as always is made on what we know of the general principles of power and politics, and must remain general.
One can be quite certain that the British government (and also the other great powers) has been seeking to secure an outcome favourable to British oil interests in Persia, but no direct evidence is yet available as to how the recent coup was engineered. Indirect negative evidence is to be inferred however from the line taken by the Times, that powerful paper with an insignificant circulation which has nevertheless possessed almost a diplomatic corps of its own.
While other papers were making fools of themselves over Persia, the Times never committed itself in an editorial comment at all last week. One suspects that the Times knew much about the interior moves in the game and preferred to await the outcome, rather than join in the uninformed comments of mere ignorant spectators.
Socialists’ Line
A curious commentary is provided by Michael Foot’s article in Tribune. So concerned is he to denounce British Imperialism — though his article is the only one generally in the press to indicate an awareness of the strength and persistence of Imperialism — that he finds it necessary to praise Mossadeq as an “honest, skillful, if stubborn champion of Persian Nationalism”.
Socialists of the left are still hypnotized by nationalist aspirations. They give the impression that any opponent of Imperialism must therefore be seen as an ally. (Some anarchists even took this view over Indian nationalism ten years ago). Michael Foot seems to forget Mossadeq’s imprisonment of opponents, suppression of free speech and press (such as they ever existed in Persia), and manipulating of elections on the Soviet-Nazi pattern.
Nor should one forget General Zahedi’s flirtation with Nazism. The truth is of course that they are all to some extent puppets of one great power or another. Mossadeq attempted to “use” the Persian Communist (Tudeh) Party for his own ends, but once again such embraces turn out to be the kiss of death for there seems little doubt that fear of Russia made many Persian interests see Britain as the lesser evil and so unite to play into the hands of British policy.
Nevertheless the struggle still goes on, for countries like Iran are so placed strategically that they can never know peace while the great powers continue — as they must — to plan, for advantage.
Also
Anarchists & Fellow Travellers on Palestine
Anarchists on National Liberation
Anarchism and Revolutionary Defeatism, by K. C. Sinclair (2025)
British Army of Oppression Crushes Eastern Freedom, by Marie Louise Berneri (1945)
Man-Made Famines, by Marie Louise Berneri (1943)
Palestine: Idealists and Capitalists, by Vernon Richards (1938)
Terrorism In Palestine: “Democracy” at Work, by Vernon Richards (1937)
Our Foreign Policy, by Errico Malatesta (1914)
Imperialism: Monster of the Twentieth Century, by Kōtoku Shūsui (1901)