1954 Oil Agreement Iran

But Reza Shah should soon assert his authority by dramatically interfering in the negotiations. The monarch attended a meeting of the Council of Ministers in November 1932 and, after publicly dictating to Teymourtash his inability to reach an agreement, he dictated a letter to the cabinet in which he abandoned the D`Arcy Agreement. The Iranian government told APOC that it would end further negotiations and requested the lifting of the D`Arcy concession. The UK government opposed the annulment, supported the appeal on behalf of APOC and took the dispute to the Permanent International Court of Justice in The Hague, saying it considered itself “justified in taking all measures that the situation might require to protect the company”. The Permanent International Court of Justice was a tool of the League of Nations, itself dominated by the victors of the First World War. At that time, Hassan Taqizadeh was appointed Iran`s new minister to take responsibility for the oil file. In modern political history, Taqizadeh is known as a secular politician who believed that “Iran should be Europeanized externally and internally, in body and mind.” [14] Taqizadeh was too familiar to the British to say that the cancellation was only intended to speed up negotiations and that withdrawing from the negotiations would constitute political suicide for Iran. On March 7, 1953, a statement was issued in Washington stating that the U.S. government considered the February 20, 1953 proposals to be just and reasonable and in line with the principle of oil nationalization, but on March 20, Mo򽸳addeq gave a radio speech rejecting the February 20 proposals. As a last resort, Moṣaddeq wrote to President Eisenhower, who had followed Truman, asking for financial assistance. Eisenhower`s response came in a letter that Henderson delivered to Mo𒿓addeq on July 3. In that letter, Eisenhower Moṣaddeq rejected the request for aid on the grounds that it would not be fair to spend U.S.

taxpayers` money to support Iran, which could have access to funds from the sale of oil if a reasonable agreement was reached on compensation. This letter definitively closed the door to negotiations with Moṣaddeq (Bamberg, pp. 473-87). Dr. Moṣaddeq`s inability to resolve the oil dispute coincided with a serious deterioration in economic conditions and a deterioration in the domestic political situation in Iran. . . .

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.