The shifts in the Middle East and the Issue of Oil


We know that issues such as Iran's 19th August  coup in 1953 or the consecutive coups in Iraq were all closely related to oil issues, but I have tried, in the present essay, to assess the topic through a novel, or maybe an overlooked, point of view. The oil issue and its role in the regional Middle East or even in worldwide developments is more pivotal than what historians have highlighted as turning points in history, even though they may have been right in their choice.

Prior to the discovery of oil in Iran, India was the Western Capitalist World's first pick, but as oil wells erupted in Masjed Soleiman in 1908 (1287 Islamic Calender), oil turned out to become the focal determining factor in the geo-political and regional shifts in not only Iran but also in the Middle East; and not only in the Middle East but in the world. Indeed, oil companies existed before the discovery of oil in Iran: Netherland's Royal Dutch or the UK's Shell, for instance, which merged and formed the supreme, multinational Royal Dutch Shell Company during the constitutional movement in Iran in 1907. The Burma Oil Company was another active company operating in the Southeast Asia. Having been active since the 19th century, the Baku oil company worked in the Caucasus region whose main stockholders later formed the Royal Dutch Shell. It is worthy to note that the Standard Oil was another oil company which belonged to the Rockefellers. Why did I mention these companies? Because the competitions staged specifically by Standard Oil firms, on the one hand, and those posed by Royal Dutch Shell and the British Oil Company and the NIOC, established after all the aforesaid companies, on the other, radically affected the diplomatic relations in Iran and the Middle East.

Oil can be deemed as the number-one culprit for most of the political upheavals in the post-Constitutional Revolution Iran: the violation of Iran's territorial integrity during the WWI, the 22nd February coup in 1920, or, above all, the 19th August coup in 1953. I have mentioned crucial information about the role such rivalries have played in Iran's developments in my books the Constitutional Crisis in Iran, Iran from the Fall of the Constitutional to the 22nd February Coup and another one concerning Iran's transitions from 1920 to 1925 which, will hopefully be published within the next few months. But, the important thing is that these incidents are not exclusiveto our country. After the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the UK strived to isolate the Caucasus region, on the one hand, and the Central Asia, on the other, from the ailing Russian empire. But, why? The answer is: simply because of oil. The UK had set its greedy eyes on Baku’s oil resources. Moreover, as I have explained in the Constitutional Crisis in Iran, there are enormous oil reserves in Dagestan's Grozny whose immense developments cannot be overlooked. In Central Asia, Turkmenistan enjoyed humongous oil and gas reserves placing oil in the center of policy makings in that critical historic period. Likewise the newly-formed country of Iraq formerly known as the Mesopotamia should be considered. As the deficient Ottoman Empire toppled following the WWI, the UK directly took over two regions: First, Palestine and, second, Mesopotamia (Iraq). Palestine had a strategic importance and its domination would entail influence on the Arabic Middle East. Iraq, in contrast, was home to huge oil reserves, both in the region of Kurdistan and Basra in the south. In this regard, the sovereignty of the King Faisal House over Iraq and his brother Abdullah over Jordan should be looked into as well. There is ample evidence in the archives of Reza Khan's Ministry of War which confirms the dependence of the world authorities on oil for making their political decisions at that time. The documents even point to the stimulation of 1925 tribal riots of Khuzestan by the Angelo-Persian Oil Company. 

The oil debate influenced the political trends in the Middle East as it did in the Caucasus, the Central Asia and Iran: big decisions by the world powers about the political future of the Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the Emirate were completely hinged upon oil.

For better dominance over a specific part of the Middle East, the region was tacitly shared between big oil companies. For example, American oil companies, especially the Aramco, chose the Saudi Arabia as their territory, and Iranian oil turned into an absolute property of the British Petroleum Inc. while in Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, multinational companies like Royal Dutch Shell were the first to speak. In Iraq, the oil company was substantially dependant on the Angelo-Persian Oil Company. The Darcy Convention allowed the formation of subsidiary companies as affiliates to the main company by the profits drawn from the sale proceeds of Angelo-Persian Oil Company. If you study the history of oil in the Middle East countries, you'll see that the Iraq and Bahrain oil companies were founded primarily on the revenues drawn from Iran's oil, implying Iran's share in them. Sir Persi Cox, Iraq's caretaker, was in regular and organized contact with Sir Arnold Wilson, the then-head of the Angelo-Persian Oil Company. He (Cox) coordinated with the company his future plans on Iraq and even how he would deal with the Sheik Khaz'al issue. He disguised himself as Mandoub Sami to shield his British identity to prevent possible tribal sensitivities in Iraq. Another region where oil was considered the main political lever was Kurdistan. It's easy to explain: besides the strategic position of the Kurdish regions in Iran, Iraq and Turkey, the Kirkuk and Soleimaniyeh oil was a major determiner. The ownership of Kirkuk oil resources are still disputed by Iraq and Turkey. Why was Sami Mandou (or Sir Persi Cox) so eager to form up an autonomous Kurdish state? To defend ethnic minorities? Of course, not. It was just for oil and the strategic status of the region. Let me remind you of an important point here: the leaders of Iranian Kurds like Agha Simitghou (documents say) never succumbed to entering such unions; rather, they acceded to negotiations with Reza Khan, declared loyalty to the federal government and displayed no centrifugal tendencies. They really preserved Iran's territorial integrity by not submitting to agreements with the Brits despite the great pressure exerted by Cossacks.

Above and beyond all, the cause of tensions in the Middle East, especially between Kuwait and Iraqi government on the one hand and between Bahrain and Iran's federal government on the other, should be traced in the oil issue. We shall note that prior to the unfounded UN referendum in 1969, Bahrain was an indispensible part of Iran and its dissection was a result of oil-related policies. Oil has always been the chief factor in foreign politics of the Middle East region: occupation of Iran during the World War II, Britain's support for Rashid Ali Gilani's coup against the Faisal Government under the pretext of defending Fascism, regional military contracts such as Baghdad Pact in 1955 which was later renamed as the CENTO Treaty, and, by and large, many other small and big events.  The coup lead by Abdolkarim Ghasem against the Faisal regime in mid-50s, has its roots in the hardship of the cold war and fighting against British interests in Iraq's oil. These conflicts were partially resolved with Faisal coup.

What is more, since the Second World War, most oil and economy managers in the Middle East Region, especially in Iran, and the Persian Gulf Sheikhs, were British and American intelligence officials so far as oil turned into a security commodity for the capitalist world, especially after the WWII. The region was fraught with such security officials; Max Tutrnburg, an American oil broker and a Bahrain resident, who served as an advisor to the newly-established Plan and Budget Organization of Iran in the late 40s, is an example. To make a brief conclusion, we should reaffirm the point that many political assassinations, coups, crises and anomalies, dissection of lands, wars and assaults, and region crises in the Middle East have had, have and will have roots in oil-related issues.

Fountainhead: ketab-e mah-e tarikh va joghrafia (History & Geography Monthly), No. 141

By Hussein Abadian
Faculty member of the History Department of the University of Imam Khomeini (RA) in Qazvin

Translated by: Abbas Hajihashemi



 
Number of Visits: 4623


Comments

 
Full Name:
Email:
Comment:
 
Book Review

Kak-e Khak

The book “Kak-e Khak” is the narration of Mohammad Reza Ahmadi (Haj Habib), a commander in Kurdistan fronts. It has been published by Sarv-e Sorkh Publications in 500 copies in spring of 1400 (2022) and in 574 pages. Fatemeh Ghanbari has edited the book and the interview was conducted with the cooperation of Hossein Zahmatkesh.

Is oral history the words of people who have not been seen?

Some are of the view that oral history is useful because it is the words of people who have not been seen. It is meant by people who have not been seen, those who have not had any title or position. If we look at oral history from this point of view, it will be objected why the oral memories of famous people such as revolutionary leaders or war commanders are compiled.

Daily Notes of a Mother

Memories of Ashraf-al Sadat Sistani
They bring Javad's body in front of the house. His mother comes forward and says to lay him down and recite Ziarat Warith. His uncle recites Ziarat and then tells take him to the mosque which is in the middle of the street and pray the funeral prayer (Ṣalāt al-Janāzah) so that those who do not know what the funeral prayer is to learn it.

A Critique on Oral history of War Commanders

“Answering Historical Questions and Ambiguities Instead of Individual-Organizational Identification”
“Oral history of Commanders” is reviewed with the assumption that in the field of war historiography, applying this method is narrated in an advancing “new” way, with the aim of war historiography, emphasizing role of commanders in creation of its situations and details.