The statement made in New York by Charles L. Harding, director in charge of Middle East affairs for Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., that the welfare of all nations is affected by the Anglo-Iranian oil nationalization, helps put the affair of Iran in proper perspective. [AIOC]

Harding said it also affects “perhaps the future of international conduct.”

This means American oil men have suddenly wakened to the inner meaning of what happened in Iran. Perhaps at first they’d hoped to profit from Britain’s embarrassments, but it turns out that if Britain loses that huge oil supply she may sink to the role of a second-rate power. Europe could be deprived of an essential war material in fact of an essential to its prosperity in peace.

But suppose other countries, not only those of the Middle East, were to follow Iran’s example? Americans have billions at stake in the development of oil in Iraq and elsewhere. What becomes of those billions?

Few deny the right of Iran or any nation to nationalize oil or any other resource. And it can be argued that the British-owned oil company could have paid much higher royalties. But the fainting fanatic, Mossadegh, prime minister of Iran, has little call on western sympathies. [Biased much?] Incidental to extracting oil, Anglo-Iranian brought better living to those Iranians whose lives it touched but corrupt government prevented the benefit of its royalty payments from reaching the masses. In the same way they’ll be prevented from reaping real advantages from nationalization.

The same Mossadegh who knows how to rouse mobs and control parliaments is a wealthy landowner whose government has sabotaged land reforms started by Iran’s shah to benefit the peasant class. Recently, too, his government brought in electoral “reforms” which practically disfranchise the illiterate urban workers and give even greater power to the landowners. [On the contrary, Mossadegh proposed voting rights for the illiterate]

It is easy to see who’ll benefit financially by Iran’s oil grab.