And left without one. And their coup failed. My condolences. The best kind of vassal. Rule britannia. The British have been one of the most erosive forces in the history of politics. They built a nightmare in Europe and paid the butcher's bill. Nothing the British have done has mattered to anyone but the British since '56.But that's my point - the British had a huge stake in Iranian oil. They asked the CIA to get involved precisely because they had such a huge stake.
The British planned the coup. It was their idea.
I live in the United Kingdom.
I can tell you that the sentiments about American politics, even amongst the political elites, do not seem to point towards anything resembling a vassal or a proxy.
I agree with the idea that we dismantled the British Empire for our own benefit but I think you are being needlessly dismissive of an entire country's sovereignty.
Not unlike the US since 9/11. And you certainly seem to have them beat at that game.They seem to have spent the past 30 years doubling down on fear, however
I was talking less about state surveillance (but yes, it's apalling. Especially infuriating is how they don't even think it's an issue.) but more about political rhetoric and things like the patriot act/ invading whole countries. You can't deny that the invasion of Iraq was based on fearmongering - remember those weapons of mass destruction?
Believe it or not, I'm arguing that the invasion of Iraq was a lot more "business as usual" in the course of empire than an anomaly. Vietnam was justified by the Gulf of Tonkin incident. We did the same thing with the war in the Philippines, the Mexican American war, etc. We've always been trigger-happy.
True dat. Regardless, the fact that the British went from a 100% stake in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company to a 40% stake - particularly when they were willing to overthrow the government rather than take a 50% stake - is hardly a win. Especially when that oil is extracted under the government of an American puppet state.his has gotten horribly off-topic, I'm afraid!
Aye but considering that the Americans themselves got about ~12%, it does put things into perspective as well - the British had to 'share the wealth', as it were, mostly with other European countries like France and Italy. I agree that the we completely restructured the dynamic of our alliance with the British after WWII, but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree when it comes to the extent of that change in dynamic! (Interestingly enough, we were very much in favor of the Iranians and the British splitting profits from oil sales 50/50 but both Churchill and Mossadegh rejected that. We even went through the International Court of Justice! Geez, things have changed since then, heh.)
Mmmm.... Wikipedia's math is a little different than yours. - BP (UK) - 40% - Gulf (US) - 8% - Royal Dutch Shell (UK/ND) - 14% - Total SA (FR) - 6% - Chevron (USA) - 8% - Exxon (USA) - 8% - Mobil (USA) - 8% - Texaco (USA) - 8% That's 40%.
Ah so it is - I was just working off my (clearly outdated) memory. 40/40/20 between the UK, US, and Europe still doesn't quite point to a hegemonic dominance of the oil on our part, though. Interestingly enough, the proportions of stakes of Iranian oil were pretty similar to the stakes in the Iraq Petroleum Company - I'd probably wager the Americans wanted to keep up the status quo in the region by emulating what had been arranged in Iraq.