This week, Iranian worshipers gathered for the first Friday prayers since the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. For most mourners, Khamenei was the only ruler they had ever known. After 36 years as Iran's supreme leader (plus eight as president), the octogenarian was one of the world's longest-serving heads of state.
He was just over 10 when Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized his country's oil, angering England, which had controlled most of it for decades. He was a teenager when the Eisenhower administration and British intelligence worked together to overthrow the democratically elected Mossadegh. He was in leadership when the Reagan administration openly supported Iraq while secretly selling weapons to Iran during the Iraq-Iran War.
Khamenei's worldview was shaped in part by witnessing colonial history between his oil-rich nation and the West.
Iran's regime change occurred at the beginning of this war. However, as demonstrated by the mourners who marched through the streets of Tehran carrying portraits of Khamenei and shouting anti-US chants along the way, a change in our relationship with the country will take much longer. Bombs can tear down the present and reshape the future, but they can never change the past. And just as we in the United States have important dates we commemorate (D-Day, July 4, and September 11), the day the United States and Israel killed Khamenei will be no more forgotten than the overthrow of Mossadegh.
The Trump administration's handling of a closer oil-rich nation, Venezuela, is likely to fuel similar animosity.
What drove a wedge between the British government and the Iranian people during the Mossadegh era was money. England refused to split the profits from the oil it was extracting 50-50. Not only did Iran receive less than 20% of the profits, but its people were also subject to poor conditions. In 1950, when Saudi Arabia negotiated a 50-50 split with American oil companies, Mossadegh sought the same for Iran. When England said no, Iran took control of oil operations within its borders. The United States attempted to negotiate a compromise between the two nations, but ultimately sided with England, leading to a coup in 1953 that overthrew Mossadegh. We have been fighting with Iran for much of the seven decades since.
Now the Trump administration is in charge of Venezuela's oil, in the same way that England controlled Iran's. This is not to say that the capture of Nicolás Maduro, a violent strongman who oppressed dissidents, will not benefit the Venezuelan people. Khamenei's death could also help progressive Iranian society. But history shows that when it comes to oil, being saved by a Western imperialist comes with its own complications.
Neither we nor the people of Venezuela know for sure whether the proceeds from future oil sales will be divided equally or whether the Trump administration intends to take advantage of a considerable advantage. What we do know is that before Saudi Arabia achieved its equal division in 1950, Venezuela was the first oil-producing country in the world to force such an agreement, in 1948. It is naive to think that the same nation that began the global fight for internal control of oil has forgotten its own history and will simply surrender to external demands. It is arrogant to think that the South American country that worked with Middle Eastern nations to form the OPEC consortium in 1960 – expressly to fight Western control of oil – will now allow a foreign nation to plunder its natural resources without resistance.
In addition to oil, this week Doug Burgum, US Secretary of the Interior, indicated that the United States also wants access to Venezuela's minerals and gold, many of which can be found on protected lands that include tropical forests. Again, if the profits from the excavation are divided equally, perhaps there will be an opportunity to normalize the relationship between the nations, even if this opportunity arose because Trump militarily forced a regime change. However, if the United States insists on a huge share of the loot; if we insist on letting the majority of the people of Venezuela suffer financially as England took advantage of Iran a century ago; and if we take Trump at his word and consider doing something similar in Cuba, we may make a profit.
But we will not see peace.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Perspectives
Perspectives from the LA Times offers AI-generated analysis of Voices content to provide all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news articles.
point of view
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. Content is not created or edited by the Los Angeles Times editorial staff.
Ideas expressed in the piece.
-
The United States has repeatedly intervened in oil-rich nations under the guise of foreign policy while primarily seeking to control or exploit those nations' natural resources, a pattern exemplified by the 1953 CIA-backed coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and now reflected in the Trump administration's approach toward Venezuela.[1][3].
-
Historical context shapes nations' long-term relationships with the United States, as evidenced by how Iranians, who witnessed the overthrow of their democratically elected leader when Mossadegh sought a fair 50-50 profit split on oil revenues similar to what Saudi Arabia achieved, remain hostile to the United States decades later.[1][3].
-
Venezuela's position as the world's first oil-producing nation to force an equitable profit-sharing agreement in 1948, and its role in founding OPEC in 1960 to resist Western control of its resources, means the country will not passively accept American dominance over its oil, mineral and gold reserves.[3].
-
If the Trump administration seizes a huge share of Venezuela's resources instead of ensuring a fair distribution of profits with the Venezuelan people, the result will resemble England's colonial exploitation of Iran, creating long-term animosity that transcends the benefits of regime change.[3].
-
Bombs and military intervention can reshape the present, but they cannot erase historical grievances, meaning that even if removing Nicolás Maduro benefits Venezuelans in the short term, US imperialist control of resources will create complications for future relations.[3].
Different points of view on the subject.
-
The removal of Nicolás Maduro, described as a violent strongman who oppressed dissidents, represents a potential benefit for the Venezuelan people that may overcome historical concerns about Western intervention.[3].
-
The Trump administration's focus on national security and foreign policy interests, including preventing adversaries from gaining influence in strategic regions and accessing critical resources, reflects legitimate government concerns that extend beyond colonial exploitation.[2].
