Iran: Familiar story of power, oil and intervention

2026-03-27 - 01:33

The present conflict in Iran tells a familiar tale of resource control and political manipulation. In 1923, despite Iran’s claims to Bahrain—later raised before the League of Nations—Britain consolidated its authority by maintaining Bahrain as a protectorate. It also intervened in governance, pressuring Isa ibn Ali Al Khalifa to abdicate in favour of his son to secure more compliant leadership. Observers such as Basile Nikitine argued that British dominance rested less on legal legitimacy than on strategic control—of sea routes, aviation networks, and, crucially, oil. Bahrain functioned as a vital link in this system, much like the Strait of Hormuz does today. Iran’s efforts to assert sovereignty—revoking foreign aviation rights, renegotiating oil concessions and strengthening its navy—were often framed as destabilising threats to imperial interests. The 1906 Persian constitution was established following the Persian Constitutional Revolution, transforming the absolute monarchy into a parliamentary system headed by a prime minister. By the 1920s, Iran began challenging British oil dominance. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (now BP) built one of the world’s largest refineries, but Iranian citizens saw limited benefit. In 1951, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh brought sweeping changes and nationalised the oil industry. Britain declared an oil embargo, which crippled Iran’s economy and internal opposition mounted from conservative factions, segments of the military and the monarchy. What followed was one of the clearest examples of modern regime change. In 1953, Mossadegh was overthrown in a covert operation organised by British and American intelligence services. Financial support was funnelled to media outlets, political actors and elements within the military to destabilise his government. The coup restored authority to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, illustrating how democratic movements could be sidelined when they conflicted with strategic and economic priorities. Reza became the Shah after his father was forced to abdicate his throne when Russia and Britain found the senior Shah too sympathetic to Germany during World War II. Like his father, he pushed to modernise Iran into a more cosmopolitan country. He allowed women to vote, and hijab wearing became voluntary, which was resisted by the clergy. He believed in the coexistence of Palestine and Israel. Both the CIA and Mossad trained his secret police service (SAVAK), which became notorious for systematic torture and repression. However, he spoke out against the Israel lobby in the US, stating they had financial power, controlled the press and influenced power in the US—a narrative still repeated today. He was viewed as an ally against both communist and Arab threats. The fear of a communist or clerical push for a theocracy always existed. He also spoke out against Muslim religious fanaticism. He obtained weapons from the United States in exchange for oil. The US defence industry gained tremendously. He, like Mohammad Mossadegh,later spoke out about the oil companies making ‘parasitic profits‘. He influenced oil price increases via OPEC, which angered some in the US, who accused him of fuelling their inflation. Instead of remaining the darling of the West, he was increasingly portrayed as authoritarian and corrupt by the press. Groups were funded to create chaos, and the US became willing to work with Prime Minister Bakhtiar. Historian Ervand Abrahamian said, “The Shah owed his throne to foreign intervention.” Over time, resentment grew—not just toward the Shah, but toward the foreign powers seen as sustaining him. By 1979, that resentment exploded into revolution. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was declared leader. He was often given prominence in Western media, with the apparent mindset being that a religious nation would thwart a communist takeover. Khomeini soon declared an Islamic republic, abolished the prime minister role, and demanded the US leave its weapons in Iran. Iran then became a nation supporting Islamic fundamentalist groups. Today, when we look at the conflict in Iran, with the Shah’s son being touted as a possible leader, we see the same old story. Calculated regime changes, the influence of oil and defence industry magnates, and the disregard for sovereign interests illustrate that the dynamics of political ideology, financial interest and religious ideology will continue to instigate wars. Understanding this history underscores a key lesson: present conflicts are rarely isolated. They are part of longer narratives in which sovereignty, economic power and political influence remain deeply contested.