posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 08:15 PM
I am a firm believer that economics determines how people act. Therefor I would say my biggest perceived difference between SA and Iran results from
their respective attitudes towards the west regarding FDI and its profits.
Where does this stem from?
Sometime after WWII, America signed a deal with Saudi Arabia in which they agreed that half of their oil profits would go the state (as they own the
land), and the other half would go to America (who had the means to extract the oil in an efficient way). At the time one of the fairest FDI profit
sharing offers to any Middle Eastern oil producing state.
Now, at the same time, British Petroleum (still a crown company), was extracting oil in Iran. The Iranians demanded a similar 50/50 deal from BP (as
they were in a scheme more like 20/80 - not to mention BPs blatant manipulation of their accounting). BP, and by extension the British government,
said no. This sparked the whole nationalization movement in Iran, which eventually created so much instability that the US was forced (in their
minds) to help the British intervene, eventually leading to the installation of a puppet Shah. We all know the rest from there.
I think if the British had just played fair from the beginning (comparatively to the Americans), this whole situation would not exist. The Iranians
and Saudis would both be happily collecting their oil dollars, while still staying on good terms with the west. I just find it absolutely amazing
that America doing a good thing in SA created a situation leading up to what we have today.
Granted, whether or not it is better to be in SAs position versus Irans position is a whole other debate.
Often of note in this whole thing is that Kermit Roosevelt, son of President Teddy, was the CIA man in charge of the Coup that installed the puppet
[edit on 19-4-2008 by WuTang]