Hide Article Text (OCR)
NEW YORK. The Anglo-Iranian oil dispute remains a dangerous threat to international peace though it still is possible to say guardedly that it is susceptible of compromise. This controversy revolves about the Teheran government’s sensa tional nationalization of the huge petroleum concern, over the pro tests of Britain which owns the majority of stock. Britain long has operated this oil field and is dependent on the oil to maintain her vital Middle Eastern position. America also is concerned and, to a less degree, so are other Western powers. NATURALLY BRITAIN is fearful that this Iranian oil may slip away from her, especially since the Iranians themselves are incapable of working the field. This raises the danger of neigh boring Russia stepping in, since she long has had a yearning eye on this wealth of oil, as well as on a warm water port on the Per sian Gulf. The current position on thumbnail is this: The Teheran government fixed a seven-day deadline (in ef fect an ultimatum) for the pe troleum concern to start conver sations on ways and means of turning the company over to the Iranian government. Iran’s aged premier, Moham med Mossadegh, who frequently registers emotion with tears, de clared that Iran will “fight to the end” to carry out the nationaliza tion. And he wept as he said it. Britain announced she was sending her tough 16th Parachute Brigade to the Island of Cyprus, which lies in the Mediterranean within easy striking distance of Iran. P Secretary of State Acheson has appealed to Britain and Iran to sit down at a conference table and work out a peaceful settle ment. ‘Thus far, Iran has rejected all proposals for settlement by arbi tration. This brings us up to the ques tion of what Britain is justified in doing to maintain her position. Would she, for example, be war ranted in sending military forces into Iran to protect these great oil interests? THE BRITISH do not question the right of any government to nationalize commercial concerns. In fact it would be odd for the London Socialist regime to argue otherwise, since it is in process of nationalizing British industries. However, London does main tain that under the contract the Persian government in effect agreed not to exercise any such nationalization rights. A WIDESPREAD FEELING in Britain seems to be summed up accurately by Anthony Eden, dep uty leader of the great Conserva tive party, who declared that the country has been “pushed around a little too much of late”. He de clared that international obliga tions are being flouted in Iran, and added: “Giving away just internation al rights doesn’t win peace. That is appeasement at its worst. It is bad for us and bad for other countries, and it is bad for peace.” Well, assuming that this is sound argument, what may we expect Britain to do? At this writing informed sources lean to the belief that while Britain means business, she isn’t likely to take military action unless the lives of British nationals or the oil properties are threatened. THAT IS TO SAY, if the Iran ian government is capable of maintaining order, Britain may be expected to hold her hand. However, there is danger of ex tremists—inflamed by Red agents —getting control and precipitat ing a revolt. That might bring British troops into action. This is a moment of watchful waiting, but it is justifiable to repeat that Britain appears to mean business. And it is a grave crisis. (Associated Press Correspondence)
Newspaper Details
Portsmouth Times
Portsmouth, Ohio, US
Tue, May 29, 1951
Page 5
Full Page
Clipped by
Nicolas D.
USA 05 May 2026
Other Publications Near Portsmouth, Ohio
Portsmouth Weekly Times
Portsmouth Times
Portsmouth Valley Sentinel
Portsmouth Morning Sun
Portsmouth Daily Times
