Mosaddeq’s preoccupation with the nationalization of Iran’s oil sector derived from his belief that such a venture, once realized, could bring economic prosperity, national autonomy and political sovereignty in its wake. The loss of Abadan Oil Refinery dealt Britain’s prestige a stinging blow at a time when it was struggling to adapt itself to the disintegration of empire and come to terms with the ascendance of the US
Three recent publications provide a fresh perspective of the developments which resulted in the decline of British influence in the Gulf, and the subsequent rise of the US.
British strategy in the Middle East consolidated around a sustained effort to prevent any adversarial penetration into the Persian Gulf, defending its position athwart the principal lines of communication and supply between Northern Europe and British India, and to protect the newly discovered Persian oil that was used to power the Royal Navy
The historical experience of Imperial Britain as a dishonest and detrimental interference in Iran’s domestic politics and economy has fostered a lingering sense of suspicion in the collective memory of Iranians. Whether this image is gradually fading away and giving way to equally negative images of other foreign powers remains to be seen
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats share a deep-rooted ideological background. This vision is founded on the promotion of civil liberties over government expansion. Both are committed to making individuals responsible for their own lives, be this by a non-judgemental conception of individual morality or a smaller, less intrusive government. There is no reason to doubt the compatibility of the two parties.
The recent death of Corporal Sarah Bryant, the first British servicewoman to die on a “deliberate” operation in Afghanistan, attracted much attention from the UK print media. The tributes reveal wider cultural discomfort towards the death of a young, bright servicewoman as a direct result of conflict. They also demonstrate the significance of gender to the legitimation of the ‘war on terror’.
I believe in appreciating the EU for what it is: a uniquely well developed form of interstate cooperation focussed around a single market. Yet Europe could be made to suit us still better. Rather than playing on people’s fears of a power hungry EU that is the stuff of fiction, let us begin this task.
I have a point of view about government and regulation which is shared by the majority of my fellow countrymen and women. There is too much government, it is too expensive and too prescriptive, and too much regulation which often achieves the opposite of what it sets out to achieve. The EU is guilty of imposing unnecessary and cumbersome rules and regulations on the UK.
In addressing John Redwood’s claims about the European Union and the process of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, I will not dwell on the rank hypocrisy that characterizes much, if not most, British political debate on the latter issue. Suffice to say that it suffuses all three major parties. Rather, in considering what passes for the substance of Redwood’s critique, we must navigate a bewildering mélange of half truth and innuendo.
The whole process of the Lisbon Treaty’s ratification over recent weeks, both here and abroad, has revealed just how undemocratic a construct the EU project has become. In France the Treaty has now been rushed through without another referendum, despite clearly expressed hostility towards the Constitution, in order to avoid […]
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.
