The difference between Iran and Venezuela is an example of the difference between British and American ways of doing business. British imperialism at the expense of foreign people has brought about a natural reaction throughout the world, of which the Iranian situation is a part. The economic policy of American companies under private enterprise, on the other hand, has developed both the people and the country wherever it reaches.

England would be having less trouble with Iran today if it had been fairer to the Iranian people. Iran takes less in royalties from her oil than Britain takes in taxes from the company that distributes the oil. The British navy steams on Iranian oil, yet Iran does not know how much oil the navy gets nor how much, if anything, the navy pays the Anglo-Iranian firm for that oil.

Iran, somewhat like the Oklahoma Indian, has wanted to live in a fashion commensurate with her oil, so she asked the World Bank to lend her $25 million to buy a Rolls Royce economy. President Truman gave Iran Point IV aid and the state department asked the bank to make the desired loan. But Iran, owning nothing but royalties and little know-how, is no credit risk. [??] The loan terms could not be met. Meanwhile the bank has lent $1.1 billion to 20 other nations in the last five years.

Stymied at the bank, Iran decided to nationalize her oil. Fairer royalties and plowing back some of them into a productive economy might have made a Venezuela of Iran.

U.S. oil interests have paid rich royalties in Venezuela but also have built industries, roads, pipelines, refineries, hospitals, schools, churches and cities—for Venezuelans. For the last four years, Venezuela has been the fourth largest customer for U.S. goods—cars, telephones, refrigerators and steel mills. Iranians see this and are bitter.