> On 1/30/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>> [the first part of this is not what we've been hearing from Cde Yoshie]
>>
>> <http://juancole.com/>
>>
>> Well, the Iranian public is very pro-American, and it's one of the
>> few publics in the Middle East, I think, that would reform, if it
>> could, in a way that was friendly to U.S. interests. If the United
>> States goes into a frontal confrontation with Iran, however, it will
>> push the Iranian public away. The Iranians are very nationalistic and
>> they don't want to be dominated by the U.S.
>
> What does "reform . . . in a way that was friendly to U.S. interests"?
> Radical privatization of oil? If so, the Iran-first neoliberal
> faction of the Iranian power elite would be happy to oblige, but the
> Iranian public?
=====================================
Is privatization of the national Iranian oil company actually being mooted
by any opposition or dominant factions within the country, neoliberal or
otherwise?
Many US-friendly states have national oil companies, notably Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, so it doesn't necessarily follow that a post-Ahamadinejad government would want or be required to privatize its oil industry in order to secure better relations with the West. Recall that the oil company was state-run under the Shah, as well.
Cole is probably thinking more in terms of changes in Iranian foreign policy which would see it abandon its support of Islamist opposition movements against US client regimes in the Middle East - a move which would help resolve tensions over its nuclear program, as well.
A turn of this sort in Iranian foreign policy would likely lead to an end to US sanctions and a resumption of US investment in and trade with Iran, which could include joint ventures in the oil industry and other sectors which fall short of privatization.