The Nationalisation of the Iranian Oil Industry has been a historic move by Iran around 70 years ago to free itself of the political influence of the United Kingdom. In the modern world in which States can exercise their political influences by companies acting under their control and direction, interventions in the inherently domestic affairs of States have taken new forms. The UK-Iran relation as a result of the 1901 D’Arcy’s concession is the main focus of this article. Even though the International Court of Justice could not go beyond the jurisdictional matters in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case of 1951, international law and in particular, international jurisprudence have created a well-established series of law that can be applicable over Iran-UK Case. The authors have argued in detail that Iran’s nationalisation movement has satisfied all the required elements. Iran’s nationalisation movement was, indeed, an action to guarantee its sovereign rights and to ensure its political independence from foreign powers, which has its roots in the most fundamental principles of the establishment of the United Nations.

Murmurs of the Nationalization of Oil Industry in 1910 were heard at the same time the National Front formed. It was a Front whose gathered forces, each were considered as the representative of a different social group in Iran. From politicians, staffs, young openminded people to bazaar merchants, all constituted the basis of the National Front and played a significant role in the events related to the Nationalization of the Oil Industry and the coup of the 19th of August 1958.Studying the basic political and social role of market and bazaar merchants in this article is an approach to the recognition of this group`s actions and reactions since such activities reveals this group`s understanding of the ratification of the Nationalization of Oil Industry in that movement. Paying attention to market as one of the bases related to clergymen and religious organization can be affective in understanding the relation between nation and market on the threshold of the Nationalization of Oil Industry.This article aims to show that market was politically and economically responsible for the movement of the Nationalization of Oil Industry and Musaddiq’s premiership; it not only accompanied the political forces but also used its financial and economic help to procure the funds needed for Musaddiq’s cabinet. Bazaar merchants` communal cooperation for the sake of “national authority” and “independence” was of the main goals of the movement. Besides, the fulfillment of the authority of Iran over its resources and national revenue and shortening the hand of foreigners from the internal affairs have been the interpretation of bazaar merchants from the Nationalization of Oil Industry in political and economic aspects. According to the matters expressed in this article, the reaction of market to the Nationalization of Oil Industry is going to be analyzed and investigated.

Nationalization of Oil Industry in Iran is one of the most important events in the contemporary history of Iran and can somehow be regarded as the first significant engagement of Iran in international politics. In the course of the events leading to and resulting from it, there were long serious discussions between Iran and Western partners, i. e. Britain and the US. While the former sought to change Iran’ s policies through threats and rewards, the latter looked for compromise between the two parties. Despite threats, however, Iran did not change its behavior in a drastic way. The sole major objective of the Mosaddegh administration was to implement the law called Dispossession (of AIOC) when he could reach an agreement with the AIOC to increase state revenues, nullify the threats, and save the government. Although this has been emphasized in most analyses, it has not been addressed systematically. On the basis of the theory of ontological security and through discourse analysis, this article seeks to demonstrate how, despite the seriousness of material threats, the Nationalization of Oil became possible and all other options were ignored.

This paper presents an approach analysis of the political presses(published 23rd September 1950 to 20th March 1951) to the Iranian Oil Industry Nationalization movement. The analysis aims at determining the impact of political presses of this period, as one of the most tools of pressing groups,on the rise and victory of the movement. The research methods is descriptive-analytic and in gathering data the documentary and library methods have been used. The sample includes 269 editorials of 11 political presses that belong to the most important political parties and associations of that time, have been chosen through qoutas sampling method. The analysis has been done on the approaches of the sample to six categories including Razmara government, Jebhe Melli political party, Nationalization of Oil Industry thesis, Attached bill, Iran and Britain Oil Industry Company and State of Britain. The paper concludes that the political presses published 23rd September 1950 to 20th March 1951, despite of some differences in their approaches to Razmara government, Jebhe Melli political party and Nationalization of Oil Industry thesis ,have played a significant role in the rise and victory of Iranian Oil Industry Nationalization movement.

In the paper, it has been intended to study USA policy to Nationalization of the Iranian Oil Industry and neuclear energy comparatively. The question of the study is as: does USA policy to Nationalization of the Iranian Oil Industry have been the same or not? As explained in the paper, USA policy in the field has been moving from a somewhat active state to an active and thorough state of opposition. The paper, studying USA policy during the period including the two cases, studies the measures of USA states involved in the cases. The base of study lies in paying attention to resemblances and distinctions of social phenomena and political thoughts. The conclusion of the study may be useful in measures made by offices of IRI foreign policy and in their manner of measuring in performing Barjam.

The main question of the paper is what the structural and agency backgrounds of the Nationalization Movement of the Oil Industry and the Islamic Revolution of Iran are. To answer this question, Anthony Giddens' Structuration Theory has been used. For Giddens, the structure and agency are two sides of a coin, and the integrated analysis of the structure-agency must be used to explain social phenomena. The method of this research is documentary and historical analysis, and a note-based tool for collecting information is used. The research hypothesis is that the simultaneous presence of structural and agency causes the occurrence of the National Oil Movement and Islamic Revolution movement. The findings of this research show that in the structural aspect, the most important factors in the national Oil movement are: in the economic dimension the Oil issue, in the social dimension, the coalition of clerics, intellectuals and marketers, in the field of domestic politics, the dictatorship of government and in foreign policy, the support of the super powers of the Mohammad Reza king, and in the cultural field, the dominant ideology of nationalist ideology. In the structural aspect, the most important factors in the Islamic revolution are: in the field of economy, dependent and uneven development and the rentier state, in the social dimension, the coalition of all classes, in the field of domestic politics, the absolute dictatorship mode of government, and in the foreign policy, dependence of Shah government on super powers, and in the cultural dimension, the dominant and mobilizing ideology of Shi'ism. But in the agency aspect, in the National Movement, the coalition of Dr. Mossadegh as a representative of the national flow and Ayatollah Kashani as a representative of the religious flow, was effective. In the Islamic Revolution, there was again a coalition between religious, intellectuals and market forces, but the unique leadership of the revolution was by Imam Khomeini and religious flow as the main agents of it.

The Nationalization of Oil Industry movement is one of the important historical periods of political life in Iran, through which Iranians came to political scene not only to eradicating the roots of foreign exploitation forever but also to pave the way for the development of Iran. Unfortunately the wish didn’t come true. So far many researchers have studied the reasons of this failure from different perspectives. The attempt is made here to provide a new perspective in addition to the available view points, based on discourse analysis. The main purpose of this article is to determine that how did the “inquiring of national rights” became equivalent to the “nationalizing” over the years of this movement. With a review of the history of Oil Industry Nationalization, the discourse analysis contributes to the realistic understanding of Iranian nationalists’ performance against enemy’s transference logic. Fundamental reasons, discussed in this article indicate that Iranian nationalists didn’t have a deep and predictable strategy against USA and specially UK regarding Oil Industry. As this weakness was revealed along with the fundamental reasons, Iranian nationalists did not have realistic initiatives the kind that could transfer the discourse ambiguity in to a new era. A new era could have been addressed in a manner that the foundation of Oil Industry would have remained powerful and would have embarrassed the enemies. This strategy did not work and this national movement failed gradually.

The main goal of this article is to investigate the impact of the structure of the international system on the Nationalization movement of the Oil Industry. This means that the political developments in any society, especially the Iranian society, which is directly related to the international system and colonialism, are often influenced by the policies and goals of different countries. Therefore, the rise and fall of governments, especially during the Pahlavi era, were often related to the policies and goals of the world's colonial powers. Among others, we can mention the role of America, Soviet Union and England. One of these important developments that has left a significant impact is the Nationalization of the Oil Industry For this reason, the current research is trying to address the question of how the developments of the international system, including the colonial competition of the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom, have affected the issue of the Nationalization of the Oil Industry in Iran. The effect of this variable on the results and achievement of the movement in question has been mostly negative and inhibiting, and although in the short term and in the initial stages of this movement, it had a facilitating process to some extent, but in the later stages, it has created serious obstacles on the way to achieving the goals of this movement. In this article, Kent Waltz's neorealism approach is used. The method of qualitative article is causal explanation type and data collection method, using library texts as well as virtual space databases

Iran Oil Industry Nationalization following by august 28th coup d'é tat, and the political actions of the other countries involved in this issue has been considered from many aspects by researchers. But, no research has ever been conducted based on the American documents and press which had significant role in that time of Iran history. The present study, based on an historical analysis method with an emphasize on America foreign ministry and the New York times documents, presents a clear picture of the America’ s politicians position and their perceptions in Oil Nationalization and the failure of doctor Mosadegh in Iran. In fact, the main issue followed by this study is to find out the America government and social attitudes towards the Oil Industry and Mosadegh appointment have been based on what principles, and also it is finding an answer regarding Mosadegh’ s failure political and historical causes.

This article analyzes the role of "hijab" in the orientation of active political and social forces in the movement of nationalizing the Oil Industry in the late twentieth decade (1941-1951). The community in the twentieth century, and especially the evolutions of the late decade, is influenced by two categories of international and national trends: The first is the "colonial turn", and the emergence of a new world order after World War II, as well as the Islamic revival as a result of the decline of national monarchies in Islamic countries. The second is the revival of the repressed social and political forces after Reza Khan's ouster, and the revision of the political and social strategies of the modern nationalist forces to overcome the crisis of legitimacy resulted from Reza Khan's authoritarian nationalism. The article will indicate how the issues of women have evolved amid the controversy over Oil and elections in the evolutions of the last decade. This will explain three strategies for the issue of hijab among political and social forces. The strategiies are political ignorance of hijab, the strategy of social ineffectiveness of hijab, and the strategy of obligating hijab. In this article, the sources and positions of the National Front of Iran, the Tudeh Party of Iran, the Islamic Mojahedin Society and the Jamiat Fadaiyan-e-Islam have been referred as the first-hand historical and oral history sources.