The idea of Iranian Prime Minister Mossadeq not being overthrown in 1953 has been brought up several times on this board, with the focus almost always on long term effects on the type of regime governing Iran.
But here I ask the same question again, but with more of a focus on what this does for the global oil industry.
Per wiki:
"Later in March 1951, the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and its holdings, and shortly thereafter the Iranian public elected a champion of nationalisation, Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister.[18] This led to the Abadan Crisis, in which, under British pressure, foreign countries agreed not to purchase Iranian oil, and the Abadan refinery was closed. The AIOC withdrew from Iran and increased the output of its other reserves in the Persian Gulf.
Mossadegh broke off negotiations with the AIOC in July 1951 when the AIOC threatened to pull its employees out of Iran and Britain warned tanker owners that "the receipts from the Iranian government would not be accepted on the world market."[19] ...snip proposed British military action.....
The United States was also opposed to nationalization of the AIOC, because of the fear that the idea of nationalization would spread to other places, but the US believed it would be possible to reach a face-saving agreement with Mossadegh, under which actual control and management of the organisation would remain under the AIOC.[21] The United States sent Averell Harriman to Iran to convince Mossadegh of such a scheme. Arriving in Tehran on 15 July, 1951, Harriman claimed that the United States accepted nationalization, yet insisted on having "a foreign-owned company to act as an agent of NIOC in conducting operations in Iran."[22] The British were also in favor of pseudo-nationalization, sending Lord Privy Seal Richard Stokes to Iran, arriving on 3 August, 1951, with the same aim as Harriman. Mossadegh adamantly opposed the plan, because he thought it would only "revive the former AIOC in a new form."[23] Mossadegh's opposition caused the British to conclude that he had to go. Officials at the Ministry of Fuel and Power wrote in September 1951:
If Dr. Mussadiq (sic) resigns or is replaced, it is just possible that we shall be able to get away from outright nationalization ... It would certainly be dangerous to offer greater real control of oil operations in Persia. Although something might be done to put more of a Persian facade on the setup, we must not forget that the Persians are not so far wrong when they say that all our proposals are, in fact, merely dressing up the AIOC control in other clothing ... Any real concession on this point is impossible. If we reached settlement on Mussadiq's terms, we would jeopardise not only British but also American oil interests throughout the world. We would destroy prospects of the investments of foreign capital in backward countries. We would strike a fatal blow to international law. We have a duty to stay and use force to protect our interest ... We must force the Shah to bring down Mussadiq.[24]
....
Consortium[edit]
With a pro-Western Shah and the new pro-Western Prime Minister, Fazlollah Zahedi, Iranian oil began flowing again and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954, tried to return to its old position. However, public opinion was so opposed that the new government could not permit it.
Under pressure from the United States, British Petroleum was forced to accept membership in a consortium of companies which would bring Iranian oil back on the international market. It was incorporated in London in 1954 as a holding company called Iranian Oil Participants Ltd (IOP).[34][35] The founding members of IOP included British Petroleum (40%), Gulf Oil (8%), Royal Dutch Shell (14%), and Compagnie Française des Pétroles (later Total S.A., 6%). The four Aramco partners—Standard Oil of California (SoCal, later Chevron), Standard Oil of New Jersey (later Exxon), Standard Oil Co. of New York (later Mobil, then ExxonMobil), and Texaco—each held an 8% stake in the holding company.[34][36]
This group of companies at various stages came to be known as the Supermajors or the "Seven Sisters" or the "Consortium for Iran" cartel and dominated the global petroleum industry from the mid-1940s to the 1970s.[37][38] Until the oil crisis of 1973 the members of the Seven Sisters controlled around 85% of the world's known oil reserves.
All IOP members acknowledged that National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) owned the oil and facilities in Iran, and IOP's role was to operate and manage on behalf of NIOC. To facilitate that, IOP established two operating entities incorporated in Netherlands, and both were delegated to NIOC.[34][35] Similar to the Saudi-Aramco "50/50" agreement of 1950,[39] the consortium agreed to share profits on a 50–50 basis with Iran, "but not to open its books to Iranian auditors or to allow Iranians onto its board of directors."[26] The negotiations leading to the creation of the consortium, during 1954-55, was considered as a feat of skillful diplomacy for the "Seven Sisters".[36] Some viewed the move as one to quell the rising tensions of Iranians since it allowed IOP to divert and hide profits with ease - effectively controlling Iran's share of the profits.
----- end quoted text-------
All that said, if Mossadeq remains in place, and no regime comes to power in Iran that is willing to walk back from nationalization, even partially, is this likely to lead to other oil nationalizations around the globe during the 1950s, much like what happened in the 1970s?
What would be the consequences?
If Mossadeq can resist any western overthrow attempts, how will he deal with persistent British economic warfare, their embargo on Iranian receipts, and the willingness of most of the major oil producers and traders to go along with it?
Apparently, up until he was overthrown, Mossadeq relied on export diversification (pistachios, rugs, gems and other minerals) and deals with wildcat oil traders (some small Japanese and Italian firms, and possibly the shipping conglomerate of Greek tycoon Aristotle Onassis), to continue to eke out revenues.
Your thoughts on whether that would cascade to break down the British embargo anytime soon.