Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Remember this historical truth. Mossadegh explicitly stated that foreign control over their oil kept Iranians in poverty. When he took it back, the British Empire was humiliated and launched a brutal economic embargo to starve them into submission. Never forget.

Furkan Gözükara

230,413 subscribers

22,391 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Never forget the real reason the West hates Iran. In 1951, Prime Minister Mossadegh did the unthinkable: he nationalized Iran's oil to benefit his own people instead of the British Empire. He put his nation first, and for that, Washington and London targeted him.

Never forget the real reason the West hates Iran. In 1951, Prime Minister Mossadegh did the unthinkable: he nationalized Iran's oil to benefit his own people instead of the British Empire. He put his nation first, and for that, Washington and London targeted him.

Furkan Gözükara

139,095 views • 4 months ago

America didn't bring democracy to Iran- it stole it. In 1954, the CIA overthrew Iran's elected leader Mossadegh because he wanted Iranians to control their own oil. US don't have a foreign policy-US have a franchise model: install puppets, steal resources, call it "stability."

America didn't bring democracy to Iran- it stole it. In 1954, the CIA overthrew Iran's elected leader Mossadegh because he wanted Iranians to control their own oil. US don't have a foreign policy-US have a franchise model: install puppets, steal resources, call it "stability."

Ounka

46,050 views • 6 months ago

US President Donald #Trump’s claim that Venezuela must return "our oil" and "our land" may sound bold, but it collapses under even the most basic historical and legal research. #Venezuela’s oil was never #US property; it belonged to the Venezuelan state, extracted by foreign companies under contracts that enriched multinationals while leaving the country poor and unequal. When Venezuela reclaimed control of its economy to fund healthcare, education, and poverty reduction, US financial and oil sanctions crippled its economy. The myth of "stolen oil" obscures a simpler truth: Venezuela refused to remain dependent.

US President Donald #Trump’s claim that Venezuela must return "our oil" and "our land" may sound bold, but it collapses under even the most basic historical and legal research. #Venezuela’s oil was never #US property; it belonged to the Venezuelan state, extracted by foreign companies under contracts that enriched multinationals while leaving the country poor and unequal. When Venezuela reclaimed control of its economy to fund healthcare, education, and poverty reduction, US financial and oil sanctions crippled its economy. The myth of "stolen oil" obscures a simpler truth: Venezuela refused to remain dependent.

Al Mayadeen English

10,375 views • 7 months ago

Every one of these people claimed to be pro-abortion. But none of them realized that abortions starve, dismember, and poison babies in the womb. Once they learned the truth, they couldn't go back to their original stance. And all it took was a simple, medically accurate video.

Every one of these people claimed to be pro-abortion. But none of them realized that abortions starve, dismember, and poison babies in the womb. Once they learned the truth, they couldn't go back to their original stance. And all it took was a simple, medically accurate video.

Live Action

22,648 views • 1 year ago

Britain didn’t “grant” Caribbean people Britishness, empire imposed it. Generations were made British by force: taken, renamed, anglicised, and folded into a system that built its wealth on their captivity. So yes, people arrived with British passports, because empire engineered it that way. If this country wants to debate belonging, start with the truth: empire created this, and empire owes the reckoning.

Britain didn’t “grant” Caribbean people Britishness, empire imposed it. Generations were made British by force: taken, renamed, anglicised, and folded into a system that built its wealth on their captivity. So yes, people arrived with British passports, because empire engineered it that way. If this country wants to debate belonging, start with the truth: empire created this, and empire owes the reckoning.

Save Our Citizenships 🔻

25,107 views • 8 months ago

Rural Birmingham When you spot people Fly-Tipping… you do what this guy done, he pulled over and started to film them, he told them to pick it all back up and put it back in their van. Their excuse was the Dump was closed

Rural Birmingham When you spot people Fly-Tipping… you do what this guy done, he pulled over and started to film them, he told them to pick it all back up and put it back in their van. Their excuse was the Dump was closed

WeGotitBack 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧🇺🇸

2,728,052 views • 2 years ago

Never forget it was Trump’s administration that finally took down Epstein. Remember in 2015 when Trump called out Epstein and said “that island is really a cesspool… just ask Prince Andrew, he’ll tell you about it.” Remember when Trump banned Epstein from MAL after finding out he was a pedo? Remember in 2009 Trump was the only one who helped prosecutors against Epstein? Don’t let them lie to you #MAGA 🇺🇸

Never forget it was Trump’s administration that finally took down Epstein. Remember in 2015 when Trump called out Epstein and said “that island is really a cesspool… just ask Prince Andrew, he’ll tell you about it.” Remember when Trump banned Epstein from MAL after finding out he was a pedo? Remember in 2009 Trump was the only one who helped prosecutors against Epstein? Don’t let them lie to you #MAGA 🇺🇸

ĐⱤØ₲Ø🇺🇸

718,764 views • 3 years ago

The West called Iran a "democracy" when British companies were draining its oil wealth. The moment Iran took it back, it became a terrorist state. In reality, the revolution in Iran was about nationalizing its oil which means for the West that they won't profit. You probably heard about BP oil? Gas stations? Well, that was Anglo-Persian oil company that profited British oligarchs, not Iranian people. CIA and MI6 overthrew the government in 1953 but in 1979 Iran took its government back and became an evil country once again.

The West called Iran a "democracy" when British companies were draining its oil wealth. The moment Iran took it back, it became a terrorist state. In reality, the revolution in Iran was about nationalizing its oil which means for the West that they won't profit. You probably heard about BP oil? Gas stations? Well, that was Anglo-Persian oil company that profited British oligarchs, not Iranian people. CIA and MI6 overthrew the government in 1953 but in 1979 Iran took its government back and became an evil country once again.

Rina Lu🇷🇺

55,085 views • 4 months ago

Rural Yorkshire - Fly Tippers Their excuse “The Dump was closed” When you spot people Fly-Tipping… you do what this guy done, he pulled over and started to film them, he told them to pick it all back up and put it back in their van.

Rural Yorkshire - Fly Tippers Their excuse “The Dump was closed” When you spot people Fly-Tipping… you do what this guy done, he pulled over and started to film them, he told them to pick it all back up and put it back in their van.

WeGotitBack 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇬🇧🇺🇸

137,387 views • 6 months ago

70 years ago, Emmett Till took a train from Chicago to Mississippi and never made it back alive. Today, his family retraced that journey to honor his life and remind America of the truth: a 14-year-old boy was brutally lynched over lies. We must NEVER forget.

70 years ago, Emmett Till took a train from Chicago to Mississippi and never made it back alive. Today, his family retraced that journey to honor his life and remind America of the truth: a 14-year-old boy was brutally lynched over lies. We must NEVER forget.

Ben Crump

21,046 views • 11 months ago

This guy ordered some wings from Wingstop. When he got the order, he noticed the bag was wet and realized it was oil. He took the order back and asked the employee to make him a new order. The employee said it wasn’t oil and claimed it was sauce dripping from the wings, but you could clearly tell it was oil, not sauce.

This guy ordered some wings from Wingstop. When he got the order, he noticed the bag was wet and realized it was oil. He took the order back and asked the employee to make him a new order. The employee said it wasn’t oil and claimed it was sauce dripping from the wings, but you could clearly tell it was oil, not sauce.

Goofies Of Chicago

612,262 views • 2 months ago

Karma doesn't forget, when you play with someone's heart. If you’re lying, giving them fake hopes and empty promises, take it as a loan, it will come back to you with interest. And remember that you didn't break them, you borrowed their peace, their trust, and their love. And one day everything you took will come back for you.

Karma doesn't forget, when you play with someone's heart. If you’re lying, giving them fake hopes and empty promises, take it as a loan, it will come back to you with interest. And remember that you didn't break them, you borrowed their peace, their trust, and their love. And one day everything you took will come back for you.

Matthew Coast

26,890 views • 7 months ago

Johnny Harris, Johnny Harris I'm getting absolutely sick and tired of your factually incorrect, recycled talking points that you repeat over and over to spread false narratives about Iran and the Shah. I've been watching your videos for many years. Every time, I hope that because you clearly spend a lot of time researching, you'll eventually realize where you've been wrong and correct those mistakes in future videos. Instead, the same false narratives keep getting repeated. If you didn't have such a large platform, I wouldn't even care. Your video starts off reasonably well when discussing Reza Shah, but once you move on to Mohammad Reza Shah, your historical accuracy completely falls apart. To start, you claim: "The British are taking Iran's oil, and the Shah is okay with it, because remember, the British installed the Shah." I don't know if you understand how a hereditary monarchy works, but the crown passes from father to son. When Britain and the Soviet Union invaded Iran in 1941, Reza Shah's newly built military had no realistic chance of resisting two global superpowers. He was forced to abdicate and was sent into exile. His son then succeeded him, exactly as he would have under the normal line of succession. There were discussions between Britain and the Soviets about restoring a Qajar prince instead. They ultimately abandoned that idea because the Qajars had little support in Iran, whereas the Pahlavis did. If Britain had bypassed the line of succession and placed a Qajar or another political figure on the throne, that would have been installing a ruler. That is not what happened. Then you claim that "the Iranian people didn't like the Shah, they liked Mohammad Mossadegh." Who forced Soviet troops out of Iran after World War II? The Shah. Who reasserted Iranian control over the Soviet-backed separatist governments in Azerbaijan and Mahabad? The Shah. Following those events, Mohammad Reza Shah enjoyed enormous popularity. Now let's talk about Mossadegh. Who was most enthusiastic about Mossadegh's rise? The Soviet-backed Tudeh Party. The Tudeh Party, financially and politically aligned with Moscow, strongly supported him. Mossadegh certainly gained popularity among parts of the Iranian public because of his campaign to nationalize Iran's oil. What many people didn't realize was that the original D'Arcy concession—the agreement that handed Britain a 60-year oil concession—was signed under the Qajar dynasty, the dynasty to which Mossadegh himself belonged. So yes, it was the Qajar state that granted Britain that concession. Reza Shah later renegotiated it into a more favorable agreement for Iran. Yet somehow people continue repeating the myth that it was the Pahlavis who "gave away Iran's oil." Of course the Shah did not want Britain controlling Iran's oil indefinitely. What constrained him was reality. Iran had just emerged from World War II. It lacked the military strength to openly confront Britain, and unlike Mossadegh, the Shah had no interest in relying on Soviet support to challenge British influence. He also understood something Mossadegh failed to appreciate until it was too late. Nationalizing oil is easy on paper. Extracting it, transporting it, insuring it, refining it, finding buyers, and exporting it are entirely different matters. Iran lacked that infrastructure. When Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry before Iran was capable of operating it independently, Britain organized an international boycott. Oil exports collapsed, government revenues dried up, and the country was pushed into a severe financial crisis because oil was Iran's primary source of national income. The Shah's strategy was different. He wanted to continue receiving oil revenues, use that income to industrialize and modernize Iran, build the expertise and infrastructure necessary for an independent oil industry, and nationalize from a position of strength rather than symbolism. You are free to disagree with that strategy. You are not free to rewrite history. If you want to actually learn about this part of Iranian history, read this article.

Johnny Harris, Johnny Harris I'm getting absolutely sick and tired of your factually incorrect, recycled talking points that you repeat over and over to spread false narratives about Iran and the Shah. I've been watching your videos for many years. Every time, I hope that because you clearly spend a lot of time researching, you'll eventually realize where you've been wrong and correct those mistakes in future videos. Instead, the same false narratives keep getting repeated. If you didn't have such a large platform, I wouldn't even care. Your video starts off reasonably well when discussing Reza Shah, but once you move on to Mohammad Reza Shah, your historical accuracy completely falls apart. To start, you claim: "The British are taking Iran's oil, and the Shah is okay with it, because remember, the British installed the Shah." I don't know if you understand how a hereditary monarchy works, but the crown passes from father to son. When Britain and the Soviet Union invaded Iran in 1941, Reza Shah's newly built military had no realistic chance of resisting two global superpowers. He was forced to abdicate and was sent into exile. His son then succeeded him, exactly as he would have under the normal line of succession. There were discussions between Britain and the Soviets about restoring a Qajar prince instead. They ultimately abandoned that idea because the Qajars had little support in Iran, whereas the Pahlavis did. If Britain had bypassed the line of succession and placed a Qajar or another political figure on the throne, that would have been installing a ruler. That is not what happened. Then you claim that "the Iranian people didn't like the Shah, they liked Mohammad Mossadegh." Who forced Soviet troops out of Iran after World War II? The Shah. Who reasserted Iranian control over the Soviet-backed separatist governments in Azerbaijan and Mahabad? The Shah. Following those events, Mohammad Reza Shah enjoyed enormous popularity. Now let's talk about Mossadegh. Who was most enthusiastic about Mossadegh's rise? The Soviet-backed Tudeh Party. The Tudeh Party, financially and politically aligned with Moscow, strongly supported him. Mossadegh certainly gained popularity among parts of the Iranian public because of his campaign to nationalize Iran's oil. What many people didn't realize was that the original D'Arcy concession—the agreement that handed Britain a 60-year oil concession—was signed under the Qajar dynasty, the dynasty to which Mossadegh himself belonged. So yes, it was the Qajar state that granted Britain that concession. Reza Shah later renegotiated it into a more favorable agreement for Iran. Yet somehow people continue repeating the myth that it was the Pahlavis who "gave away Iran's oil." Of course the Shah did not want Britain controlling Iran's oil indefinitely. What constrained him was reality. Iran had just emerged from World War II. It lacked the military strength to openly confront Britain, and unlike Mossadegh, the Shah had no interest in relying on Soviet support to challenge British influence. He also understood something Mossadegh failed to appreciate until it was too late. Nationalizing oil is easy on paper. Extracting it, transporting it, insuring it, refining it, finding buyers, and exporting it are entirely different matters. Iran lacked that infrastructure. When Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry before Iran was capable of operating it independently, Britain organized an international boycott. Oil exports collapsed, government revenues dried up, and the country was pushed into a severe financial crisis because oil was Iran's primary source of national income. The Shah's strategy was different. He wanted to continue receiving oil revenues, use that income to industrialize and modernize Iran, build the expertise and infrastructure necessary for an independent oil industry, and nationalize from a position of strength rather than symbolism. You are free to disagree with that strategy. You are not free to rewrite history. If you want to actually learn about this part of Iranian history, read this article.

Arsalan Naamdar

15,610 views • 21 days ago

Do you remember when Ni-ki replayed Shout Out fancam from PH on his live? He got teary eyed and was so touched. I think these are the moments Enha never forget and keep in their hearts long after the concert is over. It’s so heart warming to see them express their love back in such a tangible way to help those in need in PH. 🥹

Do you remember when Ni-ki replayed Shout Out fancam from PH on his live? He got teary eyed and was so touched. I think these are the moments Enha never forget and keep in their hearts long after the concert is over. It’s so heart warming to see them express their love back in such a tangible way to help those in need in PH. 🥹

K

81,054 views • 8 months ago

The IRGC are back in Golders Green in London, where Iranians opposed to the brutal regime waved their flags. A black vehicle drove through and shouted abuse. Some of the Iranians confronted the driver and he ran one of them down at high speed and drove off. Victim is in serious condition in hospital. Yael Howard took the video.

The IRGC are back in Golders Green in London, where Iranians opposed to the brutal regime waved their flags. A black vehicle drove through and shouted abuse. Some of the Iranians confronted the driver and he ran one of them down at high speed and drove off. Victim is in serious condition in hospital. Yael Howard took the video.

James J. Marlow

44,591 views • 2 months ago

Canadian media let this go when Trudeau said this on live TV. He not only called a group of people he never knew misogynists & racist, he said that unvaccinated people took up space, and should we tolerate them. That is hate. And It left many unvaccinated people wondering what he was going to do with them. Never forget what this vile scum did.

Canadian media let this go when Trudeau said this on live TV. He not only called a group of people he never knew misogynists & racist, he said that unvaccinated people took up space, and should we tolerate them. That is hate. And It left many unvaccinated people wondering what he was going to do with them. Never forget what this vile scum did.

Ryan Gerritsen🇨🇦🇳🇱

74,520 views • 1 day ago

Trump calls Cuba a “threat” while tightening the blockade and trying to cut off its oil supply. But no oil means no electricity, no functioning hospitals, no food reaching markets, no dignity for ordinary people. Are we really ready to starve an entire nation? Can you imagine telling a child that the pain in their stomach, the empty plate in front of them, the days without enough food are simply the price of U.S. foreign policy? This is economic warfare, and it has to stop.

Trump calls Cuba a “threat” while tightening the blockade and trying to cut off its oil supply. But no oil means no electricity, no functioning hospitals, no food reaching markets, no dignity for ordinary people. Are we really ready to starve an entire nation? Can you imagine telling a child that the pain in their stomach, the empty plate in front of them, the days without enough food are simply the price of U.S. foreign policy? This is economic warfare, and it has to stop.

Medea Benjamin

23,331 views • 6 months ago

There was a time when British officers removed their shoes before Indian temples. When Company offices closed for our festivals. When Britain's finest scholar told Europe that Sanskrit was more perfect than Greek. Within one generation, all of it was gone. The same empire was calling our gods monsters and our people savages. Nothing about India had changed. One book did. In 1817, a Scotsman named James Mill published The History of British India. He had never visited India. He never learned Sanskrit or Persian. He never met a single person he wrote about & he argued that this made him more objective. Watch this full video to know how India is suffering with this colonial era propaganda.

There was a time when British officers removed their shoes before Indian temples. When Company offices closed for our festivals. When Britain's finest scholar told Europe that Sanskrit was more perfect than Greek. Within one generation, all of it was gone. The same empire was calling our gods monsters and our people savages. Nothing about India had changed. One book did. In 1817, a Scotsman named James Mill published The History of British India. He had never visited India. He never learned Sanskrit or Persian. He never met a single person he wrote about & he argued that this made him more objective. Watch this full video to know how India is suffering with this colonial era propaganda.

Itiha

23,901 views • 17 days ago

Q: Were U.S. weapons transferred to Kurdish groups to give to Iranians? If so, which groups? Secretary of State Rubio avoided answering the question, pivoting into a general denunciation of the Iranian government. President Trump, however, has explicitly said that weapons were funneled through Kurdish intermediaries in northern Iraq to reach anti-regime demonstrators and rioters in Iran earlier this year. He claims the Kurds "kept them" or "took the guns" instead of delivering them. He said that the intermediaries kept the weapons because they thought, "What a beautiful gun, I think I’ll keep it." He expressed being "not happy" with the Kurds and threatened those involved would "pay a big price."

Q: Were U.S. weapons transferred to Kurdish groups to give to Iranians? If so, which groups? Secretary of State Rubio avoided answering the question, pivoting into a general denunciation of the Iranian government. President Trump, however, has explicitly said that weapons were funneled through Kurdish intermediaries in northern Iraq to reach anti-regime demonstrators and rioters in Iran earlier this year. He claims the Kurds "kept them" or "took the guns" instead of delivering them. He said that the intermediaries kept the weapons because they thought, "What a beautiful gun, I think I’ll keep it." He expressed being "not happy" with the Kurds and threatened those involved would "pay a big price."

Drop Site

25,604 views • 3 months ago