Iran: Tehran to World “Please Help Us With Our Oilfields”


Speaking on Thursday during his three-day tour of southern Iran, President Rouhani was blunt:

There are problems in sections of the country’s oil industry that must be resolved and we cannot be patient for their resolution. From this regard, it is not important whether these problems are resolved with reliance on internal capacity or aid from the outside.

The message to the world’s companies — including “Western” firms — involved with oil and gas exploration: we are open for business.

Since last August, just after the President’s inauguration, Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh has indicated that he would like the return of the international companies, who almost all withdrew from Iranian projects in the last four years.

Last month, the head of Italy’s ENI, Paolo Scaroni, met Zanganeh in Vienna. The Oil Minister said private discussions had also taken place with Royal Dutch Shell, Austria’s OMV, and Vitol, the world’s largest oil trader.

Following Rouhani’s speech on Thursday, Zanganeh set out the challenge for Iran, saying that — “due to problems emerging from sanctions” — production has been reduced to only 2 million barrels per day, its lowest level since the end of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988.

The Minister indicated the need for foreign expertise to ensure recovery:

The majority of oil fields in the country’s southern region are passing their second-half life, which in this regard, we require expert studies so the level of production does not decrease.

Also, many of our installations are old and need repair. For this reason, we must find our share in the global oil market and in this path increase oil recycling capacity and interaction with foreign and domestic universities.

We must overcome human capital problems in this industry and repair the old installations of joint fields.

(hat tip to Iran Tracker for translations)

Related Posts


  1. Rouhani’s ‘radical neoliberal policies’ — or the revolution is long forgotten.

    Fariborz Raisdana, outspoken and with leftist views, was jailed in 2012 for criticizing changes in subsidy payments. He asserts that based on statements made by Rouhani’s ministers, the government appears to be pursuing the economic policies implemented during the presidencies of Rafsanjani and Khatami.

    These, he contends, will ultimately not address inequality in the economy.

    Fariborz did not only criticize the Rouhani administration. When it comes to the economy, he criticized all previous administrations. They were all capitalist administrations with semi-governmental monopolies. All these administrations were basically opposed to any effective form of welfare, scientific planning or democratic and cooperative programs that would increase equality.

    This cognition is not new. But it leaves the question open why the Iranian regime is so popular on the leftie community in the west ………………..

    • The leftie community is afraid of western military dominance. They look at history and see European colonialism as the significant event. They do not see that extended periods of world peace usually involved a benevolent monopole. They ignore the tens (hundreds) of millions killed and imprisoned with authoritarian architectures through the intellectual deceptions of those who argue moral equivalency but delicately avoid social darwinism.

      I think when veiwing political groups it is important to separate leaders from followers. Leaders, such as Nasrallah, Putin, Obama are fully aware of the hypocrisy of politics. They embrace it as a source of power. Followers require moral absolutes and willingly ignore the hypocrisy of their leaders through a series of denials, deflections, and deceptions.

      • @RR

        Yes, fully agree. Being leftie gives an automatic self-righteousness to the person, funny enough in most cases the person is anything but righteous.

      • The actual self-deception of the “left wing followers” goes much deeper:

        Today the Russian revolution or communism is dead as a doornail, even in russia.

        Todays russian view is surprisingly this fairy tail:

        “Prior to 1914, russia was not only large and rich, but also orderly, thanks to the czar, police and clergy. It had experienced an economic boom, delivered more than half of its exports to Germany and thus supported the German war industry — facts that are part of the educational cannon in today’s Russia.

        But this economic boom was not welcomed by Russia’s foes, a group that not only includes Germany and its allies but also Russia’s erstwhile partners, including the United States.

        The conclusion? All of them, whether Triple Entente or Central Powers, actually wanted to wipe Russia off the map.””

        So was the czarist empire just an imperialist power like any other?

        Not in Putin’s Russia. The czar is now described as having been “wise and great” and would have won, had the Revolution not gotten in the way. For the Kremlin, World War I is a welcome blueprint for the present.

        Are not Western governments just trying as always to keep Russia down? Is the West not complicit in the downfall of the Soviet Union? NATO pressing at Russia’s borders, the West’s offensive in regions of Russian influence like Georgia and Ukraine: These are all symptoms in the Russian mind of a persistent goal — the division or liquidation of Russia.

        This is what Russians must brace against.

        To make it short and simple:

        Moscow is currently trying, against this backdrop, to position itself as a major foreign policy player. When it comes to Syria, Iran and American whistleblower Edward Snowden, Moscow’s role in the conflicts is sold to the Russian people as clever geopolitical maneuvering.

        In reality, russia builds today on his foreign policy of the Tsar in 1914. Even putin is rejecting communism. –

        But left wing followers aren`t able to realize changes and matter of facts – like always.

      • Incyprus – liefties = or members/followers of left wing parties argues as follows:

        “”Left wing parties condemns the escalating “”imperialist aggression against Syria””” and calls for an immediate end to the preparations for a military intervention against the country and the Syrian people.””
        ( A leftie denies that the Iranian Quds force and Hezbollah are important war parties in Syria)

        example of leftie rhetoric:

        “”Under the conditions of hard inter-imperialist competition and conditions of a deep and long-lasting international crisis of capitalism, in which the rivalries to exacerbate the natural resources and geostrategic areas, reaches the conflict in the Middle East and the Mediterranean new limits.””

        A typical leftie lies like a tropper. example: He will use every lie he can find to deny that Assad was the poison gas murder.
        A typical leftie says that the 2009 iranian demonstrations were staged by the US – Administration.

    • If Rouhani’s economic policies are “radical neoliberal”, then I dread to think what Raisdana’s “leftist” views are.

      FYI – the “left” support Iran because of its anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, non-aligned position in the international system. This is rooted in Marxist political philosophy and the concept of historical materialism. So “left” in this case is less about economics and more about politics – although the two are inherently intertwined.

      • neoliberal policies iranian style according Fariborz:

        — privatization (almost as rapidly as the previous administration)
        — Rouhani is neglecting its duty when it comes to social security, welfare, job creation, programming
        and organizing investment projects.
        — encouraging foreign investors, more than anything, with the promise of cheap labor from workers who are skilled, semi-skilled or
        at least capable of being trained.
        — more inequality and increasing poverty because of privatization
        — there is no Restructuring. It means that some changes are happening, at least in the results, if not in the structure. There are no changes in gross domestic product, distribution of wealth, welfare, civil rights, human rights or demonstration of tolerance toward the opposition.

        BTW – Marxist political philosophy didn`t say that it is necessary to lie. Marx would turn in his grave if he would hear what idiocy the left says today.

        Another example is your post-osman-paradigm. It`s a hollow phrase.You are merely surporting the massmurder Assad but accuseing others. You can only spread such lies by telling half the truth because each country (according sykes -picot) could determine the state borders within its zone of influence.

        • Throughout Iran’s modern history, I can count only two major economic policies that have been for the better: the Shah’s White Revolution, and the creation of the Oil Stabilisation Fund under Khatami. Other than that, Iran demonstrates the same ineptitude and misplaced entitlement culture that any other rentier economy experiences. The problem for Iran is that the oil came before laying the foundations of modern economy, leading to the creation of a highly inefficient welfare state and a bloated, corrupt public sector. It is no wonder, then, that leftist politics is so popular in Iran, whether that be Tudeh, the “intellectuals” that spearheaded the revolution, or today’s Islamic social justice. To hear Raisdana criticise Rouhani’s policies as “radical neoliberal” is testament to this, especially given that Rouhani’s policies are clearly not “radical”, let alone “neoliberal”, and do practically nothing to confront Iran’s economic problems (even though Raisdana is right in saying that they are a continuation of previous failed policies).

          I cannot think of when I have lied. I may have shared opinions that have been proven wrong, but I have not lied (unlike this website, which is increasingly turning to outright lying as it struggles to defend its narrative). My opinions may not be nice, but the truth can sometimes hurt. If that bothers you, then I cannot help you.

          By the way, Sykes-Picot is named after an Englishman and a Frenchman. I think that says enough to challenge your assertion that “each country could determine the state borders within its zone of influence”.

          • 1… The most blatant form of crony capitalism is the creation of a liberal economic system in which only some people (“cronies”) are permitted property rights by the government in return for support for the regime, allowing supporters of the regime to expropriate any capital held by opponents. This is a useful method of control which is usually seen in its purest form in countries with dictatorships, where the regime can create a liberal system of markets and government without ceding any control of either. Such reforms can also be used to add a sprinkling of liberal legitimacy for the regime and open the country to external capital.

            This form is useful to explain “neoliberal reforms” in countries where either the will or ability to enforce property rights is lacking, such as the problems of post Soviet Russia and China.

            “Crony capitalism” ist the better term to describe iranian economics. But this will not devalue the criticism of Fariborz Raisdana.
            Fariborz has asked for the rights of ordinary workers and people and he is drawing the conclusion : There are none.
            Who could argue against it?

            2… The Sykes – Picot agreement regulated the influential areas of France and Britain. But they didn`t changed the administrative divisions.

            Ottoman rulers organized Syria into one large province or eyalet. The eyalet was subdivided into several districts or sanjaks. Syria/Libanon was reorganized into four eyalets: the Eyalet of Damascus, the Eyalet of Aleppo, the eyalet of Tripoli (Libanon) including Latakia, Hama and Homs and the Eyalet of Raqqa, established in eastern Syria.
            (Later Libanon became under the osman rule an separate eyalet too – as a shelter for the christians)

            This divisions didn`t changed until today.

            Syria became independent from France and an independent state based on this dividons and borders on 1946.

            Maybe it makes sence to speak about an post-ottoman-paradigm until 1970 – because it took 24 years to find a long-term government/ruler after the france influence was finished. But all the problems of syria today are all developed during the last 40 years. You hardly can blame France for the inability of the poison gas murder to govern a country.

  2. So, how does this work for rouhani’s promises?

    Iran’s Justice Minister Says Detained Opposition Leaders Should Receive No Trial

    “…Iran’s Justice Minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi said yesterday that a trial for imprisoned 2009 presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi would not be in the best interest of the regime…”

    No kidding!

  3. What do SL khamenei and TSAR putin have in common you may ask. Common understanding of justice of course.

    “Student and women’s rights activist Bahareh Hedayat, now 32, is a former member of the Central Council and the Spokesperson for the nationwide student organization Daftar-e Tahkim-e Vahdat. A Tehran court sentenced her to a total of nine years and six months in prison, comprised of two years for “insulting the Supreme Leader,” six months for “insulting the President,” and five years for “acting against national security and publishing falsehoods.” She was also sentenced to an additional two years in prison for “acting against national security through holding a protest gathering for women” on June 12, 2006, currently suspended.”

Leave a Comment