891.00/2057: Telegram
The Minister in Iran (Dreyfus) to the Secretary of State
[Received October 4—10:55 a.m.]
976. My 818, August 7 [8]. Seyid Zia-ed-Din returned to Tehran on September 30. There is little doubt that his return was arranged, or at least encouraged, by the British, supported by a large group of prominent Iranians such as Ala,18 Ebtehaj19 and Ahmadi20 who profess to believe that Seyid is the only Iranian now capable of leading Iran out of the wilderness. Shah was persuaded by the British not to oppose his return to Iran or his subsequent political activities. However, the Russian Chargé informs me his Government still strongly objects to Seyid because of his alleged reactionary tendencies, his reputation as a British tool and his record in connection with coup d’état.
While the next move of Seyid’s supporters is not clear, it seems likely that he will be elected to the Majlis in the current elections. This will give him an opportunity to attain power gradually, to study the [Page 390] Iranian political scene and allow time for an effective buildup in the press and among the people. His eventual assumption of power as Prime Minister seems probable unless the Russians are willing openly to prevent it. In this connection, Seyid’s bid for power combines all the elements for a more open and intensified struggle for ascendency between the British and Russians in Iran.
The Department is familiar with Seyid’s record, how he supported the abortive 1919 treaty,21 how he attacked the United States violently in editorials in his newspaper Raad and how he engineered the coup d’état which led eventually to the disposition of Ahmad Shah and the advent of the Pahlevi dynasty (see, for example, despatch of October 1, 191922). In view of the far reaching political implications involved, his activities will be carefully followed.
- Hussein Ala, Minister of the Court.↩
- Abdol Hassan Ebtehaj, Director General of the Banque Mellie (the National Bank of Iran).↩
- Field Marshal Ahmad Amir Ahmadi, the Minister of War.↩
- For correspondence regarding this agreement, see Foreign Relations, 1919, vol. ii, pp. 698 ff. For text of agreement, signed August 9, 1919, see ibid., p. 703.↩
- Quarterly Report No. 5, not printed.↩