The Minister in Iran (Dreyfus) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 24—8:59 a.m.]
766. Department’s 279, June 8. General Connolly has now completed his study of Iranian counterdraft and has set forth his comments in letter to me of July 19.55 At my suggestion he is cabling to [Page 471] War Department full text of his letter by new direct Army radio service with request that copy be furnished State Department. He is sending written text to War Department by special courier.
General Connolly’s comments as to articles III, V, VI, VII and XI appear to be sound. His objection that terms of agreement are more favorable to Iran than those of Tripartite Pact does not strike me as convincing. He loses sight of fact that we are exploiting Iran as a supply route and that special consideration should therefore be given in return. His suggestion with regard to article II that full authority in deciding where forces are to be located be left to commanding general would seem too arbitrary since Iran is not considered an occupied country. In commenting on article IX he states that this article nullifies article VI and makes it impossible for Americans to control communications without consulting two other governments. While this is true it seems evident that we cannot operate in Iran in a military sense without consultation with the other Allies. Concerning article X the General comments that the British and Russians have already assumed responsibility for assisting Iran economically and that an American undertaking in this respect is unnecessary and undesirable. I do not agree with his view and suggest that this article be retained. As to article XII Connolly suggests insertion of a cancellation clause. This would appear impracticable in an agreement of this kind.
Since Foreign Office continues to press me and in view of continuance of criticism in newspapers Department is requested to expedite action on agreement.
- Not printed.↩