891.00/1–2946: Telegram
The Ambassador in Iran (Murray) to the Secretary of State
secret
Tehran, January
29, 1946—8 a.m.
[Received 1:01 p.m.]
[Received 1:01 p.m.]
130. Even though it may be superfluous I should like to draw attention to numerous flaws in Vishinsky’s letter of January 24 to President of Security Council of UNO.61
- 1.
- That Soviet note of November 26 to Iran Govt denied assertions made in Iran Govt’s note of November 17 can hardly be accepted as proof that Iranian complaints were unfounded.
- 2.
- Iran Govt’s note of December 1 did not accept Soviet statement that Russian authorities were not interfering in northern Iran. Note expressed pleasure because it appeared from Soviet communication that “said measures will not be repeated” and went on to state Iran Govt’s hope “that no such actions will ever again be taken by Soviet military authorities in the northern provinces.” Repeated Iranian complaints regarding “deplorable incidents” that had occurred as result of interference with Iranian officials in north. Renewed request that Soviets allow freedom of action to Iranian security forces.
- 3.
- Exchanges of notes between Iranian FonOff and Soviet Chargé in which Soviets simply contradicted all statements made by Iranians and refused all Iranian requests cannot be considered “negotiations” in any true sense of word. Fact is that Iranian PriMin and Min-FonAff were never able engage in discussions with any Soviet official of consequence since Russians had withdrawn Ambassador and never responded to repeated Iranian offers to go to Moscow for high-level conversations. It will be further recalled that at Moscow Conference Molotov himself stated Soviet Govt could not discuss anything with “hostile” Iran Govt then in power.
- 4.
- I have already pointed out (Mytel 1195, December 2862) that Irano-Soviet Treaty of 1921 is not applicable to present circumstances. Unless Soviets can produce evidence that they are threatened by third power operating in Iran their reiterated assertion of rights under that treaty should be rejected out of hand.
- 5.
- Iranians have never asserted that mere presence of Russian troops in Iran was violation of Iranian sovereignty. They object solely to interference by those troops with activities of Iranian civil and military authorities.
- 6.
- Only Soviets and their stooges would be cynical enough to assert that presence Russian troops in Azerbaijan has no connection with recent events in that province. Apart from abundant other evidence [Page 319] Soviet’s formal refusal permit Iranian reinforcements to go to Azerbaijan should be sufficient to prove rebellion relied on Soviet protection.
- 7.
- Iranian newspaper criticism of USSR is no more severe than that directed against Britain. Again only Soviets would be so cynical as to pretend surprise or fear at being criticized by press in weak country whose sovereignty they are openly infringing.
- 8.
- It is absurd to assert that Baku is threatened by “organized hostile actions” from Iran.
- 9.
- If Soviet Govt really wished to settle difficulty by legitimate bilateral negotiations it has had ample opportunity before now to initiate such negotiations.
To Dept as 130, repeated London 26, Moscow 35.
Murray