Memorandum of Conversation, by Raymond A. Hare, Political Adviser to the United States Delegation at the United Nations

USSC 46/13 (Conv. 1)

During the Security Council meeting on Greece yesterday, I had a short conversation with Ambassador Taqizadeh regarding the decision taken by the Security Council in the Iran case and I mentioned to him certain of the more reassuring aspects of the result, stressing particularly the importance of the decision made in the Council’s resolution in respect of reporting back to the Council on its demand, the effect of which was to make it possible to bring the matter back before the Council by a procedural vote.

The Ambassador replied that he was of course still very much disappointed that the Council’s resolution had not made provision for maintaining the Iranian case on its agenda, this having been the stipulation on which he had indicated willingness to resort to direct negotiation. He added that he appreciated the importance of the provision made for reporting to the Council but the question which came to his mind was whether the necessary initiative would in fact be taken by [Page 328] the Council should necessity arise. He had greatly appreciated the strong support which Britain, the United States and Australia had given Iran in the course of the debate and he hoped that he could count on their continued support. In view, however, of the difficulties in the relations between Britain and the Soviet Union, he thought it would be much better if the United States would raise the question of reporting in the event that the circumstances should so require and he asked if Iran could count on United States support in that regard. I replied that this was a question which I, of course, could not undertake to answer and that generally speaking it was difficult to give definite assurances upon the basis of hypothetical future developments. However, I suggested that the Ambassador would undoubtedly wish to bear in mind in this connection the past statements of American policy in respect of Iran and also the reservation made by Mr. Stettinius at the end of Wednesday’s debate to the effect that the Iranian question should remain of “continuing concern” until a satisfactory solution is reached.

[Here follows comment by Ambassador Taqizadeh on the stand taken by various members of the Security Council during debate on the Iranian matter.]

Ambassador Taqizadeh said that, despite his disappointment in the Council’s verdict, he wished to do everything possible to make the best of the existing situation and that he had accordingly approached Mr. Vyshinsky on Thursday and had suggested that they proceed at once to bilateral conversations as envisaged in the Council’s resolution. Mr. Vyshinsky had replied that he would require instructions from Moscow in order to initiate such conversations and asked if Ambassador Taqizadeh had powers to enter discussions. The Ambassador replied that he was prepared to begin discussions immediately and emphasized to Mr. Vyshinsky the importance of “striking while the iron is hot”. Mr. Vyshinsky said that he would seek instructions from his government immediately and hoped to have word back from Moscow within the course of the next day or so.

Raymond A. Hare