861.24591/5–2346: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Iran (Allen)
us urgent most immediate
459. Since US position in SC Wed differed from tentative position outlined my 435, May 16, you will be interested in factors causing change of policy.
On Mon, May 20, earlier position was changed to forthright stand calling for new case involving situation of Soviet interference and for establishment commission of inquiry to be sent to Iran. This stand was based upon following developments: (1) Reports of civil war in Iran; (2) Iranian letter to SC dated May 20, which gave no indication of when if ever complete report would be forthcoming; (3) Brit instructions that Cadogan propose as procedural matter commission of inquiry to investigate presence Soviet forces in Iran. Taking into account world opinion re SC, past initiative of US in Iranian case, prima facie evidence of Soviet interference, and time element affecting instructions of other SC reps, Dept was willing for US rep to offer strong affirmative resolution, despite recognition of probable Soviet veto preventing adoption resolution.
On Tues, May 21, certain developments occurred which led to modification of above stand in favor of action subsequently taken by US rep outlined my 453, May 22.47 Those developments were: (1) Tehran reports (a) that no civil war existed, (b) that Qavam was advising Ala of Soviet troop withdrawal, (c) that Commission of Inquiry would not be welcomed by Iran, (d) that Ala’s letter of May 20 had [Page 479] been repudiated; (2) attitude of SC members (a) some anxious to drop Iranian case, (b) others merely willing retain case on agenda, (c) only Brit rep definitely agreeable to strong US proposal, (d) Dutch and Egyptian reps fearing commission would be vetoed or denied entry Azerbaijan with consequent loss of dignity to SC, and (e) time element operating against new instructions to SC reps generally which would insure support US proposal.
Purpose of US proposal adopted by SC setting no fixed date for further consideration Iranian matter was to permit our freedom of action, in light of developments, along either of two future courses: (1) to agree to drop Iranian case should some other SC member so propose and should majority SC sentiment favor such action; (2) to permit us or some other SC member to move for affirmative Council action in matter of Soviet interference.
Dept following current developments closely and would appreciate your info on following subjects: (1) presence of and interference by Soviet troops in Azerbaijan, especially in areas not covered in Iranian letter May 21; (2) specific instances of interference of Soviet agents, officials, or soldiers in civilian clothes in Iran, especially in Azerbaijan; (3) degree of Soviet pressure behind recent statements of Qavam and Firouz; (4) possible future reaction of Iranian Govt to SC commission of inquiry. In addition to treatment above subjects your estimate of general situation and your recommendation of specific future US position SC would be appreciated.
Sent to Tehran, repeated to N.Y., London, and Moscow.