Office of the Historian

740.00119 Council/9–2746: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Secretary of State, at Paris85

secret
us urgent
Washington, September 27, 1946—7 p.m.

5142. Secdel 1005. On instruction, Ala called today to communicate contents lengthy message from his Govt summarizing recent developments Southern Iran, particularly possibility Brit complicity. Iranians have what they believe to be conclusive evidence of incitement southern tribes by several Brit consular officers. Recall of principal person in allegations, Consul General Trott of Ahwaz, has been requested. Bevin has promised Iranian Amb to London to investigate fully and to take appropriate action in circumstances. Brit Amb Tehran denies involvement any Brit consular officer. Qavam has now instructed Iranian Amb London to bring complete evidence to attention Brit Govt and takes position that if satisfaction cannot be obtained by this means, Iranian Govt has no recourse but to bring matter before “International authority”.86

[Page 517]

Qavam has impression US Govt may have had some foreknowledge of recent events and was not displeased by them. Ala was assured that US had no forewarning and that recent events can, in our opinion, only be detrimental to Iran. He was told further that declared US policy of continued economic assistance to Iran has not been altered.

In reply to Ala’s request for guidance concerning advisability his Govt bringing UN case against Brit, Amb was informed that this is naturally an important matter for decision only by Iran Govt. However, he might wish to consider precedent established in Iranian complaint against Soviet Union made at SC meeting in London, in which SC took position that matter should first be referred to parties in dispute for direct negotiations. We would hope, therefore, that Iran would not hesitate to enter into full and frank discussions with Brit in hopes of amicable settlement without bringing case before UN. Amb might also wish to consider whether precipitate action against Brit at this time might not play into hands of Russians and work to eventual detriment of Iranian sovereignty.

Sent Paris, repeated London, Tehran, Moscow.87

Clayton
  1. Secretary of State Byrnes was attending the Paris Peace Conference, which met from July 29 to October 15, 1946.↩

  2. In telegram 1219, September 12, from Tehran, Ambassador Allen had reported a conversation with Prince Firuz, who asserted he had irrefutable proof that the British had engineered the recent plot by the Qashqai and Bakhtiari tribes to seize control of southern Iran, and declared that Iranian Government was considering appeal to the Security Council. Charges were made against the British Consul General at Ahwaz, Mr. A. C. Trott, and the question of his recall was raised. (741.91/9–1246) In telegram 1231, September 14, the Ambassador observed that he was “more and more convinced that entire question of plot was built up, out of smallest, if any, basis, for political purposes.” (891.00/9–1446)

    According to telegram 8506, September 30, from London, Mr. Bevin, after studying the full British Foreign Office report on the Trott case, was satisfied that there was nothing to the Iranian charges (702.4191/9–3046). Telegram 8743, October 10, from London, reported that instructions had been sent to Ambassador Le Rougetel in Tehran to suggest to the Iranian Prime Minister that he withdraw the request for Mr. Trott’s removal, in which case the British would publish a statement containing a section intended for the tribes, as Mr. Qavam desired; or if Mr. Qavam refused to withdraw the request, the British would issue a shorter statement denying any connection with subversive activities in Iran (891.00/10–1046).

    Telegram 8866, October 16, from London, reported that the Iranian Government had withdrawn its request for Mr. Trott’s recall and that the Foreign Office planned to issue “as a reply to parliamentary question what amounts to statement desired by Qavam.” (702.4191/10–1646) For text of Mr. Bevin’s remarks addressed to the House of Commons on the matter, see Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 5th series, vol. 427, col. 902.

    ↩
  3. As Nos. 6882, 810, and 1729, respectively.↩