891.20/4–949: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Iran
347. Draft mil assistance bill reaching advanced stage Budget Bur clearance, with introduction Cong expected soon and Comite hearings possibly beginning early May. Possible recipient countries will not be mentioned by name in bill, but justification will doubtless involve elucidation specific needs North Atlantic Pact countries and continuation Grk-Turk aid. To assure provision funds for future Iran program, however limited, it wld probably be necessary to name Iran in Cong hearings (urtel 472, Apr. 91) Favorable Cong consideration might well depend upon Iran having made formal, however general, request for mil assistance.
Principal argument favor naming Iran is Cong might be expected to be more favorable to specified recipients or to appropriation contingency fund including specified recipients.
Principal argument against naming Iran is implicit necessity stimulating request which cld be met in only limited amount. In any event, amount allocated for Iran is bound to be small, say, twelve million, with no chance for material increase. As you must be aware, this situation is dictated by assessment supply-demand factors largely [Page 504] in terms probable immediate mil effectiveness assistance accorded. As we see it, justification future Iran program based primarily on polit-psychological considerations (urlet Mar. 252), which cannot be used support anything approaching scale of Turk program.
Wld appreciate ur views urgently re:
- a)
- Shld Iran be mentioned by name in public presentation to Cong?
- b)
- Shld we sugest IranGov make formal request for limited mil aid?
- c)
- Timing and method advising IranGov its place in our mil aid planning.