891.00/4–2949: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Iran

secret

420. Dept giving careful consideration Embtels 558, Apr. 26, 564, Apr. 28 and 576, Apr. 29 and will reply shortly.

However, early introduction arms legislation before Cong, and events related Connally statement Apr. 22 have led Dept consider new approach re handling Iran portion arms bill. Dept wld appreciate ur urgent comments following:

[Page 518]

In earlier thinking, reflected Deptel 347, Apr. 18 and Embtel 523, Apr. 20, Dept and Emb considered it desirable not mention Iran by name in hearings and to plan obtain Iran share aid from “general contingency” portion bill.

However, survey present situation reveals:

1) Name of Iran put before Committee in Dept’s testimony in executive session Apr. 22; 2) Connally’s remarks revealed to world Iran receiving some consideration; 3) IranEmb inquired several weeks ago if Iran not included and was informed it wld be considered; 4) Shah’s attitude shows he expects consideration and he and world undoubtedly wld misunderstand if Iran not mentioned in public hearings; 5) Undersecy Webb assured Amb Ala Apr. 29 Iran wld receive consideration; 6) Dept believes it will be difficult get appropriation for Iran from Cong if Iran not mentioned in view previous mention and our feeling “general contingency” will be most difficult portion appropriation request to defend. Therefore since “contingency” might be reduced or eliminated and since there are many claimants for “con tingency” funds (including Latin American countries) no absolute assurance possible that any help can be given Iran from this portion bill.

Dept therefore proposes that name Iran be mentioned in public hearings along with other recipient countries. However, proposed country-by-country allocations will be mentioned only in executive session. Effect calculated give Iran sense of participation without revealing to world extent aid, which might be construed as evalaution importance US attaches to Iran. When time came break news Iranians, our approach might be that aid must be geared into ability to absorb, must be related to continuing deliveries under surplus program, and be designed for filling chinks, as suggested Embtel 576, Apr. 29. US Gov wld carefully avoid use phrase “token aid” in any ref program and wld relate any description to phrases foregoing sentence. Filling chinks is, after all, basis our aid plan for Western Europe.1

Acheson
  1. Ambassador Wiley, on May 14, expressed himself as “in entire agreement with Department’s thinking as outlined in Deptel 420” (telegram 654 from Tehran, 891.00/5–1449).