788.13/5–2650: Telegram
The Ambassador in Iran (Wiley) to the Secretary of State
967. Deptel 594, May 22. I am in entire agreement with Department’s attitude of reserve towards Mansur. However I do not believe moment is opportune to “pull the plug” on Mansur. That operation, however, could be successfully accomplished on short notice at any time.
As separately reported, British Ambassador has cryptically intimated there may be deal between Mansur and AIOC to put agreement through Majlis (Deputy Radji tells me no possibility whatsoever present Majlis will ratify. Dr. Azmara made identical statement to Dooher).1 Therefore as Shah insisting Mansur submit revision, chances are that his Government will fall on issue. If, however, he should be successful, this thorny problem will be out of way and we can then review situation and plot our course. In other words, I think that to avoid crossing wires with British we should for moment pursue policy of negative politeness toward Mansur. This involves probably a question of weeks at most. Actually, from what I am told by Shah and others, Mansur is in state of trepidation and is looking for mousehole in order flee thorny problems which confront him. I believe that when he took office he believed that AIOC question could be postponed for many months, but Shah is adamant that that shall not be case. I too have expressed to Shah importance early action.
With regard to all military and economic assistance we may accord to Iran, I think emphasis should be made that assistance forthcoming has been result recent trip of Shah and endeavors Ambassador Ala. Moreover by following “eye dropper policy” we can maintain constant and effective control. I do not think that there is great danger that Mansur can put a conspicuous feather in his cap if we follow such a line.2
- Ambassador Wiley had reported on his conversation with Ambassador Sheppard in telegram 969, May 26, not printed (888.2553–AIOC/5–2650).↩
- At 7 p. m. on May 26 the Department of State telegraphed its concurrence with the views expressed in this cable and stated that it would leave the matter “in abeyance for time being.” (Telegram 616; 788.13/5–2650).↩