Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V

611.88/11–3050: Telegram

The Chargé in Iran (Richards) to the Secretary of State

secret

Tehran, November 30, 1950—4 p. m.

1220. Please pass Ambassador Grady.¹ Embtel 218, November 29.² Following are main points given to Reuter’s correspondent by Shah for publication:

1. Shah said, “Persian people and I myself are fully aware of the importance of American friendship to Persia but I would like the Americans to realize as well how much Persia’s friendship, Persia’s integrity and Persia’s independence mean to them. So far American aid has in no way justified early expectations despite wide publicity regarding the extent of the aid which was to be given. This may change in the future. As matter now stands we have spent $3,500,000 during the past 2 and ½ years on the salaries of American advisers working here. Also we have paid our full share to the International Bank which amounts $25,000,000. What have we received so far?

a. One consignment of arms for which we have paid and another consignment free of charge. Most of these arms out of date and quite inadequate for defense against a well-equipped force.

b. $500,000 under President Truman’s Point IV program.

c. A $25,000,000 loan which has been offered to us after considerable delay by the Export-Import Bank under terms of 3½ percent.

2. No occasion has been missed by certain sections of the US press to accuse our country of corruption. What is the corruption in Persia in comparison with corruption elsewhere, particularly in those countries which have already received substantial free American aid?”

3. Speaking of Persia’s position in the world, Shah said country did not expect “carping criticism and idle gossip of dictatorship in Persia. We have no need of dictatorship. My people need the guidance of a strong Monarchy and continuance of the work of my father by other methods.”

Embassy has learned in confidence Shah’s original statements were much more anti-American but were subsequently approved in milder expurgated form for publication. He reportedly concentrated, in his off-the-record remarks, almost entirely upon US failure to give promised aid to Iran and contrasted most unfavorably treatment received by Iran when compared with aid given others, particularly Greece and Turkey. He also said, off-the-record, that he could not understand why Americans accused him of flirting with Soviets when the northern provinces were in a dire condition while only aid US had offered was loan at high interest and under onerous conditions.

He reportedly inquired of Renter’s correspondent at one time, “do you think that our dealings with Soviets are cause of Ambassador Grady’s return to US?”

Interview has been widely distorted in local press and over Tehran radio. Universal feeling in Tehran is that Shah has given vent to strong anti-American feelings [and Renter’s?] correspondent got impression that Shah thought interview would assist Ambassador Grady’s present mission. Local result of incident will be to cause further deterioration in already greatly weakened US position here. Press and radio versions Shah’s interview will undoubtedly be adopted by Government officials and public as guide to relations with us. For example, last evening ⅔ members Iran-American relations society failed appear at meeting reportedly because of interview.³

Richards

1. Ambassador Grady had left Iran on November 27 for consultations in Washington.
2. Not printed; it reported that the Shah had given to a Renter’s correspondent; an interview that was critical of United States policy, and that further details would be telegraphed. (611.88/11–2950) The interview was given to Leopold Herman at the Green Palace in Tehran on November 27. He gave a copy of the interview to Richards who subsequently transmitted it to the Department of State in despatch 398, December 1, not printed (788.11/12–150).

3. On December 2 Richards reported that Razmara “deplored Shah’s action” and pointed out that many times the “Shah is emotionally hasty”. Razmara asked Richards to tell Ambassador Grady that the interview reflected no change in Iranian policy. Richards commented:

   “Obviously, regardless of what PriMin says, Shah’s action has done considerable damage our position here. It has reinforced prevalent belief US is not carrying out promises of aid to Iran and in addition has created unfortunate impression US military aid consists of junk.” (Telegram 1235, 611.88/12–250) On December 4 Richards reported that Razmara was still concerned about the incident and that the Prime Minister had talked to the Shah to indicate the unfortunate outcome of the interview. On the same day in a telegram approved by Ambassador Grady, Richards was sent the following:

   “FYI only. As we see it from here Shah’s remarks primarily motivated by his desire to increase his personal popularity now that anti-Americanism is vogue in Tehran and are accurate reflection basic weakness of character which has been apparent for some time. Dept does not contemplate raising matter with him at least until Amb Grady’s return when desirability of conveying Dept’s views to him can be considered in light of situation prevailing at the time.” (Telegrams 1250 from and 946 to Tehran, neither printed; 611.88/11–3050)