Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXII, Iran

62. Action Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs (Talbot) to Secretary of State Rusk¹

Washington, December 19, 1964.

SUBJECT

• Serious Problem with Iran re the Gudarzian Case

Discussion

Foreign Minister Aram has requested urgently that you receive him again to discuss the Gudarzian case, which he mentioned to you when he met with you on December 5. I feel strongly that, despite your heavy schedule, you should receive him again while he is in Washington December 21 and 22. There are two major reasons why such a meeting is required at this time:

1. This affair has incensed the Shah more than any previous incident in U.S.-Iranian relations during the past ten years. He cannot understand how the USG could allow a “known crook” such as Gudarzian first to testify falsely before a Congressional committee regarding corruption in United States aid to Iran, as he did to the McClellen Committee in the summer and fall of 1963, and now obviously to abuse the New York court system for the purpose of harassing the royal family and disturbing U.S.-Iranian relations. Worst of all, the Shah has gained the impression from Aram’s reporting from New York that there is insufficient high-level U.S.G. interest in bringing Gudarzian to book, as indicated in Tehran’s telegram 659. (Tab D)²

2. Since you saw Aram on December 5 there has been a new development that has further outraged the Shah and other Iranian officials. Gudarzian’s attorneys on December 11 entered an action in the New York courts charging that an Iranian lawyer, Khosro Eghbal, came to this country to remove assets of Princess Fatemeh and was served with a summons which he evaded by leaving the country on the advice of Donald Wehmeyer (L/NEA) and Ambassador Foroughi. Court orders were issued calling upon Wehmeyer and the Ambassador (who however has not been served) to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court. The charges against Wehmeyer and the Ambassador are groundless, but the Shah has gained the impression that Iranian immunity in this country has been breached by the court’s action in entertaining a charge against his Ambassador. This court action was publicized in the New York Times of December 12 and is described further in Tehran’s telegram 666, (Tab E) and in the Department’s telegram 505, (Tab F).

Our foreign policy interests in this problem are substantial. The Shah has just rammed through the Iranian Parliament, at our insistence and with considerable risk to his domestic position, a highly unpopular measure extending immunities and privileges to American military personnel in Iran. He has also responded in very forthcoming manner so far to our suggestions that he take a hand in the affair of Robert Bredin, an American engineer who has been sentenced by an Iranian court to three years for the presumed murder of his wife, in the face of evidence clearly indicating death from other causes. We have ahead of us some possibly delicate representations on the subject of a new oil agreement with the Consortium, negotiations for which are now deadlocked. We will also shortly be wanting to raise the subject of Iran’s participation in the supply of military units and equipment to South Viet Nam. We must anticipate difficulties in these endeavors and in all other aspects of our relations so long as the Shah can feel that he has been obliging in meeting all of our requests whereas we do not lift a finger to keep his family from being harassed unjustly in our courts or his Ambassador from being falsely accused, all by one he considers a proven scoundrel whom we do not even expose through publicity channels.

We have, of course, been for months taking measures designed to curb Gudarzian’s activities within the limits of our relationship to a state court system. These were described to Aram in some detail by the Department’s Deputy Legal Adviser on December 10, as covered in the Department’s telegram 486, (Tab G). When Ambassador Foroughi called on me on December 18 to deliver a note of protest about the latest court action and the entire Gudarzian affair (Tab H), Len Meeker and I assured him in strongest terms of this Government’s distress over the affair and our determination at high levels to bring Gudarzian to justice. We also persuaded Foroughi to help us in dispelling the false notion in Tehran that he had actually been served with a subpoena and that Iranian diplomatic immunity here had thereby been breached. I am entertaining Aram at a small luncheon on December 21 and Governor Harriman is scheduled to lunch privately with Aram on December 22. While these meetings will provide further opportunity for expressions of concern and determination, I am certain that nothing less than a direct expression of this kind from you to Aram will suffice to begin repairing the damage.

At a meeting with Aram, you could explain to him that you found, upon looking into the matter after your December 5 meeting, that the Gudarzian affair had been occupying a great deal of attention in various Government Departments for some months. Most recently these included further detailed contacts by Federal Government officials with New York State legal officials.

You could tell Aram that we too are outraged by the latest court action and are determined to take every measure within our power to put a stop to this evident abuse of our state courts by bringing the evidence of possible violations of law forcefully to the attention of the proper authorities. If you agree to send the letters to the Governor of New York, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Acting Attorney General which are attached as Tabs A, B and C respectively, you could cite these as evidence of our determination to see this matter through. (I do not recommend that you give him copies.) You could also tell Aram that we expect developments in the near future to result in press coverage that will help counteract the embarrassment caused to the royal family and to Ambassador Foroughi by press coverage of the judicial proceedings to date.

Recommendations

1. That you sign the letters to the Governor of New York, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Acting Attorney General, attached as Tabs A, B and C, respectively. I should like to deliver the letter to the Acting Attorney General myself to give him some of the flavor of the whole case and enlist his personal interest and support.

2. That you receive the Iranian Foreign Minister on Monday or Tuesday, December 21 or 22 and discuss the Gudarzian case with him along the foregoing lines.³

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, POL 15–1 IRAN. Confidential. Drafted by Tiger and cleared by Acting Legal Adviser Leonard C. Meeker and Jernegan.
2. All of the tabs were attached but not printed.
3. On December 21 Secretary Rusk initialed his approval of Talbot’s recommendations and agreed to a meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister at 3 p.m. on December 22. Telegram 511 to Tehran, December 22, reported that at the meeting Aram pressed for more effort to convict Gudarzian on criminal charges. The Secretary told the Foreign Minister that the Department was in touch with New York authorities and other U.S. Government agencies and was stepping up its efforts in connection with criminal charges against Gudarzian. (Ibid.)