Attachment
Letter from Nasser G. Afshar, Editor of Iran Free Press to President Nixon
Washington, September 1, 1972
Mr. President:
In the July edition of the Iran Free Press, the Committee for Free
Iran, on behalf of the Iranian government-in-exile, demanded that
the Soviet Union remove its advisors from Iran. We made this demand
for three compelling reasons.
- 1.
- There is no military threat to Iran. Excluding only the Soviet
Union itself; all of Iran’s neighbors share with Iran a common
religion and a tradition of mutual trust and cooperation.
- 2.
- The Soviet staff in Iran has grown to some five thousand
persons, a number too large to be effectively monitored, and
posing a significant threat of political and economic influence.
We feel the present Iranian government courts disaster by
allowing this potential for meddling to grow unchecked.
- 3.
- The Soviet Union has several Middle East objectives not in
accord with the interests of the Iranian people. The Russians,
having already acquired unlimited natural gas rights, seek an
exclusive claim on the Iranian oil fields. They seek as well to
supplant the American and British military and economic presence
with their own, and to expand Soviet sway to the Persian Gulf
and beyond.
It may seem that these considerations, directed as they were at
Soviet policy, have little direct bearing on the policies of the
United States. This is not, however, the case. The
government-in-exile believes strongly in the principle of Iranian
neutrality. It is a cornerstone of its program for progress that
Iran, while a free and democratic nation, be part of an effective
buffer between the communist bloc and the Western free world. In
this light, we must note that the most visible outside military and
economic support for the pre sent Iranian government is not the
Soviet Union but the United States. In particular, although the
Soviet Union has some five thousand of its citizens working in Iran
as so-called advisors, only about thirty of these are clearly
military advisors. The
[Page 3]
United States, on the other hand, has nearly eight hundred military
advisors officially assigned to the Iranian armed forces.
The United States, under your administration, has embarked on a
policy of reducing the American military presence throughout the
world. We applaud this objective. We feel the grand design of which
it is a key part portends a better and safer life for the people of
America and of the world. An immediate implementation of this
policy, in the removal from Iran of all non-diplomatic American
personnel, is both possible and desirable. We strongly urge upon the
United States that this step be taken.
Neutrality is an important goal for us. The demand we make of the
American government we have made equally of other nations, including
the Soviet Union. We seek the removal of non-essential,
non-diplomatic personnel in the employ of any foreign power, whether
communist or free. And most emphatically we seek the cessation of
all military aid, from whatever source, to the present Iranian
government. Iran must find itself; it must discover its freedom, its
creative and industrious spirit, and its future political and social
direction unhindered by outside powers.
Revolution will come to Iran. The people grow daily more weary of
billions spent by the Shah’s government on armaments while seven out
of eight Iranians starve. But until revolution occurs, let us point
out that it is a clear moral wrong for the United States or any
other party to advise Shah Pahlavi to spend hard earned exchange
currency on weapons, unneeded and ludicrously expensive, to guide
his choice, and moreover to back this choice with personnel, when
most families in Iran must survive on less than two dollars per day.
Such actions by the United States are in direct and obvious conflict
with America’s humanitarian ideals.
The Shah has perhaps his own reasons for spending huge sums of money
on weapons. Perhaps he intends a campaign of military adventurism;
or perhaps the reasons are only medical and psychiatric, rooted in
Pahlavi paranoia. But one fact is clear. When the people rise up
against the monarchy, Shah Pahlavi will use every force at his
command to suppress the bid for freedom; he will use without
distinction all the weapons supplied by the United States, all the
weapons supplied by the Soviet Union, every force at his disposal.
Those nations that have helped supply these forces must share the
blame for the needless bloodshed that may accompany the surge for
Iranian freedom.
[Page 4]
We appreciate that ultimately the United States, as any other nation,
must conduct its affairs first and always for the good of its own
people. But the United States, as the strongest military and
economic power in world history bears an unusual burden, and must
conduct its affairs with uncommon restraint, recognizing the needs
of far weaker nations.
We know that the United States has long maintained good relations
with the present Shah. As long as the U.S. continues this support of
militarism and suppression, our quarrel with American policy runs
deep. The efforts of all true searchers for freedom in Iran are
eroded, and the risks of greater violence and of communist takeover
in the inevitable revolution to end the Shah’s rule, become ever
more menacing.
But we emphatically believe that U.S. activities have been carried
out with good intentions and in good faith. We cling to the hope
that American policy may yet change, and that the long standing
tradition of friendship between the Iranian and American peoples may
yet guide America to rejection of the present undemocratic and
corrupt monarchy.
Please hear our plea, spoken only with the voice of ourwords for
freedom and of our hearts yearning for freedom, for cessation of
military and political support to the Shah, and for the removal of
non-diplomatic personnel. Continued good relations between the
United States and the near government for Iran may well hinge on
your answer.
Thank you for taking time to consider this matter carefully.
Sincerely,
Nasser G. Afshar
Chairman
Committee for Free
Iran
