861.24591/5–946: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Chargé in Iran (Ward)
us urgent most immediate
408. Conversation with Ala before Security Council meeting May 828 revealed Amb’s feeling that Council resolution should recognize existence of two Iranian complaints; should treat at this time only one complaint dealing with presence of Soviet troops in Iran; and should anticipate future Council action upon other complaint charging interference by Soviet agents, officials and armed forces. Henderson pointed out that whole context of Council proceedings on Iranian matter seemed to treat Iranian appeal as single complaint and reminded Ala that Iranian letter of April 1529 referred to the withdrawal of “its complaint” from Security Council. Ala admitted use of word in singular in Iranian withdrawal note was most unfortunate. Henderson said he doubted that US, particularly in absence of clear statement by Iran to Security Council on subject, would be able to maintain position that Iran had withdrawn only that portion of its complaint regarding presence of Soviet forces and had not withdrawn portion regarding Soviet interference in internal affairs.
Before Council meeting, this matter was considered further in discussion with Cadogan, Van Kleffens, and Afifi Pasha. UK and Netherlands representatives were sympathetic with Ala’s contention and felt that interference issue should be kept alive. It appeared that both representatives had been approached by Ala in this connection. Van Kleffens suggested introductory statement limiting concern of resolution to matter of withdrawal Soviet forces. It was finally agreed that such limitation might cause Council controversy, which was considered undesirable at this time.
Sent to Tehran, repeated to London, Moscow and Paris.