891.6363/10–1347: Telegram
The Ambassador in Iran (Allen) to the Secretary of State
1001. Embassy will continue to do everything possible to correct reports by American newsmen and others (Deptel 623, October 91) that Iranian opposition to Soviet oil proposals is due to direct US prompting. We are repeating continually to Iranian officials and local press that decision regarding oil is entirely for Iran to make, our only concern being that Iran should be free to make it without menaces or threats of aggression.
I have talked with Currivan2 since receiving Deptel 623, and have emphasized again our position. However as regards his despatch under reference I should point out that he was reporting entirely honestly when he said Iran’s stand was attributable to US support. In view of uncertain British position Iranians would most certainly have given in to Soviet pressure if it had not been for American attitude.
As regards prompting, Iranian Embassy in Washington is probably not aware that Iranian Government itself has been largely responsible [Page 969] for propagating point of view which Currivan merely reported. Qavam’s propaganda director in important radio speech (Embtel 954, October 3) implied that both US and USSR were contestants for Iranian oil and said that desire of Iranians to avoid offending USA was one of principal reasons for their opposition to Soviet proposals. Following my strong complaint he tried to explain or water down his statement (Embtels 981, October 93 and previous) and he has apologized to me twice in person and expressed effusive regrets at our displeasure at his improper references to American position, but it remains abundantly clear that Qavam and many other Iranians wish Soviets to believe that Iran is acting under direct American advice. Iranians purpose is to direct Soviet ire against US. Qavam would naturally deny any such intention if asked but the facts stand out clearly.
While I have emphasized to Iranians that US does not give them public assurances of our support for their freedom of choice and then secretly tell them what to do, I realize that we are largely playing with words even in this regard. Overcoming the fear of aggression in Iran is the most positive way of influencing Iran’s decision. Nevertheless, I concur fully with Department’s view that we must continue to emphasize that our action is intended merely to support Iran’s freedom to decide. Embassy is also taking every appropriate occasion to emphasize (Deptel 557, September 124) that our policy is carried out through UN.