A U.S. Policy at Last?

The U.S. may be ready at last to do something about Iran. For 19 months the U.S. State Department stood by and watched the Iran mess get messier. It sweated out three separate negotiating missions, three offers for a settlement by the British and one by the International Bank, two sessions of the World Court at The Hague, one of the U.N. Security Council, three Iranian cabinets and uncounted buckets of tears from Premier Mohammed Mossadegh. Nothing worked. The U.S. intervened just enough to get stuck with a large measure of the blame for the mess, but not enough to clean it up. Washington did put some pressure on London to make concessions to the Iranians, but by & large the only U.S. policy throughout was to tag along behind the British.

Last week the U.S. was seriously considering a new policy of its own which might break the deadlock. The main British weapon against Iran has been the blockade. It has left the Iranians somewhat in the position of Tantalus, who was up to his neck in water but, though dying of thirst, was not able to drink it. The Iranians are up to their necks in oil but, though nearly bankrupt, they cannot sell it, because the British stop any ship that tries to carry the oil to market. The U.S. has tacitly supported the blockade; the new policy would, in fact, mean a diplomatic U.S. move to end it.

Busy Oilman. Spearhead of the new U.S. policy is U.S. Oilman W. Alton Jones, president of the Cities Service Co. (TIME, Sept. 1 et seq.), who last week left for the U.S. after four weeks in Iran. He had been there as a private citizen, but it was clear that he had at least the tacit approval of the White House and the State Department. Last week, before leaving Teheran, Jones called in reporters. Said he: no deals had been made and no details discussed, but Cities Service might help Iran revive its oil industry, and might buy some Iranian oil. He estimated the cost of getting the stalled oil wells and refineries back into production at less than $10 million, added that tankers were available immediately to carry Iranian oil to world markets. Within a few months, he suggested, Iranian oil exports could become a paying proposition.

Reminded that the last tanker captain to attempt to run the British blockade wound up in a British court at Aden (TIME, June 30), Jones snapped: "If I sent any tankers, you can be sure the same thing wouldn't happen ... If you mean that I will be sued by the British and Anglo-Iranian, I might, but I will not lose much sleep over that." Had the U.S. State Department approved his trip? Jones replied: "Well, they didn't disapprove."

Ripe Plum. How would the British take a U.S. policy change? The British Foreign Office again warned that it would take "all practical steps" to block Iranian oil sales. But under pressure from the U.S., the British might lift the embargo.

Britain has argued all along that: 1) there was a chance that its "tough" policy would force the Iranians into a settlement; 2) there is no immediate danger that the Communists might take over in Iran. The first assumption is no longer valid, and hasn't been for months. Further negotiations seem futile. The second assumption cannot be relied on. While the Communists have so far failed to make any serious attempt to seize power in Iran (they may have decided that it is smarter to stay in opposition and sabotage the government instead of being saddled with government responsibility themselves), Iran is becoming a riper and more inviting plum for the Reds every week the deadlock continues. Said one Briton last week: "After all, it might be better to lose Anglo-Iranian and keep Iran."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.