The Evening Star (April 25, 1946)
Eliot: ‘Fog’ obscures Iran
By George Fielding Eliot
Prior to V-J Day, I am afraid that readers of this column became rather tired of hearing about “the fog of war,” through which it was not always possible to see clearly, or to see at all, what was happening on the enemy side of the fronts. There are parts of the world which are still obscured by fog, and if these fogs are not “of war,” they at least make more difficult the tasks of those who are earnestly trying to prevent the seeds of another war from sprouting.
Such a fog now obscures our vision of Iran. We do not know what is going on in that country, and it is a task of extraordinary difficulty to find out. When the Iranian ambassador to the United States, who speaks for his government before the Security Council of the United Nations, makes a statement. those who are honored with the acquaintance of Mr. Hussein Ala can be sure that he makes it in good faith. But it is quite clear that even Mr. Ala himself cannot be sure that his government will continue to support him tomorrow in the position he takes today. It gets back to a question of who has the final power, not only in Teheran, but throughout the country. There is beginning to be a strong suspicion that nobody has decisive authority, which extends over the whole Iranian nation, even excluding the areas still occupied by Russian troops.
We hear a good deal of such things as “private armies.” There is a report of Azerbaijan troops, armed with machine guns and mortars marching through the country – apparently against the wishes of the Central Government, but even that is not clear. There is a report of a “coup” at Isfahan, but we do not know against whom it is directed or how it changes the over-all situation. There are various groups of armed tribesmen in South and Central Iran; it is charged that they are being supplied with arms by the British, but these charges come from those who have no cause to support British influence in Iran. We know that Russian troops are still in Azerbaijan, and that the day of their announced departure, May 6, is now less than two weeks off; but we do know whether to place credence in the reports that they are making no preparations to leave, though it is clear that a Russian pass is still necessary in order to get into Azerbaijan.
American interests in Iran, as elsewhere in the Middle East, are based on settled conditions and the established rule of popularly supported governments. If there is an election in Iran, it is to our interest that it be a fair election, conducted under legal safeguards, and that the government which it puts into office shall represent the freely-expressed will of the Iranian people and not the interests of any foreign government.
On this reasoning it would seem clearly in line with American policy that we should accept an invitation, should one be forthcoming, from the Iranian government to assist in supervising the election. But this is not as simple as it sounds. In the first place, the task is one of immense complexity and difficulty, especially in a sparsely settled country one-fifth the size of the United States with extraordinarily poor internal communications. To carry it out calls for an organization of personnel, radio communications, air and motor transport and political arrangements which would take months to get together. Secondly, it would be impossible for the United States to enter into any such scheme unless our observers were assured full access to every part of the country under uniform conditions – which includes, of course, Azerbaijan. Third, there is a question as to whether this task should not be assumed by the United Nations rather than by any one country, which raises various questions of procedure and authority.
But the real difficulty lies in the obvious fact that neither the United States nor the United Nations can even consider such questions except on the invitation of the Iranian government. Granted that we have a strong interest in seeing a fair and orderly election in Iran, we still have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of that country or any other country. Other nations may take a different view than ourselves of what constitutes such interference. Pressures arising from outside sources may, in consequence, render it extremely difficult for the Iranian government to suggest officially to the United States or to the United Nations that Iran would like aid in conducting a fair election. To be obviously willing to help if we are asked to help is about the limit to which we can go, while exerting on the other hand all the influence we can contrive to relieve the Iranian government of undue pressure from any non-Iranian source.