United States Congress — May 27, 1952
| The Mossadegh Project | April 10, 2024 |
In this excerpt from a Congressional session, Sen. Theodore Francis Green (Democrat, Rhode Island) urged the extension of the Mutual Security Act.
MUTUAL SECURITY ACT OF 1952
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 3086) to amend the Mutual Security Act of 1951, and for other purposes.
The Persian Army is losing the character of a national army of an independent and sovereign state. The Soviet Government finds it necessary to draw attention of the Persian Government to the fact that by agreeing to accept the so-called United States aid, and consequently taking upon itself definite obligations of a military character with regard to the United States of America, the Persian Government is in actual fact entering the path of cooperating with the United States Government in the implementation of the latter’s aggressive plans against the Soviet Union.
Now if one wants to do what Stalin demands, all he need do is to vote for additional cuts in the pending bill. He will be voting in favor of helping the Soviet Union stop cooperation between the United States and Iran. As President Truman sarcastically remarked yesterday, we are showing “real leadership,” we are really “standing up to the Soviets,” if we now cut military assistance to Iran which has a 2,000-mile border with the Soviet Union.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unless we are willing to pay the price, and in this case it is the price of the mutual security program, we may well find that economy will purchase regret. We have been too late with too little before. Let us not have that on our conscience again.
There are difficult years ahead of us in dealing with the Soviets on the many outstanding issues. we have learned by bitter experience that the Soviet Union respects only strength. If the free world does not have strength, we shall find our policy will always have to be devised to meet the Soviet threat.
Here is a hard-headed way to build strength which the Communist world can understand. Some who have proposed cuts in the program have called the administration soft toward communism. It seems to me that one way to measure who is soft toward communism is to see whether they support concrete measures to oppose communism.
Not long ago I was in Iran when the Soviet Union was pressing demands on Iran for the use of Soviet experts in the oil fields. America was resisting them. Out of its wide experience as a neighbor of the Soviet Union, Iran rejected those demands outright. Iran knows the direction in which it must look if it is to preserve its freedom.
Only last week the Soviet Union demanded that Iran cease accepting military assistance. The note stated in part that—
I ask unanimous consent to insert the Soviet note in full in the RECORD at this point in my remarks.
There being no objection, the note was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
(Following is the Soviet broadcast of the text of the Russian note to Iran protesting against Iran’s acceptance of United States military aid:)
It follows from the exchange of letters that an agreement has been reached between the United States and Persian (Iranian) Governments on the rendering to Persia of military and financial aid by the United States of America, and that the Persian Government, in its turn, has undertaken definite obligations of a military and political character.
From Persian press reports and also from the statements made by the representatives of the Persian and United States Governments, it is clear that the Persian Government, in connection. with this agreement, has pledged itself to resume contracts with United States military advisers in Persia. This has been confirmed in official statements on April 27, 1952, by the Persian Minister of Communications, Bushehri, and on April 25 by the Deputy United States State Secretary McDermott.
It is well known that the United States military mission, which had ceased its activities in January 1952, has again resumed its work following the exchange of letters between (Premier) Mossadegh and (United States Ambassador) Henderson while at the same time the agreement between the United States of America and Persia of May 23, 1950, concerning military aid and the United States military mission in Persia has again come into force. Thus as a result of the above-mentioned exchange of letters and the return to force of the Persian-United States military agreement the Persian Government places the Persian Army under the control of the United States Government.
In this way the Persian Army is losing the character of a national army of an independent and sovereign state. The Soviet Government finds it necessary to draw attention of the Persian Government to the fact that by agreeing to accept the so-called United States aid, and consequently taking upon itself definite obligations of a military character with regard to the United States of America, the Persian Government is in actual fact entering the path of cooperating with the United States Government in the implementation of the latter's aggressive plans against the Soviet Union.
These actions of the Persian Government cannot be viewed in any other way but as actions incompatible with the rules of good neighborly relations, the maintenance and strengthening of which is the obligation of the parties signatory to the Soviet-Persia. treaty of February 26, 1921.
Related links:
Soviets Object to U.S. Military Aid To Iran (May 1952 Letter)
With No Policy, We Met May Yet Lose Iran | Des Moines Register, Aug. 20, 1952
Heat on Iran | The Los Angeles Times, May 25, 1952
MOSSADEGH t-shirts — “If I sit silently, I have sinned”
