LONDON—Few Britons dared or desired to criticize Winston Churchill during World War II.

But Richard Stokes did.

Few Britons are willing to say today that the Iranians may have been shabbily treated by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. and that the Iranians may have a case in the oil dispute, even if Premier Mossadegh is mishandling it.

But Richard Stokes does.

At a time when Iranians generally are considered here to be 100 per cent wrong, the bold Mr.Stokes says:

“The Persian case never was properly stated in England.”

This is most remarkable, because it was Mr. Stokes—then Lord Privy Seal of the late Socialist government—who tried and failed a year ago to work out a settlement in Tehran with the help of America’s Averell Harriman.

Now, Mr. Stokes—a 55-year-old Roman Catholic bachelor, pro-Arab in Middle East affairs, wealthy industrialist and for 25 years a convinced Socialist of the Henry George “Single Tax” school rather than a Marxist—is bold enough to suggest that the whole British approach to Iran is wrong.

The British maverick’s formula boils down to this:

1. Neither the American nor British governments stand a chance any more of getting even a “sympathetic hearing” by Iran, let alone solving the crisis.

2. Likewise, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., in which the British Government holds a controlling interest, is so unpopular in Iran that it’s a hindrance, rather than a help to settlement efforts.

3. Therefore, negotiations with Premier Mossadegh must be divorced from politics, taken out of official hands and turned over at least temporarily to independent British businessmen or industrialists who are untainted with the Iranian past.

The Churchill government is unlikely to look kindly on Mr. Stoke’s informal intervention. Mr. Stokes now is only a member of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition in Parliament. And Mr. Churchill certainly has not forgotten that it was this same Mr. Stokes who tormented him throughout the war for alleged failure to produce effective tanks.

Mr. Stokes’ suggestion, however, is interesting, it for no other reason than that it coincides with a mysterious visit of the American oilman, W. Alton Jones, to Tehran. The Stokes proposals look as though he wants a British counterpart of the Jones mission.

Mr. Stokes always has been proud of being basically a rebel. But he also has the reputation of being one of the more level-headed Socialists. He’s a successful businessman and engineer. Britons tag him as “American style”—eager to cut through red tape and get action.

It is now a year since Mr. Harriman and Mr. Stokes left Tehran after spending a futile summer trying to make a deal. Mr. Harriman, acting as President Truman’s special ambassador, “was disappointed but not discouraged.” He then welcomed what he called “a cooling-off period,” and was confident that negotiations would be resumed soon.

The cooling-off period now is beginning to look like the Ice Age. The recent change between Premier Mossadegh and the West indicates prospects of renewed Iranian negotiations are as cold as ice.

Mr. Stokes acknowledged this. Then he startled all empire-minded Britons by saying the did not think the Iranian case ever was given fair presentation in England.

“For example,” Mr. Stokes said, is it realized that newcomers in production of Persian Gulf oil, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait, get so much more for oil than the Persians.” [slightly misquoted, missing the question mark, and Iran was obviously not included]

On a 50-50 basis, Kuwait is reported to have received $84,000,000 last year, whereas in the last published accounts of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., while the British treasury took $140,000,000 in taxes, Persians received under their agreement $44,800,000.