This story originally appeared in the March 23, 1959, issue of U.S.News & World Report.
With Iraq in trouble and new tension rising in the Middle East, U.S. and Soviet Russia are focusing attention on Iran.
U.S. has just negotiated a military pact with that country to protect it from attack.
Moscow, at the same time, tried and failed to sign up the Iranians on its side. Now the Communist are talking tough to the Shah, threatening Iran with dire consequences because of the agreement with the U.S.
Why all this activity on Russia's southern border? To get the story, Regional Editor John Law went to Teheran for this exclusive interview with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.
Q Your majesty, the Soviets are talking very tough about Iran and you. Do you think they might go beyond this "war of words"?
A No.
Q What is your own personal reaction to the attacks?
A Well, I think that the reaction of my people has been much stronger than my own. I cannot mix my personal feelings into politics. My people have been very much hurt by this Soviet propaganda campaign. If the Soviet intended the propaganda to have any effect, it's having the opposite effect to what they intended. It's just a war of nerves.
Q What kinds of pressure is it possible for the Soviets to exert upon Iran, if they want to?
A Well, there may be some sort of subversion.
Q You mean stirring things up inside the country?
A Perhaps.
Q Is there any Tudeh [Communist] Party activity in the country today?
A No, not as such. But this does not mean there is no Communist activity. The Communists can operate secretly, with cells and so on, using different people than were in the Tudeh Party.
Q Then it's possible that a fresh group of Communists has been formed in Iran?
A It's possible.
Q Is it possible for the Soviet Union to exert economic pressure on Iran?
A To some extent.
Q What is the background of the situation that has developed between the Soviet Union and Iran?
A Negotiations for a nonaggression treaty between us and the Soviets failed because of two points they wanted us to agree on. The first point was not acceptable to us, and as far as the second was concerned, we wanted them to clarify some of the details.
The two points on which we could not agree were these:
Firstly, they did not want us to sign a bilateral military agreement with the United States—the agreement was then under negotiation—and secondly, they wanted us to agree not to grant any military base to a foreign power.
The first point we could not agree to because we belong to the Baghdad Pact, and the bilateral agreement with the United States is to implement the pact and is to be signed by the other members of the pact, too. As long as we are in the pact we form one body. Furthermore, why shouldn't I sign an agreement of that kind with the United States?
The Baghdad Pact, which the agreement implements, is purely defensive. It would not come into effect unless someone attacked us. And nobody is being forced to attack us.
As far as the second point goes, it has always been our policy not to grant bases to a foreign power, so we can agree with this idea. However, we couldn't accept the Soviet proposal on it because the proposal did not specify the meaning of a base. Such a proposal would have to be studied carefully and worded carefully. Without an exact wording, they would be able to call anything they wanted to a base.
A missile-launching site is not the only thing that could be called a base. If we built a new port and stationed a single gunboat there, they could call this a base—unless the words were defined precisely. Even the most minor installation could be called a "base".
And, furthermore, we want them to define what they meant by "foreign." For a base to be "foreign" it would have to be under "foreign" control. Yet everything in Iran is and will be under Iranian control.
Q What did the Russians mean by "foreign bases"?
A I don't know what they meant. They didn't want to define it. That was the trouble.
We are building a lot of civilian aerodromes—some of our neighbors may be building more—with foreign help, and these could be considered by the Russians under their understanding of an agreement as "aggressive." Every time we built a railroad they could consider it as "aggressive."
Q What do you believe are the aims of the Soviet Union in this region of the world?
A Well, naturally, their aims are the same, basically as in the rest of the world. They have openly declared that eventually the whole world must be Communist, even America. Mikoyan said that during his trip to the States!
Q How are Iran's relationships with the United States?
A We have always been able to congratulate ourselves on the good spirit of these relations, which date from a long time back. So far they have always been on a free, impartial basis.
Your country has always shown a great deal of humanitarianism by coming to our aid and taking our side whenever we were under pressure. Everything that has ever been done by you so far has been for the good of my country. You were not forced to do these things; it was done of your own free will. Naturally, we are extremely grateful for that.
You are doing this all over the world. This is your character.
As I see it, though, the problem for your Government is not just in having a general policy of extending friendship and help to every nation that needs it and will accept it. Your Government must also decide, at any given time, what is necessary to be done and where.
Q What is the purpose of the military agreement you have made with the United States?
A We wish our armed forces made stronger. There are some who say: If you have the protection of the United States, why do you need a large Army? But, of course, if this reasoning were true—I think it is a very shortsighted reasoning—then there would be need for only two armies in the world: those of the Soviet Union and the Untied States.
Actually, since there is not yet a strong international police force, every country must have a national army.
Q You mean that you want to be in a position to defend yourself by your own resources—
A It is our duty to defend ourselves. We could not do it successfully by ourselves, but our duty is the same as that of all the other countries. Whatever the others are doing, we must do, too.
Q What are Iran's national aims, your Majesty?
A A development of our country. We are following a policy of social justice here. We have started a group of reform programs. The land-reform programs are continuing, with greater emphasis. We have sound and just labor laws.
We are at the same time living within range of neighbors who are arming themselves to the teeth. The Army must be made at least equal to theirs in relation to our size, strength and potential.
Q Have there been any discussions regarding the possibility of Iran's getting aid from the Soviets?
A Not yet. For the time being we have started our negotiations with the International Bank and private companies. Private companies are willing and able to invest. Our plans are in action.
Q Haven't other countries found that if they get aid from the Soviet Union they have to get their goods and equipment from the Soviet Union, too, instead of being able to shop around for what they want?
A Right. It's like your Export-Import Bank, in the United States. You can use that money only for purchases in America. The money you get from the International Bank and American Development Loan Fund you can use anywhere.
Q Would you prefer to get your foreign aid from private sources rather than through government loans?
A That depends. Of course, the advantage of investment by private companies is that they bring their technicians with them, and also their know-how.
Q Do you feel that the bilateral treaty with the U.S. is a substitute for a U.S. alliance with you in the Baghdad Pact?
A As long as you don't join the pact, it gives us the same effect that we would normally expect within the framework of the pact, which is in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
Q Would you comment on any of the problems you have had during the negotiations for the bilateral treaty?
A I would not like to go into the details of the agreement, because it also concerns Turkey and Pakistan. However, the question has come up as to whether the United States would automatically come to the assistance of any one of these Moslem countries in the event of aggression. We have been trying to make United States assistance automatic.
Q As in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
A They tell us that it is not automatic in NATO. There is also the question of defining "indirect aggression." What, after all, is indirect aggression?
Suppose we were the object of indirect aggression on the part of a country controlled by international Communism?
Incidentally, it is sometimes said that we want the bilateral agreement in order to protect ourselves, to protect my regime from internal threats. I have read this in various newspapers. This is nonsense. There is no question of my regime being in danger from an internal source.
What I want this bilateral agreement for is to help save my country from any kind of direct or indirect aggression that might take place from the outside.
Q Your Majesty, do you intend to visit the United States in the near future?
A I don't think so. I have been there three times, the last time being last June.
Q There have been a number of changes in the Middle East since then—
A And, furthermore, you people know exactly what I mean and what I stand for. I have had occasions to explain this to them thousands of times.
Reader Comments