Coll 28/67 ‘Persia. Annual Reports, 1932–’ [‎278r] (555/644)

f
/s)o£ C.
ce
Agm i
r ^
Pti.
boCUMENT IS THE PROPERT^-e* 4«S BRITAJ1IUC MAJEST Y’S GOYERNMEWT
31 MAY 1944
PERSIA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
l b
,lo*
!
April 6, 1944.
(16546)
[E 2135/189/34]
With tha Ci 4<»ijn»iy/
of th#
Under S.<iaretary ef StatS
for Foreign Affaira
Section 1.
i. ri'c
JL £e.cs>*JL*s^i / o yit* [j
Copjj^fo.
-**■1*? r
iSir /2. Bullard to Mr. Eden.—{Received §th April.)^ ^ ^ f ^ rKtJ j 0 x -&*«-
CO. o.
*%.
(No. 127.)
Sir, Tehran, 20£A MarcK, 1944.
WITH reference to my d espatch No. 121 of the 26th March, 1943,^ I ha»^.^ ^ ^
the honour to transmit herewith a review of the principal events affecting Anr^,
interests in Persia during 1943.
2. I am indebted to Mr. Holman for the political sections, to Colonel
Macann, Mr. Iliff, Major-General Fraser, Air Commodore Runciman, Mr. Trott,
Mr. Cumberbatch, Major Savidge, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Bingley and Colonel Ross
for contributions regarding their respective spheres, and to Mr. Somers Cocks
for co-ordinating the report.
3. I am sending copies of this despatch to his Excellency the Viceroy of
India and to the Minister Resident in the Middle East.
I have, &c.
sy, • J A (f° r th e Ambassador),
U/u? - j s SOMERS COCKS.
&
/V. Jb.
o.
%.<> r
n 7 .
V?
Enclosure.
Report on Political Events of 1943.
r
i
o
-.1
3!
O
m
Anglo-Persian Relations.
1. During 1943 Persian cabinets came and went in gloomy procession with
little to distinguish them from each other in composition and quality. Each
bore the traces to a remarkable degree of those three well-known Persian
characteristics: dishonesty, inefficiency and inertia. The more the political
pack was shuffled and reshuffled, the more drab the hands became without even
the appearance of a joker to break the monotony and enliven the scene. For
practically the whole year the destinies of the country were in the hands of
M. Soheily, that prince of indecision and champion political tight-rope walker,
and it was, therefore with him as Prime Minister and his companions that all
our official business had to be transacted. For Anglo-Persian relations it was not
an entirely happy year, though far easier than its predecessor. The Persian ship of
State weathered many storms in an inexplicable manner and at the close of the
voyage had reached comparatively calm water. This may bode well for the
future, but in a country like Persia it is better to refrain from reckless
prophecy.
2. In times of peace Persia has a special interest and importance for us,
but war has multiplied the importance of those interests out of all recognition
in view of the widespread responsibilities, both direct and indirect, now placed
on the shoulders of ourselves and our Allies. At present Persia constitutes
first and foremost the vital supply line for carrying aid to Russia and, although
the operation of the Trans-Iranian railway was transferred on the 1st April
to the American military authorities, responsibility for the security of the rail
way as well as for that of the other lines of communications required for military
supplies from the south remained vested in the British military forces. In
.addition, the protection of the oilfields from tribal and other disturbances
-provided our troops with a further heavy responsibility. Persia, too, is perhaps
fnt ie only country in which Anglo-Soviet-American interests meet in an acute
5form and, if not carefully handled, are liable to clash. A spanner thrown into
I_t}ie Allied machinery by an artful Persian may do untold harm. It is in the
Hight of these considerations and of the inherent weakness of the structure of
i the Persian State that our policy in this country during the last year should
ilbe judged. As is well known, the Persian economy has, under war conditions,
-T [52—82] b