مجموعة ١٠٩/٢٨ "بلاد فارس. معاهدة التحالف الأنجلو-سوفييتية-فارسية،١٩٤٢." [ظ‎‎٣‎٥] (٤٤٢/٧٠)

B have retrospective arraiigeiuents, if not retrospective
agreements. In any case 2 ma not quite clear what the
policy would be if the agreements were not made
retrospective*
5 * The niain lone of contention is q.ite olviously^^
the treatment of any transfers after tne war to the
Persian Government of buildings and facilities erected
on their soil by the Allies* ic have considered this from
our departmental point of view, but it appears to us that
before we can go very far on this subject there is a iiiajor
political question which will have to be thought out and
decided* The point is t *at at tue end of this wdr, whilst
we may naye a number of installations in Persia and other
seid-dependont countries for the transfer of which wo should
normally seek some payment when, as we expect, they come
to be handed over to those Governments, we ourselves shall
have a number of installations on our‘territory which have
been erected partly or wholly at the expense of the united
States of America* Me presumably hope to reach an
agree^nt with the uaericans which will not be unduly
onerous to ourselves* It may be, therefore, that we
should ourselves i>et a good example by refraining from
asking the Persian Govenxa*ent to pay for tne value of
transferred buildings, in the expectation that the
ricans will be equally generous financially to us* At
least it might be desirable for us to hold our nands with
regard to the financial conditions to be imposed in the case
of any of these px*oposed transfers to ersia, etc* until we
know how the Americana are likely to treat us*
On the other aide it may be arg ed tnat our
relations with Iersia are somewhat different from those
01 t .e U*S*A. with us and that, in any case, we shall not
be doing much harm in risking an American request to pay
for the value of installations erected partly or wholly
at their ex enae 1£ we want tne.a*
The foriaer considerations suggest a policy of
inactivity for the present but we feel that it is not
within the com etence of the ^ar Office to jud e whether or
not this Is the proper policy; from a purely departmental
t * >•
point/