A Critique on the Iran's Diplomacy Organization in
Pahlavi's Era
Conversation with Majid Mehran, the former diplomat of Foreign Ministry

Morteza Rasouli

In regard to the influence of the English in the region even after 19 August 1953 coup, I shortly believe about the Iraq's history that from the time of its independence (1932) until the coup of Abdolkarim Qasem in 1958, the British government was the decisive ruler of Iraq and also the king was obedient to the English. Just in one case when I was a child, there were being said that as Malak Qazi, the son of Malak Feisal, after coming to the throne was not acting completely according to the British orders and was not helping them suitably, they killed him. In his opposition to the English government, he decided to annex the Kuwait's territory to Iraq, for this he was killed in an false automobile accident.

By the coup of Abdolhakim Qasem, the Iraq's government completely changed its politics and was inclined towards Soviet Union. The Soviet authorities also in return endeavoured to provide Iraq's financial and military requirements.
Regarding the English influence in Iran it should be said that although according to the confession of Kermit Roosewelt in coup of 28 Mordad it was Americans who paid the fees, but the English also were not willing actually that all of the Iran's matters being solved by Americans. By the agents they had among the Iran's ruling class and by different instigations, they could arise frontier fights in Iran and Iraq's borders and overestimated the disputes on Arvandrood and instigated Kurdistanis to revolt against both states. In this way, English intended to alarm the Shah that he could not solve Iran and Iraq's conflict without considering the England and only by mediation of America. Therefore one should not ignore the role of English government in adding fuel to the fire of Iran and Iraq's conflict. Obviously it must be admitted that English were founder of 1316 frontier treaty between Iran and Iraq in which the retaining of their interests directly has been stipulated. Once in the office of doctor Mahmud Ali-al-Dawood, the political general of Iraq's foreign ministry, I told him the Shah of Iran had said that: " The article 4 of Iran and Iraq's frontier treaty according to which Iran and Iraq should not take step against the Great Britain's interests is a colonizing article and in case of eliminating it the aforesaid treaty probably could be retained again. Are they concluding a treaty in which they stipulated the interests of a third country which is thousand kilometers away from us? Are we the Britain's colony!" Doctor Dawood said something in reply to me which made me ashamed whenever I remember it. He said : " Mr. Mehran, you are right, but the Iraq's government was Britain's colony at that time; why the Persian government which was independent went under such a shameful treaty and signed it?" Surely it was not advisable to say that Noori Saeed, then the prime minister of Iraq threatened RezaShah behind the closed doors on behalf of the English and put him in such a condition that he was forced to sign the treaty. Also it should be born in mind that all of our ambassadors in Baqdad were Freemasons and had no anti-British felings.