After Henry F. Grady, former U.S. ambassador to Iran, finished his calm, objective analysis of the Iranian oil muddle Friday night, an Iranian student got up and expressed a fervent wish that Grady were now English ambassador to Iran.

The white-haired, portly diplomat gave an impression that common sense and a spirit of fair play on both sides could easily have averted the present crisis.

Grady pointed out that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was getting profits of 100,000,000 pounds a year from its near Eastern enterprises, while Iran received only 15,000,000 pounds in royalties.

In revealing contrast, Grady noted that other Near Eastern oil companies are splitting profits evenly with the nations in which they operate, though this was not exactly the case when Iran nationalized its oil.

“And the Iranians were outraged”, he said, “by the fact that gasoline cost them 65 cents—in a country producing oil!” Meanwhile, the British Navy bought oil at a considerably cheaper price.

As a solution to the present problem, Grady favors compensation to the British company for the damages it has suffered and adoption of a proposal being nulled over by the International bank. [World Bank]

This proposal would mean an immediate loan to the Iranian government—which is due to go broke within a few months—and operation of the oil business under the bank. Profits would be split three ways, a third to Iran, a third to the oil operators, and a third to the bank to amortize its loans.

But this wouldn’t solve the basic problem, Grady emphasized. Comparatively small amounts of capital could do an immense amount of good in developing other Iranian resources to strengthen the country’s weak economy. Otherwise, Iran may eventually fall to Russia, which could thus gain access to several times as much oil as the small amount it now has.