WHEN United States dollars bring us ill will we are surprised. Seemed like a while back everybody was after them.

Certainly Great Britain liked to “borrow” from us and get lend-lease; the Russians took billions in the Roosevelt days of trusting the Bear; and even now Moscow demands in a new trade treaty with Argentina that the South American land pay in United States dollars.

However, it makes a difference where the money goes. So now we see the Russian Reds tearing their hair over our perfectly decent and generous offer of food to East Germans starving under Communist “benefits.” And we also hear that London is scared that we will lend some dough to the Shah of Iran. The Reds don’t want their slaves to know there’s a better life; the British government hopes to make an oil deal with Persia faster if Persians are “over a barrel” financially.

The London attitude is the more obtuse if one considers that not only charity is involved but also the very preservation of Persian oil as a Western resource. The Russians lost out in Iran—their first political fumble in Asia—when their stooge, Mossadegh, was overthrown and the native Red party unhorsed. But if Iran needs money, and we hold out to aid the British schemers, then Moscow may win the inside track again by one of those generous gestures she can make when it may advance the Communist war against the world.

Anyway, it’s new and strange to see somebody in authority here or abroad hoping we’ll keep our money at home.