The British ambassador is in an extremely uncomfortable position in Iran. [Francis Shepherd] Instructed by his government to protest the move to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil company, he no doubt realizes the incongruity of his country’s position.

Great Britain set an example for the less enlightened peoples of the world by its vast program of nationalizing British industries, but its navy and its investments face ruination if the nationalization program is carried out in Iran. It will be difficult for British representatives to speak with much persuasion against Iran’s new “socialistic” plans.

Nationalization of Iran’s rich oil resources, most of which are being developed by the British, could be a loss more serious to the west than Communist victory in Korea. Should Britain act to enforce prior agreements, Russia could intervene under an old treaty of friendship with Iran.

If the program goes through, it could mean not only that sorely needed oil is deprived the British war machine; it could mean that it is available to petroleum-hungry Russia. The Iranian parliament has instructed the government to employ “foreign” specialists to show the natives how to prospect for and process the oil. Under present tensions, these specialists are not likely to be British or American. Without firing a shot or becoming directly involved in the assassination of the Iranian premier—opening the way for nationalization—Russia could gain control of the oil-rich, strategically important middle eastern country. That blow would seriously hurt the U.S. as well as Britain.

The west has hopes tied in the ability of the new premier, Hussein Ala, postwar Iranian ambassador to the United States, to effect a compromise. [Hossein Ala] But it is certain that Britain’s own socialistic program and theories, added to the British techniques of exploitation and “colonization” in Iran, are not going to help the case for the democracies.