• Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • About
  • Contact

Cold War

Before, During, and After the Cold War

  • Podcast
  • Red Scare
  • Cuba
  • Iran
  • Urbanization
  • Spy
  • Afghanistan
  • Taiwan
  • Vietnam
  • Timelines

COLD WAR IRAN: 1945 -1959

February 9, 2011 by Lisa Reynolds Wolfe

As World War II ended, Iran’s problems intensified. While the last American troops left the country on January 1, 1946, and Britain announced that it would meet a March 1 deadline, Moscow refused to withdraw its forces. Instead, the Soviets vowed continued support for a separatist movement in the northern province of Azerbaijan, establishing a “puppet Kurdish state” as well. These activities (along with on-going concern over Tudeh operations in other parts of the country) convinced the United States that the Soviets were scheming to take over part or even all of Iran.

Moscow’s perceived objective was to create a buffer zone in northern Iran while it established the conditions for permanent direct access to the Persian Gulf.

According to Barry Rubin in his book Paved With Good Intentions:

This involved the establishment in power of a puppet Tehran government ‘led by men under Soviet influence amenable to Russian demands and hostile to other foreign nations.’ Soviet propaganda seemed to further indicate that the Russians might be paving the way for a coup d’etat.

The Soviets were also demanding an oil concession in the north.

With American support, Iran complained to the United Nations Security Council about Moscow’s behavior. Soviet activity in the north violated the Russian-Iranian Treaty of 1921 which promised noninterference by the Soviets in the internal affairs of Iran. It also violated the Allied troop withdrawal agreement of 1943.

The Security Council agreed to observe the situation over time, but urged Iran and the Soviets to negotiate a settlement.

Persuaded that Soviet leverage was dominant, the US became convinced that military supplies and financial credits were the only means by which Iran could regain its independence.

Truman’s administration had previously been reluctant to increase aid to Iran, now both the military and the State Department felt there was no other choice.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff asserted that the protection of Iran was in the American national interest. Iran was of strategic importance to the US, both as a source of oil and as a defensive position to protect American-controlled oil wells in Saudi Arabia. It might also serve as a territorial “cushion” by preventing any Soviet attack from overrunning the Middle East.

The US committed to an Export-Import Bank loan, some military aid for defensive weapons, an enlarged American military advisory mission, and increased cultural exchanges. A 1948 military-aid program gave Iran $60 million in military equipment.

Still, a complete understanding with Iran’s leaders proved elusive.

The shah believed that the US would provide massive economic and military assistance.

The American intention, on the other hand, was to do only as much as necessary to prevent a Soviet takeover.

In other words, US officials believed that only token amounts of aid were required even though the shah was demanding large tanks, jet planes, and a 150,000 man army.

As mentioned in a previous post, a US-Iran Military Mission Agreement (ARMISH) was formally established in October 1947. The mission was a response to global stimuli as well as to the shah’s perceived requirements.

Importantly, the State Department recommended against any assistance that would contribute to an expansion of Iran’s military or police budget. Instead, the pressure was for social and economic reform.

State’s opposition was based on a July 1947 report — Report on Programs for the Development of Iran — prepared by the American consulting firm Morrison-Knudsen. Their analysis encouraged investment in agriculture and transportation as well as in a private Persian oil company. While they acknowledged the probability that Iran would receive both economic and military assistance from the US, the consultants preferred a focus based on the provision of technical advisers in agriculture, public health, education, and industrial training.

The US agreed to support an Iranian Seven Year Plan (funded by the World Bank and based on oil revenue) which was designed to expand capital-intensive development and commit to a preservation of the monarchy.

The Americans made clear that they would not support the shah’s extensive aid demands, particularly his vision of an expanded state-of-the-art military. As the US ambassador to Iran stated in a letter to Secretary of State Acheson in August 1949:

No one imagines that now or in future Iranian army could prevent Soviet invasion. As we understand it, object of MAP from military point of view is to insure internal security and to increase cost of invasion in terms of personnel and time required . . . .

It was now clear that (regardless of the shah’s expectations) Iran would have to depend on its own oil revenue for most development funding. Subsequently, the issue of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company gained critical importance.

Soon the politics of oil and the American strategy for dealing with the Soviet threat combined to create long-term tensions between the two countries.

Meanwhile, even limited military support proved a provocation. As one Iranian nationalist noted:

Why should a poor nation such as ours that has gone through years of poverty be armed to defend the selfish interests of the millionaires of America and England? This is the story of the wolf and the lamb? Why doesn’t the United States give us aid to help us improve our education, agriculture, and health . . . .

At the same time, the Soviet threat that had spurred the postwar security dialogue between the US and Iran receded when, in 1947, the Fifteenth Majles rejected the Soviet-Iranian oil proposal.

Filed Under: Iran

About Lisa Reynolds Wolfe

Widely published, Lisa holds a Ph.D. in Politics from New York University and a Master of Science in Policy Analysis and Public Management from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Areas of particular interest and expertise include Cold War Studies, sustainable development, heritage, and the environment.

Comments

  1. vernon c. vouga says

    April 1, 2015 at 9:26 pm

    so, learning from this, wouldn’t america need to change foreign policy? it obviously hasn’t… why doesn’t our government learn from its mistakes, like we the people do? its almost comical, to watch the buffoonery… and i cant wait for my generation to step up to the plate. im tired of all this stupid hate.

Follow Us On Twitter

Cold War Studies Follow

A Cold War historian, Lisa holds a Ph.D. in Politics from New York University and a MS in Policy Analysis and Public Management from SUNY Stony Brook.

Avatar
Avatar Cold War Studies @coldwarstudies ·
21h

Check out this article from @nytimes. Because I'm a subscriber, you can read it through this gift link without a subscription. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/27/opinion/sunday/knitting-fabric-michelle-obama.html?unlocked_article_code=1ew_IOkoQKL6pwCvaRQwqw7kaWYxQwBmX4RM8ZwtFdZYqpOghTnXUxbK7NmSwILpgVkTsehpl3Au4GhqUs1-dQP4onemJRdEVXYlONemCl8eqaGxUhfyGFeV0mwhRgrGJBllB6l7bc09s40JuyYDCn-Pzj_QRnzJRPcBVqRfaOwmRVceyoxIxg3hjSG4aJC0jFK7rVqZ3d-HPGkCAInMKNtJNaRye6_h-msXKJWjY1ipfpuF4gvQQjACg6r618EQKLx4kY3mXwdfk4DYZAbtqtAoHTE9btePy6OljFN7QC_ZDdcEA_0JCp2Cqwlnrht_EQUuLBsVhjEs-doVEvBw0WJ9hFHqwu9kVp9GTguk1Q&smid=tw-share

Reply on Twitter 1619318960922714113 Retweet on Twitter 1619318960922714113 Like on Twitter 1619318960922714113 Twitter 1619318960922714113
Avatar Cold War Studies @coldwarstudies ·
25 Jan

Cold War Nuclear Bunker Lures Tourists Worried About New Threats https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/world/canada/diefenbunker-museum-ottawa.html?smid=tw-share

Reply on Twitter 1618235296033943554 Retweet on Twitter 1618235296033943554 Like on Twitter 1618235296033943554 Twitter 1618235296033943554
Avatar Cold War Studies @coldwarstudies ·
13 Jan

UWS Has Grown More Than Any Manhattan Nabe Since Pandemic: Study https://patch.com/new-york/upper-west-side-nyc/uws-has-grown-more-any-manhattan-nabe-pandemic-study?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=share

Reply on Twitter 1613907759782858752 Retweet on Twitter 1613907759782858752 Like on Twitter 1613907759782858752 Twitter 1613907759782858752
Avatar Cold War Studies @coldwarstudies ·
13 Jan

In Captain America Cold War: Steve and Sam https://www.theworkprint.com/in-captain-america-cold-war-steve-and-sam/123

Reply on Twitter 1613905207896772608 Retweet on Twitter 1613905207896772608 Like on Twitter 1613905207896772608 Twitter 1613905207896772608
Load More

Affiliate Disclosure

Cold War Studies is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn a small commission by advertising and linking to amazon.com. You never pay more if you puchase your Amazon product from one of our links. Thanks for supporting Cold War Studies!

 

How Much Do You Know About the Cold War?

Want to find out how much you really know about the Cold War. Click here to take our quiz. 

 

Most Popular Posts

Cold War Fashion: The Early Years (1950s-1960s)

History of Colonization in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA): Precursor to Cold War Conflict

Cold War Chile

The Rise of Fast Fashion: Globalization and Waste

The Red Scare

10 Little Known Facts About the Peace Sign

Immigration to the US During the Cold War

The First Red Scare: A Timeline

Korean War Music

Cold War Argentina: The Dirty War

The Cold War: Decolonization and Conflict in the Third World

Check Out Our Red Scare White Paper

Read all about the Red Scare. Just click on the cover below.

Copyright © 2023 · Metro Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in