THE startling picture of an aged and ailing prime minister bedded down in an airplane all the way from Iran to New York and bedside conferences between Premier Mossadegh and United Nations diplomats in a New York hospital suite this week serve to accentuate the differences between Iran and Britain in the nationalization of the Abadan refineries.

For this probably unprecedented diplomatic situation offers evidence not only of what is called Iranian “fanaticism” in the face of inevitable bankruptcy if oil fields and refineries cease to produce, but also of willingness on the part of the Iranian prime minister to endanger his own life if necessary to achieve his country’s aims.

Up to now news dispatches out of London and Teheran have lent the impression that the problem of the oil fields is not insoluble, but that the unwillingness of the Iranaian [sic] government to compromise has made any reasonable settlement impossible. The world has been told that Britain has been willing to accept nationalization of the oil fields and refineries in principle—provided she can continue to operate the equipment and market the petroleum on a 50-50 basis.

Not until now has it come out into the clear that the major point at issue is Iran’s determination to secure all the profits for herself employing the British technicians on a salary basis and repaying the British investment over a period of years.

Thus in essence the dispute resolves itself into a huge gamble for very high stakes. On the other hand if Iran is unsuccessful in her purpose she faces complete bankruptcy—with no technicians to operate the refineries and oil fields, no tankers to haul the oil and probably no markets for the oil even if somehow she is able to produce and deliver it. On the other if she is successful, former income to Iran from the oil operation would be more than doubled and her government vastly strengthened financially, with wide potential benefits to all her people.

Even considering the need for Iran’s oil in Britain and western Europe, under any circumstances this kind of gamble by an underdog country to control its own destinies and to improve its own status through exploitation of its own resources has a definite appeal to the average American. For it is in the American tradition and furthermore it exemplifies the very principle the United States has sought to uphold in our assistance to undeveloped countries.

As the discussions before the UN Security Council progress this week and as this point is developed as it certainly will be, it may appear that the Iranians are no more stubborn than the British. For with all due respect to British initiative, know-how and willingness to risk capital in development of a great oil field and the world’s greatest refinery, and as attitude of cooperation in sharing profits (but no risks) in the operation, there is much to be said for Mossadegh’s determination to win all the profits for his own country, as the source of the oil.

Should he be successful, it is probable, of course, that further unrest may develop among other small oil-producing countries of the Middle East who might see in such a settlement opportunity to take over foreign development of their own oil fields. That situation could affect American interference in Saudi Arabia and other British and American operations throughout the Middle East.

The question naturally arises as to whether Iran and these other countries are competent to handle the finances of such huge operations, and whether the profits would be used for wider education, improved agriculture and so on in those nations: whether in the last analysis, the Iranian government as one example, would be able to offer all its people the same benefits in education, housing, sanitation, etc., which have been provided for native workers by British and American concerns, developing natural resource in the Middle East and other foreign lands.

But certainly the crisis in Iran offers vast opportunity in developing a pattern for economic improvement in many another undeveloped country. Maybe Premier Mossadegh isn’t as fanatic as he seems. Just possibly, he may have the right idea.

For if Iran, with all her potential resources in oil, could be developed with all the potential benefits in education, agriculture and industry, under the wise and understanding guidance of the western nations—without danger to her sovereignty and with full regard for her spirit of nationalism—the Middle East, and possibly all of Asia, might in due time come to align themselves with the democratic West as the kind of people who demonstrate their belief in freedom, opportunity and dignity for the common man.