The “farewell” address made by Iran’s Premier Mossadegh to the National Press Club consisted largely of an unjustified attack on the American press. Nearly all United States newspapers have been more than sympathetic with the determination of the Iranian people to win political and economic independence, but maintain that sovereignty carries the responsibility of accommodation to international contracts.

During his long stay in Washington, Premier Mossadegh has been deaf to the principle of a fair compromise which would admit full Iranian ownership and majority control of the disputed oil properties, with a form of neutral operation to assure efficiency and fair compensation to the British for their heavy investment. Instead, he has done nothing but pressure the United States for financial assistance, without any guarantees whatsoever.

There is no question but that Tehran and the Iranian people need economic assistance. Indeed, the American Government has seen to it that the International Monetary Fund will give Tehran an emergency credit of 8.5 million dollars, despite Mr. Mossadegh’s obduracy on any kind of a two-way oil settlement. Much larger direct American credits have been properly conditioned on Iran’s willingness to show evidence of good faith. That has not been forthcoming, with the oil welshing attitude as a glaring example.

The United States could and should offer to buy the entire Iranian oil output, provided that Iran is willing to give evidence that it will not abrogate any new contract the moment it decides to have second thoughts. This would not only insure the flow of the oil to the West instead of to the Soviet sphere, but also would set up Iran as a going economic concern. Both the British and the Iranians ought to be practical enough to see the mutual benefit of such an arrangement.

While the United States is in no mood to help the British back into the privileged position in the unfortunate country, it certainly is aware of the implications of one-way repudiation of international obligations. And it should not go along with Mr. Mossadegh until he gives concrete assurances that he is not, as charged by the opposition in his own Parliament, deliberately allowing the Communists to build up their strength in Iran to scare more money out of the United States.

Whatever their sympathy for the Iranian people, our taxpayers cannot afford, either for monetary or security reasons, to subsidize a government which not only leans toward mystic “neutralism” like Nehru’s India, but which actually is trying to wring cash from them by the implied threat of making a deal with Moscow. [Premier Jawaharlal Nehru]

“In view of the Iranian crisis, too much stress cannot be laid upon the fact that the foundation of international trade lies in respect for contractual agreements,” asserts George A. Sloan, chairman of the United States Council of the International Chamber of Commerce. “Contract rights can be and are frequently modified by mutual agreement as economic conditions and time indicate the need for changes.” Iran is trying to throw the necessary word “mutual” into the ash can as an international example. It cannot be permitted to do so.

Opposition Leader Imami has assailed Mossadegh’s policy of playing off Russia against the West, asserting to Iran’s Parliament: “I declare that we have to go on the side of the Western bloc, like Turkey.” [Jamal Emami]

Until Mossadegh’s Government sees the light, or is replaced by one more responsible, the United States should confine its Near East assistance to areas of cooperation and return, like Turkey. That is the central fact of American politics today.