Washington — It is hard to conceive of an issue better calculated to stir up strife in the widely assorted membership of the United Nations than Britain’s appeal to that body of its oil dispute with Iran.

Specifically, Britain is asking the Security council—composed of itself, the United States, France, Russia, China, Ecuador, India, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands and Turkey—to do two things:

First, call on Iran to cancel her order requiring 350 British citizens, already deprived of their employment in the $560,000,000 Abadan oil refinery, to get out of Iran not later than next Thursday.

Second, hold hearings on Iran’s refusal to abide by a decision of the International Court of Justice allowing Britain to retain management of the oil properties pending settlement of the dispute.

Not only is this an attempt to use the United Nations in a cause clearly susceptible to the label “Western imperialism”, but, assuming its orders are flouted by Iran, the U.N. may be asked next to launch another military rescue party like the one it now has operating in Korea.

As stated in a pronouncement handed to Washington newspaper correspondents by the official British information service this weekend:

“If it (the Iranian order of expulsion) is not withdrawn, and if any violence is offered to the British in Abadan, the British government will be under a clear obligation, repeatedly affirmed by Mr. Attlee and his colleagues, to protect the technicians, if necessary by the use of force.”

Aside from the obvious danger of leading the U.N. into another war, American State Department officials are frankly worried over the reaction to this British move by at least three blocs of nations.

These are, first the Moslem group in the Far East to which Iran directly belongs; second, Central and South Americans who started the business of oil nationalization; and third, Orientals led by India and Burma, who have branded even the intervention in Korea Western imperialism.

Since India is the only representative of any of these objectors on the Security council, and Russia and Yugoslavia the only Communists in its membership, it is conceivable that the British resolution might achieve the seven-nation majority required for any action by that body.

Quite definitely, however, the one-nation veto applies if Russia chooses to use it. And even if that obstacle is not imposed, a U.N. move in behalf of Britain certainly would receive little support except from nations with imperialistic interests of their own similar to those of the British in Iran.

For these reasons American experts have been burning midnight oil in search of some means of helping Britain out, short of intervention directly in her behalf. Two definitely encouraging symptoms are that Iran is not refusing to participate in the U.N. discussion and that Premier Mohammed Mossadegh himself is coming to argue his country’s case.

The first request to Dr. Mossadegh undoubtedly will be that he postpone long enough to allow at least a full examination by the Security council of the British proposals.

If that first delay is accomplished the next move probably will be a substitute resolution proposing maintenance of the status quo pending new negotiations, including offer of U.N. service either as mediator or umpire.

A factor which might cause Dr. Mossadegh to think twice is a marked rise of British popular pressure for stern measures since the order for expulsion of British citizens from Iran was issued.

Even the cautious London Times has declared that “action now threatened by Dr. Mossadegh (should) be met . . . by forcible resistance.”

Conservatives all along have been charging the Labor government with dealing too softly with the Iranians, and that theme is likely to be heard much more of in the present British election campaign.

Knowing as he must that a Conservative Party victory would be calculated to stiffen the British backbone, Mossadegh, no less than Attlee, might welcome a breathing spell until after the British election.

[On Oct. 25, Winston Churchill and the Tories defeated Clement Attlee. Iran was a major campaign issue.]