WILL another American ambassador return to this country and report that another potential friend of the west has been sold out by the state department?

There may be more to the resignation of Ambassador Henry F. Grady from his post in Iran than meets the eye in the carefully worded announcement of the move made recently by our state department.

There is good reason to believe that Mr. Grady is heartsick and disgusted over the failure of Washington to deliver on a planned program of economic assistance to that country. A state department announcement said Mr. Grady was merely carrying out a previous decision to leave Iran soon. The ambassador, who left Iran Sept. 16, came there in June, 1950, after distinguished service in Greece and India. [Sept. 19th] He is being replaced by Loy Henderson, former envoy to India.

MARGUERITE Higgins, the New York Herald Tribune’s correspondent, reports from Iran that Washington’s policy in that country the past year “is a national disgrace, potentially on a par with our failure in China.” [Sept. 13th syndicated column]

Miss Higgins, who before going to Iran did a fine job covering the Korean war, says the fact is that the U.S. has abandoned almost totally a program of assistance to Iran. Pointing out how strategic that country is to Russia, Miss Higgins makes the flat charge that “for the sake of our alliance with Great Britain the United States has allowed itself to be identified with British-style colonialism.”

THE key to the whole Iranian problem is oil and the attitude of the British toward it. Back of that there is the resentment of the Iranian people toward continued exploitation of the oil by the British. There is also a tremendous need for an expanded economy in Iran to combat poverty and raise the living standards of the people.

There is little doubt that Britain would like to continue exploiting Iran. This situation puts America between Britain and Iran because of this country’s plans to help build a strong economy in that middle east country.

It was our hope that Britain and Iran could work out their differences. Indeed, they MUST work out their differences because Iran is the heart country of the middle east and vital to the west in its battle with communism.

THE American program of economic assistance, however, did not fit in with Britain's attempts to hold on to her oil rights in Iran, Britain is attempting to force Iran into accepting her terms and is using economic pressure to bring this about.

Miss Higgins believes that the assassination of Premier Razmara, a true friend of the west, at the height of the oil dispute was a result of British manipulations in Iranian politics which angered the people and fomented anti-British sentiment. [She did not say this] The Herald-Tribune reporter, while maintaining that American-British ties must be strengthened, believes, however, that this country must break with British policy in the middle east.

MISS Higgins points out that we have been able to disagree with Britain on recognition of communist China without tearing our bonds to shreds.

The point is that the whole future of the free world may be closely linked to Iran. We can’t afford to play along with the British in the selfish dealings in the middle east. It has been America’s avowed desire to build in the free world — and behind the iron curtain as well — a feeling that we are the true benefactors of the common man. Our misshapen policy in Iran can do us nothing but harm.

But let us not take the word of a good reporter and others who have visited Iran. Let Mr. Grady tell congress about our policy in that country. It may provide the best fuel yet for those who believe Mr. Acheson should resign. [Sec. of State Dean Acheson]