The Foreign Policy of the United States since 1947 has been directed toward containing the expansion of Soviet Imperialism. To contain that expansion, we have been engaged in creating situations of strength in those areas directly threatened by Soviet Power. Especially have we made great effort to protect the integrity of Western Europe. WE have concentrated our efforts in strengthening and restoring Western Europe because we have believed that the loss of this area to the Communists would adversely affect the strength and security of the United States. And in the Far East, in Korea, we are now engaged in combat with the massive land armies of China in order to prove to the Communists that the way of the transgressor is hard. But while the threat to our security in both Western Europe and the Far East is primarily military, the political struggle for power has assumed increasing importance in recent months in other and equally vital areas.
Harnessing as they have to their imperialistic aims, the apparatus of World-wide Communism, with its emphasis on the internationalism of the proletariat and the doctrine of the class struggle, the Soviets have made tremendous progress toward securing control of that strategic arch between Turkey and the South China Sea, "An Area," in the words of the New York Times, "That provides an ideal position for flanking maneuvers against both fronts.”
In these countries, nationalistic passions have been sweeping with forest-fire fury and the passions are directed primarily against the colonial policies of the West. The outbreaks in Morocco, the demands of the Egyptians for the control of the Suez, the nationalization of oil in Iran, the Communist-led uprisings in Indo-China, Malaya and Burma, the Syria-Israel border dispute, the struggle between Pakistan and India over Kashmir, the collapse of the public confidence in the government of the Philippines which is being exploited by the Hukbalahaps, are all symptomatic of the basic turmoil and tension in that area which the Communists are exploiting.
Of late and far-reaching importance to America has been the decision to nationalize the oil of Iran for it could mean the end of Britain as a first-rate power; it could mean the end of oil shortage to the Russians – shortage that may well have swung the balance against the commencement of an aggressive war.
If Middle Eastern oil were to become unavailable to us and our allies, a situation of instant crisis would appear. In the process of rearmament and building up of Western Europe as a first line of defense and in conducting a major military campaign in Korea, the usual sources of crude oil in the Western Hemisphere can no longer suffice for the total needs in oil without irreparable damage to the producing fields. Thus, dependence must be placed on more distant sources. In the Middle East, proved reserves, oil transportation facilities, and contractual exploitation rights are such as to be able amply to meet the need. Taken as a whole, the Middle East is believed to contain about half of the oil reserves of the world.
There are other reasons for the interest in Iran shown by the great powers. For 100 years, Iran has been subject to pressure from the Russians who wanted a warm water port and from Britain which wants economic privileges and strategic protection on the route to India. And, most recently, Russia has been anxious to protect the sources of its own large oil supplies in Azerbaijan, near Baku – only 125 miles from the Iranian border, and subject to easy bombing from bases which are being constructed in this general area.
In the secret protocol under which Russia and Germany divided the World in 1940, it was stated "The area south of Baku and Batum in the general direction of the Persian Gulf is recognized as the center of the aspirations of the Soviet Union."
The crisis in Iran is not over oil alone and it will not be solved by a settlement of the dispute with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The struggle is older and deeper and its elements are common to the other countries of the Middle and Far East.
The exploitation by Foreign countries of the resources and manpower of backward nations, the widespread illiteracy, misery and starvation, the domination by venal and corrupt politicians, and a massive and inefficient bureaucracy, a new and self-conscious proletariat, all compound to divide the nations by turmoil and discontent.
Faced with these disruptive forces in a vital strategic area, United States policy has been weak and vacillating.
Britain’s policy, with its very future as a strong power at stake, has been even more short-sighted, and has been, in short, profiting hugely from the very exploitation policy which General MacArthur blames for current Asiatic conditions. The final straw for the Iranians came when they realized the British Government was getting more from taxes alone from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company than the Iranian Government was receiving in total receipts from its partnership with the company.
The removal by assassination of Premier Razmura from the scene was a crushing blow to the interests of the West and was followed by the nationalization of the oil fields and outbreaks of violence. Throughout this period, there have been conditions inherent in this struggle for power that could result in the outbreak of World War III.
As Foreign Secretary, Herbert Morrison, on learning of the death of several British Nationals, including two sailors in Iran last week, told a cheering House of Commons, "If British lives are imperiled, we have got to do something about it," and, "The British Government reserves the right to act as she sees fit to preserve British lives and property."
If the British should move troops into Iran for this purpose, the Russians with the force of the Treaty of Friendship of 1921 behind them, could also move their Armies into the country from the North. Article 6 of the Treaty reads: "If a foreign power should threaten the frontiers of Russia – and if the Persian Government should not be able to put a stop to such a menace after having been called upon to do so by Russia, Russia shall have the right to advance her troops into the Iranian interior for the purpose of its defense."
Can anyone safely doubt where it would all end if such actions were to occur? We could be carried into World War III by a series of chain reactions over which our control would be limited.
The judgment of the United States that a threat to peace or security anywhere in the world is a threat to American security was first made specific in connection with the Middle East with the announcement of the Truman Doctrine in 1947. But at no time has the Middle East ceased to be closely linked with the total security interests of the United States.
The actions that the United States can take in seeking to solve the problem of the security of the Middle East are conditioned, of course, at all times by prior American commitments elsewhere in the world and by the resources, already severely strained, that the United States can make available.
But the importance of the Middle East to the System of Collective defense that the United States is developing throughout the world is such that we cannot be content with letting our responsibilities drift – within our resources we must act.
It is obvious that the development of military power in that area, below what we hope is the soft under-belly of Russia, is of primary importance, for Soviet control of the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean would interrupt existing sea and air communications between Europe and Asia, would permit Soviet Russia to menace the flank of both Europe and Asia and would give Soviet Russia direct access by land to the continent of Africa.
But we must remember it is the potential strength that the United States could bring to bear in a major war that deters the aggressors, not the military strength that we can develop in Europe or the Middle East in itself.
We must surely consider the advantages of initiating a comprehensive regional defense arrangement in this area similar to the North Atlantic Pact or perhaps extending the pact itself to include both Greece and Turkey and the other countries of the Middle East.
Of equal importance to military action is the development of techniques by which we might adjust the internal instability that creates a special threat to the security of the Middle East and which can result in action such as the nationalization of the oil of Iran. We must recognize that by indirection, the Soviets can take control over areas without the use of military force.
To combat this is a difficult and dangerous task for, not only must we avoid the suspicion of attempting to dominate the internal affairs of these nations, but also because the economy of the United States is already strained from bearing the financial burdens of the free world. Because of this, any economic measures envisaged must be considered primarily in relation to the security of this area.
We, in America, are apt to think of Asia in terms of teeming millions who live in squalor and who are doomed to no better fate. Poverty, lack of medical care, and illiteracy are indeed the first to meet the eye of the newcomer to that area. But the future of Asia may be made bright if we will only study its potential and the alliance of Asia and democracy can be made steadfast if we heed the warning.
The rough bottom of Asia’s problem is landlordism. Who shall own the land? For centuries it has been in the hands of the powerful and wealthy few. The peasant has concluded that he has no escape but revolution itself from his crushing yoke of tenancy.
We send technical experts abroad to help in seed selection, soil conservation, malaria control and the like. But we never raise our voices to better the economic lot under a land system where increased production merely enriches the few. We seem to forget that health programs and the like merely increase the number of people among whom the existing poverty must be rationed.
We put billions of dollars behind corrupt and reactionary governments which exempt the rich from income taxes and fasten the hold of oligarchy tighter and tighter on the nation.
The fact is that America has been so engrossed in providing a defense against Communism that we have lost the initiative. Our great weakness has been our negative attitude. We have been anti-communist. We have been "Pro" nothing.
No matter how feverish our efforts, the red tide of Communism seems to spread abroad. We are seized with panic as the water laps on feeble dikes. So, we rush to the support of every group which opposes Soviet Communism. That puts us in partnership with the corrupt and reactionary groups whose policies breed the discontent on which Soviet Communism feeds and prospers – groups which might have long ago collapsed if it had not been for our assistance. In short, we even support and sustain corruption and tyranny to maintain a status quo wherever we find existing regimes anti-communistic. Is this the American Ideal? It is not.
This must be changed. It might be said that this would be interfering in the affairs of foreign governments but we are already engaged in bolstering governments that might have collapsed without out assistance all over the world.
No one believes that British socialism would still hold power in Great Britain if it were not for substantial American assistance.
I do not believe that we should go about the world setting up a series of satellite governments, but on the other hand, neither should our policies support in power those too weak or too selfish to work with us in building a safer, better future for all men.
The stakes for which we are fighting in the Middle East are as great as those for which we are now fighting in Korea. The coming battle for power in that area will be as fair a test of our ability to contain the expansion of Soviet Russia as we have met since 1947.
The difficulties which we must surmount are almost overwhelming, but surmount them we must, for the power of the United States and the power of the Soviet Union have come face to face in the Middle East and we must be the victor.
Source: Papers of John F. Kennedy. Pre-Presidential Papers. House of Representatives Files, Box 95, "Middle East, Massachusetts Federation of Taxpayers, 21 April 1951." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library.