5

country that did not join the oil embargo against us;
the only one of our allies adjoining the Soviet Union which
did not permit the overflight of Soviet transport planes
into the Middle East. Iran kept its oil production at
maximum capacity, offsetting by its contribution to supply
its advocacy of high prices; after an agreement in October
1974 the Shah helped keep oil prices steady at about half
the current level. After 1973 Iran's military forces kept
radical Arab armies from interfering with the peace process
in the Middle East. President Carter had characterized the
Shah's rule a little more than a year earlier as follows:

"Some have asked why we came to Iran so close
behind the delightful visit that we received from the
Shah and Empress Farah just a month or so ago. After
they left our country, I asked my wife, "With whom
would you like to spend New Year's Eve?" And she
said, "Above all others, I think, with the Shah and Empress
Farah."...

Iran, because of the great leadership of the Shah,
is an island of stability in one of the more troubled

6

areas of the world.

This is a great tribute to you, Your Majesty,
and to your leadership and to the respect and the
admiration and love which your people give to you."

I thought it incompatible with our national honor
to jettison so brutally a man with whom eight Presidents
of both parties had been closely identified. What would
other friends of the United States in comparably
perilous situations think? And on the purely human level what
should the Shah and his family do? I thought we owed
him a personal place of refuge while making clear that this
implied no political support. The issue was not to restore
the Shah. I agreed that we should seek the best relations
possible with the new government. The issue to me was whether
the United States could walk away from enabling a leader
we had celebrated for a generation to live here as a private
citizen with his family. With these considerations in mind
I called the President's National Security Advisor, Dr.

7

Brzezinski. He told me that he agreed with my point of view but that the decision was not his to make; he urged me to appeal to the President. The President was non-committal but suggested that the problem came from the State Department. An appeal to the Secretary of State elicited a flat refusal explained by the tenseness of the situation in Iran. After these three phone calls I gave up on persuading the government. I made a public speech stating that the Shah should not be treated as a "flying Dutchman looking for a port of call."

In July, when it appeared that the Shah's visa in Mexico might expire, I had one more conversation this time with the Vice President in July. He was sympathetic and told me that he would raise the issue at the next meeting of the President's foreign policy advisers. I never heard from him again.

In other words I made four phone calls to the government--none since July. Such was the "pressure" to which our government was exposed.

8

Since our government would not help the Shah and he was no longer welcome in Morocco I did my best to find him a place of refuge. Rockefeller arranged a temporary stay in the Bahamas. In May, I appealed by telephone to the President of Mexico. To Lopez Portillo's enormous credit he had the courage to grant asylum even though--as one of his aides pointed out to me--Mexico was being asked to run risks on behalf of a friend of the United States that we were not willing to assume ourselves. After the Shah was safely in Mexico I gave up on any efforts to persuade the Administration to admit him. I had no further contacts with any level of the United States government.

David Rockefeller, John McCloy and I constituted an informal committee to look after the technical needs of the Shah of which the education of his children in America was the most important. We divided our labors. Rockefeller's office through his aide Joseph Reed handled technical problems and

9

such issues as visas for the Shah's children with
Undersecretary of State David Newsom. John McCloy handled
contacts with the US government at higher levels,
principally with Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher.
My understanding is that he urged the Department to designate
an official with whom the Shah's entourage could communicate
on such matters without using our group as intermediaries.
Such a contact point was never established.

This was the state of affairs when the Shah fell ill
early in October. As it happened, I was out of the country.
My understanding is that Joseph Reed presented the medical
diagnosis to Newsom and the Administration admitted him
for treatment. To the Administration's credit no pressure
was needed or exercised. I cannot understand why those
who leak stories to the contrary fail to understand that
they damage the Administration. It cannot be helped to
present the picture of a weak government being forced to

10

act against its better judgment by private individuals
when in fact it had no decent alternative. I was kept
informed through the Rockefeller office but did not
intercede personally--though I would have had it been
necessary.

Though I was not involved in the decision to admit the
Shah, I do not regret having asked for a measure of decency
towards a fallen friend in his hour of need. The issue of the
Shah's asylum goes to the moral stature of our nation, to our
ability to elicit trust and support. Yes, we must seek the
best relations which are possible with the new dispensation
in Iran. But we shall impress no one by indulging in
retrospective denigration of associates of a generation and
turing our backs on their human need, in their hour of
travail. We were willing enough to have the Shah cooperate
with us for thirty-seven years; we cannot always assure the
future of our friends; we have a better chance of assuring

11

our own future if we remember what human debts we owe
our friends.

Since the agony of the hostages in Teheran a new feature
has entered the public debate. The tendency of some to escape
our responsibilities by discovering flaws in our friends
has reemerged in full force. The Shah is suddenly pictured
as a monster, his regime as corrupt, as never having been
worthy of our support.

This is not the place to assess the ultimate historic
significance of the Shah. It behooves us however to keep
in mind that every President since Truman has lavishly
praised him for his friendship with the United States; his
reforming zeal; his enlightened policy and his ability to
elicit the support of his people.

A few quotations may illustrate my point. President
Truman on November 18, 1949:

"It was my privilege and pleasure to meet him when
he arrived at the airport here in Washington and I was

12

highly impressed with his earnestness and sincerity
in the welfare of his people. He has those qualifica-
tions which the great masters and rulers of
his land before him impressed upon the people of
the Middle East."

President Eisenhower on December 14, 1959:

"Three times in the past decade I have had long
and searching talks with His Majesty the Shahinshah.
He concentrates, in his plans and dreams for Iran, the
hopes and aspirations of his people. From him I
learned more vividly than from books and papers the
present greatness of his country's spirit.

I learned, too, its problems, its strengths, its
advances, its vital role in the defense of the free world,
and the golden future that is assured Iran and its
people in a world of peace with justice.

Now I am here--bringing you from the American people
their salute to your courage, their congratulations on
your achievements, their best wishes for growth in
the years ahead, their pledge of friendship for you
and your people."

President Kennedy, April 11, 1962:

"We are quite aware that we not for the
leadership that he has given, in identifying

13

himself with the best aspirations of his people--whom
he is bringing out of an entirely different historic
period into today, of surrounding himself with able
and dedicated Ministers--we are quite aware that this
vital area of the world, which has been as Mr. Molotov
made clear, a vital matter of concern to the Soviet
Union, for many, many years, would long ago have
collapsed.

So, when we welcome the Shah here, we welcome
a friend and a very valiant fighter."

President Johnson, September 16, 1965:

"The program of reform and renewal which you have initiated in your country has demonstrated your wisdom and compassion, your perception and statesmanship. The United States is proud to have been associated in your efforts to maintain the freedom of your people and to establish for your country an honored place in the world community of peace-loving nations.

Your Majesty can take great pride from the record
of dangers met, obstacles overcome, and progress
achieved during this turbulent period of world history."

President Johnson, June 11, 1968:

"Each time I talk with His Majesty I see the
reflection of common values and a common desire to use

14

the resources that God has given both of our countries
and to use those resources for the benefit of both of
our peoples.

Years ago, His Imperial Majesty determined to
break the grip of poverty and disease and ignorance
in his own ancient land. Now, in less than a decade,
smallpox has been destroyed as a threat to the health of
Iran. Ninety-five percent of the total population has
been immunized. Malaria, which used to infect almost
three of every four Iranian families, now infects fewer
than one in 20.

Government expenditures for education have more than
doubled in this decade. There are 400 new schools for
nomad children alone, and seven of every 10 males of
school age are literate. More than 2 1/2 million tenant
farmers have achieved the dignity of freeholders who own
and who till their own land.

These great revolutionary reforms do not stand alone.
They are great inspiration to others."

President Nixon, May 30, 1972:

"I value the friendship that it has been my
privilege to have with His Majesty over these years. I
believe that all American Presidents have valued the
friendship that they have had on their part with the

15

leaders of this country."

President Ford, May 15, 1975:

"The leader whose vision and dynamism has brought Iran to this stage, His Imperial Majesty, is clearly one of the great men of his generation, of his country, and of the world."

Just as Iran's role and potential goes far beyond its own border, so, too, His Imperial Majesty is one of the world's great statesman. His experience of over 30 years as Iran's leader has been marked by dedication to progress and prosperity at home and significant contributions to the cause of peace and cooperation abroad."

President Carter, November 15, 1977:

"We are bound together with unbreakable ties of friendship, of past history, a mutual commitment to the present and to the future. Our military alliance is unshakable, and it's an alliance that is beneficent in its impact on the rest of the world. Iran seeks no dominion over other people. They seek no territorial gains. They just want peace, and they have spread their influence, because of the great leadership of the Shah, very rapidly....we look upon Iran as a very stabilizing force in the world at large. We don't fear the future when we have friends like this great country."

16

The record of forty years shows no contrary statements
by any President or high official in over thirty years
spanning eight Administrations, and scores of Cabinet
members availed themselves of the Shah's hospitality not to
speak of the eagerness with which many current critics
rushed to accept invitations to Iran's embassy.

Though I was