Great Britain And Persia.

New York Times 100 years ago today, September 23, 1912:
    Sir Edward Grey and the Government to which he belongs have certainly a thorny matter on their hands in Persia; but we hardly think the prick of the thorns will prove fatal if they be grasped with the prompt energy British diplomacy has often shown in such cases.
    As the Liberal critics of the Liberal Foreign Secretary see it, he is committing Great Britain to a division of Persia with Russia. What he says he has done is simply to agree that Russia shall do her best to keep order in northern Persia, while Great Britain does the same in the south. In this process, on the one hand and the other, things will have to be done that could not be done in an independent, self-governing country. But Persia is not really independent, save nominally, and is neither self-governing nor capable of the self-government which maintains order and a decent degree of justice. That England wishes, in her part of the work, to respect the rights of the Persians, so far as possible, is not doubtful. That Russia has a like purpose is not likely. But what is England going to do about it?
    It is all very well to say she should oppose the strong Russia in defense of the weak Persia, but a policy of unfriendly opposition to Russia at present would be disastrous to interests far greater than any involved in Persia. It would smash the Triple Entente, throw Russia on the side of Germany, practically isolate England, and leave the Persians more helpless than they are now. That would be a consummation not devoutly to be wished by the most ardent pro-Persian fanatic.