anyone questions it:
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfmI should mention that in the same letter Eisenhower sent his brother on November 8, 1954 is a reference to a situation a year earlier, in which Eisenhower said "we were in imminent danger of losing Iran, and sixty percent of the known oil reserves of the world." I checked this out by looking at documents 281 and 457, which the footnotes referred to, and this has to do with Iran nationalizing its oil industry. Document 281 (use the link in the upper right corner of that page to reach it) is a letter to the prime minister of Iran.
Document 457, Eisenhower's diary entry for October 8, 1953, has another gem to use to show conservatives just how far they've veered to the right. There is a brief reference to the controversy between the UK and Iran, but more of the diary entry is about the Supreme Court and Eisenhower's choice of Earl Warren, who was so hated by conservatives. This is what Eisenhower had to say about that:
I was firmly convinced that the prestige of the Supreme Court had suffered severely in late years, and that the only way it could be restored was by the appointment to it of men of nation wide reputation for integrity, competence in the law, and in statesmanship. ...
I was equally determined that my selection could not be charged to favoritism or to personal political indebtedness. While all my friends knew that I had consented to stand for the Presidency only because of what I felt to be a matter of duty and service, still by and large the conviction prevails that if an individual supports another for the Presidency, there is almost automatically a great political indebtedness incurred. For this reason I would not have considered Governor Dewey, who came out in 1950 as a supporter of mine for the Presidency, even if he had had in a very high degree all of the other qualifications I was seeking.18 On top of this, Governor Dewey is so political in his whole outlook that I could scarcely imagine him as a Federal judge. Earl Warren, on the contrary, is very deliberate and judicial in his whole approach to almost any question. He is middle-of-the-road in political philosophy (another qualification I was seeking), is 62 years old, and alleged to be physically perfect for his age.
Moreover, in the Republican Convention of July, 1952, he never consented to turn over any of his own delegates to insure my nomination.19 He did not release them until after the nomination had been decided; consequently, there was no possibility of charging that this appointment was made as payment for a political debt. None of these considerations would have been important except because of the chief purpose I mentioned--to restore the prestige of the Court. I am determined that it will not be made a political convenience for any reason whatsoever, and whatever individuals I appoint to it will merit and have the respect and admiration of the vast majority of our citizens.
Earl Warren has of necessity been an interim appointment. I made it early this month so that he could participate in the opening fall sessions of the Court. He will, of course, have to be confirmed next January. In this case confirmation should be immediate and overwhelming. If the Republicans as a body should try to repudiate him, I shall leave the Republican Party and try to organize an intelligent group of Independents, no matter how small.It's easy to see what Eisenhower would think of the current administration and the current Republican party...