13 MARCH TASKING RE CURRENT CRISES (U)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81B00401R002500130002-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 17, 2007
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: March 13, 1980
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 2007/05/1 gtCN 4L DP81 B 0401 ROO2 - 0130002-2
SUBJECT: 13 March Tasking re Current Crises (U)
1. During the 13 March debrief the DCI requested the following
actions be undertaken since he must be prepared to discuss/comment on
the issues at the next (Tuesday, 18 March) SCC:
a. Abrief paper and talking points dealing with evasion
of the grain embargo imposed on the USSR, specifically
including:
? How good is the evidence (and more on what it is)
on Hungary's grain transshipments;
? How are the Soviets going about (mechanically)
getting around the embargo (and how successful do we
expect they will be in meeting their needs);
? What do we know about Poland's connivance in any
embargo busting (any other "leakages?") (Action: OER)
b. Secretary Vance is to issue a paper today, 13 March,
outlining the issues involved in breaking diplomatic
relations (and lesser measures) with Iran. We are to
obtain this paper and prepare comments/talking points
on it for use by DCI at next Tuesday's SCC (an advance
copy, when obtained, should be provided DCI/DDCI for
info while comments being developed). (Action: NFAC)
c. The Attoney General distributed a memorandum at today's
SCC on "Options Concerning Vesting of Iranian Government-
owned Property." (A copy of this memo is attached.)
As in above case comments/talking points the DCI should
use next Tuesday are to be prepared. (Action: OER)
d. At next Tuesday's SCC, DCI would like to suggest the
option of taking money from frozen Iranian assets as
compensation for holding of hostages (say $1 M/hostage/day=
$50 M/day). Please provide comment/backup for such a
proposal notina if a good idea (and why), and if so how
it could work; and if not a good idea (or won't work),
why not. (Action: OER)
e. Note: All of the above items are due to OCO by COB
Monday, 17 March, for inclusion in DCI/DDCI Mnrn
Material for Tuesday, 18 March SCC meeting: I I
??!OJI FRe'yIey CIompI
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/05/18 : CIA LPA4 1 R002500130002-2
25X1
25X1
 Approved For Release 2007/05/18: CIA-
2. The DCI noted the proliferation of reports regarding the
status of health-of the hostages, their numbers and their location. He
asked that all possible steps be continued in the analysis and matching
of these various rumors, clues, sightings, reports, etc. so that he can,
when asked, give our best Judgment regarding theirn, numbers
and location. (Action: I land DDO)
3. Please advise PB/NSC when required actions completed. n
PB/N Coordinator
cc: DCI
DDC I
DD/NFA
DDO
GC
LC
D/ PA
Ch/NIC
DD/ CT
C/0C0
ES
0
Approved For Release 2007/05/18: CIA-RDP81 B00401 R002500130002-2
 Approved For Release 2007/05/18: CIA-RDP81 B00401 R002500130002-2
?
1 ! R 1980
MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Re: 'Options Concerning Vesting of Iranian
Government=-owned Property'.'' . '_
This memorandum outlines issues surrounding possible
actions to be taken concerning Iranian Government-owned
property,* in aid of discussion at the SCC meeting on March
13, 1980. It is intended to provide general information
only, and does.not analyze. the complexities that would sur-
round any of these actions.
I. Without new 'legislat'ion:
A. Census'' of Claims. The President could direct the
Department of Treasury to conduct a census of private claims
presently asserted against Iran, to identify the nature and
amounts of claims. This would send the signal that we are con-
templating. vesting Iranian assets to satisfy those claims.
B.' Assumptiiori of Custody. Based on the broad terms of
the International. Emergency Economic Powers Act, it is arguable
that the Government could take custody of all Iranian govern-
ment-owned assets, without taking title to the assets. (This
would require a new executive order.) However, this action
probably would not cause any greater prejudice to the Iranians
than the present freeze.
II. With new legislation:
A. Seizure of Assets without Claims- Program. Congress
by statute could authorize the vesting (seizure) of all Iranian
government-owned assets. This would vest title to those assets
in the U.S. Government. (At present, the IEEPA does not per-
mit vesting of subject property. Under present law, foreign-
owned property can be vested only under the authority of the
Trading with the Enemy Act, which requires a declaration of
Approved For Release 2007/05/1_ - (IA-RnPR1 Rnna01 Pnn')Fnn1' nnnv_0
 Approved .For Release 2007/05/18: CIA-RDP81 B00401 R002500130002-2
Jr by Congressi& If Congress enacts a g ral statute au-
thorizing vesti , the President could be ven discretion
as to the type or amount of property that would be vested
(e.g., bank accounts, credits, personal. property, real
estate) .
B. Seizure of Assets' with Claims' Program. Congress
could authorize vesting coupled with a claims program. The
legislation should specify whether claimants who have already
filed suit and sought to attach Iranian assets will be given
priority or whether they will participate equally with all
other claimants.
C. Claims Determination without Seizure of Assets.
Congress could. be asked to enact a law authorizing the formal
determination *,and adjudication of claims by American citizens
against Iran (as was done in the 1960's with claims against
Cuba and the PRC). Congress could, furthermore, include the
determination of U.S. Government claims in such a program.
III. Foreign Effect
Legislation authorizing the vesting of Iranian property
would, under principles of international law, riot be enforce-
able against property located abroad. Iranian dollar deposits
in U.S. Branch banks abroad could be reached only if foreign
courts were to hold that such dollar deposits in U.S. Branch
banks are in reality located at the home office of the banks
in the United States. That issue is being litigated in
English and French courts now with respect to the Presidential
freeze order.