NEGOTIATIONS WITH IRAN FOR RELEASE OF HOSTAGES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 29, 2010
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: November 10, 1986
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
RADIO N REPORTS, INC.
4701 WILLARD AVENUE, CHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND 20815 [phone]
PROGRAM Face the Nation STATION WUSA - TV
CBS Network
November 10, 1986 12:00 Midn
qLK
Washington, D.C.
Negotiations with Iran for Release of Hostages
LESLEY STAHL: The White House is still refusing to
comment as evidence accumulates that President Reagan approved a
ecret plan 18 months ago that led to a swap of military
equipment for American hostages.
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: There's no way that we can
answer questions having anything to do with this without
endangering the people we're trying to rescue.
STAHL: Shortly after the release last week of hostage
David Jacobsen, it was reported that the U.S. has been sending
military spare parts to Iran as part of a secret deal to gain the
freedom of American hostages in Lebanon. The upecation appears
to conflict with stated U.S. policy.
PRESIDENT REAGAN: America will never ,hake concessions
to terrorists. To do so would only invite more terrurism.
STAHL: According to U.S. sources, the uperation has
resulted in the release of hostages Benjamin Weir, Lawrence
Jenco, and David Jacobsen.
DAVID JACOBSEN: My joy is somewhat diminished by the
fact that other captives are still being held in Lebanon.
STAHL: First official confirmation of the deal came
from Iran. Speaker of the Parlieman Rafsanjani revealed that
former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane flew to Teheran
in September bearing a Bible signed by President Reagan, a cake
in the shape of a key, and military equipment. McFarlane says
somne of the report is fanciful, but no denial.
Matenai swooned by Radio N Reports, Inc may be used far' e and reference purposes or y ,1 may not be 'eproduced sold or pubi,cly demonstrated or exn,bited
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
ROBERT MCFARLANE: I won't have any comment on these
STAHL: By week's end, there was a chorus of
congressional criticism.
SENATOR ROBERT DOLE: But I think the longer-term result
would be to endanger more American lives and generate more
hostages.
SENATOR ROBERT BYRD: We may be setting up a perpetual
motion situation here in which arms are traded for hostages, and
more hostages are taken.
STAHL: Was the secret White House operation a good idea
r a mistake? We'll ask Senators Patrick Leahy of Vermont and
rrin Hatch of Utah, both members of the Intelligence Committee.
nd we'll hear from two former Carter Administration officials
who in 1980 worked on winning the release of the American
hostages from Iran: Warren Christopher and Robert Hunter.
Trading weapons for hostages, an issue facing the
STAHL: Joining us from Boston, Senator Patrick Leahy,
Democrat of Vermont: and here in Washington, Senator Orrin Hatch,
Republican of Utah. Both are members of the Senate Intelligence
Committee.
Let's go to Boston first and Senator Leahy.
I'd like to ask you your reaction to these revelations
tnat perhaps the United States was involved, in some way, setting
up a swap of spare parts and other military equipment for
American hostages. And also tell us, as a member of the Intelli-
gence Committee, exactly what you knew about this operation.
SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY: Well, I've been watching it with
a great deal of amazement because, to begin with, I knew nothing
about it. To my knowledge, neither the House nor Senate
Intelligence Committee was briefed on any aspect of this. If
that's the case and the stories are true, then it would appear
that the White House is trying to do a back-door way to get away
from any congressional oversight, probably claiming so there
won't be leaks, although this is something that they have leaked
in bundles. And I've watched it with amazement because I agree
with both Senator Dole and Senator Byrd that if this is going to
be U.S. policy, if we're going to give arms for hostages, it's
not going to take terrorist groups, like Iran, very long to
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
realize that the easiest way to get more U.S. arms is to seize
more Americans.
We all want our Americans back. But I don't see setting
up a procedure that is simply going to endanger more Americans in
the future.
STAHL: Well, let me ask Senator Hatch whether he knows
any of the facts, if you can confirm these stories that the
Administration, at least on the record, has not yet confirmed,
and what your reaction is.
SENATOR ORRIN HATCH: Well, I know some of the facts.
But let me just say this: If the sole purpose of exchanging
parts is to get hostages, is to deal with terrorists, then that's
not a very good purpose. I suspect, and I think anybody here who
really looks at this seriously, realizes that there's a much
wider goal. Much like the Economist magazine this week on its
November 8th edition said, that if only dealing with hostages is
all there's involved here, that's bad. But if there's a wider
goal -- and the wider goal here is to try and bring about a more
moderate group of leadership in Iran. And I might add that we've
made some strides in that regard. The Carter Administration
tried the same thing.
This has been an Israeli approach since 1970. The
Israelis have admitted in public newspapers that they literally,
in their national security interest, have wanted to transfer arms
and equipment, and even supplies and even parts, to Iran. And
it's in their best interest to do so. In fact, back in 1980
Prime Minister Begin called Carter and indicated that he wanted
to do this. And there are some very interesting facts pertaining
to that particular...
SENATOR LEAHY: You know, but I -- I think that you're
going to find the Administration, now that they've had everybody
look at this plan saying how crazy it appears, probably coming
out with that theory that we really wanted to help Iran, help
moderates in Iran. But what does that say? Do we then help
overthrow Iraq so that we have our moderate Arab friends now feel
threatened by Iran [sic]? No, I think not.
I think what you have is a situation in the White House
where, with people like Colonel North and others, they've gotten
pretty excited about running their own CIA, State Department,
Defense Department out of the White House without anybody looking
over their shoulder. What happens in that, if y u u want to
shortchange and kind of oversight, that's when you have the
mining of the harbors in Nicaragua, the assassination manual, the
Hasenfus situation. And now, while we're telling our allies not
to sell arms to terrorist nations, we apparently are sending them
on to Iran. It makes no sense.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
STAHL: Answer those questions.
SENATOR HATCH: I think it's a little hypocritical fur
he Carter Administration officials, Jimmy Carter himself, David
arons, Stansfield Turner, Muskie, and others, all of whom I know
nd like, I think it's a little hypocritical for them to be
condemining this Administration when, really, on October 11th --
now, this is something that was kept from the people -- October
11th, 1980 there was a message sent to Germany, to Bonn, to none
other than Warren Christopher indicating that Carter had approved
a $150 million spare parts and aircraft transfer.
In exchange for those hostages?
SENATOR HATCH: In exchange for -- they were trying to
get hostages at that time.
But, literally, there's a lot more involved here than
just the hostates. There literally are tremendous factions,
between Montazeri, Rafsanjani, and others who are likely to
become potential successors to Khomeini. And this Administration
is doing everything it can for hostages, but also to try and, it
seems to me,.bring about a moderate takeover in Iran.
STAHL: If this was such a wonderful idea, why was
Shultz opposed to it? Why was Weinberger opposed to it? And why
was it carried out so secretly from within, as Senator Leahy
says, this kind of unilateral operation within the White House?
SENATOR HATCH: Well, was in the National Security
Council. And frankly, that's not new either. I remember -- you
could look at David Aarons and some of the trips that he made.
Take Somalia and Ethiopia.
STAHL: Answer about Shultz? Answer about Shultz.
SENATOR HATCH: He did that as a member of the National
Security Council.
You don't hear Mr. Brzezinski making any comments right
STAHL: Well, what about Shultz?
SENATOR HATCH: And one reason you don't is because he
STAHL: You're not answering my question, Senator. Why,
if this was such a great idea, did you have two Cabinet
Secretaries opposing it?
SENATOR HATCH: Well, I can't speak for Shultz, but I
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
happen to believe that both Shultz and Weinberger have both known
about this project. I don't think there's any question about
that.
I might also add, go back to the Carter Administration.
One of the best books written...
[Confusion of voices]
SENATOR HATCH: This whole thing began back in 1980.
STAHL: Let's stay in the present.
SENATOR HATCH: So they're criticizing Reagan fur
something they themselves did, initiated, approved.
STAHL: Well, let's stay with this story.
Senator Leahy.
SENATOR LEAHY: Could we say this? You know, after six
years of the Reagan Administration, at some point they might want
to take credit for their own actions or responsibility for their
own actions, not for the Carter or the F u r d or the Nixon
Administration.
STAHL: Let me -- can I ask you both...
SENATOR LEAHY: The fact is, if this is such a great
idea, what we are doing is selling -- or giving arms to Iran
after having told our allies not to do that. We apparently are
exchanging arms with terrorists for the exchange of Americans,
setting up a precedent where it would appear that you could get
more arms if you just seized more Americans, and cuing it in a
way carefully conducted so there can be no dissenting voice from
within Congress, no oversight. That's a sheer plan for disaster.
STAHL: Doesn't it bother you, Senator, that...
SENATOR HATCH: It doesn't bother me, because I think we
ought to pay a little bit of attention, media and politicians
alike, to what Mr. Jacobsen said: Back off. You're dealing with
20 remaining hostages over there in Iran. And frankly, there's a
lot more involved. And I don't want to see those people killed.
I don't want to see them roughed up or brutalized, like Jacobsen
and others have been. And I think sometimes we don't nandle
these things very well.
But there's a lot more involved. That's the point.
STAHL: Well, tell us about it.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
SENATOR HATCH: Our Israeli friends are involved. It's
all over the media that they have been doing this.
There's no question Carter's Administration was
involved. There was a $150 million arms transfer approved. The
only reason it didn't go through was because Rafsanjani rejected
it and said he'd rather give the money back. They'd already paid
for these arms, and he said he'd rather give the money back than
have arms from this evil empire of the United States.
Now, if we can, in the overall interests of the Middle
East -- Iran being a very, very important place -- if we can,
through a negotiation, reach wider goals, but at the same time
release these hostages, my gosh, I can't imagine why anybody
would not want to.
And anybody who thinks that this Administration would
deal solely to release the hostage in this area, I think is
wrong. And I think the Carter Administration knows that. So
does Stansfield Turner. So does Jimmy Carter. So does Ed
Muskie.
STAHL: Senator, an Arab diplomat told me this week that
what the United States has done now is put a price on eachn
hostage's head.
SENATOR HATCH: I don't think that's so.
STAHL: And that we've paid ransom to the tune of 15-16
million dollars apiece.
SENATOR HATCH: Okay. That's a glib, cliched...
STAHL: Can you answer that?
SENATOR HATCH: That's a glib, cliched comment. I don't
think that's so. I'm telling you that until this falls all the
way through and we get the hostages out, I don't think anybody's
going to fully know how much the efforts have been made to try
and bring about a more moderate government over there, to try and
bring about stabilization in the Middle East, and to try to help
the Israelis, our friends.
SENATOR LEAHY: But nobody disagrees that we should take
every effort possible to get American hostages back. Nobody
disagrees that we should encourage moderate elements in Iran.
What bothers a lot of us is that here the Administration tries to
go around Congress so, as they say, there'll be no leaks, and
then they themselves leak reams of material about this, changing
the reason for doing it almost day by day, as it becomes more and
more embarrassing what they're doing.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
But what concerns me is not just in this one instance,
but we started out with the mining in Nicaragua doing it the same
way. We started out with the assassination manual in Central
America. We now have the Hasenfus thing, the Libyan
disinformation.
You know, at some point the Administration's going to
have to understand that some of the oversight processes are set
up just so the United States won't make mistakes.
STAHL: Senator Leahy, though, do you -- I want to ask
you specifically about this situation, the idea that we would
send spare parts to Iran and the hostages would come out. Just
that narrow thing, not the oversight. Does that bother you? Or
do you think that it's worth it to get our men released? Is this
a worthwhile thing to do?
SENATOR LEAHY: I am very, very concerned that if we put
the price of American hostages being an exchange of American
arms, that we just guaranty them more Americans are going to be
seized as hostages.
SENATOR HATCH: Okay. Anybody who believes that, I've
got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.
The fact of the matter is, the Israelis have been doing
this. They are doing it in their national security interest.
This approach even was approved by the October 11th top secret
message that Carter had sent to Bunn, Germany. And frankly, it's
hypocritical for them to stand by and act like the Reagan
Administration is only trying to bring hostages out. If that's a
secondary benefit from what they're doing, that's good. But the
fact of the matter is, is that Iran is a crucial, pivotal area.
It's in great danger. And frankly, they have been doing
everything they can to try and stabilize that area.
And by the way, the United States hasn't transferred
this equipment. Israel, Israeli people have transferred this
equipment, as far as I know.
STAHL: Senator Leahy, very quickly. We're running out
SENATOR LEAHY: Well, do we improve the situation in the
Middle East if we make it possible for Iran to crush Iraq and
then threaten moderate Arab nations?
SENATOR HATCH: Well, now, both countries, both coun-
tries are interested in a moderate negotiated settlement. And we
are not going to -- we don't want to have Iran crush Iraq. And
this equipment is not going to enable them to do so. But if it
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
does get out those 20 hostages, if it does stabilize the Middle
East, if it does bring a more moderate faction in Iran, if it
does help us in that area, and if it does support and help
Israel, my gosh, I don't see why any Democrat or any Republican
is going to find fault with it, under the circumstances.
SENATOR LEAHY: If this operation could -- if you could
sell me on the idea this operation could do it, then you can
sell me that bridge in Brooklyn.
STAHL: Okay. Thank you, both, very, very, very much.
STAHL: With us now from Los Angeles, Warren
Christopher, President Carter's chief negotiator during the
Iranian hostage crisis; and here in Washington, Robert Hunter,
also a former Carter Administration official, now with the Center
for Strategic and international studies.
In Los Angeles, Warren Christopher, you negotiated the
Iranian hostage release back in 1980. What do you think about
what the Reagan Administration is doing right now? Is this the
right path to take or not, in your opinion?
WARREN CHRISTOPHER: Well, Lesley, of course I am very
sympathetic with the President in this situation. Believe me I
am. And I'm pleased that the three hostages have come home. But
on the whole, I think it's very bad policy, and I wouldn't have
recommended it. And I think the President has been ill-served by
his advisers in this situation.
Our policy has suddenly become incoherent.
We
are
opposed to terrorism, and yet we're sending arms to the Iranians.
We're also, I think, taking sides in a war where we ought to be
neutral. And I think we're probably taking the wrong side.
Either we're continuing the war or, if we enable Iran to win,
we'll terrorize our friends in the Middle East.
So, I think we've developed a policy that's become
utterly incoherent with this step.
STAHL: Let me ask Robert Hunter, who used to
work
on
the NSC staff, what you think of the policy and what you
think
of
the idea of taking it out of the State Department, away
from
the
CIA, and having it kind of a secret operation run out
of
the
White House?
ROBERT HUNTER: Lesley, I think we have sort
of
two
issues and two ideas here. In the first place, the American
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
people want the hostages to come home. The government wants to
do that. It also wants to pretend that it's not dealing with
terrorists. It can't have it both ways, and so we have a lot of
confusion this week.
Secondly, in my judgment, I think it is important for us
to reach out to Iran. In the future, after the death of the
Ayatollah, it's going to be very important to try to keep that
country whole, independent, and out of the hands of the Russians.
So, I think we're doing the right thing, but for the
wrong reasons. And it's gotten all confused.
STAHL: Well, it seems to me that the Administration is
trying to say we have to open the door to Iran. And very few
people disagree with that. But what about the idea of the
trading of hostages for military equipment? Senator Hatch is
right. The Israelis are very much a part of this. They have
been saying the same thing we have, "You can't' deal with
terrorists," and yet they apparently promoted this idea.
Is there something in here that we're missing that
perhaps justifies it, Warren Christopher?
CHRISTOPHER: Well, of course, there is the natural
inclination to try to get the hostages out, and probably this
began with an effort to warm up relations with Iran. But that's
very treacherous territory. The Iranians are very tough,
resourceful negotiators. You have to deal with them very
carefully.
One of the objections I have here is that evidently
we've given a concession and have not gotten all of our hostages
out. In the Iranian situation, we spent a great deal of time
during the last two months to insure that we qot all 52 of our
hostages back before the money that had been frozen in the United
States was returned to the Iranians. There's been no similar
procedure here, and I think that's unwise.
STAHL: Did you offer spare parts to the Iranians, as
Senator Hatch said you did?
CHRISTOPHER: Let me explain that situation quite
calmly, and I think completely. I met with an Iranian represen-
tative in Germany in September of 1980. The question of arms
came up. I dicouraged it, and that question never came back on
the table. As you probably know, ten days after I met, the
Iran-Iraq war broke out, and negotiations were not resumed until
after the election in November.
So, the facts are that no arms were given. The question
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
came up in my September meetings in Germany with an Iranian. I
discouraged it. And the question never came back on the table.
What was discussed on a contingency basis within our
government is quite a different thing. But the facts are, no
arms were given; and the time the question came up, I discouraged
it.
STAHL: Let me ask Robert Hunter about giving Iran spare
Is that something we should do, even if there aren't
hostages involved right now, given the Iraq war? Is this the way
to open the door for friendlier relations with them, in your
view?
HUNTER: Well, my judgment is that we have been tilting
towards Iraq, actually. We haven't been strictly neutral. And
we talk quite a bit about the so-called vaunted Iranian offensive
we've been waiting for for two years. I think if you'd take a
careful look at Iraq, with its tremendous amount of modern
armaments, the aid it gets from other Arab states; Iran, which is
suffering because of the fall in the oil price, a lot of old
weapons, using human-wave tactics as a substitute; I think the
idea that Iraq is about to collapse and Iran prevail is most
exaggerated. And we need to be thinking about the future in that
area.
STAHL: So you think it's right to supply them with
these spare parts.
HUNTER: I think it was wrong to try to create an
embargo with other countries -- Israel, South Korea -- as we did
in the past. After all, Iraq has a free flow of arms from the
rest of the world.
STAHL: So you say you don't agree on the hostage thing,
but you basically agree with the policy?
HUNTER: I think it's probably been mismanaged from
beginning to end. We now are in a situation in which the
Iranians who have come forward are likely to have been
discredited. But the idea of the United States having imposed
this embargo, I think, was wrong. And quite frankly, the supply
of arms we're going through now is nut going to tilt the balance
in this war.
STAHL: Warren Christopher, three hostages have been
kidnapped since we started these negotiations with Iran. Your
experience with the Iranians, is this what you would expect, is
this what the Administration should have expected: that as they
release some, others will be taken?
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
CHRISTOPHER: Lesley, in this situation with the
Iranians, I think you have to be extremely careful. They're so
tough and so resourceful. Sometimes we tend to underestimate
other countries which operate in a different language and perhaps
wear strange clothing, but they're very formidable adversaries.
And I would not have considered a situation in which we gave them
back their frozen funds without getting all of our hostages out.
And I think that's what you have to have in mind in this
situation here. We set up a very complicated escrow arrangement
in which their funds were held until the hostages were out of
Iranian airspace.
So, I can't say that I would have expected them to take
more, but that's a danger you have to have in mind. And you have
to remember, dealing with the Iranians, without being unfair to
them, that they've lived in this world for a long time longer
than we have, they've gotten along by their wits, and you have to
be very, very careful with them.
STAHL: Robert Hunter, on the Middle East as a whole,
why don't we want Iraq to win this war? If Iran wins, then
you have the spread of that fundamentalist, radical religion all
through the area. Our closest allies in the Arab World, Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait, might be overrun by that. Why wouldn't we
want Iraq to just win?
HUNTER: Frankly, we don't want either side to win. If
either side wins, we lose.
You just described one scenario very well. The other
one, however, particularly after the death of the Ayatollah, or
if Iraq were to prevail, if you have a disintegrating Iran, which
is nighly likely, if you have turmoil, if you have a competition
for power, a civil war, then it is very likely -- and we've seen
it in the past -- that the Soviet Union will try to exploit it.
The Soviets occupied a chunk of Iran at the end of the last war.
They're very close; we're a long way away. And strategically,
the future of that area is very important fur us to have an Iran
out of Soviet control.
Can you -- yes, go ahead.
CHRISTOPHER: Lesley, I don't think we ought to be
arming either side. Our role in the situation is one of
neutrality. I don't think we can be evenhanded enough to say
we'll give certain arms here and certain arms there.
Also, it really destroys the credibility of our policy
around the world if we try to say to the rest of the world,
"Don't send arms to Libya. Don't send arms to Iran," and turn
out paving a secret conduit, through Israel, for arms for 12 or
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0
18 months. I don't know how we can be believed around the world.
So, I think a series of events have begun to undermine
our credibility. It goes piece-by-piece, but then it can go in a
great gush.
STAHL: Well, on that note, Warren Christopher in Los
Angeles, I thank you for being our guest.
Robert Hunter, here.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/29: CIA-RDP90-00552R000302560007-0