REAGAN'S TILT TO IRAQ
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard finds American hatred of Iran helping Russia in the Gulf
Washington IN March 1985 a car bomb exploded in Beirut killing 80 people. There were suspi- cions that this was a botched attempt to kill Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, leader of Lebanon's Shi'ite Hizbollah. But direct American involvement seemed im- plausible at the time. The CIA had been purged after the excesses of the 1970s and legislation strictly forbade assassinations. But a new book by Bob Woodward of the Washington Post claims that this was in- deed an operation run by William Casey, the former director of the CIA. It was financed by Saudi Arabia and conducted, badly, by foreign agents under the com- mand of an ex-officer from the British SAS. The arrangement let Casey circum- vent Congressional oversight and avoid resistance or leaks from within the CIA. Presumably this is what Oliver North meant during the Iran-Contra hearings when he described Casey's concept of an `off-the-shelf, self-sustaining, stand alone' agency for secret operations.
Sheikh Fadlallah is a religious leader. He does not control the terrorist activities of the Hizbollah. It is hard to conclude that trying to murder him is anything but a terrorist act itself. It is yet another example of American double standards in the Mid- dle East and should alert us all to the moral pretensions of President Reagan's current policy in the Gulf. Furthermore, President Khameini of Iran can no longer be dismis- sed out of hand when he claims that the United States has been behind some of the scores of political assassinations inside Iran. Khameini himself nearly died in 1981 when a booby-trapped tape recorder ex- ploded, lacerating his right hand, his lungs and his vocal cords.
Khameini was not short of breath, however, when he came to New York last week to give one of the most extraordinary speeches ever heard at the United Nations. With a half-suppressed grin he ridiculed the Security Council as a 'paper factory for issuing worthless and ineffective orders', and said Resolution 598, calling for a ceasefire in the Gulf, was 'nothing but a nice-looking house of cards'.
The cards are falling already. Iraq, losing the land war, has redoubled its assault against tankers; it has no choice. Iran has been taking advantage of the, lull to increase oil exports, selling, ironically, $359 million of crude to the United States in July alone. That is seven times as much as Iran was exporting to America last year.
After appearing to soften its war goals, Iran has repeated 'its firm resolve not to halt the "holy" war until the Iraqi people are delivered from [President] Saddam'. The Security Council considers that to be an unacceptable condition. Meanwhile, the threat of an arms boycott is sounding ever more hollow as China and the Soviet Union back away, calling for further rounds of diplomacy. It is notable that in his speech President Khameini reserved all his venom for the United States. The Russians got away with a gentle reproach over Afghanistan. They, after all, are negotiating a pipeline to export 700,000 barrels a day of Iranian oil through the Soviet Union.
This rapprochement between Iran and Russia, two hereditary enemies, is the consequence of Reagan's tilt to Iraq. Nor can the damage simply be repaired by achieving a ceasefire. War has kept the Iranian revolution together. Peace could lead to rapid factional instability which the Soviets would be well placed to exploit.
Khameini maintained that the Iran Ajr, the ship attacked and captured after it was caught dropping mines at night, was a merchant vessel carrying 'groceries' and warned that 'the United States will receive a proper response for this abominable act'. The mines, he explained in a television interview, were placed on the ship by the Americans, and the incident was fabricated to justify an escalation of the war.
This is inconceivable; such a charade could be too easily exposed. Yet there is something we have not been told. Why were reporters not granted full interviews with the 26 captured sailors before they were sent back to Iran? Why was the ship sunk so quickly? What happened to the video that was going to show the Iranians pushing the mines overboard? It is faintly reminiscent of the Tonkin Gulf in 1964, where a dubious naval skirmish became a pretext for US air strikes against Vietnam. Shortly afterwards Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution giving President Johnson carte blanche to go to war.
This time Congress is pushing for a greater say in the matter. Arguing that a state of 'imminent hostilities' now exists, Senate Democrats, with some Republican support, have introduced a version of the War Powers Act. It would force the President to suspend the reflagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers within 90 days unless Congress voted to extend the operation.
`Disastrous', replied President Reagan. It would be an invitation for the Iranians to stall until Congress made up its mind. It would also be a temptation for them to raise the stakes with further mischief, hoping to scare a skittish Congress into withdrawal. But few Congressmen have voiced doubts over the advisability of escorting Iraqi cargo in Kuwaiti ships, thereby taking sides in the war. Their dispute with the administration is over procedure not substance. Congress is seek- ing to assert its constitutional powers in the conduct of foreign policy and in checking presidential belligerence. By the same token, President Reagan has threatened to veto the amendment, arguing that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional.
If it came to a vote under the War Powers Act, President Reagan would almost certainly win congressional backing for his policy, both from moderate Demo- crats like Senator John Glenn and even from many liberals who would not normal- ly tolerate gunboat diplomacy. Tuesday's Senate vote to boycott Iranian products was passed 98 to 0. Iran has no constituen- cy in the United States. The country is detested. There is a national longing to see Ayatollah Khomeini crushed.
In One sense it is unfortunate that the European allies have endorsed this mad- ness. We are encouraging Americans to believe that their obsessive quarrel with Iran reflects broad Western interests. But as Khameini put it: 'The United States is trying to confront us with the West . . . we do not consider the West as opponents.'
But in another sense European solidarity has been necessary in preventing further erosion of the Nato partnership. At a time when 'burden-sharing' and partial troop- withdrawal from Europe are being widely debated in Washington, co-operation in the Gulf has increasingly been seen as the measure of the alliance. Moreover, the Europeans may have rescued the policy, lending the United States the appearance of global leadership, and raising the di- plomatic costs of confrontation to a point where even Iran perhaps feels constrained. But the policy has conspicuously failed in its ostensible — bogus — purpose of protecting international shipping. As the National Union of Seamen said after the Gentle Breeze was attacked: 'We think this entire escalation in the conflict can be laid at President Reagan's door.'
Previous page
