Finally, Fire in His Eye

But Carter's actions are not likely to free the hostages

Once again he let the thunder peal:

"We take this break in relations as a good omen. Iranians have forced an oppressive superpower to terminate its pillage here. The nation is justified in celebrating the advent of victory!"

So declared the Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini last week in response to what almost any other nation would have considered a jolting setback. The President of the U.S. had just imposed historic diplomatic and economic sanctions on Iran, including the expulsion of 35 Iranian diplomats, and had asked American allies to join in isolating Khomeini's government. But in turbulent Iran, where the U.S. and its President are routinely denounced as "Satan," surrealism reigns, and any clash with Americans has become a cause for jubilation. All week long, Muslim leaders whipped up an emotional frenzy against the U.S., reaching an even higher pitch after border clashes occurred with Iraq. "The U.S. hand has come out of Iraq's sleeves," ranted Khomeini, blaming the U.S. for the aggression by Iraq, one of the Middle East's most anti-American countries. The militants who have been holding the 50 American hostages since Nov. 4 renewed their frenzy and vowed to kill them all if the U.S. took any military action against Iran or Iraq launches a major invasion.

The country erupted in exultation when the expelled diplomats arrived at the Tehran airport.

"Death to America!" shouted thousands of Iranians as they surrounded the weary but exhilarated diplomats and pelted them with flowers. All over Iran, millions of people marched in a display of national solidarity to protest what President Abolhassan Banisadr called the "conspiracies of the U.S. and Iraq's fascist government." At Tehran University, a crowd roared its approval of anti-American resolutions while chanting "God is great!" --raising fresh fears for the hostages trapped in the middle of the tumult. In Washington, where supporters of the hostages held candlelight vigils near the Iranian embassy, dozens of Iranian students demonstrated in front of the White House and bowed toward Mecca.

The latest hysterical outburst in Iran, where sometimes nobody seems to be in charge, and sometimes everybody, worsened Jimmy Carter's problem. Talleyrand, the 19th century French diplomat, cautioned against "too much zeal." But how to deal with a nation of zealots, who do not play by the rules of law, who do not or cannot keep their promises, who seem more inclined to martyrdom than to statecraft?

For months, the President had pursued a labyrinthine diplomacy that finally led nowhere. He had been given some indication that the students would hand over the hostages to the Iranian government--a minimal first step toward their eventual release. But just when the militants seemed about to go along, Khomeini abruptly refused to take control of the captives and put the matter in the hands of the Iranian National Assembly, which is still to be elected and is not due to meet until late May or early June. Carter cut short his Easter weekend at Camp David and returned by helicopter to the White House. At that point, says an aide. "he had fire in his eyes."

While the President and his national security advisers went over every grim detail of the situation in the Cabinet Room, a startlingly different scene was occurring just outside on the South Lawn. Under the springtime splendor of the cherry blossoms, thousands of youngsters were enjoying the traditional Easter Monday egg rolling. The thick, lightly tinted bulletproof windows of the Cabinet Room could not block out the laughter and the sound of music.

Recalls a White House official: "It was a great irony, not lost on anybody in the room. It was like two worlds side by side."

At the end of the meeting on Iran, Carter strode quickly into the other, more agreeable world. At ease, his decisions already set in motion, he shook hands and kissed babies. He was asked: "Are you going to do it to Iran?" His quick reply: "Yes."

Carter had little choice. He had repeatedly turned the other cheek, only to be slapped on it as well. Said Professor Richard Bulliet, an expert on Iran at Columbia University's Middle East Institute: "The feeling is widespread in Iran that America has no will whatsoever, that Carter is spineless, that they brought the Shah down and they can bring down Carter. They're living in a kind of never-never land in which the hostages have ceased to have any real existence because little pressure is being brought to release them."

Not only were the lives of the hostages at stake but so were national honor and prestige in a world where those Qualities still count. Both press and public were exerting increasing pressure on the President to take a firmer line. His own polls showed that he was losing ground with voters and might even be defeated by Ted Kennedy in the important Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

Later that afternoon the President entered the White House briefing room to announce his new policies. Declaring that the U.S. had made every effort to gain the release of the hostages on "honorable, peaceful and humanitarian terms," he said that "the Iranian government can no longer escape full responsibility by hiding behind the militants at the embassy." He then announced that he was taking four steps against Iran: -- The U.S. would sever relations, and Iranian diplomats and military officials would be expelled.

> All American exports to Iran would be banned, except for the sale of foodstuffs and medicine, which had slowed to a trickle.

> An inventory would be taken of the $8 billion in Iranian assets already frozen in the U.S. The survey would be used to help settle American claims against Iran.

> Visas would not be issued or renewed for Iranians, except for "compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires."

Concluded the President: "The steps I have ordered today are those that are necessary now. Other actions may become necessary if these steps do not produce the prompt release of the hostages."

Summoned to the State Department to be given official word of the expulsion, Iranian Charge d'Affaires Ali Agah and an aide argued that their government was protecting the hostages. That was too much for Henry Precht, the hot-tempered Iranian-affairs officer. "Bullshit!" he exploded. The retort may not go down in history, and was certainly not very diplomatic, but it expressed the national mood. The two Iranians stormed out of the meeting and returned to their embassy to await a notice of expulsion.

Fearing that the Iranians inside the Washington embassy might be armed and offer resistance, police sealed off five blocks around the building, causing the kind of traffic jam that was all too familiar to Washingtonians. There were lingering memories of the Shah's birthday bashes, when it took a full half-hour to negotiate the last blocks to that sumptuous oasis of champagne and caviar. But the evacuation went peacefully, the only hitch occurring at the airport, where the Iranians found that they had to pay $49 per bag for excess luggage. As he took his leave, Ali Agah muttered: "I hope this makes the American people very happy."

Aside from having their diplomats hustled out of the U.S., the Iranians did not face much inconvenience from Carter's actions. The trade embargo merely ratified the status quo. Because of the growing crisis, U.S. exports to Iran have dwindled from $3.7 billion in 1978 to $5.2 million for the first two months of 1980.

In the meantime, Iran has made arrangements to buy some essentials elsewhere. While it once depended on the U.S. for $300 million worth of rice a year, for example, Iran now imports most of what it needs from Thailand, Argentina and Australia. Says a top Commerce Department official: "The embargo simply makes a de facto situation de jure. Economically speaking, it's a nonevent, particularly when there is absolutely no indication that other countries around the world are going to join in."

Secretary of State Cyrus Vance summoned the ambassadors of Western European nations and Japan to a meeting at the State Department to try to get them to support U.S. policy. Vance made no specific requests; he simply asked that each country do what it could to help isolate Iran. Said an aide: "We have no check list or scorecard for our allies. We don't have in mind any test of loyalty."

That may be just as well because few allies would score very high. While they expressed deep sympathy for the U.S. plight, they were unwilling to jeopardize their own wellbeing. The problem was not that Iran had vowed to cut off oil shipments to any country that supported the U.S. All the allies have been racing to lessen their dependence on Iranian crude. Japan, for instance, now buys only about 10% of its oil from Iran, compared with 17.9% in 1978. Over the same period, West Germany has reduced its dependence from 18.1% to 9%. Altogether, Iran exports only 1.5 million bbl. of oil per day, as against 4.8 million in 1978. Says a top congressional staffer: "My guess is that the world can do without Iranian oil. A total cutoff would be manageable." But U.S. allies fear that other OPEC nations might reduce their oil shipments to demonstrate sympathy for their brother Muslim state. Beyond that, the allies are concerned lest Carter may once again fail to follow through, and leave them stranded even if they offer all-out support.

Meeting in Lisbon last week, the Foreign Ministers of the nine members of the European Community said they would ask the Iranians to name a date by which they would give up the hostages, but failed to call for any sanctions. Only Britain, under the leadership of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, has taken any serious steps to support the U.S. It has stopped selling spare parts to the Iranian armed forces for British-made equipment, and is not granting any new lines of financial credit. Editorialized the Guardian: "The U.S. has suffered a serious wound since the hostages were captured. It ought to be able to rely on its allies; and if it cannot, it may well ask what the alliance is for."

Iran will miss the $8 billion in frozen assets in U.S. banks, but it is unclear how soon the funds will be made available to Americans seeking damages against the Khomeini regime. Before Carter's announcement, 159 suits asking for a total of $3 billion had been initiated against Iran by U.S. individuals and companies.

Two hostages released in November and six of the U.S. diplomats who took refuge in the Canadian embassy in Tehran and later escaped have filed suits for "pain and suffering." Just after Carter disclosed his program, the family of William Belk, a State Department aide still in captivity, asked for $1 billion, and some 20 additional suits were also filed. The White House plans to introduce legislation to make it easier to collect in court or win a case filed before the U.S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. Even so, the suits are likely to drag on for years.

Carter's action against Iran last week reflected the failure of his effort to deal with the turmoil in that country by encouraging the moderates led by Banisadr and Foreign Minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh. Now the Administration acknowledges that the breakdown of negotiations and the imposition of sanctions have inevitably driven the moderates closer to the fanatics.

Though Banisadr joined his countrymen in making radical, anti-American statements last week, he also let it be known that the U.S. had overlooked a concession made by Khomeini. While refusing to take control of the hostages, Khomeini said that they could have visitors "under the supervision of the authorities." The earlier restrictions he had put on visits wrecked the U.N. commission that was in Tehran to negotiate last month.

Given Khomeini's hint, the U.N. initiative might be revived, but it remained unclear what visitors the militants would permit. They allowed three American clergymen to hold Easter services for some of the hostages, but they feared that emotional reunions between the hostages and their families might furnish propaganda for the U.S. At week's end the Iranian government was trying to make arrangements for visits by the International Red Cross.

The militants maintained that they had not punished the hostages in any way because of the U.S. sanctions. But a spokesman said: "We will reduce the hostages to ashes instantly in case of military intervention against Iran. Otherwise, we shall not lift a finger against them."

The militants did put one hostage in front of a TV camera to make a bizarre, prolonged "confession." Army Staff Sergeant Joseph Subic Jr. thanked the militants for being "more our servants than our captors... They give us magazines, cards and good food. They even do our washing." Then he accused the U.S. embassy of engaging in espionage. He also claimed that an officer had discussed a military coup against the Khomeini regime with a CIA man and some Iranian officers. U.S. officials in Washington dismissed Subic's charges.

Since the Iranians appear to be unrelenting, the U.S. may soon have to consider taking the "other actions" that Carter warned about in his announcement, but the options are limited and none is promising. The Pentagon has ruled out any attempt to make a lightning rescue strike on the embassy; such an attack would most certainly result in the deaths of the hostages.

One less ambitious possibility would be a naval blockade, but it is questionable that even that would effectively squeeze Iran. The country has increasingly rerouted its trade to the north by land through the Soviet Union and is doing more business with the Warsaw Pact countries. Says a U.S. Commerce Department official: "There are eight planeloads of Polish meat flying into Iran every day. Iranian airports are littered with cargo planes from Rumania and East Germany. And the Iranians are very resourceful with whatever they get. Villagers in remote areas manufacture sophisticated weapons from car axles--yes, car axles."

Although they were inevitable, given the circumstances, Carter's actions last week left him with an acute dilemma. The steps he took do not seem tough enough to force the Iranians to release the hostages. But if he takes any firmer action, he could drive the Iranians into the arms of the Soviets and perhaps run the risk of arousing Muslim sentiment against the U.S. throughout the Middle East.

At week's end, White House Press Secretary Jody Powell said that the Administration was not planning a blockade and hinted, without specifying what the President had in mind, that Carter might take other nonmilitary action. With the help of U.S. allies, the Administration hopes to put enough pressure on Iran to create fissures in its society and cause an increase in dissident activity that could reduce the crisis. But five months after the crisis began, Jimmy Carter and the Administration still had no real answer to the basic question: How can the U.S. free those hostages?

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.