Congress’ Leaders Get Iran Briefing : But White House Session Fails to Quell Criticism of Secret Arms Deal

The White House, under increasing pressure to explain President Reagan’s controversial arms-for-hostages dealings with Iran, Wednesday briefed congressional leaders for two hours behind closed doors, but it failed to quell criticism that the secret operation was ill-advised and raised serious questions about the credibility of U.S. foreign policy.

Emerging from the hurriedly called White House session, Senate Democratic Leader Robert C. Byrd, previously one of the most vocal critics of the mission, said, “Well, my mind was not changed by this briefing.”

Later, in a prepared statement commenting on the briefing, the West Virginia senator said, “Questions were answered, but that did not change my thinking or my impressions from what I have seen and read in the media.”

Dole Still Unhappy

And Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) was described by informed sources as still unhappy about the arms shipments and dissatisfied with the Administration’s explanation of its policy.

The session with party leaders abruptly ended a week of stolid refusal by Administration officials to say anything about U.S. negotiations with Iran beyond a bare-bones denial that the White House has broken any law or damaged the national interest.

The theme struck at Wednesday’s session, according to informed sources, was that the weapons pipeline to Iran was conceived not merely to free hostages, but to advance long-term U.S. policy in the Middle East by cultivating the few moderates in Iran’s fractious government.

That argument, reflecting the tack that the Administration is expected to pursue when and if it explains the Iranian operation publicly, casts the weapons deal as an effort to keep Iran out of the orbit of its neighbor, the Soviet Union, instead of as a secret reversal of the United States’ hard line against striking deals with terrorists.

It also has the political advantage of removing Reagan’s personal approval of the shipments in 1985 and 1986 from what appears to have become an unspoken payment of ransom for kidnaped Americans.

“They will try to distance the United States as much as the facts allow from actual arms deliveries,” one congressional source said. “They will say that there was no quid pro quo arms-for-hostages (deal), but that one of the fallouts of this was that some hostages were released.”

Reagan Meets Buchanan

There were some indications Wednesday that the White House may go public soon with that explanation. Before the congressional briefing, Reagan had a lengthy luncheon session with Patrick J. Buchanan, the White House communications director, who directs media arrangements on major news developments. Buchanan has said that he will be involved in releasing any official statement on the Iranian overtures.

White House Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan also scheduled a Friday breakfast with Washington journalists, apparently to offer some official explanation of the Iranian operation.

However, Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III, described by White House officials as a longtime participant in the operation, said late Wednesday that no detailed explanation of the U.S. operation is likely to be made public soon.

“I don’t think we’re going to be able to say anything for some time,” he said at a Washington reception for Secretary of State George P. Shultz. “Our interest in the hostages is one of several interests involved here.”

He refused to be specific but appeared to be referring to the Administration’s reported desire to avoid embarrassing moderate Iranian leaders with further reports of their contacts with American officials.

Meese added that there is still “some hope” that more U.S. hostages will be released by Lebanese kidnapers, and he dismissed as “speculative” a New York Times report that those hopes will vanish if a release is not negotiated within a week.

Breaks His Silence

National security adviser John M. Poindexter, arriving for a dinner in the Capitol building Wednesday evening, broke his silence on the Iranian issue to tell reporters that he had no second thoughts about what had taken place and that U.S. policies will continue unchanged.

When told that Byrd said the White House briefing had not changed his mind, Poindexter replied: “There are a lot of subjective judgments involved. Different people have different opinions.”

Nevertheless, both Byrd and Dole were said Wednesday to believe that the Administration blundered by not informing Congress and the State Department about the clandestine operation from the beginning.

Byrd Expresses Shock

After reading a Los Angeles Times account of the Iranian operation last Thursday, Byrd expressed shock that the Administration would undertake such a mission in the face of its announced policy of refusing to deal with terrorists and opposing arms shipments to countries, such as Iran, that support terrorism. At that time, he said the Senate, once it is reorganized under a Democratic majority next January, will conduct hearings on the operation.

Byrd, according to sources, still believes that serious questions about Administration policy need to be answered and that Reagan owes the public a full explanation of the Iranian mission.

House Majority Leader Jim Wright (D-Tex.) issued a statement after the White House briefing saying that “for approximately two hours we discussed the entire situation involving Iran, the American hostages and the matter of arms shipments.”

‘Frank and Candid’

“The discussions were frank and candid,” he said, “but at no time vituperative. Along with other members of Congress in attendance, I expressed certain convictions regarding the directions of our foreign affairs and how to improve future relations between the executive and legislative branches.

“In pursuit of this goal and because of the confidential nature of some of the material disclosed, I would like to withhold further comment at this time.”

Wright said that the House Intelligence Committee will be briefed on the operation next week. House sources previously have said that the panel plans a Nov. 21 hearing on the issue.

Rep. Richard Cheney (R-Wyo.) also attended the briefing but declined to comment.

The briefing, attended by Reagan, Vice President Bush and six other officials, was led by Poindexter, who directed the operation and its dealings with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s regime from the White House.

Casey, Meese, Regan There

Also present were CIA Director William J. Casey, Atty. Gen. Meese, Chief of Staff Regan and two officials who reportedly were strongly opposed to the Iranian mission--Shultz and Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger.

After the briefing, the White House Press Office issued a terse statement naming those who attended and saying simply that the four congressional leaders were briefed on “recent developments on U.S.-Iran relations and related matters.”

Meantime, the White House continued its efforts to keep details of the mission secret, despite continuing pressure for a public explanation and an appeal from former national security adviser Robert C. (Bud) McFarlane, Reagan’s emissary to Iran in the operation, that the White House issue “a complete, accurate” record of the operation.

A Larger Purpose

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman David Durenberger (R-Minn.), who has discussed the arms shipments with Poindexter, was not at the session. But he indicated Wednesday evening that he also has been told that the Administration had a larger purpose than simply winning release of the hostages.

“I have to believe that when they tell me that they are operating in a larger context, that they are operating in a larger context,” he said. “Whether that is justification for this, we’ll have to see when all the facts come in.”

But Durenberger emphasized that he had learned very little about the operation from Poindexter and has no idea whether more arms shipments to Iran are possible.

“I know a lot more by independent investigation than I know by talking to John Poindexter,” he said.

‘Right to the Truth’

Durenberger also said that the Administration should disclose the facts of the operation as soon as possible. “If I were advising them, I’d say go right to the truth immediately,” he said. “I think all of the facts will eventually come out.”

Durenberger said he has no information to indicate that the Administration violated the Arms Export Control Act or any other law by failing to inform the Congress.

“I don’t think CIA was involved,” he said. “They took pains not to violate any law. They have themselves in lukewarm water.”

He said he objected to having the National Security Council staff implement foreign policy because “the club is too small that makes the decision” and “it is too intent on day-to-day questions like what do we do with the hostages.”