Iranian President Denies Reagan Report of Secret Diplomatic Dialogue

Iranian President Ali Khamenei on Friday rejected as “lies” President Reagan’s assertion that the U.S. and Iranian governments have engaged in a diplomatic dialogue to improve relations.

Reagan said in a speech Thursday that negotiations have been going on for 18 months in an effort to improve relations between the two governments, and that his former national security adviser, Robert C. McFarlane, had visited Tehran as part of the negotiations.

In a weekly sermon at Tehran University, apparently aimed at reassuring the Iranian people that no major policy shift has occurred, Khamenei declared that the United States has been seeking an improvement in relations but that Iran has not. His remarks were made public by the Iranian press agency.

Admits Weapons Need

Khamenei, who has been identified as being among the group of so-called moderates in the Iranian regime with which the Reagan Administration hoped to improve relations, made no mention of Reagan’s disclosure that a “small amount” of arms and spare parts had been sent to Iran as a sign of good faith, but admitted that Iran does need weapons.

He acknowledged that McFarlane had come to Tehran, then insisted that the only Iranians who talked with the American were intelligence officers. “This is not called diplomatic talks,” he declared.

Khamenei emphasized that Iran has no diplomatic contacts with Washington and disputed Reagan’s statement that bilateral talks started 18 months ago. The Americans might have held talks with “international smugglers perhaps,” he said, “but this has nothing to do with us.”

“How can you approach us?” Khamenei said, addressing a rhetorical question to Washington. “How can the Iranian nation trample upon its principles and come close to you while your policies in each critical corner of the world are exactly contrary to ours?”

Assertion Ridiculed

He ridiculed Reagan’s assertion that the United States hoped to bring about a peaceful solution to the Iran-Iraq War.

“It would be a pleasure for you,” he said, “if Iraq had succeeded in toppling the Islamic Republic through its war of aggression. . . . You yourselves started this war. You were the ones who directly and indirectly encouraged Iraq to invade Iran.”

“Now that you have realized that the Islamic Republic is holding the upper hand in this war and has only a few steps till ultimately victory, you want us to accept an impossible and disgraceful peace,” he said.

“But on behalf of the Iranian nation, the leadership and the country’s officials, I hereby declare that the war will not end but in victory for the Iranian nation.”

Iraq Invaded in 1980

Iraq abrogated a 1975 accord with Iran governing the strategic Shatt al Arab waterway between the two nations and invaded Iran in September, 1980. Since then, despite an estimated half a million casualties, the ground battle has been largely a stalemate.

Khamenei said the United States “will not see any kind of leniency and compromise from us as long as it pursues its policy of aggression and expansionism.”

He noted that Reagan “agreed there was no proof that Iran had anything to do with or supported terrorism” since U.S.-Iran contacts began. U.S. officials, he added, “are the real terrorists who attacked Libya, . . . not those youths (in Lebanon) who take a few American hostages to gain their rights.”

The Lebanese magazine that first disclosed the attempt by Washington to improve relations with Tehran reported in its latest edition that McFarlane traveled to Iran both in July and September to arrange the weapons supply. McFarlane has said he made one trip in May.

Spare Parts Delivered

According to the current issue of the magazine, Ash Shiraa, McFarlane took airplane spare parts to Iran and turned them over to the Iranian air force.

“It was only after the air force improved its performance as a result of the U.S. supplies, by shooting down three Iraqi jets inside five days, that the Iranian government was convinced of the seriousness of the American offer,” the magazine said.

The Iranian air force is believed to have 25 advanced F-14 fighters and a larger number of F-4s and F-5s, about 70. These were supplied by the United States before the revolution that ousted Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in 1979. After revolutionary elements seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, President Jimmy Carter ordered an embargo on arms for Iran, and the Iranian air force has since been hobbled by a lack of spare parts.

The magazine attributed its information to sources close to Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri, the designated successor to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as Iran’s religious leader. Montazeri has been identified by Iranian sources as leading the radical faction that opposes the moderates headed by Khamenei and the Speaker of Parliament, Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Khomeini Weighs Rivals

Ash Shiraa, a pro-Syrian publication that appears to have sources in Iran and Syria, observed that Khomeini has so far remained aloof in the power struggle. “It appears,” the magazine said, “that he is taking his time weighing the rival logics.”

In October, Khomeini appeared to have sided with the moderates by ordering that charges of treason be allowed against a relative of Montazeri. Ash Shiraa said the expectation in Tehran now is that the relative, Mehdi Hashemi, will soon be released from jail.

Western analysts believe that the moderates in Iran are concerned about being publicly linked with the McFarlane overtures and perceived as “soft” on the United States, which in Iran is still regarded as the “Great Satan.”

Arab Reaction Muted

Elsewhere in the Arab world, there was no official reaction to Reagan’s speech because Friday is the Muslim Sabbath. The anniversary of the Prophet Mohammed’s birthday, a special holiday throughout the Muslim world, also happened to fall this year on Friday and government offices throughout the region were closed.

But Arab diplomats and officials interviewed over the past few days have expressed dismay and concern that the Administration’s credibility in the region will be seriously undermined by its support for Iran, despite assurances that the arms shipments were small and of a defensive nature.

Coming on top of the Administration’s “disinformation” campaign last summer against Libya, the latest disclosures “push American credibility to a new low” in the region, one Arab diplomat said.

For most Arab regimes, the idea that the United States may be helping Iran’s war effort against Iraq has deeply emotional, as well as practical, overtones. Iran, though Muslim, is a non-Arab country engaged in a war against an Arab state. The notion of Arab solidarity, in the fractious Arab world, may be a myth, but it is still a deeply cherished one.

“You must understand that the Iran-Iraq War is not just between Iran and Iraq,” noted Mafouz Ansari, editor of the Egyptian newspaper Al Gomhouriya. “It is something against all Arabs.”

Bitter Editorials

This was reflected in more bitter editorials and commentaries in official or semi-official newspapers around the Arab world Friday.

“America’s policy is one of double standards, preaching one thing and practicing another,” said the Abu Dhabi newspaper Al Ittihad. “The simplest thing that can be said of Washington is that it is pouring oil on the Iran-Iraq War. . . . America seeks only its interests and these interests are always at the expense of Arabs and Muslims.”

In Egypt, the English-language Egyptian Gazette noted the U.S. rationale of trying to bolster the position of Iranian moderates but dismissed this strategy as misguided. Saying that U.S. support for Iranian moderates is “highly unlikely” to improve their position in Iran now, the newspaper added that “the fact that Iran received U.S. arms in no way changed the Iranian government’s attitude. Three American hostages have obtained freedom and Iran is as anti-U.S. as it was before. . . . All Iran has to do to obtain further U.S. arms is to arrange for its minions to kidnap more Americans.”

Jordan May Review Ties

Although Arab governments have not reacted publicly so far, Jordan’s King Hussein said in an interview taped last weekend with the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) that he would review his country’s relations with Washington if it were proven that the United States was supplying Iran with arms.

“This would be a very regrettable, very shocking and very sad development,” Hussein said in the interview taped before the reported arms shipments were confirmed by Reagan. “I do not think we would break diplomatic relations with the United States if this happened, but certainly we will have to look at all aspects of our relations.”

“We certainly hope this war will not end with the Iranians over-running the area and destroying the very world in which we believe and to which we belong,” he said.

Charles P. Wallace reported from Amman and Michael Ross from Cairo.