Convinced He Has Prevailed : Newly Confident Shultz Won’t Resign, Aides Say

Secretary of State George P. Shultz, convinced that he finally has prevailed in his campaign to reverse the Administration’s Iran arms program, has decided not to resign and is ready to try to refurbish the government’s tattered anti-terrorism policy, officials said Tuesday.

A senior State Department official said that Shultz interpreted as a complete vindication of his own position President Reagan’s statement that he had “absolutely no plans” to send additional weapons to the Tehran regime.

As recently as Sunday, Shultz appeared introspective and embarrassed by the Administration’s Iran policy. Interviewed on CBS-TV’s “Face the Nation,” he acknowledged that he did not speak for the Administration on the issue and did nothing to discourage speculation that he was ready to quit.

But 24 hours later, in a speech Monday at the University of Chicago, Shultz had regained his customary aplomb. He seemed confident that he was again in control of U.S. foreign policy.

“He seemed just like himself,” the senior official said of the Chicago appearance. “I don’t see any of the signs (that he plans to resign).”

Another State Department official said that Shultz hopes to reshape the issue to minimize the damage to U.S. efforts to isolate nations supporting terrorism. After years of urging the rest of the world to refuse to deal with terrorists or the states that back them, many members of the Administration were embarrassed by revelations that the White House had authorized weapons shipments to Iran that coincided with the release of three U.S. hostages by Iranian-influenced kidnapers in Lebanon.

“Obviously, this will make it a lot more difficult to impose economic sanctions (against states supporting terrorism),” the official said. “The feeling is that we would be just whistling in the wind right now if we press for concerted actions against Syria.”

The Administration imposed new sanctions against Syria last week in response to evidence introduced in a British court implicating the Damascus regime in an aborted plot to bomb an Israeli airliner carrying more than 200 Americans.

“Shultz is trying to close the door on the arms sales and get back to business,” the official said. “This does not eliminate the need for close cooperation on security measures and deterrence. There are aspects of anti-terrorism programs that have nothing to do with sanctions against countries that support terrorism.”

As a first step toward closing off the controversy, the White House staff and the State Department--once bitter bureaucratic foes over the Iran arms shipments--have adopted a single public position on the issue. Both say the weapons were not ransom for the hostages, no matter how the coincidence in timing may make it appear.

Avoiding Any Resignations

By adhering to this line, Reagan can avoid what earlier had seemed to be the inevitability that someone would have to resign.

The President’s repudiation of the arms shipment plan appears to give Shultz the sort of vindication that allows him to stay on the job. And Shultz’s bureaucratic adversary, White House national security adviser John M. Poindexter, probably can remain as well. Because Reagan has defended his role, the removal of Poindexter would undercut the President’s assertion that the plan never included a direct arms-for-hostages bargain.

“I know of no plans for anybody to resign,” a White House official said.

Shultz’s reported threat to resign over the Iran arms issue was the second time in a little less than a year that he apparently has won a bureaucratic battle with such a tactic. Last December, the secretary faced down the White House staff over a plan to require random lie detector tests of Administration officials. Reagan modified the regulation to eliminate the parts Shultz opposed.

In both cases, Shultz was losing the fight as long as the matter was kept within the Administration but, once the issue became public, he prevailed.

Aim to Reassure Allies

In his Chicago speech, he also sought to reshape the consideration of arms control in a way that would reassure U.S. allies in Europe who have expressed concern about Reagan’s proposal to eliminate all ballistic missiles in 10 years. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, for example, has questioned the wisdom of that step, which Reagan advanced in his Iceland summit meeting last month with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev.

“Even after the elimination of all ballistic missiles, we will need insurance policies to hedge against cheating or other contingencies,” Shultz said. “We don’t know now what form this will take. An agreed-upon retention of a small nuclear ballistic missile force could be part of that insurance.”

Taken on its face, Shultz’s suggestion seems contradictory. It would be impossible to retain even a small ballistic missile force and, at the same time, eliminate all missiles. State Department spokesman Charles Redman and White House spokesman Larry Speakes said that Shultz was speaking hypothetically about possible contingencies without altering Reagan’s basic “zero-option” strategy.

Nevertheless, an unnamed Administration official, quoted by United Press International, said Shultz is fighting a “guerrilla war” against the White House staff on the issue.

White House and State Department officials said, however, that Shultz’s speech was fully approved by the National Security Council staff.