Acted Correctly on Iran, Reagan Says : Insists That Efforts Opened Lines of Communication to Tehran Officials

President Reagan, his controversial program of arms shipments to Iran under intensifying criticism in Congress, insisted Wednesday that his efforts to open lines of communication to Iranian officials had succeeded.

“I don’t think it has been a fiasco,” Reagan told his first televised news conference in more than three months. He argued that the program resulted in the release of at least three American hostages held in Lebanon.

The President acknowledged that several top advisers had opposed the sale of arms to Iran. But he added: “I decided to proceed, and the responsibility for the decision and the operation is mine and mine alone.”

Reagan said that, although his decision authorizing the operation was controversial and that some have “profoundly disagreed” with what was done, “I deeply believe in the correctness of my decision.

Great Risk, Reward

“I was convinced then and I am convinced now,” he said, “that while the risks were great, so too was the potential reward.”

In other statements on the controversial arms shipments to Iran, Reagan:

--Declared that the United States would ship no more weapons to Iran. “To eliminate the widespread but mistaken perception that we have been exchanging arms for hostages, I have directed that no further sales of arms of any kind be sent to Iran,” he said.

--Said that Secretary of State George P. Shultz, who has publicly criticized the secret Iranian operation and indicated he might resign, “has made it plain he will stay as long as I want him, and I want him.”

--Contended that other hostages in Lebanon would have been released if the U.S. news media had not paid so much attention to the story. “If there had not been so much publicity, we would have had two more that we were expecting,” he said.

--Insisted that he had not acted improperly in not notifying Congress of the Iranian operation until 18 months after it had begun. But he said he has directed that all information relating to the operation be made available to the appropriate members of Congress.

--Declared that “we did not condone, and do not condone, the shipment of arms from other countries (to Iran).” Immediately after the press conference, however, the White House issued a “clarification” conceding that the United States had condoned arms shipments from one other nation to Iran.

Good Faith by Iran

At the press conference, Reagan insisted that Iran had demonstrated its good faith in its dealings with the United States by securing the release of three American hostages in Lebanon over the last 14 months, just as the United States used the arms shipments to demonstrate its good will.

“However,” he said, “to eliminate the widespread but mistaken perception that we have been exchanging arms for hostages, I have directed that no further sales of arms of any kind be sent to Iran. I have further directed that all information relating to our initiative be provided the appropriate members of Congress.”

Reagan, unusually somber throughout the press conference, reacted sharply when a reporter suggested that his credibility had been severely damaged by the Iranian operation and asked whether he thought he could repair it.

“Well, I imagine I’m the only one around who wants to repair it, and I didn’t . . . have anything to do with damaging it,” he declared.

Disbelief Widespread

Polls taken after Reagan’s speech last Thursday and a White House news media blitz showed that a large majority of Americans did not believe the President when he said that the Iranian initiative did not involve exchanging arms for hostages. A Los Angeles Times poll showed that only 14% found his statement to be “essentially true” and that 79% believed it to be technically true but “in reality misleading” or “essentially” false.

Reagan reiterated that the Iranian operation was aimed at four objectives: restoring relations with Iran, ending Iran’s participation in terrorism, bringing an end to the Iran-Iraq war and freeing the American hostages.

“This undertaking was a matter of considerable debate within Administration circles,” he said. “Our top policy objectives were never in dispute. There were differences on how best to proceed. The principal issue in contention was whether we should make isolated and limited exceptions to our arms embargo as a signal of our serious intent.”

He said he weighed the views of those who opposed the operation and others who felt no progress could be made without the sale of arms, then considered the risk of failure and the rewards of success and made his decision.

“As Mr. (Abraham) Lincoln said of another presidential decision,” Reagan continued, “if it turns out right, the criticism will not matter. If it turns out wrong, 10 angels swearing I was right will make no difference.”

Criticism From GOP

The operation has been severely condemned by Republicans as well as Democrats and committee chairmen in both the Senate and House have said that they will conduct hearings on it.

Ed Rollins, Reagan’s former chief political adviser and director of his 1984 reelection campaign, harshly criticized Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan and other White House officials who supported the plan and urged that details of it be released because “the quicker it gets unraveled, the better off we all are.”

Reagan’s remarks were greeted with a blast of criticism from key leaders in Congress.

Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), a conservative who frequently has supported Reagan policies, said the White House has been involved in “damage control” while it “needs to do some housecleaning.”

“I counted at least seven major contradictions from what I had previously been informed by Administration officials,” Nunn said.

‘Policy in Disarray’

Nunn, ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said after watching Reagan: “I think the problem has gotten worse this evening. . . . We have a foreign policy that is in serious disarray now.”

Both Nunn and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) criticized Reagan for denying that the United States had condoned arms shipments by any countries. “The President’s information on that point was not good,” said Lugar.

Lugar added that the President was not precise in his description of the laws that cover notification of Congress on such matters. “I suspect the President does not understand the law with regard to informing Congress,” he said.

Senate Democratic Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said that he does not believe Reagan convinced many people he acted properly.

“The American people are smarter than the Administration thinks, and it’s time for that reality to strike the Administration. The American people don’t want any more excuses. They want to get on with the business of restoring our nation’s credibility and it’s anti-terrorism policy.”

Decision Was Legal

Under questioning at the press conference, Reagan said that the decision to withhold information about the operation from Congress was legal.

“I was not breaking any law in doing that,” he said. “It is provided for me to do that. I have the right under the law to defer reporting to Congress--to the proper congressional committees--on an action, until such time as I believe it can be safely done, with no risk to others.”

“That’s why I have ordered in this coming week (that) the proper committees will be briefed on this,” Reagan said. But he added: “There are still some parts of this that we cannot go public with because it will bring to risk and danger people that are held and people that we have been negotiating with.”

Reagan insisted that he did not violate a 1977 national security law by failing to inform key lawmakers of the secret overtures to Iran. “The President, believe it or not, does have the power, if in his belief national security can be served, to wave provisions of that law as well as to defer notification of the Congress,” he maintained.

Plays Down Dissent

And the President sought to play down the widely reported divisions within his Administration over the arms shipments, denying that key officials had been left in the dark about the operations. “The secretary of state was involved, the director of the CIA was involved in what we were doing,” he said.

When asked whether Shultz had made his agreement to remain conditional upon a presidential pledge not to ship further arms to Iran, Reagan insisted: “There have been no conditions. . . .”

The President dismissed suggestions that the disclosure of the operation has put him and his Administration “on the defensive.”

“I don’t feel that I have anything to defend about at all,” he insisted. “With the circumstances the way they were, the decision I made I still believe was the correct decision, and I believe that we achieved some portion of our goals.”

Others’ Sales Not Condoned

In efforts to achieve those objectives, Reagan said that “we did not condone and do not condone the shipment of arms from other countries.”

He professed to have no knowledge of a September, 1985, shipment of arms to Iran from a third country--known to be Israel--which preceeded the release of hostage Benjamin Weir last year. When a questioner told him that Chief of Staff Regan had confirmed the shipment, Reagan said: “I never heard Mr. Regan say that, and I’ll ask him about it.”

When another questioner asked if Reagan was saying that the only arms supply to Iran approved by the United States were the two direct shipments earlier this year, the President said: “That’s right. I’m saying that nothing but the missiles we sold.”