Arms Accord, Attack on Iranian Ship : Week of Successes Gives Reagan Badly Needed Lift

In barely more than a week, President Reagan has received a badly needed lift from a series of triumphs and positive developments in the field of foreign policy, capped by the successful U.S. attack on an Iranian naval vessel as it sowed mines in the Persian Gulf under cover of darkness.

Catching the Iranian ship seemingly red-handed, the seizure of a Lebanese terrorist suspect by FBI agents in the Mediterranean and the nearly completed negotiations with Moscow on eliminating intermediate-range nuclear missiles from Europe come as a welcome change of fortune for a White House battered by months of reverses--from the Iran- contra scandal to the tragic and embarrassing Iraqi attack on the guided-missile frigate Stark.

White House staff members, Reagan allies on Capitol Hill and analysts outside the government agree that the recent successes cannot by themselves sweep away the problems of a President nearing his final year in office with his personal credibility damaged and both houses of Congress controlled by the opposition. “Does the fact that, this week, things haven’t gone badly mean that people in Washington won’t treat him like a lame duck any more?” asked UC Berkeley political science professor Nelson W. Polsby, an expert on presidential relations with Congress. “I guess not.”

Nonetheless, although Iran has threatened retaliation and Congress continues to press its institutional argument with the President over the War Powers Resolution, the recent successes are likely to strengthen Reagan’s hand at least temporarily with Congress, the public and U.S. allies.

The Persian Gulf episode is seen as helping Reagan in his war powers confrontation with Congress. The resolution requires the President to seek congressional approval for the deployment of U.S. forces where hostilities are imminent. But Reagan--like other chief executives before him--has resisted the requirement as an unconstitutional intrusion into presidential authority.

Many members of the House and Senate responded positively to the carefully managed surveillance and attack on the Iranian vessel. And there was evidence that the operation met with strong public approval.

“It was a 10-strike, and people are pleased in this country when that occurs,” said Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.). “It has been a big plus for the President. Before long, people will be writing once again how lucky he is.”

Defusing Criticism

Even Democrats in Congress who have been highly critical of Reagan’s policy in the Persian Gulf expressed strong approval of the U.S. attack on the Iranian ship. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) acknowledged that the success of the operation probably would help defuse congressional criticism of the action that has brought a fleet of U.S. vessels into the gulf to protect reflagged Kuwaiti tankers and assure the vital flow of oil to Western Europe and Japan.

In addition, the President seems certain to show at least a short-term gain in public opinion surveys--and among allies--as a result of arms control progress. This is true, despite the possibility that the Senate debate over the likely U.S.-Soviet treaty banning medium-range nuclear weapons from the superpowers’ arsenals will become entangled in the dispute between Democrats and the Reagan Administration over the future of the “Star Wars” missile defense program.

“The key word to me is consistency, and consistency pays off not only here but abroad, as other countries look to see if the United States is going to vacillate,” said Thomas C. Griscom, the President’s director of communications.

“There has always been a tendency for people to try to count this President out way too early,” he said. “He is showing once more he is the shaper of the debate. What it shows is a President who has remained active and will continue being active during the time he is serving as President.”

A ‘Smoking Gun’

Foreign policy and political analysts say the episode Monday in the Persian Gulf, in which the crews of U.S. Army Special Forces helicopters used night-vision devices and rocket fire to spot and then halt what the Pentagon says was an Iranian mine-laying operation, is likely to help the Administration in at least three ways:

--For the American public and the allies, capturing the “smoking gun” serves to validate Reagan’s portrayal of Iran as an active threat to vital Persian Gulf shipping.

--After the trillion-dollar Reagan defense buildup that has on occasion been marred by such tragedies as the Beirut barracks bombing, the attack on the Stark and weapons procurement scandals, the episode helps restore the image of the armed forces as an effective military instrument.

--In the wake of the Iran-contra scandal, setbacks in Congress and running battles over the budget, it helps counter the impression that the Reagan Administration is wallowing and ineffectual--an impression that is also countered by the prospects of a summit conference later this autumn in this country with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev and the widely expected signing of an arms control agreement.

Important to Allies

The impact of the Persian Gulf incident may be especially important on U.S. allies, who reluctantly and only belatedly joined in the effort to protect gulf shipping.

“I don’t think there’s a single American who needed Iran’s aggressiveness validated,” said a former Reagan adviser who has kept in touch with his former White House colleagues. Of the captured Iranian mine ship, he added: “They may have to float that boat to the United Nations to prove it, but they don’t have to float it to Mobile.”

And, he said, the performance of the military forces is important to the public’s assessment of Reagan’s performance and its view of the effectiveness of a crucial element of his presidency--the Pentagon buildup.

“The whole question of defense spending--when there are so few occasions when our people and systems are battle-tested, it’s important that they perform well,” he said.

Unlike the attack on the Stark, in which 37 sailors were killed while sophisticated defense systems sat idle, and a more recent confrontation in the Persian Gulf when a U.S. jet is said to have fired two costly missiles but failed to hit what was believed to be an Iranian fighter, the capture of the mine-laying ship appeared to go like clockwork.

Terrorist Suspect

And the carefully orchestrated mission that brought Fawaz Younis, the Middle East terrorist suspect in a 1985 airliner hijacking, into the arms of the FBI was a major plus, even though he appeared for arraignment later in Washington with injuries that may cast doubt on his confession.

Although many members of both parties have been critical of the Administration’s decision to send Navy units into the gulf, Congress has been extremely reluctant to tie the President’s hands, even though the Senate was considering legislation to limit the U.S. role in the gulf.

“The successful military operation in the Persian Gulf has strengthened our argument that now is not the time to be arguing over these issues,” said Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who represented the GOP in negotiations with the Democrats on the resolution.

Lugar added: “There are still folks who are very nervous in the Congress about our being in the Persian Gulf at all. But they are people who would be nervous if we were in the Chesapeake Bay.”

Possible Backfire Seen

Nevertheless, Democrats warned that the Administration’s policy in the gulf could still backfire on Reagan--both militarily and politically.

Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, noted that the public is still somewhat ambivalent about the policy and that sentiment could shift sharply against Reagan--as it did with his commitment of troops in Lebanon--if more American lives are lost.

“It still could turn into another Lebanon if Americans start getting killed,” acknowledged a White House aide, who asked not to be identified. “The main reason there wasn’t a bigger hue and cry (over the attack on the Iranian vessel) is because none of our guys were killed.”

Robert E. Hunter, a member of the National Security Council staff in the Jimmy Carter White House, said that the capture of the mine-laying ship has the positive effect of showing “the Russkies there are times we’ll use force.”

Message to Ayatollah

Hunter said the latest incident in the gulf would also serve to reinforce the U.S. message to Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini that “thou shalt not take on the Great Satan.”

But, he said, such photographs as one given wide display earlier in the week showing a U.S. sailor guarding Iranian captives fuels the Iranian “thesis that the United States is anti-Islamic,” much as photos of U.S. hostages at the American embassy in Tehran fed anti-Iranian sentiments in the United States in 1979 and 1980.

And he said the incident can help the Soviets make inroads in Iran. Indeed, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze at the United Nations on Wednesday endorsed Iran’s call for an independent tribunal to fix the blame for the start of the seven-year war between Iran and Iraq.

Political scientists and public opinion pollsters have long documented the “rally ‘round the flag” tendency among Americans to support a President in the wake of a national security crisis, particularly one that involves use of military force.

The Persian Gulf attack, a former Reagan aide said, brings this “motto” to mind: “When in trouble, make some rubble.”

Gain Can Be Temporary

But past poll data shows also that the lift can be temporary if subsequent events are unfavorable.

According to the Gallup Poll, President Gerald R. Ford’s popularity surged from 39% in mid-April, 1975, to 52% in late June, 1975--reflecting support for the military operation in Cambodia to free the crew of a captured American merchant ship, the Mayaguez.

“It was the kind of decision it takes a strong man to make,” then-Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) said at the time. “This one act of Ford could be the act that elects him.”

But Ford’s popularity fell back to a 41% approval rating within five months. The Mayaguez’s impact proved to be ephemeral and Goldwater was wrong--it did not elect Ford.

Richard B. Wirthlin, Reagan’s pollster, said Thursday his surveys have found that 59% of the American public approves of Reagan’s job performance. And, he said, indications are that “he will go into the last year of his presidency with a good deal of public support.”

Fluctuating Job Rating

Reagan’s job approval rating, which had reached as high as 69% at the end of 1984, just after his reelection, had dropped to 57% when the Iran-contra scandal began to unfold, and it sank to a low point, in the Wirthlin surveys, of 44% by mid-February.

Wirthlin attributed Reagan’s rise in the polls over the summer to three factors:

--The approaching summit meeting with Gorbachev and the favorable prospects for an arms control agreement.

--The fading, albeit at a slow pace, of the Iran-contra scandal as a political issue.

--Generally upbeat economic news, including the fall of the unemployment rate to below 6% for the first time in the Reagan presidency.

A New York Times/CBS News poll, conducted this week, found overwhelming support for the reflagging of Kuwaiti tankers and the escort role that has brought a fleet of approximately 40 U.S. Navy vessels to the troubled waters of the Persian Gulf and the nearby Arabian Sea. And, about 78% said they favored the Monday night attack in the gulf.

Indeed, just as American public sentiment against Iran caused Reagan’s decline in popularity after it became known that he had approved the sale of arms to Iran, the survey suggests that those same anti-Iranian sentiments are helping the President restore his credibility in the wake of the attack.

Lugar, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asserted that Reagan’s Persian Gulf policy has become more popular recently, not only because of the attack Monday night but because it has won cooperation from U.S. allies in Europe as well as from the moderate Arab states.