Moves Beyond Tanker Escorts : U.S. Widens Military Goals in Persian Gulf

The Reagan Administration, in statements reflecting a gradual but significant expansion of its military objectives in the Persian Gulf, pledged Tuesday to keep the U.S. Navy in the war zone as long as Iran threatens the security of the area’s pro-American Arab sheikdoms.

Although President Reagan initially sent the Navy into the gulf a year ago this month to protect Kuwaiti oil tankers from Iranian attacks, U.S. policy statements over time have shifted to broader aims.

And in reaffirming the country’s military commitment in the gulf, following the shooting down of an Iranian commercial airliner by a U.S. Navy cruiser Sunday with the loss of all 290 persons aboard, officials left no doubt Tuesday that the Administration’s objectives now go well beyond protecting merchant ships.

‘Shared Defense’

“We are there to demonstrate our commitment to the shared defense of the gulf, our commitment to the gulf states (and) to keep the international waters open to all nations,” White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said. “We believe that policy has been successful, and there are no considerations of changing it at this point.”

At the State Department, spokeswoman Phyllis Oakley said: “As long as there is a danger of the war expanding, and U.S. and Western interests as well as the security of our gulf friends are threatened, we will maintain our heightened presence there.

“Our policy remains firm, and our presence in the gulf will remain firm, as long as the threats to our interests remain,” she added.

In particular, these statements put greater focus than before on the long-range objective of ending the Iran-Iraq War on terms acceptable to the United States.

Administration officials point out that the broader aims of ending the gulf war and ensuring the security of the Arab states in the area have always been part of the reason for the U.S. presence there.

But while Reagan has continued to define his main aim in the gulf as protecting “the right of navigation in international waters,” as he said Monday, the rest of his Administration has spoken increasingly in terms of a long-term commitment to stabilizing the war-torn region.

“Our purpose in the gulf is to bring the war to an end diplomatically through negotiations,” Oakley said. “Secondly, we have talked about our vital interests in the gulf. We are pledged to uphold and defend these interests and to help protect the security of our friends in the gulf.

“We have increased our naval presence in the gulf to accomplish these aims,” she said.

Some foreign policy experts, including former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and former National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, have urged the Administration to look for an opportunity to gradually reduce the number of Navy ships in the gulf--now 28--and de-escalate its mission.

No Homecoming Soon

But Administration spokesmen insisted Tuesday that the fleet was a long way from coming home, despite the likelihood of more military action.

“Our position remains firm,” Oakley said. “We have interests there. We intend to protect them.”

Critics of the Administration charge that the Navy’s objectives in the gulf have expanded largely by accident, as a series of responses to escalating military confrontations with Iranian forces, without a clear strategy behind them.

“The real issue isn’t the judgment of our commanders in the gulf,” said Sen. Brock Adams (D-Wash.). “The real issue is the policy that put them there . . . a policy of lurching from incident to incident.”

‘Like Marines in Lebanon’

“It’s been exactly like putting the Marines in Lebanon (in 1982-1983), only worse,” charged Prof. James A. Bill of the College of William and Mary, an authority on U.S.-Iranian relations. “We’ve stumbled into the middle of a major war, and we’ve clearly taken sides.”

Not surprisingly, Administration officials disagree. “We’ve had ships in the gulf to defend our interests for almost 40 years,” said Arthur Berger, another State Department spokesman. “I don’t think we’ve backed into anything. We’ve thought this through very carefully.”

Still, even some who support the U.S. presence in the gulf agree that the real aim of the Navy’s presence is larger than the Administration admitted at the outset.

“To put it very bluntly . . . the purpose of the policy is to prevent Iran from winning the war,” former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said in interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “That’s why we’re there, and I think we have to stay there.”

That is one of the aspects of the policy that worries both Democrats and Republicans in Congress: There does not seem to be a clear signpost to indicate when the Navy can declare a victory and withdraw.

The Navy’s mission has largely accomplished its initial aim of reassuring the Arab sheikdoms of U.S. resolve and protecting the passage of oil tankers in the gulf. “I think it’s been a success because petroleum has continued to flow through the Strait of Hormuz,” said Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.).

But Administration officials acknowledge that the fleet has had little visible effect on Iran’s willingness to continue its nearly eight-year-old war with Iraq, even after a series of reverses on the battlefield.

The United States and other Western nations support a United Nations resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire and a negotiated end to the war, but Iran has refused to agree to the plan. “It’s not going anywhere,” a State Department official said.

Times staff writer Sara Fritz contributed to this article.