Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)

September 23, 1987, Wednesday

Signs of hardened stands in Gulf

BYLINE: Peter Grier, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor. Staff writer E.A. Wayne contributed to this report.

SECTION: National; Pg. 1

LENGTH: 916 words

DATELINE: Washington

HIGHLIGHT: Evidence of mining boosts administration's policy toward

Reaction in Washington was generally supportive of Monday's US Navy attack on an Iranian mine- laying ship. But the question of retaliation now looms large, according to US officials and other experts, as does the possible effect of the affair on United Nations diplomacy. Specifically: *Will Iran, embarrassed at being caught dumping mines in the , return the US blow - perhaps with a terrorist attack? *Will members of the UN Security Council, moved by pictures of Iranian mines ready for sowing, be more likely to approve an arms embargo against the Tehran government?

Though there has been much criticism in Washington of the Reagan administration's naval buildup in the Gulf, reaction to the way the force was employed in this case was generally positive. Rep. Les Aspin (D) of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a vociferous critic of administration's Gulf policy, said that the attack was a ''necessary response.'' By sowing mines days after hosting UN Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar's peace mission, Iran was ''thumbing its nose at the world community,'' Representative Aspin said. The UN should slap some sort of sanctions on Tehran, the chairman said, or more repugnant behavior is likely to follow. In a television interview, Sen. Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana also supported the attack, saying ''clearly we've caught them dead to rights.'' Some Middle East experts, however, did worry that the military action in the Gulf will serve to harden Iran's attitude at the moment when diplomacy is making some small headway in the region. ''I think this undermines the diplomatic option,'' said R.K. Ramazani, a political science professor at the University of Virginia, adding that he wishes the Navy had boarded and confiscated the ship instead of shooting at it. Rhetoric among Iranian officials was running high in response to the altercation. Iranian President Ali Khamenei, in his Tuesday speech to the UN, denounced the act and vowed revenge. And whenever Iran mentions revenge, US officials almost reflexively think ''terrorism.'' US antiterrorism specialists, in recent conversations, have stressed that Iran retains the capability to carry out anti-American terror strikes in the Mideast, Europe, and perhaps the US. These experts deem a strike in the US a relatively unlikely response, however, as Iran realizes what kind of response that would be likely to elicit. William Quandt, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, said the Iranian response, if any, to the US attack will depend crucially on their motivation for mining in the first place. If the mines were being dumped on the orders of a hard-line Revolutionary Guards faction, against the wishes of the regular armed forces, there could be ''secret applause'' in Tehran about the affair, Mr. Quandt said. But if the Iranian government was united in its support for the mining, reaction could be more serious, he said. Finally, the bullets-for-mines exchange in the Gulf could well affect the chances for UN Security Council passage of an arms embargo against Iran, US officials and other experts say. The US has supported this move, while some other Council members, such as China and the Soviet Union, have indicated little enthusiasm for the step. Clear evidence of Iranian wrongdoing could be seen as a slap at the UN, these analysts say, pushing reluctant members of the Council toward the US position. A US official interviewed before the attack took place said that the US will soon begin a ''full-court press'' in the Security Council to win passage of arms sanctions. In an indication of the growing awareness of the danger of Iranian reaction, the US and several Western European allies have decided to split up minesweeping duties in the Persian Gulf, according to reports from the region. The US will be responsible for clearing the northern half of Gulf waters, while the Netherlands, Britain, France, Belgium, and possibly Italy will clear southern areas and the Gulf of Oman, just outside the Gulf. Meanwhile, information about the US-Iranian confrontation remained relatively sketchy yesterday. Defense Department spokesman Fred Hoffman said that no effort was made to communicate with the Iranian vessel before US helicopters attacked. No warning shots were fired, he said. Mr. Hoffman indicated that the Iranian vessel - an amphibious landing ship of non-US construction named Iran Ajr - was one the US had followed with suspicion for some time. ''The US Navy was aware this ship had the potential for laying mines,'' spokesman Hoffman said. US pilots, using night-vision equipment, saw six mines rolled into the water, according to the Pentagon. With permission from the commander of the Navy's Middle East Force they then opened fire with machine guns and rockets. Yesterday, the Navy USS Jarrett fired warning shots near a high-speed Iranian hovercraft in the Gulf, the Defense Department reported. The Iranian naval boat at first ignored warnings to halt its approach but turned away after the Jarrett fired. Thirty-one members were on board the ship struck by the US Monday. Three were killed, according to the Pentagon. Two are still missing, and 26 are now in custody on board US warships. Tehran radio said five crewmen were killed. The Iranian sailors are not to be held prisoner. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said Tuesday that they will be repatriated to Iran as soon as possible.

PERSON: DICK LUGAR (54%); ALI KHAMENEI (52%);

ORGANIZATION: US NAVY (90%); UNITED NATIONS (84%); UNITED NATIONS (84%);

COUNTRY: UNITED STATES (99%); IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF (97%); MIDDLE EAST (93%); GULF STATES (92%); IRAN (90%);

STATE: (92%); MASSACHUSETTS, USA (79%); INDIANA, USA (79%);

CITY: TEHRAN, IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF (90%); BOSTON, MA, USA (79%);

COMPANY: US NAVY (90%); UNITED NATIONS (84%); UNITED NATIONS (84%);

SUBJECT: NAVIES (90%); PUBLIC POLICY (90%); UNITED NATIONS INSTITUTIONS (90%); TERRORISM (89%); DEFENSE & MILITARY POLICY (78%); US PRESIDENTS (78%); INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (77%); PEACE PROCESS (77%); EMBARGOES & SANCTIONS (77%); COUNTERTERRORISM (76%); APPROVALS (72%); POLITICAL SCIENCE (70%); ARMS EMBARGOES (70%); INTERVIEWS (69%); RESEARCH INSTITUTES (62%); COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS (50%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

GRAPHIC: Map, Gulf Minesweeping Plan;Source:Associated Press, Reuters, JOAN RAPAPORT - STAFF

Copyright 1987 The Christian Science Publishing Society