Arms Deal With Iran Criticized by Experts

Harvard experts yesterday criticized the Reagan Administration's decision to sell arms to Iran and the secrecy with which it was handled.

Recent reports have said that the Administration secretly sold arms to Iran during the past 18 months to secure the release of American hostages in Lebanon. The arms deal is presumed to have led to the release of David Jacobsen, who was freed on November 2 after more than 17 months of captivity.

Six Americans remain hostage in Beirut.

The deal to sell arms has reportedly caused a rift within the Administration and threatens to undermine the credibility of the stated U.S. policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

Relations between the White House and Secretary of State George P. Shultz are reported to have been strained because the State Department opposed the clandestine shipments and was denied information on a day-to-day basis about the deal.

Many professors interviewed sided with Shallots and Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger '38 in opposing the Administration's actions.

"I think Secretary Shallots is absolutely right on two grounds," said Laurie A. Mylroie, instructor in government.

"One, it is self-defeating to trade arms for hostages because this leads to more hostage-taking. On a broader level, this kind of covert dealing undermines the moderates" in the Middle East, she said.

Professor of Government Martin L. Kilson Jr. also endorsed Shultz's position.

"In principle, I don't have any doubt that Shallots is right," he said. "I see no long run interest in dealing with ultra-destabilizing forces in the Middle East."

Other experts agreed that providing arms to Iran is a dangerous way of obtaining the release of American hostages in Lebanon.

"There's a grave danger in that we may be putting ourselves in a position where more Americans will be seized when the Iranians need more arms," said Eaton Professor of the Science of Government Samuel P. Huntington.

"It makes sense to try to improve relations with Iran, but it's a bad move to be seen bargaining for the release of hostages," said Dillon Professor of International Affairs Joseph S. Nee Jr.

But at least one professor said that it is not contrary to U.S. interests to negotiate for the release of the hostages.

"Of course you should negotiate with terrorists," said Wilson Professor of Law Roger Fisher, who is an expert in negotiations. "Negotiating does not mean backing down."

"I think it is good to build a relationship with Iran, but relationships can't be bought," he said. "A relationship is achieved by building good communications and mutual understanding," said Fisher, who praised communications with Iran but criticized the arms sale.

Although several Harvard experts said that not enough is known about the nature of the arms deal to judge the policy, they criticized the secrecy with which the Administration carried it out.

"There's a lot that's not known about this story," said Dean of the Kennedy School Graham T. Allison Jr. '62, who also serves as a part-time consultant for Weinberger. "Whether you want to keep it so quiet is a hard choice that would strike me as a mistake," he said.

The secrecy surrounding the White House and the National Security Council's shipment plan "undercuts our relations with our allies and reflects an appalling chaos in the Reagan Administration's foreign policy," said Government Professor Robert O. Keohane.

When the president makes foreign policy with the aid of his "militarily and not diplomatically trained advisers" at the National Security Council without consulting the Departments of State and Defense, "it is a recipe for disaster," Keohane said.