Key Arms Sales Papers Released : North Memo Cites Aid to Moderates in Iran, Plays Up Hostage Release Also

WASHINGTON —  The White House argued Friday that a key document prepared in connection with the Iran arms sales supports President Reagan’s contention that the approach to Iran was made to encourage “moderate” elements in the Tehran regime.

But the document--a memorandum to Reagan from then-National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter--and an intelligence directive signed by Reagan gave prominence also to the role that the arms sales could play in obtaining the freedom of the American hostages held in Lebanon, making their release appear to be an integral element in the controversial weapons shipments. The two items were made public by the White House Friday.

The Jan. 17, 1986, memorandum, prepared for Poindexter by Lt. Col. Oliver L. North, is portrayed as the basis for Reagan’s decision to proceed with the arms shipments. It leaves unclear exactly what Reagan knew about earlier contacts with Iran and the first arms shipment in August, 1985. The directive, also dated Jan. 17, provided the legal basis for making subsequent shipments in 1986 without notifying Congress.

Continuing Frustration

The decision to make the two items public reflected the continuing frustration at the White House over the refusal of the Senate Intelligence Committee to publish a report on its investigation of the Iran arms shipments and the diversion to anti-Sandinista rebels of funds involved in the Iran sale.

The panel decided again Friday to withhold publication of the report, although “NBC News” on Thursday devoted one-third of its evening news broadcast to accounts based on the contents of a draft of the report that it said it had obtained.

The NBC report prompted the White House to make public the one-page intelligence directive, known as a “finding,” and the three-page “Action Memorandum” that Poindexter offered to Reagan. North, the document’s author, was relieved of his duties on the staff of the White House National Security Council on Nov. 25, after the fund diversion became known. Poindexter, North’s supervisor, resigned.

The intelligence “finding” gives three reasons for the approach to Iran: “establishing a more moderate government,” opening an intelligence channel and “furthering the release of the American hostages held in Beirut and preventing additional terrorist acts by these groups.”

The contents of the supporting memorandum were reported in Friday’s Los Angeles Times, on the basis of accounts provided by White House and congressional sources.

Missile Sale Proposed

The memorandum proposed that the United States take advantage of Israel’s expressed interest in trying to modify the behavior of the government of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran by using Israeli middlemen to “make the necessary arrangements for the sale of 4,000 TOW (anti-tank) weapons to Iran.”

“If all of the hostages are not released after the first shipment of 1,000 weapons, further transfers would cease,” the document states.

It adds: “On the other hand, since hostage release is in some respects a byproduct of a larger effort to develop ties to potentially moderate forces in Iran, you may wish to redirect such transfers to other groups within the (Iranian) government at a later time.”

A handwritten note at the bottom of the memorandum says: “President was briefed verbally from this paper. VP, Don Regan and Don Fortier were present. JP.”

According to White House officials, this indicates that Reagan did not read the memorandum, but that “JP”--John Poindexter--summarized its contents for him, with Vice President George Bush, White House Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan and Don Fortier, a National Security Council staff member who died last summer, in attendance.

Reagan’s acceptance of the recommendation that he sign the intelligence “finding” is noted by the initials “RR per JP,” under the heading “OK.” A senior Administration official said this meant that Poindexter had signed Reagan’s initials after briefing the President. Reagan’s signature appears on the “finding.”

“We just don’t know how much of the memo that the President saw,” said the official, speaking on the condition that he not be identified.

‘Hostages and Arms’

He added: “The issue, as I see it, is what the President knew or understood, what was being conveyed to him in the way of information. The memo demonstrates . . . that (the) business of talking about hostages and arms together, in relation to one another, was part--as the memo makes very clear--of the larger picture that the President has always talked about.”

When questioned about the arms affair at his most recent news conference on Nov. 19--the last detailed public questioning to which Reagan has submitted on the issue--the President said that four purposes guided the “secret initiative” to Iran:

“To replace a relationship of total hostility with something better, to bring a negotiated end to the Iran-Iraq war and to bring an end to terrorism and to effect the release of our hostages.”

And, in briefing reporters Friday, the Administration official said that “the writer of the memo is trying to convey to the President the fact . . . that the Israelis have proposed a way of achieving some sort of strategic opening to Iran.”

Influence on Terrorists

But, he acknowledged, the document also told the President that the approach to Iran “may permit us to have influence over” the Party of God, the fundamentalist Muslim group tied to the Iranian regime and believed to be holding at least some of the Americans hostages in Lebanon.

The document is said to be part of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s draft report.

Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.), the committee chairman, and Sen. William S. Cohen (R-Me.), the ranking minority member, rejected White House pleas that their report be made public. They argued that the report was seriously flawed in many ways.

Cohen noted that the committee’s materials came almost entirely from Reagan Administration officials, and he called on the White House to publish everything that it has given to the Senate.

‘Shouldn’t Be Stampeded’

“We shouldn’t be stampeded by the White House or by others (into) releasing these findings,” Cohen said. “I find it curiouser and curiouser that we are asked to disclose information already in the possession of the White House . . . . What they want is a validation, so they can say: ‘See, the President didn’t know.’ ”

Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia said that the Intelligence Committee’s draft report contains errors and “statements inconsistent with the facts” and that it was “sanitized” by people from the CIA, the White House and the State Department who excised some material not for security reasons but because it was “politically sensitive or embarrassing.”

The White House has denied that the 13 Administration officials who reviewed the report removed material out of political concerns but only to protect intelligence sources and to avoid diplomatic embarrassment.