(2 of 3)
Whatever sense one can make of the secret dealings that led to arms transfers to Iran in exchange for the hostages' freedom may be traced to Reagan's microcosmic vision, yet Reagan's reductions seem far more emotional than rational. In the Iran transaction he apparently felt the plight of the hostages as one would feel the plight of one's family in danger, and his emotional response took precedence over his country's stated policy against trading with terrorists, its neutrality in the Iran-Iraq war, its fair-and- square relations with other countries -- over every major issue to which the hostage situation potentially was tied.
He may also have assumed that most of his countrymen would share his view. A certain reasoning was on his side. For one thing, it makes more sense to try and coax Iran back into the world than to watch it burn and smolder further out of reach. The Ayatullah, at age 86, cannot live forever, though it must be noted that his mother, at age 105, is rumored to be still with us. For another thing, individuals do count. Israel's Shimon Peres, who has spoken obliquely ; of his country's role in the arms negotiations, defended the Reagan Administration's action as an exception that proves the rule. No one can doubt the rigidity of America's normal position on trading with terrorists, Peres argued, yet a democracy's central obligation must always tilt toward its individual citizens.
So the question is of gains and losses, just as it was most recently in Reagan's handling of the Daniloff incident and the summit meeting with Gorbachev in Iceland. In each of those instances, the President once again focused on individuals. So moved was Reagan at a newsman's imprisonment, he was determined to solve that problem alone, at the possible expense of creating others. So sure was Reagan that he could charm Gorbachev in Reykjavik, he overlooked the fact that he was meeting with both a man and a system. Fortunately for Reagan, the uproar over his trading a spy for a journalist rose and vanished rapidly, and even more fortunately, he did not fly home from Iceland having agreed thoughtlessly to a total ban of nuclear weapons. In both situations his luck, not his philosophy, prevailed.
In the Iran affair, however, both his luck and his philosophy may have run dry, for there basic understandings between the public and the presidency were broken that are considerably more serious than the White House reckoned. To a point, the people will tolerate, even applaud, a President's leapfrogging of rules and restrictions, as long as the people perceive a worthwhile goal achieved. But their tolerance will go quickly if they feel that presidential self-assurance is giving way to recklessness. One feels fervently for the men imperiled by the kidnapers, and for their anxious families, but from the standpoint of national honor and practical sense, it is difficult to argue that their release is worth destroying the long-term trust of our allies or creating perpetual incentives for terror.