Transcripts For CSPAN3 Iran-Contra 20170416

Project. Mr. Malcolmday is byrnes. Extremely pleased to have malcolm here today. Only is he a great scholar, hes also a great friend. Official title is Deputy Director and Research Director of the National Security archive. Or n. S. A. Its not that n. S. A. That he works for. The n. S. A. He works for is one washingtons greatest gems. Classify place where america meets its maker and hopefully declassified allowing transparency into government. It seeks to sign a light on what on behind the scenes inside of washington. Of thelso the coauthor coming enemies. About american diplomacy war. G the iran iraq which is best book available on american diplomacy. New book, based ontra, which is extraordinary come out of andarch and documents diaries and interviews with with a mountain of material and documents i dont else has ever seriously looked at. Prosecutor. E a in the end, as your book shows, at them as look look well as they should have. The picture that emerges out of this book actually its right there on the cover, changes i our image of ronald reagan. In a disturbing way. Our quote from the conclusion, a the president and his aids took action first and whether it was proper later. Later. Proper and legal at the heart of iran contra was two secret intelligence operations which is why the intelligence project on this. Focus light one in Central America and one iraq. These two intelligence operations were never properly congress of the United States. Therefore, almost by definition, the were illegal right from start. Particularly of the operation in iran, also the operation in nicaragua. Be traced back in many ways. Contra intelligence operation that led to the iran scandal. Worst, i think the most disturbing part of this book is that the oversight system us m alluded pailed failed us. We got a lot of hearings and press. S in the but there was no real systematic effort to prevent future president s and future white houses from abusing power. Sadly, allt least, of this has haunting timely reminders today. Because United States once again has hostages being held in the middle east by extreme islamist which havens demonstrated the they are prepared to carry out horrific brutality. Two presidencies, Jimmy Carter Reagan were consumed by hostages. Unfortunately barack obama looks one today. I will ask you to turn off your phones now and the format here today will be very simple. Im going to interview malcolm for about 40 minutes or so about the book. Using the prerogative of the chair. Up to you all it to ask questions. Introduction, let me start by asking you about ronald reagan. Where do you place him in the scandal . He iran contra first of all, thank you very me. For having its an honor to be here at brookings. D im so happy to be able to talk about this book that i worked on for a long time. Right, this picture of of where imblematic think how he comes out of this affair. Fitting is right up at the top. Its a very complicated story. Remember as im looking across the room here. Not a lot of 20 somethings in the room. All of you will remember that the hearings and the long drawn out process, it was complicated because it affected events in countries. Nt if you include israel which played a big part. Wonkishved a lot of gray dullues and legal matters as the affair wound on and dragged on for and years. Keeping on top of what all the issues were is a real challenge. Where reagan fits, whereve to sort of decide what exactly youre talking about. Youre talking about what reagan knew or you talking about what he believed oor what people told thing happened that nsc staffradar that were doing. Story. Multilayered put it as briefly as i can, i the drivings being force behind the scandal. Onh elements of the scandal the iran side, he was guided primarily by his concern for the hostages. Acknowledged to have been emotional and very moved by his meetings with the 1985ge family in 1s 1st especially. Him. Drove he was one of the great politicians of the 20th century. He was intent on finding a hostage crisis. On the contra side of things, he of what wasre hisening on the part of staff and aides from other agencies but there seems in my view, theres no doubt, that he guidance and the created the atmosphere in which robert mcfarland, National Security advisor, north, and all the others took their inspiration and took their instructions. You remember the famous phrase back during the congressional hearings where mcfarland said that in 1984, president reagan him aside and said its up to you to keep the contra body and soul. This was in anticipation of very restrictions on government aides of the contras were about to take place. If you look back at the record, i saw it, it was clear to everybody including reagan, about to happen. This was seen as a virtually shut down of officially the contras. Ce to but reagan was not about to let them go. Theas emotional about Freedom Fighter as he was about the hostages. Was intent on finding ways to get around congressional prohibitions. Whether he understood everything that was to happen was legal or get into those details. The basic point is that he was the pyramid and without him, i dont think any happened. Uld have the heart of the iran affair trading arms for hostages. Policy. Had a long we here today, we will not negotiate with terrorists. End up negotiating with terrorists and even worse, them weapons . This is part of the complex a story. Hin wast of all,i want to say i surprised, few days ago, i scanned the times website and i look at the time minutes and videos they put together that really helpful just to encapsulate the issues. Days ago, on hostage it advertised itself as showing some of the very rare where the u. S. Has broken with this policy for not negotiating with hostages. Didere in that minute plus the phrase iran contra come in or ronald reagan. That seems to me to have been egregious example of a violation of that policy. It wasnt mentioned. Of how farection iran contra sunk. How we get involved. There were many different aspect. Simple thing. A there are many causes in most cases. Several things had to come into play. Abouts, we talked reagans emotional attachment to this issue. Early on in this administration, this question had come up about to deal with iran. I can get into that more detail. Now is thatght up didnt come come up with this idea by himself. Were others before him who thought this was an idea were considering. Happened until mcfarland by an israeli namedn Ministry Official david kinfy. He was directors of Foreign Ministry. In theoached mcfarland late spring of 1985 with a message from prime minster shimon perez. The effect that the israelis help americans out in an area where they wanted assistance which was the new Islamic Republic of iran. U. S. Want israeli assistance. Perez says that he god this idea from a couple of different coincidences. In israele appearance ladean who was a consultant to the National Council on terrorism issues and leftist socialist on. Tics in europe and so ladean had, according to his account, had been told by an name,ate of his, he done that the israelis had some ideas approach iran. Mcfarlands approval went to israel and talked to perez and few others to get things. Nse of what do you know about iran and to behind the veil. And so on. Part that hurt. The other part was before that, of the more dark and gloomy this affair, appeared scene through a couple of namedime friends of perez adolph swimmer. Lets back up. He know was the saudi billionaire. Back then. Figure lot of people thought it was the way. Lis, israelis said no other people assumed iranian intelligence. He did have ties with iranian power structure. Fatherme to swimmer, the of the israeli aircraft industry. The arms dealer who had been stationed in iran under the shaw very well. Vp through that connection, they idea, maybe we can iran. Ome money with why . Because iran is in the throws in its war with iraq. Which started in september of 1980. If that war havent been going on, iran wouldnt have needed weapons. Through this coincidence of events, not just the war but appearance of all these figures place, an external spark exists. Thats in the form of meeting mcfarland and telling him there maybe some possibilities here. During the course of different conversations, the sum come bestct comes up, maybe the approach to showing the iranians you hadl would be if some, were willing to offer theyof the weapons that need. We all remember that the on americas based and they still had a lot of hawk missiles. Had tow missiles. They had all kinds of high level equipment that they managed to get out of different u. S. President s. This is the spark that mcfarland needs. Hes been after this for a long time. Not because hes so personally interested in the hostages, i thinke he really did there was a strategic opening at hand. He even wrote about the comparison between the possibility of opening up to kissingerhenry opening to china. Everybody suggested he thinks henry kissinger. We really did think there was a there. Ssibility iran was most important country in the persian gulf for a lot of reasons. Lots of good reasons to try to see what was possible to achieve there. How it got into trading arms comes down tois reagan. Reagan may have been told that is strategic possibility and we should explore it and in fact, he got support in that than georgene other schultz, secretary of state and secretary of defense. Who years afterwards to this denied that they ever thought this was any kind of good idea. Them, it waso approached as a possible opening. But both of those two senior cabinet officers essentially its okay by us to mcfarland. Go ahead and pursue this. Certain caveats. In the summer of 1985, reagan hospital at this point having surgery done. Mcfarland and they discussed this idea over the weeks or so. Ple of the discussion continues. Its unclear what reagan thinks. It comes back to mcfarland. Okay, lets do it. Then its another story how it there. Om one other figure in this. You havent mentioned. The director of central intelligence. Gates. His own agency is saying we these people. They polygraph. That polygraphs are the perfect instrument instruments. Case, hes polygraphed edly. T yet, despite his own professionals advice, he keeps pushing this as well. You explain his role in uniquethis given his relationship with reagan after campaigns reagans manager in the 1980 campaign . Critical figure. He helped get reagan elected. They were old friends. Wanted to be secretary of state some of you will remember. But was not given that job. The cia director after years promised it will be a post and he would have a lot of influence in policy. Say, whenation to reagan was in office, casey hit the ground running. Had draft president ial findings on reagans desk in case and the nicaragua and el salvador cases. Iranian mber what iran policy was in the ration back then. Nistration short answer was there was no iran policy. There were lots of competing ideas. The Reagan Administration, which surprise tobit of some people, who remember how reagan swept into office and the Unifying Force that he seem to of presenting a new ideology and new approach to the u. S. Role in the world. Behind closed doors and the corridors of the white house and testimony ofm the people who experienced this, it pandemonium. Both of these areas in area, werepolicy, there three basic approaches. Essentially to over [indiscernible]. One cia official spoken about this, said they probably got and 40 offers per groupsom various exile saying we can do this. We can get rid of these guys. Just give us the weapons. Casey was taken with particular idea that involved some of the and old style activities like setting up a and broadcasting. Seeing what other kind of activities they can do to create some uncertainty and hopefully dislodge the ayatollah. From the get go, he was pretty wanted to in terms he approach iran. Just very quickly, to cover the bases in terms what the policy ideas were. To containoach was iran. That gets you into a very thorny is the u. S. Role in supports Sadaam Hussein in the iraq war. A third approach was another idea, whichschool sounds antiquated now but and all of the time you remember, that was the approach. T where there were clusters of officials including the white and including casey and al believe ashers who reagan said, soviet union is a evil. Of all its time to go to the source and we need to eradicate their the world. Round there were great fears at the centerat iran was dead in moscows sights. They just invaded afghanistan. Was firmly believed not just by republicans but a lot of in washington and in europe as well elsewhere, that iran. N the list was we now know from soviet records that the invasion of afghanistan was essentially defensive, desperate gamble on the themption that it was that was about to go into afghanistan. This notion of soviet threat was critical and it infused iran contra and it was critical in thinking and hissable to pluck the rake his ability to the right cords with president reagan. We have the extraordinary of the National Security advisor of the United States going to iran. We all remember hes armed with a cake. And one of the big myths of iran contra. No bible. Concederaordinary to even though the notion of taking you. E with i cant recall another Diplomatic Mission with a cake. Anyway, they go. Iranians,ut that the they think theyre going to meet with him. Nt meet it all comes out. Have the investigation. How would you characterize how administration approached the business of the investigation and i think issue,larly important how to deflect the president from being at the center of this whole thing . I hope we can go back and talk about some of those details and so on. As for how they treated takes up aon, that big chunk of this book. Its a crucial part of leading me to the conclusion that i started out with about the role also of hisdent but top advisor and everybody else involved. There are virtually no heros in this story, unfortunately. Story. T a very happy even somebody like george of the few was one who repeatedly spoke out against this in reagans presence. I got a couple of documents that read from. E ill they are pretty dramatic. He fell prey to the Old Washington scandal habit of into a shell and figuring out a way to try to exposure. Is in a way that didnt do him justice. Throw out the thought that this is another thing that i lay at the feet of ronald reagan. In his unwillingness or inability, to consider the Collateral Damage of the one ofns that he made, those bits of damage was the effect that this had on all of advisors and everybody who worked for him. Including schultz and weinberger who said this is a dumb idea and its illegal. Got to stop it and reagan refused. This notion that reagan had no advice and it was in by the nefarious absolute nonsense. The record is in the handwriting weinberger were clear. What happened to them, i pointe, was at some during the investigative natural after the reaction of tightening your defenses and circling the wagons a sensen, there was that they not only had to protect the president , they had protecting themselves. In the course of doing both of people liked schultz and mcfarland and cia folks, all of these over people short endthey got the of the stick to put it mildly. Why . Protectingy were their president and policies and party then themselves. They were basically thrown under bus as a result of it. There was a process that took place remember that this exposed inically was three steps. 1986. In early october the bowlenfter amendment cutting off military aid directly and indirectly. Of the aircrafts that holly has organized with general richard sea cord and other folks ofthe private air force, one the supply aircraft for the junglescrashed in the of nicaragua. It was shot down by a kid with fa7. He was stunned that he actually it. It reached its target. Survivor. Ne they found the survivor from wisconsin. Dragged him in front of international tv. He beared his soul. Said i was hired by the cia. Its an american operation. Wasnt really technically hired by the cia, thats enough ball rolling. That led to an immediate by those people involved. Not just holly north who was middle of negotiations with the iranians, had to cut that short damage control. Abrams and others. All of whom immediately got try to minimize the effect. The record now shows despite the contrary,y to they all knew about the connections and knew about u. S. Connections to that flight and recent flyout operations. The did their best to get contras to take credit for it. To get the general to take some responsibility. He refused to have anything to it. Ith quiet uproar in a behind closed doors when that happened. The next event that happened was november 3rd. We all remember the lebanese ofs magazine, gets a hold this story that undoubtedly of iranian domestic politics. Somebody who thought that other iranian leaders were losing their taste for the war. Found out they were dealing with american and decided to spill beans. Circulated a bunch of pamphlets in tehran. Gets picked up and of differentcouple places. The hostages which reagan denied. Hell say it was to protect hostages lives. I have no doubt that that was a big part of it. Come out until long the the investigations was fact that reagan close advisors were terrified that this was lead to impeachment. Stagenew that the first of these shipments of which gradually only learning, first stage of the were undoubtedly illegal. I hesitate because you can quickly get into the gray area of the law. Which im happy to do if you want. Think you want to. It get we have one lawyer in the ram. Ill probably learn something him. Of the motivating force that led the a whole downn as this dark road to lying about what they did. Covering and doing all these things. Tale. Sad there are several different chapters to. Were going to have time to details. O the endeager to get to the story. Reagan, have ronald what hes aware of arguably impeachable. One of the things i found very thatesting in the book is the opposition, the democrats, there. Ant to go theis it that heres democrats opportunity to bring cant president , i imagine in our current behington that this wouldnt seized on. They decide give him a pass. Its a fascinating part of the story. It shows how far weve come in years. T number of i happen to see that period, the reagan period, as in some ways, not the start. Had the shenanigans there. Milestone on the path the hyper partisanship and dysfunction of washington today. Have if you remember, reagan had many aspects to him. One side was this jovial the kind of chap who wants to bring america together. A highlyber, he was polarizing figure as governor of as part of his campaign. He wanted to draw a very thick his type of thinking and those of the post vietnam, post watergate liberal he disagree did with on everything but who were responsible for the powerof congressional grab that took place in the 1970s. Thats critical to understand in order to understand what contra. D with iran thatll of the feeling congress and the executive branch were at war and thats a made at onerams point, he said we were at war on contra policy. But for all of that, i think left unnoticed was some comradery, thats not the right word. But the need for collaboration among moderate democrats. There were more hard line out for blood and saw this as their chance to finally get the president. Finally hes done something that will stick to him. But in addition to that, there was the never ending sense of selfprotection on capitol hill as well. It wasnt just in the executive branch. The democratic leadership was held back on at least two points. Reagan was still highly popular president. Even though his ratings the scandal,er Something Like 21 points. The worst drought in president ial history. Worse than nixon. Coming into, he was a very popular guy. They were afraid to confront him much. Ofy also were very afraid being seen as soft on communism. This was one of the most successful ploys that the Patrick Buchanans and others in the Reagan Administration used and reagan himself when it came for any kind of big contra the hill. It had its effects. Throughout the presidency and the investigative both when you look at how parties chose who was going to be part of the investigating teams. On the democratic side, its mostly moderates. All, one or two people who could be considered so moderate. For contrathem voted aid in the past. On the republican side, it was dogs. Lly attack there were a few moderates and there were even three sidedicans who basically with the majority. Democrats were in the majority point. Hampshire,an of new paul of virginia. Traders byreated as dick cheney, orin hatch and all the other republicans. Clearly, theys will acknowledge it, cheney has memoir, theyin his saw their job to defend his policy. Agan and somebody like me, i was pretty was watching these hearings, i had to be schooled that congressional investigation is about something other than trying to find out actually happened. Guess what . I happen to believe that the in large, were trying to figure out what happened. Its in their interest to discover things that dont make the opposition look good. On the other hand, if you go thosend you listen to hearings, youll be maybe not in age, backnd to see how stunning much precious air time was used whon undermining witnesses are against reagan and bucking up the president and supporting his policies. Had no interest finding out what happened. The story of their attitudes towards north really put them in house as far as im concerned. It was songing even at the time look at it again and maybe even more so to see in leadup to north testimony on capitol hill. 1987, after july of two months of hearings. The democrats actually did a decent job of constructing an image of how the administration had behaved on the contras and proof of thate was in the statements that several republicans included, several members of congress made in leadup to north presentation. Both to the media and at the themselves. Irresponsible and rogue. Just how did this guy get his job. In comes north and in the course of less than a week, completely spins the entire room around. And thete caucus room house room. Fans amongillions of american viewers. How the fan clubs are getting are given. Haircuts they are having picture taken with ollie. Its a shambles. Congressmen afterwards turn around and its like night and day. Shameful. I dont know how they look themselves in the mirror. This affair is see under what you ordinary circumstances. This is not an aberration. Not the aberration lot of people think it is. Why because of the same placeutions have been in for all these years. Principles apply in how they conduct themselves. Congress is a political animal. To act thisys going way. Its part of the danger, part of the warning. Im going to go to audience. Whatwant to state, i think you just heard is one of the great things about reading this book. Looks like its not beach reading but it is beach reading. Great a mystery and a does aand malcolm fantastic job of walking you through this mystery and this puzzle. Him. T to come back to dick cheney. Kind of a small figure in all of this. Well draw some important lessons from all of this. You elaborate what dick and what was was his take away from the irancontra scandal . I have many documents i can show. You now, ishow right on point here. Its a document actually from the reaganng of administration. Before the Reagan Administration, it was just before the inauguration. But after the election. Of notes byset james baker who will play a big become the white house, treasury secretary later. Meeting with his dick cheney. Why . Because baker will be chief of staff. Was chief of staff to gerald ford. He wants to get some pointers this guy. One of the thing that cheney is i cant read his writing anymore. Point is the president standing has been weakened in recent years. Restore power and authority to executive branch needs strong leadership. Thats a quote from cheney. Margin here, baker thatut six stars next to and saids, central theme for the years in presidency. We see that cheney has had certainties about the presidency for a long time. He carries these view into irancontra. Of the houser republican investigating committee. A little bit insulted side, seenthe senate fit to name warren as his vice chair. Lee hamilton by all accountings refuses to name cheney his vice chair. It sets off a kind of running conflict. Throughout the hearings, cheney repeatedly that the problem is not the president. Problem is congress. Congress overstepped its bounds in 1970s, tried to take over president ial power. Was unconstitutional and it whole lot ofof a series problems for the american doing politics. Minoritys this in the report at the end of the congressional hearings. Gains new life years peoplehen cheney reminds who our, i think in 2005, hes is as viceice it president at this point for four years. Public trying to figure out where does this guy come from. Points out to the press on air force one at this point, he if you want to know what i think and what the serious issues are about president ial power, go back to this little manuscript we put together the 1980s. It send a powerful message how problems are not excesses in president ial power, becauses of power. Its abuses by congress. That explains a lot about the and president e bush took in the 2000. Questions . Please identify yourself and please question. Lecture. Much. Nk you very i wanted to focus on the iran policy aspects of this. The review in wrote a week or so ago and still stunning how people in the government can take x and y them together and get c. Im not sure. Have documents that show people arguing that selling arms iran will somehow promote people in the government who to over throw the government. At the same time, these same people are expected to get freed fromstages lebanon. Youin gods name can reconcile these two things . Officials inwere u. S. Government about iran they were very ignorant if know. One expression was that they too. Wledged it this is why ladean went to paris. Lot oftraction with a people who thought about these issues. People at the cia and other nsc. E in the everybody wasnt after hostages alone. There were people who seriously wanted to see an improvement. As i mentioned earlier in the early part of the administration, this idea surfaced more than once about getting back into better relations with iran and even using weapons to do it. 1983came up in 1982 and in again. There was a wide recognition that we really know on there. Oing weightion of that is the that was given to a document by none put together other than about the internal iran. Structure inside i will say, as somebody who has with iran as to do subject of study in the last look at years, when you that document, its not that off the mark. Y where its right and wrong may seem subtle to somebody who doesnt know a lot about the subject. These guys didof back then. Those differences make a huge difference overall. They understood their ignorance when they saw this kind of analysis, they thought, wow. Fantastic. Ladean is quoted, this is the real deal. A break through. Given where they were, you go to breakt was kind of a through in that, they found somebody, bruce said, he failed polygraph constantly. Wanted nothing to do with him. One of the cia guys said out of failed on 13. E one of them was his name kind of thing. Fact was, he was able to contacts with no less than an assistant to the prime minster of iran at that time. We all know had change his stripes and came out as one of candidates in the 2009 election. Back then, he was one of the hardliners and was very interested in getting weapons for the war. There, youve got the kind of disconnect that barbara is talking about. Is it that you dont know that even though israelis are telling you will be dealing with yourates and theyll help unseat this regime. Very soon after they get see that theyre areing with people who selfprofessed members of the revolutionary guard. Repeatedly over the course of a year and a half, people that theyre meeting with includes some of factions. Ine they broke them down into factions. Hardlines. Nd simplistic. Yet, they refused to see what in front of them. There was even a point after of himnally got tired and after the failure of the inarland mission to tehran may 1986. Decide lets ditch this guy. A second canal. Ofleads them to the nephew ralph johnny. He turned out to be the secret if you will. At least a guy who demonstrated have arest in trying to better relationship with the United States. For what reasons, im sure reasons. He had given signals as early as 1985 when the hijacking took place. Executed andr was thrown on the tarmac in an ugly scene. Johnny, able to register with people like George Schultz and others and mcfarland. Was something that probably helped them think, well, maybe Something Like this out. Pan even when they got to ralph san johnnys nephew, they felt they were reaching finally the centers of power, responsible iran. Als in one of whom by the way was forceser of air defense in iran. They never met with him. Of it. Was part they thought, okay, we got this break through. Were getting to the right people. It doesnt take long before the them good news folks, this is reached a point going to form is a commission to deal with this issue and to deal with the americans over a longer term. Theica says great, whos on commission. Half of them are the same people they dealt with before. Its the same revolutionary guards deputy head of still aroundwho is by the way. Considered so such a negative force by the americans that the name they gave him was monster. He was such a bad guy. Hes named to the commission to deal with the situations. Time and again, they are hit in that whowith the fact theyre dealing with. But it never stops them from misguided adventure. [indiscernible] right. Well, they probably would say the pudding. In they did get three hostages out. And frustrating episode. Get three hotsages out. They had contact with people who influence. There was frustration on the were toldide, they youll get all the hos hostagest with the next shipment. Promise. Happened. Thats part of why mcfarland trip was a bust. He said no, were not going to take this anymore. Of a tease that they were willing to go along with it. Never mind three more hostages the course of this operation. Extent. Ystery to some u. S. You think that the arms to iran has tangible or on the iranffect war . Good question. The official word from the Reagan Administration was absolutely not. This is a minuscule amount as his speechesone of that easily fit in the single aircraft. Ollie north acknowledges that he was tapped to go find a plane real. Ough to make that theyre line is really had no effect what so ever. When you go back and talk to iranians and even some american officials, will acknowledge their belief it did have some effect. I talked to several iranians who the war, who were at some of these battles in the early 1987 and scholar who done their ownve with revolutionary guard. Theyre belief is it did have an effect. Against tank, counterattacks. Operation also theres wasview of this one guy who a higher level official in Foreign Ministry who said he was that the hawks that just fromgetting, not they were getting from other countries as well, those kinds of weapons did have an effect on iraqi attacks or willingness or readiness to attack iranian citizens. I dont know how you quite nail that down to be sure. Was the missiles that had the effects or something else. Is evidence to that effect. Iraqis we now know believe the same thing. Of hishussein and some officials, their papers were forces whenrican they occupied the place in 2003. Availableose are now and they can study and produce. You probably been there to the ofce ive listened to some these tapes that sadaam talking read someisors and transcripts. Another chapter, what was the reaction when affair became public. Shocked. Sadaam claimed he wasnt shocked. People weree untrustworthy. Not surprisingly, they believed had an effect. S furtherone from the back. Thank you. Im Leon University of wisconsin. In the state department at the time this was happening. I wonder if you can set the scene for what led to this. Im glad that our earlier speaker mentioned the hostages in lebanon. We have the history of the civil war in lebanon continuing hostages. Of kindan set the scene of pressure this was putting on of white house on a number hostages and number of deaths. Help us understand what was an essential driver . Were absolutely at the heart of this. As you know. Pressure. Great as i said earlier, there was personal pressure and political pressure. I dont doubt for a second reagans genuine desire to see come home. As bruce will be able to tell you much better than i, from the interviews that ive done, its clear to everybody that counterterrorism and prevention of hostage taking huge focus for Reagan Administration. They built up the infrastructure to an extraordinary degree. They had a lot of successes. Tell youllen will other than this kind of blip, be proud oflot to in his work and the Reagan Administration. One cia were central as guy said in addition to the personal side, reagan was acutely aware of the Yellow Ribbon phenomenon. The iraner that during hostage saga to take over our in 1979 produced tens of ribbons. Ellow there was no question reagan was determined not to see that happen again. A particular concern in a few personal instances and one being the fate of buckley. Er william who was tragically reassigned to beirut. After he had left. This apparently violated trade in dangerutting him by relocating him there so soon after he departed. Sure enough, he got bundled off in 1984. Rly on started. Hen it all in 1984 is really in 19 84 is where this next phase starts. Buckley was the guy who was of most concern. We know he was tortured and produced from it a 400 page transcript of his agonized discussions with these people who took him. That created huge pressure for the Intelligence Community as well as the president. The hope was that buckley would be the first guy released. That was what mcfarland wanted from august 1985. Bruce since casey had sent buckley to beirut, he felt a personal and professional responsibility. I write the mitchell report. I did get the memo about socks, but my argyles were at the laundry. There is one name that hasnt come up yet. Where is george h. W. Bush in all this . What does that tell us about the pardons . Malcolm excellent question. George h. W. Bush was making sure he left no footprints in the sand wherever he went. If i can find a document here he, as you remember, came under as you remember, came under a lot of scrutiny when he was running for president to succeed reagan in 1988, and his whole story was, i didnt know anything. I wasnt in the loop, i wasnt in the cockpit. He was trying to show himself simultaneously as right there with the gipper and yet conveniently offstage when trouble hit. Turns out that bush left a diary of sorts that was not known about until way late in the investigation. This was a whole other aspect of the saga that partly answers your question of, what was the reaction of the administration to the investigations . Sad to say, the reaction of several key officials was to take their personal note and hide them and withhold them from the independent counsel who was treated as the devil incarnate by a lot of them. There is some controversy over whether weinbergers material was available at the library of congress. It is very clear, at least to me, that these guys knew exactly what they were doing, and they withheld the stuff deliberately in order to protect themselves. Bush was no example. This was a page from his, its called the bush diary. He started keeping at November November 4, 1986, the day after the irancontra became known. He would dictate onto a tape and a secretary would transcribe it. The very second day of his notes , they came out through the end that council, who eventually recovered the notes and diaries of weinberger and George Schultz schultzs aid, all of whom claimed they never kept any notes. November 5, this is bushs diary. There is some discussion of bud mcfarlane having being held prisoner in a ron for classroom days. In iran for four days. I am one of the few people that know the details, and there is a lot of flak and misinformation out there. It is not a subject we can talk about. Weinberger also has notes that show that bush was very must and all very much involved. I would love to try to read some of this lets see. I think i wont read it, is a lot of fantastic material out there. This case i am thinking of, there are conversations between schultz and bush, meetings and talking to charlie hill and others going, what is happening here . This is late november, 1986, when trouble has had a fan that has hit the fan. Who does he think hes getting . To his credit, he confronts bush , more as a friendly warning. He says, you got to watch out what youre doing. You are treading a very fine line. You know that you approve these things. You got to be careful what you said. Bush says, i am very careful. True words have never been spoken. You cant be tactically right, you have to be right. Be careful where this leads you. Very strong stuff. Not only on the iran side, but also on the countryside on contra side. The scandal of dealing with the contras had to deal with higherups, including the Vice President and others, and their attempts to get foreign governments to donate money to congress. Theres a whole legal question about these, known as quid pro quo deals. The question surrounded whether or not it is legal to do a quid pro quo deal with a foreign government. The short answer is no, it is not. You can have a conversation with a head of state, as reagan did and mcfarlane did beforehand, and that conversation results in the foreign leader saying, i think we can help you out here, and we would like to make a donation, that is ok. But what clearly happened on a number of occasions was american officials going to these guys, and bush is one of them, and saying to them bluntly, we need your help. We need you to keep going with the contras, post them on your territory, get weapons shipments, give us money, and bush is on the record as having made that kind of approach. In each of these cases, the head of state or official is also on paper saying, what is in it for us . How are you going to help us . Even king fahd is seen as a nice gesture that he gives. Gives. I dont have this document with me. I just recently found a document that is an nspg meeting, and it is discussing the escalation of conflict in the persian gulf. It is in may 1985. Earlier in 1984 and february 1985, the saudis tell mcfarland and reagan they are going to get a lot of money to the contras. The first is 1 million a month. Mcfarland reported to reagan. Then reagan meets with fahd, and they double it to 2 million a month. John poindexter says, we have just gotten an organ an urgent request from king fahd to help us in these various ways in the persian gulf because shipping is being attacked. It is time for us to step up and do something. This was the subject of the meeting. It doesnt take a math genius to add two and two together and see that there is an expectation there. That was the case, even more explicitly, and all these instances, including one case where bush admitted going to honduras to try to cut the same deal. Bruce if my memory is right, you also described in the book a meeting at the King David Hotel in jerusalem between the Vice President and the israelis. You alluded to this before. 020 in on it a little more. Zero on it a little more. The idea of arms to hostages, arms to iran, arms in general for whatever, would never have stood in washington without the israelis saying, this is the right thing to do. This book is not about Israeli Foreign policy, but how would you characterize the weight which israel had in moving the United States in this direction, and particularly the way one of the most respected figures in the history of israel had in moving us into what turned out to be disaster . Malcolm there is no question they played a key role, not only in helping spark it, but encouraging it as the process went on. It wasnt completely one side. They were clearly people on the american side who were uncomfortable about this, and George Schultz was one of them, and george bush was another one skittish about too much of an israeli role. One of schultzs criticisms which he said in one of his discussions with charlie hill is that the problem is when we do this kind of thing, even if the president says it is minuscule, it opens the door for israel to do even more. There was a past history going back almost immediately after the revolution of israel providing arms and spare parts to iran. Often in spite of american disapproval. I talk about this to some extent as a lead up to it. A lot of pressure from israel saying, let us do it, let us do it. Even early on, reagan uses some of the arguments that we can get you intelligence, we continue in with some of these moderates, and we think this can work. Going back to barbaras question, having just a shred of legitimately to this is the israeli argument that one of their best sense of relationship with the old regime was with the military. They still claimed we have friends who are still in the military, and we think they may be able to be helpful. That is a little strand that goes through. One of the interesting things to me about this story is the personal side of it. It is not just the ability of one government to home and on what they think is going to register with the other government, the United States, but it is also the interplay of of personalities. It is striking how many of these people have twins in different countries. Twin. Is reagans i went to israel and interviewed a bunch of people involved, and to a person, they said paris is this crazy, out of the box guy who comes up with these ideas. Tom pickering said paris has one perez has one million ideas, 2 of which are really brilliant. He is willing to go out of the box and do this kind of stuff. He doesnt care what the rest of his group thinks. Hes got an arrangement, a powersharing arrangement. They all get together. They dont necessarily like each other or what they are doing, but they know their turn is going to come, so they allow others to go forward. On the operational level, there is another separated at birth story, which is a counterterrorism advisor to peres who met an untimely death after this event, that is still the subject of much interest. He was norths twin separated at birth. He was this maverick, no experience in the field, made as many lifelong friends as he did enemies, charming and gregarious guy. Able to cozy up to people like peres and others and be able to have a lot of influence. The two of them got together and melded, and worked on all kinds of secret operations alluded to that never saw the light of day. They had all kinds of wacky ideas about how to expand their operation beyond just the iran side. Bruce more questions, right here. Since you spent so much time thinking about this, and this is a very interesting talk, id be interested to know your opinion on how we are going to move forward as a culture, not just america, but the human population. This has been going on forever. You go that way into our history everything has been distorted and mismanaged and taking advantage of. Have you come to any ideas about how we can move forward as a human culture to avoid these types of things . Inevitably, its the average person whose money is being misspent and whose lives are being taken. Its a big question, but the you have any thoughts about that . Malcolm fortunately, is a history book, so thats not a policy book or psychology book. But yeah, you cant help but think about the things. Not being an expert in any of those other areas, all i can do is throw out some general reactions which relate to this case. Those are that you need to have people in office who take their responsibilities seriously. You need to, as a population, do more to hold them accountable. We need to be less enthralled of their arguments that we are facing some kind of crisis. There is always a crisis. 9 11 being an example. Its not that they arent real, but we have to be more aware of how often these kinds of things have happened. It is up to us, the media, congress, the court, and the officials themselves to hold themselves and for us to hold them to a higher standard. One of my deep regrets about this whole scandal is i think it cheapens that. It lessened that sense. By letting these guys get away with it and by giving them, ones who worked so hard to try to minimize the responsibility and excuse and justify the actions, by giving them so much credence when the evidence seems so start in the other direction so stark in the other direction and i am not just talking about holly north, who used to travelers checks when he shouldnt have and took an illegal gratuity and all kinds of liberties but also all the way up to reagan himself, i believe it could not have had any other effect but to give the American People the sense that there doesnt need to be a higher standard for these guys. They are just like you and me. This is why i think the north trial had the result it did. The jury came out and said, i can put myself in his shoes. Hes just a regular guy at work. We all cut corners and do certain things. No, we dont shred evidence, lie at every opportunity to our colleagues, superiors, counterparts, the public, congress. You should find you are facing serious consequences for that kind of thing. I just got the sense at the time, and reading back into it, that sense of ethical responsibility just took a nosedive after this episode. A couple of years ago, i wrote a book largely about john poindexter. We had a chance to talk about a lot of this. Two questions. I dont think i heard you say in your remarks, maybe you go into it in the book, where you come down on whether reagan knew about the diversion or authorized it, that key question that links iran and contra together. And how do you think the Obama Administration grappling with this issue of negotiating for terrorists, and there is a lot of gray area about whether ransoms are being paid, what lessons do you think they should be drawing from how the Reagan Administration handled it, and what pitfalls they should hope to avoid . Malcolm the diversion question, the watergate question of the irancontra scandal. Id argue, and others have argued, that was a mistake to consider that the central question. Several of us, including ollie north, agree that it was basically a really clever idea to divert everybody down the wrong path. The diversion was a diversion. Why . In the course of his investigation, the damage control operation from november 21 to 24th, 1986, his aim was to find out what this diversion was all about. Thats when i found this memo where north says, we are going to have this arms sale to iran and i am going to take 12 Million Dollars and give it to the contras. His first question is, was there a cover memo . Why . Because the cover memo would have said the president had seen, or Something Like that. It is an important question because it does identify and act that virtually everybody, except north, sees as blatantly illegal. But it does deflect from the other key issues that were at play. When meese was able to figure out that the president could deny ever having known anything about the diversion, it became safe to go in front of the public and say, there is this diversion, what a terrible thing. Dont worry, we are on top of it. We have fire the guy who did it. Meese was really worried about, at that point, the realization that reagan had authorized three shipments to terrorists in iran without any of the legal groundwork necessary to do that. Without signing a finding, reporting to congress, any of that stuff. He says himself that it was a violation. He says, i dont think the president knew about it. Schultz has the same conversation and tells him, no. I just talked to the president , and he said yeah, i knew that. It is a blatant coverup by meese. They have a couple of other meetings with all the other highlevel people and spin the story. Heres what happened, the president didnt know, ok . Nobody says anything. Schultz comes back saying they are building a wall around the president. At the meeting, nobody says a thing, even though weinberger knew he knew, they all knew. As far as whether reagan did in fact no, this was a big question and huge disagreement among all concerned. Investigators, anybody you talk to. Half of them cant believe that reagan didnt know about it because this was one of his most important subjects, policy topics. His aides know that. They did nothing but try to go out and get answers to the hostages. Every meeting you had, as i understand it, and with, what are we going to tell the president about where the hostages are . The same with the contras. Its inconceivable that reagan would just stop asking questions about how we were keeping these guys together for two years. The other half says, poindexter was such an arrogant guy that he saw it as fully within his responsibility to decide what the president knew and didnt know. And thats what he said during the hearings. Puffing on his pipe and saying, the buck stops here with me. I found him completely fascinated. I started leaning in the direction of, maybe he is actually telling the truth. To this day he says, i never told the president , because i knew he needed to liability. Deniablity. On the other hand, he says he told him Everything Else that happened. And he knew what ollie north was doing and Everything Else. We talk about how the Embassy Staff shouldnt be conducted covert operations. That, to me, makes it an impeachable offense. If he knew about all this stuff his staff was doing, then imagine obama and that situation. How long would obama last that information came out . At least before calls for impeachment came out . Poindexter is willing to admit to all that, what is in it for him to say i kept that a secret is that is not true . To my mind, poindexter is a much more loyal servant the north. North used those hearings to spill his guts because he had a smart lawyer who said you are going to go on trial soon, we are getting you immunity for anything you say here. Poindexter didnt take that route. He got found guilty on all of his charges. North didnt. Both had their charges vacated because of the immunized testimony. Poindexter was in a position to do just what north did and save his own skin, and he didnt. He took all of the heat. That gives him some credibility. I dont say i know for sure, but it is a fascinating question. Bruce weve unfortunately reached the witching hour. You have a second question if you want to make a comment about hostage license. Lessons. Malcolm maybe i can deflect a little bit and talk about u. S. Iran relations a bit. There are people who know a lot more about this than i do. My sense over the years is that the u. S. Has slowly been learning lessons. The reagan period offered several lessons. There are people there you can talk to. It is not 100 clear what they want from us, but there is enough evidence from people like the retiree from the cia who was part of this mission and others who firmly believe that some iranians wanted more than just weapons. They wanted to talk longerterm. That is a very interesting lesson, and of course the scandal from this put all thought of contacts of that sort into the deep freeze for a while. As one of the bad outcomes of this operation. Each president seemed to have to discover something for himself. Clinton, for instance, decided weve got a new guy, a moderate. Lets try to make an approach to him, but lets do it directly. We wont do it through intermediaries who cant be trusted, the way that reagan did. They write a letter in 1999 and helped convey to the iranians indirectly. But it blows up in their face because he isnt the guy you could be addressing. Is the Supreme Leader you should be addressing. Obama seems to have figured that out. What kind of effect that has had, hard to say. But there are these kinds of pieces of evidence that the u. S. Is gradually picking up from each of their predecessors. On hostages, i pity the people whose profession it is to try to work this stuff out. In the course of digging through all the weird operations these guys did, there is a lot of material out there about what else was happening in the incredible lengths to which people went to creating these different organizations, the operations of subgroup, the task force. A huge amount of effort when into trying to figure out how to get these guys out. It always came down to not having enough intelligence. Where are these people right now . Where will they be willing to come in . I think now, as isis is showing, its like everything involved. Although at one point reagan was terrified that the hostages would be executed, just as carter was in fact, there was a great memo from one of these meetings where reagan shows a side that a lot of people may be surprised about. Approves undertaking military strikes and other acts like that against not just hezbollah, but in my reading, against iranian targets as well, if anything happens to those hostages. The meeting ends with poindexter saying if this happens, we are going to conduct these strikes. Reagan snaps his fingers and goes like that. The crazy poindexter says, dont you think we should have one more meeting just to confirm . Reagan goes, nope, only if it doesnt delay the strikes. Of course, there is blacked out text on all sides. The lesson is, youve got to be super careful, because if you dont get it right, then isis is showing that the stakes are as high as all these folks fear. I think this last hour and a half has given you just a sample. It is a great book. We have copies on sale here. I want to thank you, malcolm, for coming here today. Malcolm thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] you are watching American History tv, 48 hours of programming on American History every weekend on cspan 3. Follow us on twitter cspan history for information on our schedule and to keep up with the latest history news. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. Cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies. Its brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. We are at the rotunda at the university of virginia. We take you to the special Collections Library to learn more about the Thomas Jefferson papers. Edward gaynor jefferson is the founder of uva. He worked many years to develop the system of education in virginia. Uva was his last great project. He did it after he left the