Iran: The Test of Wills

"Faith of our fathers, living still," sang a weary, anxious, deeply troubled Jimmy Carter, "in spite of dungeon, fire and sword. . ." And when it came time for the choir to respond with the eloquent verses of Psalm 130, the President sat, head bowed, in his front-row pew at the National Cathedral and listened intently to the ancient words of hope in a time of trouble: "Out of the depths have I cried to you, O Lord, hear my prayer."

The President had joined last week with about 2,000 others in an ecumenical prayer service for 62 American hostages held under threat of death at the captured U.S. embassy compound in Tehran. At his right sat Penny Laingen, wife of L. Bruce Laingen, the imprisoned charge d'affaires in Tehran. On his left sat Vice President Walter Mondale and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, whose tireless efforts through a fortnight of nerve-racking negotiations had achieved as little as those of the President himself.

The service began with a military color guard presenting the flag, and it ended with The Battle Hymn of the Republic. "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. . . "

For eight days the President had remained largely secluded in the White House, trying every weapon and maneuver he could imagine to resolve this most dangerous and infuriating crisis of his presidency. Most infuriating because the mightiest power on earth found itself engaged in a test of will with an unruly gang of Iranian students and an ailing zealot of 79. Most dangerous because a single miscalculation could lead to large-scale bloodshed and tear to shreds the tenuous balance of power in the Middle East.

It was not until last Saturday, after a week of retaliation and counterretaliation, that the first apparent break in the conflict came. The Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran's de facto head of state, ordered the students to release the women and blacks, believed to number a dozen, who were being held hostage. "Islam grants to women a special status," explained Khomeini in announcing his decision, and blacks "have spent ages under American pressure and tyranny."

But on Sunday, while the Iranians were still making preparations to release the first of the hostages, came a shocking announcement that promised only to worsen the crisis. Many of the remaining hostages, proclaimed a spokesman for the students, would now be tried for espionage in the Islamic Revolutionary Courts and "punished in accordance with the severity of their crimes." The Ayatullah himself later confirmed the scheme, adding that the trials would only be halted and the hostages let go if the U.S. returned the Shah. Warned a senior official of West Germany's foreign ministry when told of the threat: "With the turmoil and fanaticism in Iran, one has to be prepared even for the outrage of the hostages' execution, even though that would be international murder."

As for the promise to release some of the hostages, the Iranians dawdled through the weekend and by early Monday Iran time, nearly 40 hours after the first announcement, not a single American had been freed. Instead, the students staged a circus act in the embassy compound, trotting out three of the captives who were slated to be released for a "press conference" before some 200 American and other foreign correspondents. The three--two 23-year-old black Marines and a 22-year-old female secretary--were seated at a table in front of three colored posters of the Ayatullah and slogans denouncing the exiled Shah of Iran and President Carter. Read--one misspelled poster: CARTER IS SUPPORTING THIS NASTY CRIMINAL UNDER THE PROTEX OF SICKNESS.

Though the promised release of some hostages was a signal that progress was possible, the basic situation was totally unchanged.

The Iranian students still held dozens of exhausted American hostages inside the U.S. embassy compound in Tehran. The Shah, whose temporary entry into the U.S. for medical treatment had precipitated the assault, still lay hospitalized in New York, despite rumors that, he might leave for Mexico at any moment. And in Washington, the options open to the President of the U.S. were still shockingly few, with the fate of the remaining hostages determining what actions could be risked.

In a series of dramatic but carefully limited moves, the President fought back with economic reprisals. He ordered a stop to all purchases of Iranian oil, 700,000 bbl. per day, or 4% of U.S. consumption; he froze all Iranian government banking assets in the U.S. The Administration has not officially interrupted the flow of the nearly $500 million worth of food the U.S. ships to Iran annually. But the International Longshoremen's Association instructed all its members not to load any vessels bound for Iran, and the giant American Farm Bureau Federation offered to support a total boycott on food exports. Some militant superpatriots talked of blockading the Iranian coast, but the Administration consistently ruled out that and all other military measures.

Yet when none of the U.S. retaliations brought any progress toward the release of the hostages, American anger and frustration became almost palpable.* New anti-Iranian demonstrations flared on campuses from coast to coast; three teen-agers threw a rock at the window of an Iranian in Denver, and he shot back, killing one of them. Eight Iranians, carrying rifles, telescopic sights and ammunition, were arrested at Baltimore-Washington International Airport as they prepared to board a flight to New York. Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, normally one of the mildest and most self-controlled of men, said he sympathized with the demonstrators, even the violent ones. "I'd feel like taking a punch at one [an Iranian] myself, if I could get to him," said Byrd. Added Carter: "Every American feels anger and outrage at what is happening." In an effort to cool tempers at home. Carter had previously asked the Immigration and Naturalization Service to press deportation proceedings against any Iranian students who were residing illegally in the U.S. Though the White House emphasized that the President had not ordered a "roundup and mass deportation," the action caused panic among many of the 50,000 Iranian students in the U.S. and thousands of other Iranians who have fled to the U.S. in recent years for political reasons.

In Iran itself, the crisis ebbed and flowed. Early in the week there was talk of compromises, and hints that some of the hostages might be released, but as the American determination became obvious in Iran, the crowds around the U.S. embassy grew larger and uglier. On Friday a throng swarmed through the poplars and cypress trees that dot the once idyllic compound. Among them for the first time were soldiers and airmen. "Death to the Shah!" the demonstrators chanted. "Death to Carter!" The Ayatullah Yahya Nouri, one of the leaders of the revolution, gave a fiery speech outside the embassy gates calling for a "jihad [holy war] against the U.S." This might all be dismissed as rhetoric, but inside the compound remained the American hostages, haggard, some of them with their hands bound, totally vulnerable to the whims of their captors. One student gloated to TIME Correspondent Bruce van Voorst: "Our cup of hatred is filled to overflowing."

Ayatullah Khomeini was being no less emotional. "All Western governments are just thieves," he declared to his followers in the holy city of Qum, 80 miles from Tehran. "We should simply cut all ties to them. Nothing but evil comes from them." Then the Ayatullah mysteriously canceled all appointments for three weeks. He was reported to be sick.

Jimmy Carter was dismayed by the confusion. Just before his appearance at the National Cathedral, he had made his one major public address on the Iranian crisis, and he had sounded tough and assertive. "This is an act of terrorism totally outside the bounds of international law and diplomatic tradition," he declared to 900 delegates to the AFL-CIO convention. "This crisis calls for firmness and restraint. The U.S. will not yield to international terrorism or blackmail." The Tehran authorities were "fully responsible" for the safety of the hostages, he said, and would be "held accountable."

But at a meeting the next day with 39 Governors, whom he had summoned to Washington to urge cuts of 5% in their states' fuel consumption, Carter was asked whether the situation remained a total stalemate. "I'm afraid so," he said. He described the huge crowds outside the encircled embassy as "in a highly emotional state." And he told the Governors: "We're trying to protect the honor of our country and the lives of the hostages." He urged the Governors to "caution all Americans" to restrain themselves toward Iranians in the U.S. Said Carter: "It would be a serious mistake for us to deprive them of their rights or their citizenship or our friendship." At week's end, looking drawn and fatigued, the President retired to Camp David.

The crisis had understandably driven Carter into virtual seclusion. Having earlier canceled a state visit to Ottawa, he last week dropped a political foray to Pennsylvania and another to Florida. "Iran has blown everything else off the map," said one aide. "That's all anyone here is thinking about."

The Government's days began early, long before dawn. The sun rose at 6:47 over Washington last Monday, so the city was still pitch-dark when Carter picked up his Oval Office phone at 5:15 to talk to National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski about the impending oil cutoff. Carter was determined to prevent the Iranians from thinking they could use their oil as a bargaining weapon, and he also wanted to reassure Americans that Washington could and would take action, that there was a difference between caution and paralysis. At the close of a weekend meeting on the possibility of cutting off Iranian oil, he had simply said: "I want it done."

But he was concerned about the reactions. All Monday morning, Administration aides broke the news to congressional leaders, OPEC governments, U.S. business executives and particularly the principal American oil companies affected by the decision (notably Amerada Hess and Ashland). At 2 p.m. that day, the President walked before the television lights, a layer of pancake makeup barely disguising the fatigue, and declared: "No one should underestimate the resolve of the American Government and the American people." Speaking as plainly and directly as a Georgia farmer, Carter outlined his decision in less than five minutes, then retired to the family quarters of the White House to await the reaction. It was quick and strongly favorable, an indication that the country had been waiting for just such a step. Said retiring AFL-CIO Chief George Meany, long a Carter critic: "He acted wisely and well."

Secretary of State Vance wanted to make sure that the oil cutoff did not appear provocative to Tehran. Said he: "This should eliminate any thought that economic pressure affects our decisions. It is not provocative, but is an act of self-discipline on our part." The implication--and the hope--was that the U.S. would begin to cut back its imports and consumption of oil, though there may be no such reduction at all as long as Americans refuse to face up to the consequences of OPEC's tightening noose. The diplomatic benefits of the oil cut-off were more obvious. Said Energy Secretary Charles Duncan: "To the extent that the Iranians considered we were dependent on their oil, we want to tell them it is simply not true." Another Administration aide put it even more bluntly: "They thought it would be a useful card. Now they can't play it."

Two days later the next retaliatory step came. Carter had asked leading U.S. banks to be on the watch for any movements in Iranian government accounts. Treasury Secretary G. William Miller telephoned the President at 5:45 a.m. Wednesday to give him the ominous message that Iran was threatening to transfer billions of dollars worth of deposits from U.S. accounts to other nations, presumably in Western Europe. Carter had ready an Executive order blocking such transfers; the funds involved amounted to $6 billion. Once again Carter aides took to the telephones, this time to advise U.S. bankers and several foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, of the pending action and to assure them that the U.S. had no intention of freezing the assets of any other nation. At 8 a.m., just before a breakfast with Republican leaders, Carter formally signed the order. Again the President's action was praised. New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said Carter was handling the crisis with "great competence, steadiness and assuredness."

The show of strength earned the President badly needed support even from his opponents. Senate Republican Leader Howard Baker offered Carter the "unwavering" backing of his colleagues. Congressional criticism and post-mortem investigations will be stormy once all the hostages have been freed, but for the moment the President's political enemies held their fire. Anxious to take some specific action of support, the House voted to cut off all military and economic aid to Iran, including $20 million in U.S. funds allocated through the U.N. Development Program. The tally: 379 to 0.

A major difficulty for the Administration was that throughout the week various Iranian authorities kept changing the terms of the bargaining. On Tuesday Acting Foreign Minister Abol Hassan Banisadr sent a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim. The letter implied that the hostages could be released if the U.S. agreed to turn over the Shah's personal fortune to Iran and "at least accept the investigation of the guilt of the former Shah and its consequences." The letter omitted any specific demand for the Shah's return. Some officials saw the beginnings of a compromise here, but Banisadr said later the new terms really meant "the return of the Shah."

On Thursday, when Banisadr first said the Iranians might release some hostages, the student leaders actually occupying the embassy property quickly asserted that they took orders only from the Ayatullah Khomeini, and that nobody was going to be released until the U.S. had sent the Shah back to Iran. Admitted one White House official: "We don't know with any certainty who these students are or who's in charge. That doubles the trouble."

At the State Department, Iran specialists were similarly uncertain about the degree of leftist and even Communist influence in the highly disorganized Khomeini regime. Was Khomeini really in charge or just presiding over an internal power struggle? Did the fall of the government of Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan two weeks ago portend a new campaign by Iranian leftists to seize power for themselves? One puzzling element in the recent unrest was the sudden fall from favor of Ibrahim Yazdi, who had been one of Khomeini's closest courtiers during the Ayatullah's last days in exile in France. Partly because he had spent 16 years in the U.S. and had become a naturalized American citizen (a fact that he denied steadfastly during his seven months as Foreign Minister), the U.S. had hoped that Yazdi would prove useful in rebuilding Washington's ties with Tehran. Yazdi had secured the release of American diplomats during the earlier, and much briefer (two hours), embassy siege last Feb. 14. In September Yazdi and Vance had talked at the U.N. for four hours about military supplies for Iran and the future of U.S.-Iranian relations. Vance came away from that meeting thinking that the Bazargan government was slowly acquiring more authority over the rabble-rousing mullahs who surround Khomeini. It was a mistaken conclusion.

The sudden fall of Bazargan and Yazdi evoked fears that both the more radical ayatullahs and the leftist secular forces were using the embassy assault as a pretext for pushing the country sharply to the left. The small but well-organized Tudeh (Communist) Party has been held in check by Khomeini, who denounces the Communists fervently, if redundantly, as "godless atheists." The prevailing view in Washington is that the extreme leftists will continue to ride the Khomeini whirlwind as they gain key positions in the ruling 15-man Revolutionary Council, and will eventually try to brush Khomeini aside in a final grab for power.

At this point, the principal bond that unites the different factions of the Iranian regime is an abiding hatred of the deposed Shah. The object of all that emotion was closely guarded in New York Hospital, where he was recuperating from his gall bladder surgery and undergoing a series of radiation treatments for lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph glands, from which he has been suffering for six years. For these treatments, he was taken at least three times through a heavily guarded underground passage to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Some doctors said privately that the Shah could safely be moved within a few days, and that the treatment he needs could be administered in many places--in Mexico, Egypt or France, where he has been treated for his lymphoma in the past.

The way for his return to Mexico was presumably cleared when the Mexican government announced that as a precaution, it had temporarily closed its Tehran embassy and that the Shah was welcome to return to his exile in Cuernavaca. It had been presumed for days that having the Shah leave the U.S. would be a useful first step in resolving the plight of the hostages. But typical of the unpredictability of events was an announcement by the students in the embassy late in the week, that the flight of the Shah to any third country could result in "harsher decisions being taken against the hostages."

In Tehran, the political situation deteriorated markedly as the week passed. The rumors about Khomeini's health started after a Thursday meeting in Qum. "I'm not feeling well," confessed the Ayatullah to his followers. He then launched into a feverish attack on the U.S. Said he: "The U.S. has grabbed our money just like thieves. We should not fall for their propaganda." An aide reported that Khomeini was suffering from a flu virus communicated to him by "various visitors who have come to Qum in that condition." Said one observer: "The Imam has never sounded this bad before."

Khomeini evidently insisted to his colleagues that they stand firm against the increasing American pressures. Hassan Habibi, the newly appointed spokesman for the Revolutionary Council, reaffirmed the government's position on the hostages: "We are not going to retreat in the face of U.S. imperialism. We are asking for the extradition of an international criminal, and the U.S. cannot long continue its aggressive reaction to our demand." He disclosed that Iran and Libya had agreed to re-establish diplomatic relations after a break of several years. The two countries had been especially at odds for the past year, following the disappearance and alleged assassination in Libya of the leader of Lebanon's Shi'ite community, Imam Moussa Sadr. The reconciliation was interpreted as a victory for the hardline Muslim radicals in the Iranian leadership, who have been arguing for closer ties with Libya in spite of the Moussa Sadr affair.

Amid all its other difficulties, the government was also distracted by an earthquake that destroyed at least nine villages in northeastern Iran and killed several hundred people. (A far more serious tremor in the same region last year had killed 25,000.) Khomeini declared the situation a "national calamity" and appealed for "Islamic help" in providing doctors, medicine and food. The U.S., which has repeatedly provided such aid in the past, was not called upon.

The focal point of the conflict remained the occupied American embassy in Tehran. Inside the compound, 600 members of the "Muslim Students of the Imam Khomeini Line" split the hostages into two groups. Half were in the ambassador's residence, half in two yellow bungalows near by. The treatment of the hostages was believed to have improved somewhat, though some of the men still had their hands tied. The women were guarded by chador-clad girls clutching automatic rifles. Early in the week the captors released a taped message from one of the Marine prisoners, Kevin Hermening, complaining that he didn't like "being a pawn used in a game" and urging the President to place a higher priority on the lives of the hostages than on the Shah.

Outside the embassy was a far wilder scene as crowds of thousands gathered to shout their support. Above the embassy gate hung a portrait of Khomeini and a loudspeaker over which a voice intoned repeatedly, "God is great" and "There is but one God." At a midnight rally Thursday about 1,000 students, aligned with the leftist Islamic Mujahedin-e Khalq (People's Crusaders), tried to stage a demonstration but found themselves confronting a group of right-wing Islamic extremists. Moderates crying "Allahu akbar!" (God is great) quickly moved in to act as a buffer between the two groups.

One day, three British members of an NBC television crew were arrested near the embassy, but were quickly released. On another occasion, a deeply distraught American woman, apparently the relative of a hostage, appeared at the gates with a child in hand. She suddenly began to shout obscenities at the guards. In an instant the mob started to surge toward her, but photographers provided a distraction, and in the confusion she was quickly led away. Behind her, the crowd kept murmuring, "Kill her, kill her." Said a Western diplomat: "The crowd now represents a 'third force,' and it has to be reckoned with. If either Khomeini or the students were to try to negotiate, I wouldn't rule out a mass attack by this mob."

Every day after noon prayers, the students and the crowd went through a curious ritual that often ended in mass hysteria. The students came to the embassy gates to exchange political slogans with the people outside. They threw carnations and tulips, an Iranian symbol of martyrdom, back and forth through the gates. Said one worried Iranian bystander: "I think the're is a national death wish emerging."

Such scenes reinforced the U.S. concern that the Iranian government and even Khomeini himself were being swept along by events. But from the Ayatullah's point of view, there was ample reason to welcome some political diversion. He has fared poorly in bringing the Iranian economy back to prerevolutionary levels. Industry is estimated to be operating at only 40% of capacity. With workers' councils sitting in on managerial decisions, many managers are afraid to make decisions on anything but issuing paychecks. Chaos prevails at the docks and at highway customs posts along the main truck route from Europe. Inflation is running at 40%, unemployment at 25%. In Tehran the situation is further aggravated by the migration since the revolution of perhaps 1.5 million people to the city, bringing the population up to as many as 5 million.

The streets are still packed with automobiles, however, and Tehran still has the worst smog east of Los Angeles. The privileged few, if there are any left, can buy vodka for $20 a bottle and on Fridays can place their wagers at the Farahabad race track. But the citizenry in general are visibly angry. Last week unemployed workers seized the Labor Ministry and held it for 24 hours. "They're bitter," said a ministry official afterward. "And they'll be back."

One thing that should sustain Jimmy Carter during his current ordeal is the knowledge that, for the first time in his presidency, and indeed within recent memory, the U.S. enjoyed at least modest support from practically the entire world. Two weeks ago, members of the U.N. Security Council had voted unanimously to express their "profound concern" over Iran's detention of American diplomats, and last week the Council rejected a request by Iran to turn the matter into a sort of star-chamber proceeding on the fate of the deposed Shah. Even the Soviet leadership, perhaps because it remembers so clearly the attack on its embassy in Peking during the Cultural Revolution, was providing a degree of backing. After a State Department complaint about Soviet anti-American broadcasts being beamed to Iran, the Soviets curtailed them, and Tass referred, a bit obliquely, to "the true position of the Soviet Union with regard to. . .observing the norms and principles of international law." In the most pointed comment of all, the Soviet Ambassador to the U.S., Anatoli Dobrynin, told Secretary Vance: "Where hostages are concerned, politics should stop."

In the Middle East, only Libyan Strongman Muammar Gaddafi came out in support of Iran in the present controversy. At last week's Arab summit meeting in Tunis, Libya further proposed that the other Arab oil producers join in imposing sanctions against the U.S.; the idea was unanimously rejected. Even the Palestine Liberation Organization, though it has close ties to the Iranian leadership, made an effort to act as a mediator, an initiative that ended in failure last week. (Another would-be negotiator, Carter's Special Emissary Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. Attorney General, gave up after Khomeini announced he would not see the President's representative.)

Carter's strongest support in the region came from Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, who had also offered refuge to the Shah two weeks ago. By his invitation, Middle East experts believe, Sadat was telling the Saudis that he remains responsive to their fears about the rise of radicalism. He was also reminding them that he does not snub old friends when they need help. Sadat feels that the Sunni Muslims need a defender against Iran's assertive Shi'ites, and he would like to fill the role himself. The Saudis quickly assured Sadat through third parties that they will continue to ship their oil through the Suez Canal and will not withdraw the $2 billion that they and the Kuwaitis have on deposit in the Central Bank of Egypt. Sadat spoke for most of the moderate Arabs when he observed at week's end: "The situation in Iran is deteriorating badly and presents an extremely grave threat to the Arab gulf states."

Though the Western European nations were all favoring Carter in the current crisis--the London Daily Telegraph even denounced Khomeini as "a stupid, vindictive old man"--their official support seemed tepid. Asked New York Times Columnist James Reston: "Where are the allies?" Where, he wondered, are the Europeans who always yearned for "collective security"? European diplomats retorted that they had backed the U.S. as well as they could and that West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, in particular, had strongly supported Carter. Schmidt told colleagues: "The West must show unity. We must back the U.S." If the Europeans were restrained, it was probably because 1) it was a time for "cool professionalism," as an American diplomat put it; 2) the U.S. had not asked for or expected stronger public support; and 3) Iran supplies 9% of West Germany's oil imports and 20% of Britain's.

President Carter was awakened at 5:35 Saturday morning with the news from Tehran that Khomeini had called for the release of a few of the hostages. But then followed a delay. On Sunday night, the students summoned foreign newsmen to a press conference with the first three of the hostages scheduled to be freed.

The three introduced themselves as Sgt. Ladell Maples, 23, of Earle, Ark., and Sgt. William Quarles, 23, of Washington, D.C., both black Marines, and Kathy Gross, 22, of Cambridge Springs, Pa., a secretary to the embassy's Economic and Commercial Counsellor. For over two hours, they answered questions. "We were treated very good," said Gross. "We've been fed more than was adequate. We've slept nights." Later, however, she mentioned that for the first 16 hours of her captivity, she had been forced to sit in a chair with her hands tied to the armrests. It was also revealed that the hostages were not permitted to talk with one another or read newspapers. Said Maples: "We didn't know what was going on."

Why these particular three were chosen for early release was not revealed. "I have learned a lot about the other side here," Quarles told reporters. "The people of the United States should turn around and look at things differently for a change." All three, however, did show a certain sensitivity to being the first freed. "I had no choice," said Quarles. "I would have liked to stay with them, but there's nothing I can do about it."

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., the days of waiting were having an effect on the families of those still held in Tehran. Some wives all but charged the State Department with criminal negligence for having failed to protect its staff once the Shah had been admitted to the U.S. "I am so bitter I could scream," said Louisa Kennedy, wife of Hostage Mike Kennedy. She has been manning telephones in the State Department Operations Center, talking to families of other hostages.

Totally at the root of the present dispute between the U.S. and Iran is the deposed Shah. Though Americans themselves are divided on their views toward the Shah, few perceive him as an "Iranian Hitler," as Iranian revolutionaries now call him, charging that his forces slaughtered 10,000 Iranian civilians in the months before the monarchy collapsed. Even fewer Americans would be prepared to allow the Shah to be returned to Iran involuntarily to face the Ayatullah's revolutionary justice.

The question of the Shah's character and what his monarchy brought to Iran can never be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. But many diplomats throughout the world would agree that, as a starting point in settling the current crisis, it would be fortunate if the Shah should proceed to Mexico or some other third country to continue his treatment and recuperation. Alternatively, suggests one prominent American expert on the Middle East, the Shah could help by renouncing, once and for all, his family's claim to the Peacock Throne. This expert believes the Shah might well be willing to make such a sacrifice as the price of staying in the U.S.

If the embassy crisis can be resolved and the hostages are uninjured, it is still possible that the U.S. and Iran could restore limited relations. The present Iranian government wants to sell the 77 U.S.-built F-14 jet fighters that the Shah bought for his air force. Contractual restrictions would prevent Iran from selling the planes to the Soviet Union, but it is likely that Iran could find a customer acceptable to the U.S. One possibility: Saudi Arabia. The sale of military spare parts could begin again. The U.S. still sells wheat and rice to Iran, and in time the sale of Iranian oil to the U.S. might be also resumed.

If the crisis ends badly and any of the hostages are harmed, however, the U.S. will face a far more serious problem. Though the Administration has ruled out military intervention during the current impasse (there were naval exercises in the Persian Gulf last week, however), it might change its mind in the event of American casualties at the embassy. The Pentagon has advised that air raids, launched from carriers, could put the Iranian oilfields out of action for six months with a minimum of civilian injuries, but there has been no suggestion from any quarter that this would be a good course to follow. The resulting oil shortage would hurt U.S. allies more than it would hurt Iran--and would drive world oil prices through the roof. Another possibility would be a Government embargo on all trade with Iran, including food, but Carter would use the food weapon only as a last resort. Summarizing the planning difficulties, an Administration official noted last week: "The difference between minimum and maximum punishment is not all that great. This is very tough to calibrate."

What worries many governments at the moment, apart from the impasse at the American embassy, is that Iran appears to be slipping ever closer to chaos.

Using Khomeini as a cover, extremists of the left are trying to reinforce their position, thereby setting the scene for possible civil war. The Ayatullah Khomeini, old and ailing, does not understand modern statecraft, diplomacy or administration. Jimmy Carter does not know how to deal with him; neither does anybody else. Says a European diplomat: "What can you do when faced with a mad geriatric case?" Yet this remarkable old man, and he alone, seems to possess the power to preserve his volatile country from total anarchy--and to free the rest of the American hostages in Tehran.

*;One intrepid entrepreneur, Joe Conforte, who runs the Mustang Ranch, a legalized bordello outside Reno, took advantage of the uproar to post a sign at his gates saying: "No more Iranian students will be permitted on these premises until the hostages are released."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.