A New Hostage Tug of War

At home and abroad, Khomeini faces mounting pressures

Wearing his familiar black turban and cape, Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini sat on the flat roof of his single-story house in Qum and waved impassively to thousands of followers jamming the narrow streets below. The occasion was the solemn Shi'ite religious holiday known as Arba'un. Many of the pilgrims ritualistically flogged themselves with small chains to the beat of drums and tambourines; others wore white shrouds, symbolizing their willingness to die for Islam. "The only leader is Khomeini!" chanted the multitude, as red-lettered posters proclaimed DEATH TO AMERICA. It was one of the Ayatullah's last appearances before going into seclusion for two weeks because of "fatigue."

The spiritual leader of Iran's revolution might indeed be feeling some strain. Even as he basked in the adulation of the mobs at Qum, armed Azerbaijani militants loyal to Ayatullah Seyed Kazem Sharietmadari were battling Khomeini's followers and Revolutionary Guards in the streets of Tabriz. Last week's outburst, the latest clash in a simmering Azerbaijani rebellion against the central government, left at least six dead and 100 wounded before Tabriz was brought under control by local police, army troops and Revolutionary Guards.

In the neighboring province of Kurdistan, meanwhile, autonomist rebels killed at least four government military officers. Antigovernment riots also claimed ten lives in southeastern Baluchistan province, and religiously motivated gunfights between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims left at least 40 dead and 200 wounded in the Persian Gulf port of Bandar Lengeh. About the only good news that greeted the Ayatullah was the arrest in Tehran of the leader and 35 members of an anticlerical Islamic terrorist ring, known as Forqhan, which has claimed responsibility for the murder of at least two members of the Revolutionary Council.

Against this backdrop of domestic unrest, the Khomeini regime faced growing external pressure as a result of its refusal to release the 50 U.S. hostages who have been held captive in the Tehran embassy since Nov. 4. Reporting to the Security Council on his mission to Iran, United Nations Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim held out little hope for a speedy resolution, since Iranian authorities continued to demand the extradition of the Shah and the return of his assets.

The Carter Administration, which apparently accepts Waldheim's gloomy forecast, moved last week to bring a resolution calling for economic sanctions against Iran to a Security Council vote. The American proposal calls on U.N. members to halt all exports to Iran, except food and medicine. In addition, it would curb the Iranians' ability to obtain new foreign loans or convert their dollars into other Western currencies.

There was little chance that the resolution would pass the Security Council, since the Soviets have threatened to veto it. But Washington insisted that it would go ahead with its own sanctions; moreover, the major Western industrial nations and Japan have agreed to respect most of the U.S.-proposed measures regardless of the Security Council vote. Predicted one U.S. official: "Sanctions won't bring them to their knees, but they will hurt."

U.S. diplomats, however, also admit that there is little if any likelihood that sanctions would lead to freedom for the hostages. Meeting with 80 Congressmen at the White House last week, President Carter painted a bleak picture of prospects for their speedy release. The main problem, he said, was that "there's nobody there with whom we can get in touch." He questioned Khomeini's ability to control the "international terrorists or the kidnapers who are holding our hostages." Echoing that view, one senior State Department official told reporters that "these terrorists are swimming in a sea of support from the Iranian government and people." The goal of the sanctions strategy, he explained, was "to separate them from that support."

American hopes of isolating the self-described "students" from the political leadership may have been unexpectedly advanced by a week-long tug of war over U.S. Charge d'Affaires L. Bruce Laingen, who has been held at the Foreign Ministry since the embassy takeover. Two weeks ago, the militants had imperiously demanded that Foreign Minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh send Laingen to the embassy for questioning about alleged "documents of espionage."

Seeing Laingen as an important liaison for possible future negotiations with Washington and anxious to shore up his own authority, Ghotbzadeh shrewdly referred the matter to Khomeini. Despite the entreaties of a student delegation that visited Qum, Khomeini maintained his silence--thereby tacitly backing his Foreign Minister and the Revolutionary Council, which had originally decided to "harbor" Laingen and two U.S. aides. Said a Ghotbzadeh aide with satisfaction: "I guess we have given the students an idea where the line should be drawn."

The Laingen dispute also suggested that the Revolutionary Council, which Khomeini had cold-shouldered for several weeks, was rising in his esteem again. Said one insider of the clerical Establishment: "Council members have agreed on the need to distinguish between firmness and rashness. The students should not be allowed to think they are the only reliable interpreters of the Imam's wishes and ideals." That development was mildly encouraging to some Administration officials, who feel that some moderate members of the council are eager for a resolution of the hostage situation. Still, cautioned a White House source, "there is no feeling that anybody in the Revolutionary Council is ready to move yet."

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