So Why Don't They Deny It?

Whether or not it's a media conspiracy, when there's good news about Israel or bad news about an Arab state, it's on Page 1. Conversely, bad news about Israelis or good news about Arabs is on Page 65. Editors who break the rule may lose advertisers, or even their jobs. Here's some information you may have missed if your local newspaper doesn't have a Page 65.

As the trickle of facts implicating Israel as the root cause of the greatest foreign policy scandal in American history turned into an torrent, a strange little counter current began. It was reported that Saudi Arabia's prodigal son, the flamboyantly extravagant Adnan Khashoggi, made introductions and financial arrangements. There were reports about Saudi Arabian oil shipments to Iran and financial aid to contras. Doesn't this indicate Saudi Government involvement, people asked?

Such is the power of rumor that the question was raised even by those who know that Saudi Arabia has invested $40 billion of its own funds in buttressing Iraq's defenses against Iran. And that the Saudis and other Arab states of the Gulf are prepared, if necessary, to arm and finance an entire expeditionary force from Egypt and Jordan to keep the Iraqi and Gulf Arab oil fields from falling into Khomeini's hands.

So who injected this "disinformation" into the flow of legitimate news? The source was Israel. The motive was to spread the guilt for ransoming hostages with arms, which Jewish leaders fear will create a tremendous American public backlash against Israel; and to mislead Americans into thinking their remaining friends among the moderate Arabs aren't outraged at the revelations of US duplicity. The rumors were seized upon and amplified, of course, by Libya, Syria, and other Arab radicals as a means to discredit those same Arab moderates.

As for means, in the US capital Wolf Blitzer, American-born Washington correspondent for the Jerusalem Post, and Amos Perlmutter, a professor at American University, were said to be busy spreading rumors built upon two facts: Saudi participation, with the US, in funding arms for Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet invasion, and the fact that the Saudis recently acceded to Iran's production strategy in a long-running oil-pricing dispute within OPEC, a purely economic matter.

These two kernels of fact were wrapped in layer after layer of shimmering speculation. Day after day Martin Sieff of the Washington Times picked up such rumors and wove them into his otherwise highly informative coverage of the on-going Irangate scandal. The Washington Times, desperate for circulation and advertisers, got its reward when the locally-influential Washington Jewish Week recommended that its readers switch their subscriptions to the Washington Times from the Washington Post. The Post had avoided playing up the rumors, even though some of them had found their way into the New York Times.

Khashoggi, who in the past has not been meticulous about indicating whether his wheelings and dealings have official Saudi blessing, spoke out clearly this time. He said:

"I have no official status with the government of Saudi Arabia nor have I acted in its behalf, directly or indirectly, between the government of Saudi Arabia and Iran, nor between the government of Saudi Arabia and opposition forces in Nicaragua."

Callers asked the Washington Report why, if the reports were as unlikely as they sounded, the Saudis didn't say something. When the Washington Report asked Saudi press attaché Habib Shaheen in Washington why the Saudi Government, the Saudi Ambassador, or he didn't put out some official denials, it turned out they all have done just that. But don't hold your breath waiting for them to appear in your hometown newspaper. Here's a sampling of the written denials the Saudi Embassy provided the Washington Report:

Oct. 21, 1986: The Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States today issued the following statement in response to press inquiries: "Saudi Arabia is not and has not been involved either directly or indirectly in any military or other support activity of any kind for or in connection with any group or groups concerned with Nicaragua."

Nov. 25, 1986: In its issue of November 23, 1986, the New York Times attributed to oil traders the claim that large quantities of Saudi Arabian oil recently have been shipped across the Gulf to Iran through the intermediary of American traders. Commenting on that, an official Saudi Arabian source said that this report is totally baseless.

Dec. 7: Saudi Embassy Spokesman Habib Shaheen has responded to press inquiries: "We did not know about the whole thing, the negotiations between Washington and Iran concerning the arms deal, until it had become public."

Dec. 8: In reply to reports...implicating Saudi Arabia in the US-Iranian arms deal, an Information Ministry source told the Saudi Press Agency, "Despite the fact that we have repeatedly denied such reports, we have noted that they have repeatedly been carried by the media...The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has in two previous statements already unequivocally denied any connection to said deal. In addition, the official spokesman of the US Department of State has declared the US Administration's denial of any Saudi Arabian connection to this matter....Whenever the Kingdom wishes to take a step that it deems to be in its interests and is convinced of its merits, it will do so openly and in broad daylight."

Although all that's been available to the US media for some time, we'll bet you read it here first.—Richard H. Curtiss.