Israel Stonewalling Iran-Contra Committee

By Jane Hunter

If the secret arms sales to Iran by the Reagan administration and Israel were ever revealed, according to testimony by Major General (ret.) Richard Secord, the first witness to come before the Congressional Select Committees investigating the Iran-contra affair, it was understood that Israel would "take the hit." If there ever was such an agreement, however, Israel has not stuck to it. Despite mounting evidence of its paramount role as instigator of the scandal, the Israeli government claims, as it has from the first, that it only became involved in the "Iranian initiative," in response to a request from its friends in Washington.

Although Secord's veracity was in shreds after five weeks of hearings by the Select Committees, the idea that Israel had agreed to shoulder the blame if "the enterprise" was exposed is believable. Even the bumblers who ran—and ultimately merged—the Iran "initiative" and the secret contra supply network might have safely predicted that the "hit" on Israel would have all the sting of a wet noodle.

Indeed, during the first phase of their hearings, the Select Committees have seemed to bend over backwards to spare Israel even that unpleasantness. Neither staff counsels nor legislators asked the questions that might have explained how Israel drew the Reagan administration into selling large quantities of arms to Iran, what role was played by Israel in the diversion of profits from those arms sales to the contras battling Nicaragua, and how Israel fit into the web of serving and retired US officials that ran both operations as a sort of parallel government.

Instead, where Israel is concerned, the practice of the Committees has appeared to be consistently at odds with their stated purpose: to tell the whole story of the Iran-contra affair to the people of the United States. Even more serious—if reality coincides with appearance—is the fact that although the Committees have heard prior testimony from all the main witnesses, they have painstakingly selected and programmed what the public will hear.

The Committees have also been totally silent about an ongoing standoff with the Israeli government over its sole contribution to the investigation, a written chronology and financial report delivered from Israel to the Israeli Embassy in Washington in late April. While the Israelis tried to negotiate veto power over publication of the contents, members of the Select Committees and their staffs were allowed to examine the documents and take notes, but not to photocopy them.

A week of repeated queries in early June to a Committee press officer failed to establish whether this situation had changed. (Other sources, including the Israeli Embassy, confirmed, however, that the documents are still held at the Embassy, under the same conditions.) By contrast, Senate Select Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) regaled the home audience with frequent updates on the location and return of a misplaced $10 million donated for use by the Nicaraguan contras by the Sultan of Brunei and deposited in the wrong Swiss bank account.

When asked whether Israel's role was being downplayed, the Committee press officer contended that the first phase of hearings was intended to focus on the secret network that supported the contras after Congress forbade official aid to them. He predicted there would be more attention given to Israel's role in the second phase, devoted to examining the Iran "initiative," in which Israel had played a greater role. Yet the press officer conceded that, given the involvement in the Iranian aspect of the affair of three of the main witnesses to appear in Phase One—Richard Secord, former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, and Secord's business partner Albert Hakim—the lines of demarcation between the phases had become "a bit blurred."

Also blurred was Israel's part in some key events described by those witnesses. A week before the hearings began, Chairman Inouye told the Los Angeles Times that the Israeli documents had enabled congressional investigators to "fill up the few gaps that remained" in the diversion of Iran arms-sales profits to the contras. Questioning during the hearings, however, failed to establish whether the diversion which, by clearly breaking the law, launched the scandal—the channeling to the contras of super-profits from the Iran arms sales by "representatives of Israel," disclosed by Attorney General Edwin Meese last November 25—was another diversion altogether from that perpetrated by Gen. Secord and Albert Hakim, who banked and diverted Iran profits for both the contras and themselves.

Secord's testimony that Israeli arms dealer Al Schwimmer had agreed to the transfer to the contras of $800,000 remaining after Iran had rejected a November 985 shipment of Hawk missiles failed to spark the panelists' interest. Hakim's testimony that Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian whom the Israelis sold to the Reagan administration as a well-connected intermediary, had been an agent of "the intelligence services of Israel" during the 1970s, was greeted with a yawn.

Neither staff counsels nor legislators have asked questions that might have explained how Israel drew the Reagan administration into selling large quantities of arms to Iran.

Likewise, in all the probing of arms sales to the contras, none of the witnesses were asked about the half-dozen or more shiploads of weapons sold by Israel. Some of those arms were purchased by Israel from Poland and shipped to the contras via Honduras with bills of lading stating they were made in Israel. Committee investigators are in possession of those documents.

Special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, who is investigating criminal wrongdoing in the affair, does not consider Israel's involvement to be an unrelated story. Walsh has been trying to obtain the testimony of key Israeli Iran-contra players in connection with criminal cases against US officials and citizens involved in the affair, and he has complained constantly about Israel's consistent refusal to cooperate with his investigation.

On May 21 Walsh served former Israeli Foreign Ministry Director-General David Kimche with a subpoena to testify before a grand jury. Kimche had obtained the administration's go-ahead for Israel to sell US-made arms to Iran and Kimche had also vouched for Ghorbanifar. Israel threatened to cease its cooperation with the Congressional Select Committees altogether unless the subpoena was withdrawn. Federal District Judge Aubrey E. Robinson Jr. delayed deciding on Israel's motion to quash the subpoena, but allowed Kimche to depart for Israel.

On June 11, Robinson extended his delay. By that time Walsh had subpoenaed three other Israeli principals in the affair: Amiram Nir, Ya'acov Nimrodi, and Al Schwimmer. As a dual US-Israeli citizen, Schwimmer is subject to conviction in absentia if he does not appear before the grand jury.

Although the Israeli government has continued its vehement opposition to its citizens and even dual nationals being called to testify here, it may have begun to soften its position that it would not negotiate the release of its Iran-contra documents to Walsh until the subpoenas were withdrawn. Israeli Embassy spokesman Ehud Gal said that Walsh's investigators have been permitted to view the sequestered documents.

Also, apparently to prevent its feud from Walsh from spilling over onto its smooth relations with the Congressional Select Committees, Israel has just given permission for congressional investigators to interview Maj. Gen (reserves) Rafael Vardi, who assisted in compiling the Israeli documents on the affair. But Vardi will not be permitted to testify under oath in public session.

Jane Hunter is editor and publisher of Israeli Foreign Affairs, P.O. Box 19580, Sacramento, CA 95819.