◆ SpookStack

Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : CIA-RDP96-00788R000100330001-5 SPECIAL EDITION -- TERRORISM -- 26 JUNE 1984 Middle East Policy Survey toe ‘4 confidential biweekly report from Washington and the Middle East autem ane ato HT OHO A [EXECUTIVE BRANC Ca tract func dione Haver Ream cert im MOVING AGAINST IRAN Two recent National Security Decision Directives (NSDD) signed by President Reagan are seen as preparing the groundwork for a more confrontational US stance against Iran. NSDD 138, which underscores the Administration's renewed concern about "state supported" international terrorism is aimed at the two major practitioners of it, Iran and Libya, according to senior Administration officials. While Libya's role in international terrorism continues to be a source of major concern - as evidenced again this week by events in London - it is potential Iranian direct and indirect aggression in the Gulf arena that is of far greater concern to Administration policymakers. Administration officials insist that NSDD 138 provides only an outline for a long- term effort aimed at confronting the growing terrorism problem. As such, they argue it should be viewed as separate and apart from attempts to coumter Iranian military moves in the Gulf. However, they admit since Iran looms large in both NSDD's, it is a natural focal point of both. For example, the other earlier NSDD, which provides the basis for enhanced US cooperation with Gulf states, contains specific reference to the Administration's new anti-terrorist posture, Moreover, it is the specter of possible military action against Iran that has caused a number of State and Defense Department officials to dissent from both NSDDs. "McFarlane and his people at the NSC are motivated by a desire for revenge against Iran," claims one State Department insider. Another argues, "They [the NSC] are looking for an excuse to take military action against Iran." In fact, according to aides close to George Shultz, the Secretary of State firmly sides with McFarlane in the latter's "get tough" approach with Iranian-backed terrorism. "I have no doubt that if Iran launched a terrorist attack against a US facility, both Shultz and McFarlane would recommend a military response," says one Shultz aide. ; This aide traces Shultz' "profound change in attitude" to last April's terrorist bombing of the US embassy in Beirut. It was this attack more than the October bombing of Marine headquarters that affected Shultz' outlook. However, Shultz was further motivated when the French responded to the simultaneous attack on their military post in Beirut while the US did nothing. To drive the point home within the State Department, Shultz had Ambassador Robert M. Sayre, Director of the Office for Combatting Terrorism, lecture a recent senior staff meeting on the perils of state supported terrorism. At the same time, key State aides began receiving daily terrorism reports which, according to Department insiders, mark the first time US intelligence on world-wide terrorism has been brought together in one place for their information. [Recent reports showing a direct link between Libyan strongman Qaddafy and a series of terrorist attacks in Britain have caused some State Department officials to question why London had not taken preemptive steps that could have averted this week's siege. ] Not surprisingly, these reports show preponderance of Middle East based terrorism. According to informed sources, recent reports have begun to relay information on terrorist training centers in Iran. This has buttressed the view already held by some State Department officials that a direct military response to an Iranian terrorist attack has become more likely. Approved For Release 2000/08/07 : ciA‘Rpp96-00788R000100330001-5