The New York Times and Iran-Contra

At the beginning of November 1986, according to the New York Times, U.S. President Ronald Reagan enjoyed a public approval rating of 67 percent. By the end of the month, the country’s opinion of its leader had fallen to 46 percent approval, the most drastic decline of his presidency. (Busby, Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair, 7) A prime reason for this dramatic fall was the beginning of the Iran-Contra scandal, which entered the public eye in early November and was heavily covered by the American media, including the New York Times. The New York Times coverage was very critical of Reagan and was part of the cause of the drop in his popularity.

The origins of the Iran-Contra scandal reached back into Reagan’s first term as President. Between early 1984 and 1985, Hezbollah, a Shi’ite Islamic extremist group operating in , kidnapped several Americans. (Busby, Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair, 57) In November 1984, the CIA was approached by Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian expatriate, who offered to negotiate the release of the hostages, in exchange for arms shipments to . (Walsh, Firewall, 37) Ghorbanifar was rebuffed, but after further negotiations involving , had convinced officials to attempt an arms-for-hostages trade with . Robert McFarlane, Reagan’s National Security Adviser, authorized to ship hundreds of anti-tank missiles to . The Israeli missiles, in turn, would be replaced by the . (Walsh, Firewall,5) Because the arms sales were illegal, the profits from the sales were deposited into secret accounts, to be used to fund the Contra guerillas fighting the left-wing Sandinista regime in . (Brands, Into the Labyrinth, 190)

The day after the first shipment, one of the hostages, Reverend Benjamin Weir was released. (Walsh, Firewall, 39) When the news that Reverend Weir had returned to was finally released to the press, a White House spokesman, Edward Djerejian, denied that any deal had been made to secure Reverend Weir’s release, a statement that clearly supported Reagan’s strong rhetoric concerning negotiations with terrorists. (New York Times, September 20, 1985, A1) Only two months before the weapon shipments began, Reagan himself had claimed, “We make no concessions. We make no deals.” (Brands, Into the Labyrinth, 183) The weapon shipments continued, and two more hostages were released, the last one on November 2, 1986. (Brands, Into the Labyrinth, 191)

Media coverage of the Iran-Contra scandal began the next day. Al Shiraa, an Arabic-language journal published in , released an article claiming that Robert McFarlane had recently been in Tehran. Although he had resigned his position as National Security Adviser, McFarlane had apparently been sent by the Reagan administration to attempt to negotiate with the Iranian government for the release of the hostages. The New York Times published a similar article on November 5. The article contained a confirmation from Hojatolislam Rafsanjani, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament, that McFarlane had in fact been in . The article also speculated that McFarlane had arrived on a plane carrying spare parts for Iranian weaponry, purchased from “international dealers.” The Reagan administration denied that the Iranian arms embargo had been lifted. (New York Times, November 5, 1986, A1) In fact, McFarlane had arrived on a plane bringing an American shipment of spare parts for Iranian missiles. Another plane was waiting in with more weapon parts. (Walsh, Firewall, 46) McFarlane had been accompanied on his mission by Lt. Col. Oliver North. (Walsh, Firewall, 7)The New York Times’ first editorial on the crisis made no accusations; it was cautiously supportive of McFarlane’s secret diplomacy, saying that some accommodation of Iranian needs would be a good policy.

It is clear that on November 5, the New York Times did not know the extent of the operation, and its failure to criticize the Reagan administration’s policies reflected that. The paper’s heavy coverage of the situation continued. On November 7, it published another front-page article about weapons sales to . Citing unnamed sources in the Reagan administration and the American intelligence community, this article explicitly claimed that the had sent spare parts to . The article stated that both the Secretaries of State and Defense had known about the shipments, although they had disagreed with the policy. Secretary of State George Shultz had privately voiced his disapproval in 1985 when Robert McFarlane began to champion an arms-for-hostages policy. (Busby, Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair, 58) For the first time, the New York Times referred to Oliver North, whose key role in the weapons sales would be slowly revealed over the next month. (New York Times, November 7, 1986, page A1)

On November 8, the Times claimed that Reagan had approved a plan in mid-1985 calling for covert diplomacy with the Iranians. According to White House sources, Reagan had not explicitly approved arms sales, but that the administration had decided to attempt the arms-for-hostages trade at the prompting of the Israeli government. Whether Reagan ever approved the early arms shipments remains up for debate; Reagan himself said that he had approved them, but later changed his mind and said that he could not remember. (Walsh, Firewall, 71) The article reveals how much the White House’s disinformation concerning the crisis had affected the media – a clear differentiation is made between McFarlane’s trip to Tehran and the arms-for-hostages plan. According to the White House, McFarlane had been in only to attempt to establish diplomatic contact with Iranian moderates. No mention was made of the reality that McFarlane had been there to negotiate the release of hostages upon delivery of the American missile parts he’d flown into .

The next day, the New York Times published an article that further implicated Oliver North, calling him “a key figure in arranging the secret arms shipments.” This would prove to be an understatement, as it would eventually be revealed that North had been in charge of most of the operation. According to Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, North had been in “practical control” of the arms shipments. (Walsh, Firewall, 153) The paper published an editorial that revealed many of the contradictions between actions and statements made by the Reagan administration. (New York Times, November 9, 1986, section 4 page 1) The paper still had yet to uncover the depth of the scandal, although it had already verified that officials in the highest levels of government had known about the arms shipments. Although the details still weren’t known, it was clear by this time that Ronald Reagan would be vilified in the New York Times.

For the next two days, little new information concerning the arms sales was revealed. President Reagan claimed that no laws had been broken, but the White House was not forthcoming with any specific information about their operations. (New York Times, November 11, 1986, page A1) In an editorial on November 11, the New York Times asserted that the Reagan Administration had undermined its own policy goals and severely damaged the credibility of Secretary Shultz, who continually preached the administration’s hard-line public stance that no negotiations should be conducted with terrorists and that no weapons should be sold to . (New York Times, November 11, 1986, page A10)

On November 12, the editorials continued. Reagan was criticized for his anger at the media for revealing details of the covert arms deals, and exhorted to acknowledge the mistakes made in his policy. (New York Times, November 12, 1986, page A30) The Times also accused the President of provoking a partisan political struggle with the Democratic Congress by making foreign policy decisions without consulting them and by selling weapons behind their backs to a foreign power hostile to the . (New York Times, November 12, 1986, page A31)

Ronald Reagan met with Congressional leaders on November 12 and acknowledged that the had in fact sold arms to . He claimed that the arms sales had nothing to do with the hostages, but had been made in the interest of improving relations with moderates in the Iranian government. The November 13 New York Times contained an article that associated the dates of three known weapons deliveries – in September 1985 and July and October 1986 – with the release of three of the hostages. Despite President Reagan’s claims to the contrary, the article made a convincing argument that the weapons had in fact been traded for hostage releases. (New York Times, November 13, 1986, page A1) What the Times failed to uncover was the several shipments of weapons that went to but failed to win freedom for any American hostages. Besides the shipments mentioned by the New York Times, had received weapons shipments in November 1985 and February and May 1986. (Walsh, Firewall, pages 108-111)

November 13 was a key day in the development of the scandal. President Reagan gave a televised speech, in which he said much the same thing as he’d told Congress the day before. He acknowledged the weapon shipments to , and claimed that he had consulted “all appropriate Cabinet officers.” Reagan firmly denied that the weapons had been traded for hostages. (Busby, Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair, 81) In its front page article the next day, the New York Times reported briefly on the content of his speech, but most of the article was devoted to analysis. The Times reported that many congressmen still saw the arms deals as ransom for the hostages. It was noted that the President had appeared unusually defensive and somber, and that he had admitted that one goal of his program of secret diplomacy had been to win freedom for the hostages. (New York Times, November 14, 1986, page A1) The November 14 article made it clear that Reagan’s speech had not ended speculation over whether the weapons had been traded for hostages.

In another article published the same day, more liberties were taken. The New York Times criticized the Reagan Administration for publicizing a policy of stopping the flow of weapons into but secretly undermining its own policy. The article made it completely obvious that the Times viewed the weapons deals as having been made in exchange for hostage releases. The paper’s position was backed up by statements from several government officials and foreign policy experts. (New York Times, November 14, 1986, page A1) Although there were not any editorials about the scandal published that day, it was clear that the editors of the New York Times believed that President Reagan had lied in his speech.

Two days after Reagan’s speech, the New York Times was filled with articles about reactions to the speech. Congressional leaders widely condemned the policy, and Iranian President Ali Khameini gave a speech denying any diplomatic contacts with the . (New York Times, November 15, 1986, page A5) The articles published on November 15 are largely devoted to revealing dissention within Reagan’s administration. Much was made of the opposition of Shultz and Weinberger. The Times published a statement by Don Regan, the White House Chief of Staff, implying that the Americans had in fact asked for the release of hostages in exchange for the arms. This, of course, contradicted President Reagan’s speech. Criticism of the policy by several members of Congress was published alongside statements by key allies – they remained against negotiating with terrorists, and many of them directly condemned the for implementing a policy contradictory to its public stance.

Through the next few days, New York Times articles revealed more and more details about the weapons deals. Ghorbanifar’s role was discovered; he was described as “the main channel to the Iranians.” (New York Times, November 14, 1986, page A9) The Times appeared to have an in-depth understanding of how Ghorbanifar used to make his initial contact with the Reagan Administration. The same article also included the crucial fact that Israeli shipments to had been subsidized by the . On November 15, a Times story claimed that the C.I.A. had been involved in the weapons shipments. The article was vague on how the C.I.A. had been involved, but did speculate on the legality of their involvement, since C.I.A. operations should have been under Congressional oversight. (New York Times, November 15, 1986, page A1) In fact, the weapons sold to had been obtained from the C.I.A. (Walsh, Firewall, page 111)

On November 16, Secretary of State George Shultz gave an interview in which he finally made a public statement of his opposition to selling arms to . The next day, the New York Times exploited this interview to show division within the Reagan White House. The article they published noted how unusual it was for a Cabinet member to publicly disagree with the President, and speculated on Shultz’s possible resignation. (New York Times, November 17, 1986, page A1) Despite their obvious opposition to White House policy toward , the Times had still failed to uncover the sheer volume of the weapons shipments. On November 17, they published an article that was still using the Reagan Administration’s statement that all the weapons sold to would have fit into a single cargo plane. (New York Times, November 17, 1986, page A10) The tone of the article did seem skeptical, and with good reason: in reality, thousands of missiles had been sold to . (Walsh, Firewall, 328)
The day the New York Times speculated about divisions in the Reagan Administration, the President announced that he had no plans to sell any more weapons to . Reagan’s assertion largely concurred with the statements made by his Secretary of State the day before, and on November 18, the New York Times published a claim from a White House spokesman that Reagan and his advisers were all in agreement on this point. (New York Times, November 18, 1986, page A16)

Unlike the story on the rift in the administration published following Shultz’s interview, this article did not get front-page coverage – the Times relegated it to page sixteen. An editorial the next day returned to speculation about the divide between President Reagan and Secretary Shultz. (New York Times, November 19, 1986, page A35) Another article on November 19 is devoted to showing how the scandal could leave Reagan as a lame duck President for the final two years of his term. (New York Times, November 19, 1986, page A10) The New York Times’ liberal bias was showing through, from the content of its editorials to the placement of articles that could be interpreted as being pro-Reagan.

November 21 brought yet another front page story critical of the Reagan Administration. House majority leader Jim Wright stated that Vice Admiral John Poindexter, who had replaced McFarlane as National Security Adviser, and was heavily involved with the deals, had told him that over 2,000 missiles had been sold to . (New York Times, November 21, 1986, page A1) The problem, from a White House perspective, was that the administration’s top officials, including Poindexter himself, had been consistently claiming that the number of missiles sent was far smaller. The story also exposed the fact that the had asked to send weapons to , which had been specifically denied by the President. The Times furthered the damage to the White House’s credibility in another front page story in the same issue. It contained expert opinions that the weapons sold could affect the outcome of the ongoing Iran-Iraq war. (New York Times, November 21, 1986, page A1) This specifically contradicted previous statements by the White House.

Editorials published on November 23 and 24 continued the New York Times’ attack on the President. Reagan was harshly criticized, and statements were published showing that even Robert McFarlane, whose plan had led to the arms sales in the first place, thought it had been a bad idea. (New York Times, November 23, 1986, section 4 page 1) A key criticism was directed at Reagan’s refusal to admit any mistakes or ask for the resignations of the officials who had led the program. (New York Times, November 23, 1986, section 4 page 24) One particularly disparaging editorial theorized that Reagan had been unaware of the details of the operation or had been incapable of understanding them. (New York Times, November 24, 1986, page A10)

Oliver North was questioned by the Justice Department on November 24. This seemingly innocuous event did not merit more than a short article on the sixth page of the New York Times. (New York Times, November 25, 1986, page A6) The day that article was published, an important event occurred that catapulted North onto the front page. President Reagan admitted that funds from the weapons sales had been sent to aid the Contras in . John Poindexter resigned as National Security Adviser, and Oliver North was fired. (Busby, Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair, pages 93-94) The front page of the New York Times the next day made it clear that North was being made a scapegoat. The Times published a claim by Attorney General Edwin Meese that North had been the only person who knew the details of the Contra aid program. (New York Times, November 26, 1986, page A1) An editorial published that day showed the extent that distrust of the President had developed. Even after the admission that funds had gone to , the New York Times claimed that only one thing was clear: “it could scarcely have happened with a President in charge of his administration.” (New York Times, November 26, 1986, Page A27)

For the rest of November, the New York Times published editorials cautiously supporting President Reagan. One of these speculated that the crisis would turn out to be more analogous to the Bay of Pigs fiasco than to Watergate. The Times apparently believed that Poindexter and North had led Reagan blindly into covering up their illegal support of the Contras. (New York Times, November 27, 1986, page A25) Another offered advice to the President, while speculating on how the Iran-Contra scandal had increased the Democratic Party’s chances in the 1988 election. (New York Times, November 30, 1986, section 4 page 1) By the end of the month, as Congressional hearings started, the Times seemed to believe that Reagan was on the road to recovery.

Throughout the month of November, the New York Times contributed to the fall of President Reagan’s popularity. The paper did not do this irresponsibly; its articles very consistently differed little from fact, and when they did, it was only because the facts had yet to be discovered. The Times’ editorials for most of the month were critical of the President, but with good reason – he had deliberately misled the nation about the scope and purpose of the arms sales, and had only admitted that they occurred at all after extensive press coverage. When it became apparent that Reagan had likely been kept in the dark by his staff on many of the details of the operation, however, the Times was quick to temper its criticism of the President, hoping that he would be able to survive the scandal and remain an effective leader.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Source:
New York Times. September 20, 1985 and November 5 through November 30, 1986.
Secondary Works:
Busby, Robert. Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair: The Politics of Presidential Recovery. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.
Walsh, Lawrence E. Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-up. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1997.
Brands, H.W. Into the Labyrinth: The and the Middle East 1945-1993. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.