"There was an assumption in Washington that the U.S. seemed to have far greater power and manipulative control over the situation in Iran than we actually had," Sullivan said Wednesday. Because of the varying statements coming from Brzezinski on the one hand and State Department officials on the other, the U.S. "spoke with not only an ambivalent voice, but an actively internecine one" on Iran.
"The president has to have different points of view presented to him, but he has to speak with one voice internationally and with a secretary of state that speaks for him with confidence," Sullivan said.
Responding to a question implying that he had violated security by publishing his magazine account, Sullivan said he originally promised not to go public but changed his mind after Cyrus R. Vance resigned as secretary of state in protest of the aborted rescue mission last April and was subsequently chided by Carter.
"When Vance quit and was so securrilously treated, I felt I had no inhibitions... I have no apologies for [the article]. I think the country should be aware of what went on," Sullivan said, adding that the article was originally planned to appear before the presidential election in November.
Asked about charges that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency assisted the shah's secret police--SAVAK--Sullivan acknowledged that U.S., British and Israeli intelligence agencies combined to set up SAVAK, but said its "use as a political instrument was a strictly Iranian inspiration.
"Anybody in this room who is suggesting that we supplied bastinadoes and the iron boot [torture devices]--I don't think that would be received very well in this room," Sullivan added.
Sullivan, who said he was "pessimistic" about Iran's future, surprised some analysts by also saying that Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, was "in trouble" and that Iran did not need American spare parts to continue most of its war efforts.
One lesson to be drawn from the Iranian revolution, Sullivan said, is the need for a better understanding of the pace of economic development in Third World nations. In Iran--where the shah attempted a program of modernization--"not many people (in the U.S.) looked at the numbers" which indicated that Iran did not have sufficient resources and manpower to utilize massive American assistance, Sullivan said.
Nobody Was Prepared
"It was obviously an impracticable and impossible and yet nobody was prepared to tell the shah that it couldn't be done," Sullivan added.
Also, he said, the U.S. should "avoid entanglements with personnified governments." Because of the emphasis on personal ties to the shah, the U.S. "lost sight of the greater interests--not only national interests and those of our friends and allies, but those of the Iranian people."
"While succumbing to the ecstasy of the embrace, you have to keep an eye over the shoulder to see if there's a man coming through the door," he added.
Sullivan, a former ambassador to Laos and the Philippines and now president of American Assembly, was recalled from Iran before the seizure of the American hostages in November, 1979. However, in February of that year, he was one of 100 briefly taken captive at the Embassy before the revolutionary government responded to Sullivan's request and ordered them released.
President Carter visited Iran once during Sullivan's tenure there, and on New Year's Day 1978 toasted the shah with remarks that Sullivan said were added to prepared "cool but correct remarks." In his toast, Carter called Iran "an island of stability in one of the most troubled areas of the world. This is a great tribute to you, your majesty, and to your leadership and to the respect, admiration and love which your people give to you."
Sullivan said Wednesday he didn't know if Carter made the statement "of his own inspiration, whether Amy wrote it, or whether it was the same fellow that wrote his toast in Mexico City" which included a reference to Montezuma's Revenge