Introduction

Although many details of the Iran-Bosnia scandal remain unclear, it is now apparent that the Clinton Administration knew of and encouraged the Iranian initiative in Bosnia and disguised this fact from the American people, the Congress, and our allies. It is also clear that the Clinton policy led to a dramatic, and possibly long-term, setback for American foreign policy--the opportunity for Iran to create an autonomous terrorist foothold in Europe, a direct threat to the lives of American forces in Bosnia, and a grave danger that the very democratic, pluralist Bosnia that President Clinton sent our troops to safeguard will be subverted by his own covert policy.

The American people should know that the Clinton Iran initiative was as unnecessary as it was unwise. Throughout the period when the Clinton Administration was assisting Iranian efforts in Bosnia, Congressional Republicans, with strong bipartisan support, were attempting to find legitimate international support for the Bosnian people--over President Clinton's strenuous opposition. If the Clinton Administration had chosen to work with Congress instead of Tehran, Bosnia could have received earlier help from responsible sources, the U.S. troop deployment to Bosnia could have been averted, and Iran would not today have the chance to create a new Lebanon in the heart of Europe.

A Tale of Two Policies: Clinton Blocks Congress' Policy of Lifting the Arms Embargo

President Clinton's opening to Iran was not prompted by a lack of alternatives. Although he himself abruptly betrayed his campaign support for lifting the Bosnian arms embargo soon after taking office, Congress consistently supported that policy from the very outset of his Administration. The Congress (led by Senators Dole (R-Kan.) and Lieberman (D-CT), who from the outset took the lead on this issue) repeatedly went on record in support of lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia--a policy that would have enabled that country to receive the weapons it needed from the United States, other Western nations, or responsible Muslim countries like Egypt and Turkey.

The legislative record reflects mounting impatience with the Clinton Administration's policy of making American Bosnia policy a hostage to cumbersome multilateral decisionmaking:

H.R. 5368, H.R. 2295, H.R. 4426, and H.R. 1868, the FY 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 Foreign Operations Appropriations, denouncing the embargo and authorizing military aid to Bosnia once the embargo was lifted. The President took no action to implement these provisions.

H.R. 2333, the FY 1994-1995 Foreign Relations Authorization, stating that the arms embargo violated Bosnia's right under international law and calling for President Clinton to lift the arms embargo unilaterally. The President took no action under this provision.

H.R. 4301, the FY 1995 Defense Authorization Act, requiring the President to introduce a U.N. Security Council resolution to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia if the Bosnian Serbs failed to accept peace proposals forwarded by the U.S., Britain, France, and Russia; terminating U.S. efforts to enforce the embargo against Bosnia by November 15, 1994; and requiring the President to submit plans for training of Bosnian forces by "the United States Armed Forces and military forces of friendly states," and for lifting the embargo on Bosnia unilaterally. Although the President terminated further U.S. efforts to enforce the embargo, as required by this legislation, he took no steps to supply Bosnia with arms and training under its further provisions.

H.R. 1561, the FY 1996-1997 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, creating an international fund to procure military equipment and funding for Bosnia. The President vetoed this legislation on April 12, 1996.

But the key step taken by both chambers of Congress was the passage on August 1, 1995 of S.21, the "Bosnia and Herzegovina Self-Defense Act of 1995," which terminated the arms embargo upon a Bosnian government request for military assistance. The legislation, sponsored by Majority Leader Dole and Senator Lieberman (D-CT), passed both Houses by overwhelming bipartisan majorities, as thousands of the inhabitants of the U.N. "safe havens" of Zepa and Srebrenica, having been denied the means of self-defense by the embargo, were being butchered by Bosnian Serbs. Senator Dole closed the debate by quoting a letter sent to him by Margaret Thatcher:

"I am writing to express my very strong support for your attempt to have the arms embargo against Bosnia lifted.... The safe havens were never safe; now they are falling to Serb assault. Murder, ethnic cleansing, mass rape and torture are the legacy of the policy of the last three years to the people of Bosnia. It has failed utterly."

President Clinton vetoed S. 21 on August 11, approximately a month after the Bosnian Serb massacre in the "safe havens" had begun. He explained his rationale in his veto statement:

"S.21 is designed to lead to the unilateral lifting by the United States of the international arms embargo imposed on the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although the United States has supported the lifting of the embargo by action of the U.N. Security Council, I nonetheless am convinced that a unilateral lifting of the embargo would be a serious mistake..."

The President argued that the bill would lead to the collapse of the ill-named "U.N. Protection Force" and a need to send "thousands of troops" to Bosnia. Ironically, even his own Administration had by then elsewhere conceded that UNPROFOR and its "safe havens" had already collapsed with the loss of thousands of lives; only four months later he himself sent "thousands of troops" to Bosnia--rather than helping the Bosnians to help themselves, without a substantial American or Iranian troop presence in the Balkans. But prior to the deployment in December 1995 the Administration was so obsessed with obstructing Congress' efforts to aid Bosnia that it was happy to leave the job of assisting Bosnia to Iran.

Ironically, one of the goals of Congress' anti-embargo policy was to limit Iranian influence in Bosnia by providing Bosnia with legitimate alternative sources of arms. As Senator Dole said on January 4, 1995, when he introduced S.21, legislation to lift the arms embargo and support Bosnia: "[A] decision to arm the Bosnians would reduce the potential influence and role of radical extremist states like Iran" in Bosnia. And again on June 7, 1995, Dole stated:

"[W]hen those of us who advocate lifting the arms embargo point out that other countries would also participate in arming the Bosnians, we are told that this would allow Iran to arm the Bosnians. Well, the fact is that the arms embargo has guaranteed that Iran is a key supplier of arms to Bosnia and administration officials have actually used that fact to argue that there is no need to lift the arms embargo. From statements made by State Department officials to the press, one gets the impression that Iran is the Clinton Administration's preferred provider of weapons to the Bosnians. If the Administration has a problem with Iran arming Bosnia, it should be prepared to do something about it."

What neither Dole nor anyone else outside the Administration knew was that the Clinton Administration actually did prefer letting Iran supply arms and troops to Bosnia to bipartisan legislation openly ending the arms embargo--legislation which, as Dole said at the time, would have allowed not only America but "[c]ountries like Turkey, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Pakistan [to] offer financial and military assistance." Nor did anyone know that the decision had long since been made at the highest levels of the Clinton Administration to act on this preference--setting in motion the entire Iran-Bosnia scandal.--and Iranian intelligence officials. They pose a potential threat to our forces--but also to Bosnia's place in the international community."

The Administration's Alternative Policy: Promoting Iranian Influence in Bosnia

Although adamantly opposing Congress' efforts to aid Bosnia openly and responsibly, the Clinton Administration was well aware that the policy of imposing an arms embargo indiscriminately on both well-armed Serbian aggressors and ill-armed Bosnian defenders was rapidly leading Bosnia to military defeat. Because the Administration's policymakers, from the President on down, have elevated "multilateralism" from a means to an end, however, they opposed Congress' efforts to lift the embargo unilaterally. Instead, to fill the vacuum left by the United States, the Administration chose the worst of all possible surrogates: Iran--arguably the most implacable opponent of the American people in the world today. Lawrence Eagleburger, Secretary of State in the Bush Administration, calls the Clinton Iran-Bosnia policy "the height of insanity": "We are inviting Bosnian-Islamic connections with a terrorist state that wishes us as much damage as they can possibly inflict on us."

Clinton vs. Clinton on Iran

"Iran continued to engage in activities that represent a threat to the peace and security of all nations.... [This] situation...presents an extraordinary and unusual threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States....I shall exercise the powers at my disposal to deal with these problems and will report periodically to the Congress on significant developments."

The Clinton Administration's decision to open an Iranian arms pipeline shredded a bipartisan U.S. policy of trying to contain Iran both globally and in Bosnia. In September 1992, for example, the Bush Administration forced the Croatian Government to seize an Iranian 747 loaded with arms from Tehran for Bosnia as soon as it received intelligence of the shipment. As former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger stated, "We raised hell. We made it very clear that we were adamantly opposed to this going on. There was no question in the Bush Administration of where we were on this subject."

The Clinton Administration purported to continue and even intensify this policy in the Balkans and around the world. The President has maintained Iran's classification as a nation which promotes terrorism, a finding made some ten years before President Franjo Tudjman's inquiry as to whether the U.S. would like Iranian arms to flow through Croatia to Bosnia. Moreover, President Clinton issued Executive Orders barring virtually all trade with and investment in Iran on March 15 and May 6, 1995--over a year after deciding to allow Iranian arms into the Balkans. At the time, Secretary of State Christopher reiterated his claim that Iran was "an international outlaw," and the President vehemently condemned Iran as one of the pariah nations "aim[ing] to destabilize the [Middle East], ... harbor[ing] terrorists within [its] borders, ...establish[ing] and support[ing] terrorist base camps in other lands, ...hunger[ing] for nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Every day they put innocent civilians in danger and stir up discord among nations. Our policy toward these rogue states is simple: They must be contained."

The President went on to argue for an even harder line:

"[m]any have argued passionately that the best route to change Iranian behavior is by engaging the country. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support that argument. Indeed, the evidence of the last two years suggest exactly the reverse....[T]here is nothing to suggest that further engagement will alter that course."

The President's remarks came at the height of the tacit collaboration between Iran and his own Administration.

The Administration has professed concern about Iran for a series of highly compelling reasons outlined recently by Under Secretary of State Tarnoff in testimony before the House International Relations Committee:

"Iran engages in terrorism by assassinating its opponents. It provides material and political support to Palestinian rejectionists trying to undermine the Middle East peace process through violence. Iran also seeks to subvert secular regimes in the Muslim world." Iran's sponsorship of radical political groups and terrorists around the world has caused the Clinton State Department to repeatedly call Iran the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. One of the Administration's principal goals at the Sharm al-Sheikh anti-terrorism conference just last month was to press the Arab and Western European states attending to isolate Iran completely. Iran's activities include massive support for:

- Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the West Bank and Gaza regions, who received some $30 million over a recent two-year period and an estimated 10-20% of the $70 million Hamas receives annually from its outside supporters.

- Hezbollah, the terrorist parastate in Lebanon

- Fundamentalist political parties in Algeria and Egypt, and Islamic guerrillas training in Sudan to promote revolutionary violence in those nations

"It is pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction--that is, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missile systems to deliver them." The Administration has claimed to regard the Iranian "crash program" to develop nuclear weapons, as Secretary Christopher termed it in January 1995, as so threatening that it has placed Russian nuclear assistance to Iran close to the top of our bilateral agenda with Russia. On February 29 of this year, the State Department reported that Iran was seeking to purchase materials for a nuclear weapon. On July 14, 1995 the Clinton Administration reported that Iran had succeeded in manufacturing biological weapons for the first time. And one Administration official recently claimed that Iran has developed the most active chemical warfare program in the Third World. In addition, Iran has acquired ballistic missiles from North Korea (Scud Cs) and the PRC (M-9s, M-11s, and CSS-8s), to deliver these various unconventional weapons.

"Iran is also engaged in a conventional military buildup that threatens regional peace and stability." This buildup includes:

- Amassing an army of 600,000 troops

- Plans to increase its military spending 30% this year

- Acquisition of at least 30 MiG-29's and 30 Su-24 strike aircraft, as well as 3 Kilo-class diesel submarines from Russia

The Clinton Administration professed to regard Iranian influence in the Balkans with equal seriousness. As recently as mid-March, 1996, the Administration formally advised the Bosnian Government that "their involvement with Iran in arming the Bosnian military would be detrimental to stability in the region and to Bosnia's relations with the U.S. We've been quite clear on that." It seems unlikely that Bosnian officials would agree.

The Results of Clinton's Policy: The Bekaa Valley Comes to Bosnia

It is ironic that the tragic results of the Iranian-controlled terrorist ministate in Lebanon are dominating the news at the same time that we are finally learning the details of how the nucleus of another such Iranian proxy first began to take shape in Europe. Although the Administration has declined to provide unclassified testimony on this point, press reports currently suggest that as a result of the Clinton Administration's policy Iran stationed from 3,000-4,000 Revolutionary Guards in Bosnia, of which some 200-300 still remain.

And just two months ago there were headlines around the world when the NATO Implementation Force (IFOR) found horrifying evidence of what the Iranians are up to in Bosnia: when French commandos stormed an isolated chalet in Bosnia on February 15, 1996, they found a terrorist training center replete with sniper rifles, rocket launchers, and explosives disguised as children's toys. Later that month, IFOR arrested three Iranians manning this terrorist training camp. U.S. officials also have uncovered evidence of preparation for terrorist activity against NATO peacekeeping forces. And Iran's influence is not limited to Iranians coming to Bosnia. The New York Times on March 3, 1996 quoted a senior European military officer as stating that his government had evidence that Bosnia sent troops to Iran. He rightly suggested that ideological indoctrination represented an even bigger threat to the West than the technical training those troops received.

Ironically, the Iranian presence that the Clinton Administration helped promote is now actively threatening the Dayton Accord, the American and NATO peacekeepers seeking to enforce it, and the military viability and democratic character of Bosnia itself. The Clinton Administration is refusing to implement those parts of the Dayton agreement calling for it to give arms and training to Bosnia until the Iranians and other foreigners engaged in military roles have been removed from Bosnia. So the Iranian presence that the Administration encouraged with a wink and a nod to President Tudjman in April 1994 now stands in the way of U.S. arms and training for Bosnia, even though the Dayton agreement and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1021 supposedly buried the arms embargo for good.

Conclusion

The Clinton Administration embraced Iran-Bosnia because it rejected with contempt Congress' policy of openly and responsibly lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia. President Clinton called his erstwhile Bosnia policy a "feel-good, bumper-sticker solution"; Secretary of State Warren Christopher sniffed on July 16, 1995, "I think you get some instant gratification from lifting the arms ambargo. It's kind of an emotional luxury. But you have to ask yourself, what are the consequences of that."

Perhaps Christopher and the President should have thought more about the "consequences" of not lifting the arms embargo. We have already paid a heavy price for their Iran-Bosnia policy:

Instead of receiving arms from the West and responsible Muslim governments, Bosnia has received them from the pariah terrorist government of Iran--under American auspices.

Iran has solidified a terrorist foothold in Europe, laying the foundations for the type of terrorist ministate that Tehran now uses to devastate Lebanon and Israel.

The Clinton Administration has shattered American credibility with our allies around the world, particularly in the fight against terrorism and for isolating Iran. On May 1, 1995, Secretary Christopher stated that the President's executive order cutting off all economic links to Iran "underscores America's readiness to lead by example. It puts the United States in the strongest possible position to urge others to take similar steps." Iran-Bosnia has now drastically undercut America's ability to urge others to curtail ties to Tehran.

Most ironically of all, the Iranian presence promoted by the Administration is now obstructing implementation of the Dayton Accord and threatening the lives of U.S. and other NATO peacekeepers.

These consequences were not inevitable. The Clinton Administration could have embraced the open and responsible policy tirelessly promoted by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Instead, a nation which the Clinton Administration itself identifies as one of the most dangerous and violently anti-American in the world has been allowed to expand its influence in the heart of Europe.