U.S. Toughens Its Stance in the Gulf : Reagan, Defense Chief Cite Will to Strike Back

WASHINGTON —  President Reagan, leading top Administration officials in taking a tougher stand on the Persian Gulf, on Saturday called the U.S. role in the Middle East “that of peacemaker” but warned that any action against commercial ships flying the American flag in the region “will be dealt with appropriately.”

Reagan, in his weekly radio broadcast, stressed that freedom of navigation in international waters “is a cardinal principle of our policy and, especially in that region of the world, a vital interest.” The United States, he added, has proven itself “a reliable ally” to several pro-Western nations of the Middle East.

Retaliation Seems More Likely

Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and Secretary of State George P. Shultz echoed the President’s strong words Saturday. Weinberger, who confirmed in a TV interview that a tanker attacked Friday was struck by an Iranian Silkworm missile, said America has “a capability and a will and a resolution to take appropriate responses.” In Saudi Arabia, Shultz said that “we will defend our interests, and we are prepared to act in support of them.”

The statements by Reagan and his top advisers, made a day after Iran launched its first attack on a U.S.-flagged Kuwaiti tanker, appeared to heighten the possibility of some form of retaliation for the missile strike. In initial statements after the incident, the President and his aides avoided any indication that retaliatory plans were being set in motion.

On Saturday, however, the Administration was clearly signaling that it would not stand for continued provocation in the gulf, leaving open the possibility of retaliation for the attack on the tanker. The U.S.-registered Sea Isle City was struck by an Iranian Silkworm missile in the incident, which injured 18 crewman, including the vessel’s American captain.

“When we have decided what action to take and have taken it, you will hear about it,” Shultz told reporters in Jidda. Although he did not say how or when the action would take place, his remarks departed from those he had made only a day earlier in Israel, when he stressed that Friday’s attack took place in Kuwaiti waters--possibly implying that any retaliation would be up to Kuwait.

U.S. Bears Responsibility

Weinberger, interviewed on the Cable News Network, suggested that America bears the responsibility to respond to Friday’s attack on the Sea Isle City. “Basically, the government exists to protect Americans . . . all over the world,” he said.

And Weinberger, who called the strike “a continuation of a very unacceptable course of action,” hinted that the United States may respond to the strike, saying, “I don’t think we have to worry about our reputation.” The Administration has long vowed to retaliate for strikes at U.S. targets.

Earlier Saturday in Kuwait, Foreign Ministry Under Secretary Suleiman Majid al Shaheen reportedly said his country was no longer sure that the missile was an Iranian Silkworm. He said his government could confirm only that the missile was fired from the Iranian side of the Shatt al Arab waterway, which forms part of the recognized international frontier between Iran and Iraq.

Tried to Shoot Missile Down

Shaheen confirmed, however, that Kuwaiti soldiers attempted to shoot down the incoming missile as it sped toward the Sea Isle City, although he gave no details, according to Western diplomats. Diplomats have said that Kuwaiti troops on an island in the Persian Gulf fired a shoulder-held SAM-7 at the incoming missile, but it missed.

There has been speculation that the incoming missile might have been a different kind of missile because it traveled about 60 miles, longer than the known range of the Silkworm, and maneuvered in a more sophisticated way.

But Weinberger, asked specifically about its identification as a Silkworm, said, “Our belief and our information is that it was a Silkworm.”

Earlier in the day, U.S. naval demolition experts had boarded the damaged Sea Isle City at a Kuwaiti port to determine what kind of missile was used in the attack and to inspect the damage it caused.

Shultz said that Iran’s increasingly bellicose action seems to be intended to probe “how we define our red lines”--the point beyond which U.S. retaliation would be automatic--and denied a published report that the United States had spelled out this threshold in a diplomatic note to Tehran.

Instead, Shultz said, the Administration “told Iran that we are there to protect our interests and those of our friends and allies. . . . We will defend our interests, and we are prepared to act in support of them.” He added that the United States would not split hairs to find a graceful way to avoid striking back.

On Friday, in emphasizing that the attack on the Sea Isle City occurred in Kuwaiti waters, Shultz apparently drew a distinction suggesting that protection by U.S. military forces ends once U.S.-flagged tankers enter territorial waters inside the Persian Gulf. Until the attack, the United States had given no indication of the specific limits of U.S. military protection.

Weinberger, however, appeared eager to distance himself and the Administration from any suggestion that U.S. tanker protection is limited to certain locations. The defense secretary, pointedly labeling the Iranian action “an attack on non-belligerent shipping,” said that ensuring “the right of free passage through open waters (is) why we’re in the gulf.”

He outlined his views--and his differences with Shultz’s comments of a day earlier--after reports that the defense secretary is contemplating resignation, though Pentagon spokesman Fred Hoffman on Saturday flatly denied that Weinberger has plans to leave his post.

In his interview, Weinberger was also at odds with Congress over its moves to invoke the War Powers Resolution, which would limit the President’s authority to continue the Persian Gulf escort operation. “Militarily, it puts our forces at great risk because we don’t know what the situation’s going to be in 30, 60 or 90 days,” he complained.

The air of impending crisis in the gulf appeared to recede Saturday with no new Iranian attacks or retaliation. “The United States is waiting to get all of its facts together before doing anything,” one diplomat in the region said.

Friday’s strike was the second missile attack on shipping near Kuwait’s primary export terminal in two days. On Thursday, an Iranian missile hit the tanker Sungari, sending a ball of fire into the sky but causing no casualties.

The Kuwaiti News Agency quoted a shipping company official as saying that the Sea Isle City sustained damage to the control room, pumping room and living quarters. Films of the damaged ship broadcast on Kuwaiti television showed the crew’s quarters destroyed by fire.

One Kuwaiti newspaper spoke with a hospitalized Filipino crewman, who said the incoming missile “looked like an oxygen tank and was smoking at the rear. I told the captain to look, but it was too late.”

Times staff writer Charles P. Wallace in Manama, Bahrain, contributed to this story. Melissa Healy reported from Washington and Norman Kempster from Jidda, Saudi Arabia.