RADIO TV REPORTS, INC.

4701 WILLARD AVENUE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20015

656-4068

FOR NBC

PROGRAM Today Show

STATION WRC TV
NBC Network

DATE March 27, 1980 7:15 AM

CITY Washington, D.C.

SUBJECT Interview with Dr. Henry Kissinger

JANE PAULEY: Again, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has been named by the Iranians, accused would be their word, of intervening on behalf of his old friend the Shah of Iran. Dr. Kissinger is in our Washington studio this morning with Bob Abernethy. And good morning, gentlemen.

BOB ABERNETHY: Good morning, Jane. Welcome, Dr. Kissinger, welcome back.

Reporters keep saying you were involved in some way in the latest negotiations regarding the former Shah, whether he'd stay in Panama or go to Egypt or come to the U.S. You say all those reports are disgusting lies. What's going on?

DR. HENRY KISSINGER: It's a very interesting question, what is going on. I have not been in touch with the Shah or his entourage since he reached Panama. I've not been in touch with anyone in the Panamanian government, in the Egyptian government, in the U.S. government directly or indirectly.

I have taken the position that the responsibility is sat at the U.S. government. My views on the subject are well known. I think we have a national debt based on 37 years of friendship, affirmed by President Carter when he was in Teheran on December 31st, 1977, and that there's no leader in the world to whom he feels the greatest sense of gratitude and friendship. But I have not been involved in any way whatsoever. And whoever is putting out these stories ought to be ashamed of themselves.

ABERNETHY: Do you have a suspicion about who's putting out those stories?

APR 2 1980

OFFICES IN NEW YORK • LOS ANGELES • CHICAGO • DETROIT • AND OTHER PRINCIPAL CITIES

2

DR. KISSINGER: Well, I think it's people who are trying to avoid responsibility. And I must say it's -- I find it passing strange that this happened just after the visit of Mr. Jordan to Panama, that Panamanian officials, with whom I've had nothing to do for three years on any subject, should put out these stories.

ABERNETHY: Let's be very clear. You're blaming the Carter Administration...

DR. KISSINGER: I'm not blaming them. I'm simply saying that there is a campaign of outright lies in which there is not the slightest element of truth. We're not talking of distortions here. We are talking of a mention that then gets repeated on the front pages of newspapers with a little denial at the end of the story that there was something to hide. There is nothing to hide. And if this -- our government, in my view, has the responsibility towards an old ally to let him die in peace somewhere.

ABERNETHY: In Iran there's increasing talk of putting the American hostages on trial. It now looks as if it's going to be summer before the new parliament there gets around to making some decisions about the hostages. I know you feel we should have been tougher in the past, but what about right now? Do you have some specific suggestion that you can make that you think would help get the hostages out?

DR. KISSINGER: I feel it is inappropriate, in a situation as delicate as this, to make tactical suggestions. I think on a hostage question the basic problem is this: at what point does one tell those who hold the hostages, "this is as far as we're going, you can do what you want, we will make no further concessions." It is a difficult decision to make, but until poor in the streets really do not think that they can squeeze any more out of us, and where the penalties for holding the hostages are worse than the benefits, they will have an incentive to delay and delay and delay, which seems to me to have happened.

ABERNETHY: Does the point come when in order to put pressure on Iran we have to risk the lives of the hostages?

DR. KISSINGER: The lives of the hostages are being risked every day that they are there in the nature of things. I have great sympathy for the families of the hostages, for our government that has to make these decisions. But there are three different things going on. There is whatever grievance the Iranian government has against the Shah, which is however being pursued with a brutality that is unprecedented in this century. Secondly, there is the internal upheaval in Iran where they're pushing the revolution of the left. And third, there's the attempt to undermine American prestige in the area and in Iran.

So we have to make sure that we're not creating incentives for the second and third of these objectives in our policy. And

3

I sympathize with the people who have to make these decisions.

ABERNETHY: Dr. Kissinger, Jane has a question in
New York.

PAULEY: Thank you, Bob.

Some Iranians have been all but gleeful over the transfer
of the Shah from Panama to Egypt, saying that Egypt is in a pre-
revolutionary state as it is and the presence of the Shah will
only hurry things along. Do you think Anwar Sadat is foolhardy
in playing such a gracious host to the Shah of Iran?

DR. KISSINGER: I want to repeat that the decision of
the Shah to go to Egypt came, in fact, as a surprise to me.
I think, however, that President Sadat is giving us a testament
to human nobility. Here is a man that for 37 years everybody was
eager to accept his assistance. And all that is involved now is
to let him have an operation in peace and to die in peace. And
I think that Anwar Sadat seems to have the monopoly on courage
and nobility in this matter.

PAULEY: But nobility and courage aren't always the
hallmarks of good foreign policy, as you would know.

DR. KISSINGER: Well, I think that I would not have
recommended it to President Sadat if he had asked my opinion, which
he didn't. He must be the best judge of what he can handle domes-
tically, and my guess would be that he will not lose domestically
for having taken that decision.

PAULEY: Dr. Kissinger, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee today holds hearings over whether the U.S. has a con-
sistent, coherent foreign policy. You heard Dick [Valariani] and
Garrick [Utley] talking about this. You've heard many other people
talking about it. What's the problem as you see it? Is it a
difficult time, bad advice to the President, or is it really the
fault of the President himself?

DR. KISSINGER: I think it undoubtedly a difficult
time. And anybody in office would have to manage many, many
different factors. And it is also true that there has been a
reluctance to impose a central direction on American foreign policy.
The various policy advisors may each be right in their way, but
the attempt to create an amalgam of the different points of view
is likely to create -- is bound to create confusion in foreign
governments. And so I do think there is a sense abroad that
American foreign policy does not have coherence and consistency
and purpose.

ABERNETHY: Ronald Reagan is the clear front-runner for
the Republican presidential nomination. His experience has been

4

primarily as a governor. Do you consider him fully qualified
to lead this country in foreign and defense policy?

DR. KISSINGER: Yes, I think he's fully qualified.
He has stated many objectives with which I agree, and his record
as governor seems to be that he surrounds himself with able
people.

ABERNETHY: Fully qualified inspite of what many people
would consider a great lack of experience?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, any new president has obviously
not had experience in the management of foreign policy. On the
other hand, he has spoken on the issue and I think he'd be quali-
fied.

ABERNETHY: If asked, would you serve in a Reagan Adminis-
tration?

DR. KISSINGER: I think that no one is running for
office. This is a decision that an elected President has to make
and that then one has to make in the light of all the circumstances.
This is not something I have addressed and I'll wait until it
arises. But I have inherent -- I believe that Governor Reagan is
qualified for the office and that every American, if he should get
elected, would have a duty to make him succeed because it's our
country.

ABERNETHY: Dr. Kissinger, many thanks.