Generosity Could Turn Iran Tragedy Into Opportunity

The tragic shooting down of the Iranian Airbus, like death in a family, provides a much-needed opportunity for improving relations among the survivors. The United States now has a chance to move toward a better relationship with the government and people of Iran.

Many will ask, “Do we want good relations with Iran?� After all, Shia extremists, with the tolerance if not the active support of the government of Iran, have seized innocent Westerners and still hold them hostage. Iran still rejects a U.N.-proposed cease-fire in the bloody war with Iraq, now in its eighth year. Iran lays mines in the Persian Gulf. The list of our grievances goes on and on.

If “good relations� required approval of each other’s conduct, then Iran and the United States would not want good relations. We each disapprove of much of what the other does. But between governments, as between business organizations and individuals, what is needed is not mutual approval but the ability to deal sensibly with matters of joint concern. What we want is a working relationship--an ability to work together. The more serious our differences, the more important it is that we are able to deal with them.

More than two years ago President Reagan recognized the goal of a better working relationship with Iranian moderates, and sent arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Improving the relationship was a worthy goal, and doing business of some kind might have been a fair approach but rewarding kidnapers with secret ransom was a disaster. If Ronald Reagan would pay blackmail, it became impossible to persuade kidnapers that others would not also give in.

This week’s tragedy gives us a chance to overcome the terrible setback of the Iran-Contra scandal. If we understand the goal of a working relationship and the strategy of pursuing it, Reagan may be able to change history’s course as Anwar Sadat of Egypt did in flying to Jerusalem. Good joint problem-solving requires reason, understanding, communication, reliability, being open to persuasion and an acceptance of each other as someone who has legitimate interests and a point of view that deserves a hearing.

Such a relationship cannot be bought for arms or dollars. It cannot be bought by giving in to extortion--by appeasement. A working relationship has to be built by actions that deal with the human dimension.

In shipping arms, Reagan wanted to do something for Iran. Now we can do it, not as a reward for criminal conduct but as a consequence of a tragic accident. We can demonstrate our concern for innocent human life not because an ayatollah demands it but because 290 people were killedas a consequence of our tragic mistake. We can show a contrast between the United States and U.S. behavior and that of the Soviet Union not by arguing that our mistake in shooting down the Iranian airliner was somewhat more reasonable than the Soviet mistake in shooting down the Korean airliner but by our being more understanding, more responsive, more decent and more true to the values that we profess.

How might this be done? First, we should be seen as responding to the tragedy--not to any Iranian threat. This means that the sooner generous actions are taken, the better. We might, for example, do the following:

Flags on all U.S. naval ships in the gulf might be flown at half-mast for 30 days (or, better, for an appropriate period under Islamic custom).

Capt. Will C. Rogers III of the Vincennes might ask Iran if he could go to Iran and personally convey his sympathy and condolences to bereaved families of those lost in the crash. (When a Japan Air Lines plane crashed, the company chairman, before resigning, personally called on the family of each victim and conveyed his sympathy.)

The U. S. government could ask the advice of the government of Iran about appropriate ways to provide compensation for the plane, crew and passengers. We could do this not because we admit a legal obligation but because we think that it’s the right thing to do. (The United States paid compensation to Japanese fishermen injured by radiation from our nuclear testing in the Pacific without admitting any liability.) Consulting Iran before we decide on what compensation we think appropriate would do more to build a relationship than could any particular formula or dollar amount on which we might decide.

There is no guarantee that doing such things would move Iran to take steps toward ending the war or releasing Western hostages, but it would be more likely to do so than would our further arguments to justify the quick decision that Capt. Rogers was forced to make.

Peace is not an end to differences but a way of dealing with them. As our two countries face this tragedy side by side, we have a chance to move toward peace.