Steve Clemons has a statement from Flynt Leverett about the NSC’s efforts to keep him from publishing a oped in the _NYT_ about Iran. Leverett talked about this during the Friday CAP/TCF event that I “blogged about”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1300/iran-fwiw, but I figured someone else could and would tell the story.

The statement is below, but go read the “whole post.”:http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001829.php

Since leaving government service in 2003, I have been publicly critical of the Bush administration’s mishandling of America’s Iran policy — in two op-eds published in the New York Times, another published in the Los Angeles Times, an article published earlier this year in The American Prospect, and a monograph just published by The Century Foundation, as well as in numerous public statements, television appearances, and press interviews.

All of my publications on Iran — and, indeed, on any other policy matter on which I have written since leaving government — were cleared beforehand by the CIA’s Publication Review Board to confirm that I would not be disclosing classified information.

Until last week, the Publication Review Board had never sought to remove or change a single word in any of my drafts, including in all of my publications about the Bush administration’s handling of Iran policy. However, last week, the White House inserted itself into the prepublication review process for an op-ed on the administration’s bungling of the Iran portfolio that I had prepared for the New York Times, blocking publication of the piece on the grounds that it would reveal classified information.

This claim is false and, I have come to believe, fabricated by White House officials to silence an established critic of the administration’s foreign policy incompetence at a moment when the White House is working hard to fend off political pressure to take a different approach to Iran and the Middle East more generally.

The op-ed is based on the longer paper I just published with The Century Foundation — which was cleared by the CIA without modifying a single word of the draft. Officials with the CIA’s Publication Review Board have told me that, in their judgment, the draft op-ed does not contain classified material, but that they must bow to the preferences of the White House.

The White House is demanding, before it will consider clearing the op-ed for publication, that I excise entire paragraphs dealing with matters that I have written about (and received clearance from the CIA to do so) in several other pieces, that have been publicly acknowledged by Secretary Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and that have been extensively covered in the media.

These matters include Iran’s dialogue and cooperation with the United States concerning Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and Iran’s offer to negotiate a comprehensive “grand bargain” with the United States in the spring of 2003.

There is no basis for claiming that these issues are classified and not already in the public domain.

For the White House to make this claim, with regard to my op-ed and at this particular moment, is nothing more than a crass effort to politicize a prepublication review process — a process that is supposed to be about the protection of classified information, and nothing else — to limit the dissemination of views critical of administration policy.

Within the last two week, the CIA found the wherewithal to approve an op-ed — published in the New York Times on December 8, 2006 — by Kenneth Pollack, another former CIA employee. This op-ed includes the statement that “Iran provided us with extensive assistance on intelligence, logistics, diplomacy, and Afghan internal politics.”

Similar statements by me have been deleted from my draft op-ed by the White House. But Kenneth Pollack is someone who presented unfounded assessments of the Iraqi WMD threat — the same assessments expounded by the Bush White House — to make a high-profile public case for going to war in Iraq.

Mr. Pollack also supports the administration’s reluctance to engage with Iran, in contrast to my consistent and sharp criticism of that position. It would seem that, if one is expounding views congenial to the White House, it does not intervene in prepublication censorship, but, if one is a critic, White House officials will use fraudulent charges of revealing classified information to keep critical views from being heard.

My understanding is that the White House staffers who have injected themselves into this process are working for Elliott Abrams and Megan O’Sullivan, both politically appointed deputies to President Bush’s National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley.

Their conduct in this matter is despicable and un-American in the profoundest sense of that term. I am also deeply disappointed that former colleagues at the Central Intelligence Agency have proven so supine in the face of tawdry political pressure. Intelligence officers are supposed to act better than that.

Steve Clemons did some reporting about the recent resignation of Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the US, and posted it “over at his place.”:http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001826.php

There’s an Iran angle:

Sources also confirm to TWN that Ambassador Turki’s decision to resign not only had to do with his refusal to tolerate the unprofessionalism of Bandar and Massoud — but with the signals that Bandar and Massoud have sent to Cheney, David Addington and others on Cheney’s national security staff that Saudi Arabia would “acquiesce to, accept, and not interfere with” American military action against Iran.

While reports of how far Bandar has gone in supporting Cheney’s desire for military action vary, insiders report that Bandar has “essentially assured” the Vice President that Saudi Arabia could be moved to accept and possibly support American military action against Iran. Another source reports to TWN that Bandar himself strongly supports Cheney’s views of a military response to Iran.

This is the core of the deep divide between Prince Turki and Bandar — which is also a divide between Foreign Minister Saud and Bandar as well.

The tension is about Iran and how to contain Iran. While Bandar and Rihab Massoud allegedly have affirmed Cheney’s views and are perceived to be Bush administration sycophants, Turki was charting a more realist course for Saudi interests and advising the White House to develop more serious, constructive strategies toward the region that would produce stability and not lead to “a terrorist super-highway stretching from Iran through Iraq and rushing through Syria and Jordan to the edge of Israel” — as one source stated to TWN.

Ick.

I was at an “event”:http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2006/12/the_coming_crisis.html this afternoon sponsored by CAP and The Century Foundation. Among other topics, the panelists briefly discussed the likelihood of US military action against Iran.

Because US naval deployments to the Persian Gulf region have been cited by “some”:http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff as evidence of an upcoming US strike on Iran’s nuclear-related facilities, I was reminded of a transcript that I recently received of an October Q&A session with reporters conducted by Deputy Chief of Naval Operations Vice Admiral John G. Morgan, Jr.

Here’s the relevant portion of the transcript (emphasis mine):

Q: Can you give us an assessment of the Iranian naval force and shore-based naval weapons and forces? Is it something that concerns the Navy a great deal, a little bit? How much?

A: Bob we watch what’s going on in that region very closely. We study the Iranian naval activity. I have served in that region and I just talked with one of our admirals that works in that region now. The Iranian naval activity that we’ve seen has been very, very professional. There are professional exchanges between the US Navy. We talk to each other. We want to avoid any miscalculation. We want to avoid any form of accident. They are a professional force.

We look at trends as you can imagine. We try to determine if trends are shifting in one direction or another. *Our naval posture in the region has not changed recently.*

Q: Has theirs? Are they mining?

A: Their activity is normal. We’re very encouraged that there are a whole host of nations represented in the region. They’re contributing to that general maritime security. And that’s the current state of play.