The probability is that 2007 will be a worse year for America's national security portfolio than 2006. I've just been reading thoroughly Bob Woodward's State of Denial, which I had previously read only in snippets.

The book is such a huge indictment of all those who are stakeholders in America's failed crusades in the Middle East, but that has been written in the press before. What really irritates is that Bush hasn't changed his tune.

In President Bush's New Year message, he stated that defeating terrorists "is the challenge of our time, and we will answer history's call with confidence and fight for liberty without wavering."

This could have been Bush's New Year comment in 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, and 2002. Not a note changed.

What was reminded so vividly from Woodward's book was the White House's systematic lack of concern for the many al Qaeda warnings that the CIA and others were waving in front of Bush and then National Security Advisor Rice at point blank range.

I hope that you have a good year and celebration tonight, but I really do fear that the nation as a whole will have an even rougher ride than last year.

-- Steve Clemons

Arlen Specter has impressed me this week by bucking the Bush administration and going to Syria to meet President Bashar al-Assad and then to Jerusalem to meet leading Israeli authorities and pressing for a Palestinian-Israel final settlement. He has even stated that he favors direct talks with Iran.

Specter as reported by the Jerusalem Post:

Specter brushed aside the criticism of his trip to Damascus that was voiced by some in the Bush Administration who argued that his visit, as well as recent visits by three democratic senators, granted legitimacy to the Syrian government. Specter said that as a member of the powerful Senate appropriations committee that sends billions of dollars each year to the Middle East, he was duty-bound to see first hand what was happening in the region.

Specter said that while he acquiesced to the Bush Administration's request not to visit Damascus on previous tours to the region last December and August, "this year in coming it seemed to me that the Administration's program is not working."

. . .The senior Pennsylvania senator said that while he had a great deal of respect and admiration for US President George W. Bush, there were issues with which he did not agree with the president, and that it was his responsibility "to speak up, and do so in an independent way."

. . .Specter reiterated what he said in Damascus earlier this week, that the Syrians were interested in entering into negotiations with Israel without preconditions, and that Syrian President Bashar Assad had told him that in return Syria could be helpful in dealing both with Hamas and Hizbullah.

. . .Specter, who has served in the senate for 26 years, said that the situation in the Middle East is more problematic now than at any time since he was first elected.

"I do not see anyway out except through dialogue," he said. "I do not think there are any assurances that dialogue will succeed, but I think there are assurances that without dialogue there will be failure."

Joe Lieberman signed his op-ed yesterday as the Independent Democratic Senator from Connecticut.

Specter looks to me increasingly like the "Independent Republican Senator from Pennsylvania" and is doing much to revive the template for Middle East regional deal-making encouraged by the Iraq Study Group.

-- Steve Clemons

This is one of those big nights -- the kind Shakespeare was good at capturing and memorializing.

Consequences ahead we think.

-- Steve Clemons

It has been a long time since America has had such a direct hand in the execution of a former head-of-state.

Hussein is was a thug, but this has not been handled right.

The former leader should have been tried at the Hague -- with a lot of distance between the U.S. and the process there. Now he will die and could very well be a martyr that further stresses the divide between Sunni and Shiites -- as well as a martyr for those who oppose American occupation of Iraq.

The other missed opportunity here is that despite Hussein receiving the death penalty for high crimes, the Shiite majority might have sought some way to commute the sentence to life as a gesture of reconciliation with the Iraq Sunni population. Won't happen.

My friend and colleague Nir Rosen stopped by tonight and told me that he thought that Hussein's death would be a minor matter for Sunnis who will be relieved to be rid of him so that those who feel the brunt of their insurgency and opposition to American occupation will know that it has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

I still think that the wobbly government may get more wobbly still.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Senator Lieberman just spent 10 days in the Middle East and still does not get it. He's penned an op-ed calling for more deployed American troops in Iraq.

It's a remarkable essay for just how anti-empirical it is and how he can so easily waft platitudes about America's engagement in the region after actually seeing the miserable results of more than three and half years of military occupation of Iraq by us.

In the very first paragraph, Lieberman writes:

While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States.

Many critics of this war -- including this blogger -- always worried that our engagement would trigger a regional conflagration and that removing Iran's "balancer" would have huge effects throughout the Middle East and fuel Iran's pretensions as a hegemonic force. Where is Lieberman's confession that he and others were warned of this and didn't see it coming?

And what really irritates is his depiction of the extremists, who he inappropriately ties to Iran. The extremists in many cases are angry Sunnis who want their place back in society, who despise Iran and now the Shiites as well as us.

Lieberman should have seen in Iraq that America is now supporting the guy Iran wants -- al-Maliki. Lieberman's entire depiction of the good and the bad in Iraq are ridiculous and remind one of Soviet era depictions of the enemy in Afghanistan.

Later in his esssay, Lieberman shifts the profile of his "thugs and extremists" to be those "who have the least interest in peace and reconciliation." Now, Iran seems to be out of the picture here -- though they were a primary driver of his fear-mongering at the start of the piece.

He suggests that:

The most pressing problem we face in Iraq is not an absence of Iraqi political will or American diplomatic initiative, both of which are increasing and improving; it is a lack of basic security. As long as insurgents and death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq's nascent democratic institutions cannot be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people.

What Lieberman doesn't understand is that his realization of the "security problem" is not new. Our forces have been struggling for a number of years now and not solving this problem. Our troops are considered by many in Iraq to be just another militia among many -- or to even be the primary cause of the insurgency for others. Senator Lieberman fails to deal with either of these impulses behind the violence.

And he seems to be advocating just starting from scratch. Just get the security problem fixed.

With what Senator Lieberman? Do you honestly believe that twenty thousand troops will matter in this mess?

Zbigniew Brzezinski -- who believes we should withdraw in order to trigger a round of stabilizing deal-making between the chief thugs inside Iraq -- suggested in January 2005 that it would take 500,000 troops to occupy and stabilize Iraq. After considering the crimes at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and the collapse of America's moral prestige, Brzezinski said that not even that number of troops might succeed.

So, what is Lieberman suggesting other than doubling up on an extremely bad bet he and others made on a war that should not have been fought? Lieberman, who is smart on so many other issues, has become utterly blind when it comes to sensible applications of military force and American influence.

Lieberman writes:

On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.

Senator Lieberman, let their be no doubt that the outcome you fear was totally predictable -- and was triggered by you and the other enablers of this war. Where is your humility and your own ownership of the consequences of what you have unleashed? Where is your realistic answer to what must be done to establish a NEW equilibrium of interests in the region?

Where is the political and diplomatic aspects to your suggestion on what next should be done? Do you see this only in military terms -- if we just had a few more troops now?

Lieberman mentions a single colonel who ran up to him and said: "Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it."

Lieberman needed to talk to more colonels. I hear from a lot of them -- and from less decorated soldiers in the field. The views on this war are mixed and the morale among our soldiers low as it has taken the President years to finally see that victory was not ever achieved.

This is Bush's war. But it is Joseph Lieberman's too -- and every Member of the House of Representatives and Senate who don't have the ability to open their eyes and be square with the public that huge mistakes were made and that America's precipitous loss of influence in the world can't be easily fixed.

The first step though is assuring Americans that the same kind of reckless gamble that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the Lieberman-types in Congress won't be made again.

But what does Lieberman want to do -- just pour more American dollars and American lives into the morass of Iraq.

-- Steve Clemons

Greetings from the pups, Oakley and Annie.

Some of you wanted some more pics, so here is one of the two new best pals. Annie seems to be tilting towards Obama, and Oakley can't decide between McCain and Hillary.

I am working on broadening their options.

-- Steve Clemons

Say what you want about Bob Woodward (and I've said a lot of it), the guy gets people to talk. While Ford talked to me about sports, Woodward talked with him about strategy and what he thought of our nation's national security helmsmen.

Behind the bland veneer of President Gerald Ford, there was a seemingly solid realist and Machiavellian strategist -- with both policy objectives and personnel.

That's the read I get out of this fascinating Bob Woodward interview with Ford that was embargoed until the former president's death.

I need to learn Arabic. One of my good friends, Raghida Dergham, who is the New York-based senior diplomatic correspondent for Al Hayat, sent a link to me today that has some things to say about this blog.

It's from the Arab news service and web portal, Elaph. I have no idea what it says but hope it's good.

-- Steve Clemons

A number of TWN readers have emailed me asking me to comment on President Ford's passing. So much is out there now about him -- in a strange blizzard of confessionals about how liked and admired he was (for the most part) -- despite being mostly ignored for decades.

I really don't have much to say about the late President Ford. I met him three times -- and one of those at Richard Nixon's funeral which I attended and had some role. All the former presidents were there -- and the then current one, Bill Clinton.

At the funeral, both just before the ceremony started and at the reception following, I spoke with Ford who wished Dimitri Simes (president Nixon's latter day Henry Kissinger), Library Director John Taylor, and me well with what was then called the "Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom" (now the Nixon Center).

As I knew Nixon -- though not well -- I think Ford thought that I would be well-trained in sports banter and tried that out on me. I don't follow any sports -- accept maybe at that time 12 and a half years ago I was into the marathon crowd.

I received an email the other day from John Edwards and his campaign -- not yet over the line on running for president -- but asking me (and lots of other Americans) if I am going to "get ready" to change things.

He's gearing up and plans to announce tomorrow. Edwards will be a player and has the tightest hold on big labor of any of the candidates, Hillary and Barack included.

John Edwards wants to invite you to some of his shin-digs. Here is a roster -- with free tickets.

-- Steve Clemons

Wow. I just got the December 27th roster of awarded defense contracts.

Perhaps they thought that between Christmas and New Year's, not that many folks would pay attention.

But seriously, we spend a lot of money killing people securing the world.

-- Steve Clemons

Senate Foreign Relations Committee incoming Chairman and just declared presidential candidate Joseph Biden is avoiding John Kerry's political problem and not planning to say "I voted for it before I voted against it" by opposing the President's plan to surge troop levels in Iraq on the front end.

The President has set a political trap for Democrats in two military arenas -- one focused on Iraq deployments and the other on the overall size of the U.S. military at home and abroad.

Bush's first trap has drawn many leading Democrats into advocating a surge in troop levels in Iraq somewhat mindlessly -- without a broader serious discussion of performance benchmarks that ought to precede any further build-up of US troops.

Another trap the President has set is a call for a larger general military force -- something many Democrats running for higher office will find themselves in a knee-jerk supportive position -- even though they should be demanding more dialogue about what a larger military would achieve for or cost the nation.

In my view, it is consistent with the President's irresponsibility in managing the Iraq War that he has failed to couple any discussion of reversing his vaunted tax cuts to a discussion of new investments in the overall size of America's military.

Secondly, by focusing on the numer of overall troops in the military, President Bush is trying to seduce the nation (and Democrats running the Congress) into believing that if only the military were larger, our problems would be solved.

But as a number of smart folks have been saying for quite a long time now:

THE SOLUTION IN IRAQ AND THE MIDDLE EAST IS DIPLOMATIC AND POLITICAL -- NOT MILITARY.

Biden is getting it right. Here are a few of Senator Biden's websites that deserve your attention:

www.JoeBiden.com

www.UniteOurStates.com/blog/

www.PlanFoIraq.com

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

Iraq's government institutions -- particularly its courts -- have not hardened in the short time they have been functioning during the slap-shod democracy that the U.S. has helped prop up. While Iraq had widespread participation of its citizenry in recent elections, Iraqis do not have faith in their current government which has failed to stop escalating violence in Baghdad and throughout much of the country.

The people just don't believe that this government will survive much longer and think that the institutions that have been created and reformed since Saddam's fall are incredibly wobbly.

In particular, the courts just don't have legitimacy in the eyes of too many Iraqis who are going to see the execution of Saddam Hussein as further consolidation of Shiite power against Sunnis.

In my view, Hussein has committed outrageous crimes for which he should be held to account. However, I can just as well think of many others who have evaded responsibility on our side of the equation for errors in judgment combined with duplicity that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.

But Hussein was a monster -- no doubt. But he was at times "our monster." He was also a "controllable monster," and a classic kind of thug whom we could have dealt with in ways far smarter and less crippling to this nation and its military.

But we need to be clear-eyed about the possibility that Saddam Hussein's execution at the instruction of Iraq's highest courts and judges -- which many Iraqis see as puppets under American control -- may actually have an enormous negative impact on the survivability of the current government and could ignite a much higher octane of nasty civil war inside Iraq.

The track has been laid. I don't see any way that Hussein can escape execution -- but everyone involved needs to realize that Hussein is no longer just a criminal, thuggish, murderous tyrant in the eyes of most Iraqi citizens.

To many, he has become a defiant leader fighting American oppression and someone who portrays himself as a proud and ferocious Sunni force. Many Sunnis want him back -- and we need to prepare for something big, very big, when he dies.

-- Steve Clemons

Oakley and Annie send their best -- this blogger too.

-- Steve Clemons

I lost two friends recently, one was older and frequently ill and the other was as healthy as (I think) I am. I want to mention them here and salute them because I learned a lot from both.

We all lose folks -- part of life. But losing people for the wrong reasons -- as in the Iraq War in which the country is now mired -- is so sad. I didn't lose my friends that way but I often think about people I know and don't know caught up on the front line of this war and appreciate what they are doing -- even though I think that they have been sent into the worst kind of war -- one which will undermine the very society they believe they are protecting.

While I never believed that the sanctions measure being prepared by the UN Security Council against Iran would have had much effect on Iran, "losing" too many of these initiatives in which the U.S. has invested in -- particularly ones that mostly have symbolic significance -- become benchmarks for America's declining influence and the rise of "others."

In this case, the rising power is Russia, which is clearly back big time in the diplomatic game.

Check this out in the New York Times. This oped was creatively, graphically presented in the paper today and attests to a new and disturbing kind of White House politicization of intelligence.

This morning getting stranded at Reagan National Airport on the edge of a fun holiday was not fun -- but far less of an ordeal for the thousands of passengers stranded in Denver.

Happy holidays -- in advance -- to all. And a huge thanks to those of you who have been remembering The Washington Note during your holiday and end of the year giving. We really appreciate the financial support -- and emotional, political, and moral support -- you give this blog.

There is a paypal link on the blog for those of you who wish to make a donation -- and some have asked for an address to send cards, checks, etc. For those of you who prefer mail, my address is:

Steve Clemons

The Washington Note

1630 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 7th Floor

Washington, DC 20009

Now for fun -- so many of you have asked about Annie -- Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner's new little sister. Here are some pics -- below and above -- that should make your day (and week) an even happier one.

More soon -- thanks again -- and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

-- Steve Clemons

For those up at 3 am when the morning newspapers are uploaded to the web, rush to the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Unless lawyers or other news get in the way, two very important pieces will be up.

The first in the New York Times will be Flynt Leverett's and Hillary Mann's CIA-censored op-ed based on his new paper, "Dealing with Tehran: Assessing US Policy Options Towards Iran." But, op-ed page editor David Shipley will add some "graphic flair" by posting the original op-ed that the CIA reviewed after White House National Security Council staff insinuated themselves into this normally intrigue-free process. The op-ed will run with the blacked out, redacted lines "blacked out." Very cool.

Then front page Washington Post. Robin Wright will have an important article that digs deeply into the tension between the recently resigned Saudi Ambassador to the United State Prince Turki al-Faisal and the Saudi National Security Advisor Prince Bandar bin Sultan. (Update: This important article by Robin Wright has been delayed by at least one day and perhaps until Sunday.)

According to sources, Wright gets pretty far into the royal family drama and looks at how rival "clusters" of royal brothers have used policy differences over Saudi Arabia's relations with the US, concern over Iran, and strategic direction in the Middle East as ways to wage combat that is at the same time both about genuine policy debates as well as about future royal succession and advancement to influential government positions.

Robin Wright's article may also get into the intricacies of Vice President Cheney's relationship with Prince Bandar -- and will delve into which of them is gaming the other. I had been writing that Bandar and his staff, particularly his close aide Rihab Massoud, continued to get status and power in Saudi power circles because of the former Ambassador's extremely close relationship with the Vice President.

However, others I have spoken to since suggest that I have the situation backward -- and that it is Cheney, and others like Colin Powell and George Bush who are pawns in Bandar's world. A source has intimated that Robin Wright's big piece tomorrow may touch on this subject.

TODAY (though I think it made the news yesterday), Representative Louise Slaughter has written to the President to ask why specifically Flynt Leverett's oped for the New York Times was censored.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: For those of you traveling today -- particularly on United Airlines -- I really feel for you. I am a 1K, semi-privileged flyer on United and had my flight out of Reagan National Airport to Las Vegas cancelled this morning with a United staffer telling me that the only thing that they could get me on was three days from now.

I'm now staying in Washington for the holidays -- but I strongly empathize with the many out there who are not only dealing with weather challenges but also airlines that don't know how to deal with the occasional, semi-predictable hiccup. Three days wait for a 1K member? That's not good United. And it must be even worse for those without travel status.

-- Steve Clemons

For Saudi watchers, some fascinating news has just made its way to The Washington Note.

A former staffer at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, ADEL AL-JUBEIR, who comes from a distinguished, yet non-royal family, has risen to such levels of esteem in the estimation of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah that he has been appointed the next Saudi Ambassador to the United States.

This is quite remarkable news. One of the rumored successors to Prince Turki al-Faisal, who recently resigned as Ambassador in Washington with plans to depart at the end of January 2007, was Prince Turki's cousin, Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf Al-Saud, who is currently Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Prince Mohammed succeeded Prince Turki in London after having served as Ambassador to Italy after Turki was assigned to Washington. Many expected Prince Mohammed to move to Washington, but family concerns kept the Ambassador in the United Kingdom.

Wanting someone trusted and close -- closer than family to some degree -- King Abdullah has now appointed his personal foreign policy advisor to serve as his Ambassador in Washington. Abdullah met the relatively young Adel al-Jubeir in Washington some years ago -- when he was Director of Communications at the Embassy. Adel's brother, Nail Al-Jubeir, now holds the very same position that Adel once heldo in Saudi Arabia's Washington Embassy.

When King Abudullah was Crown Prince he briefly met al-Jubeir on a trip to the United States and subsequently requested that he become the Crown Prince's foreign policy advisor.

Adel al-Jubeir's appointment will be formally announced after the U.S. Department of State notifies the Saudi government that al-Jubeir's credentials will be accepted. "No problems are anticipated," according to an insider source.

More later -- but this is fairly big news.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a day packed with interesting stuff. My colleague Flynt Leverett -- Senior Fellow and Director of the Geopolitics of Energy Initiative at the New America Foundation -- will be paired with Brookings Scholar Kenneth Pollack on The Diane Rehm Show at 11:00 am EST.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: Also check out on C-Span today at 2:20 pm EST a great program from yesterday -- "After the Iraq Study Group Report: Possibilities for a Comprehensive Arab-Israeli Peace on All Fronts" -- with New America Foundation's Middle East Policy Inititiative Director DANIEL LEVY as well as American Task Force on Palestine President Ziad Asali, Ori Nir of Americans for Peace Now, and Geoffrey Aronson of the Foundation for Middle East Peace.

-- Steve Clemons

This is an alert for a program I will be chairing today with my colleague Michael Lind speaking on the subject: "What Comes Next? American Foreign Policy After Bush."

The event will air LIVE on C-Span from 12:15 pm to 1:45 pm EST. I will be offering my own comments and reactions as well.

If you can join us in person, all the better. Just come over -- no time to RSVP. Use my name at the door.

From the invite:

Michael Lind, author of the provocative new book The American Way of Strategy, will argue that trends in the years ahead favor conflict, not peace, both in the Middle East and the world, and that not only neoconservatives but also "realists" may be too optimistic about the remaining two years of this presidency and the first few years of the next.

Former Congressman and almost presidential candidate Dave McCurdy has just been announced as the new President & CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

How times have changed. McCurdy was one of the former major targets of Congressman Tom DeLay who tried to block the hiring of "Dems" by trade associations, corporate offices, and other lobbying groups who wanted to continue to have "working relations" with the then Republican controlled Congress.

While McCurdy prevailed over the megalomania of Tom DeLay -- the fight was vicious and sent a cold shiver through the rest of Washington's K Street community. High profile Dems had a tougher time getting hired.

Dave McCurdy was a popular Democratic Congressman in the red state of Oklahoma long before most folks were thinking about blue and red states in quite so vivid terms. McCurdy was a favorite in New Hampshire circles in 1992 and was pushed hard to run for his party's presidential nomination. He opted not to run -- but he was the person who formally nominated then Governor Bill Clinton for President at the 1992 Democratic National Convention.

When Clinton won the presidency, Bill Clinton and his then chief of Staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty preferred Dave McCurdy for the top Pentagon spot. Hillary Clinton and George Stephanopoulos preferred Les Aspin, who ultimately got the job. In a consolation move -- McCurdy was offered the directorship of the CIA, which he rejected but suggested R. James Woolsey -- a fellow Oklahoman.

McCurdy knows that I am not the greatest fan of Woolsey whom I believe has profited a bit too much in his financial wheelings and dealings on this war -- while brave American men and women have been fighting on the front lines as he fans the flames as a pundit. But Woolsey has also been active in an effort to build more awareness of the need to get America off its heavy addiction to Middle East oil -- something I support.

In my view, McCurdy should be this nation's next Secretary of Defense -- that would be a smart move for any future president. He gets it when it comes to thinking about "contingencies of the future" rather than defending a bloated military and intelligence structure still too designed for managing yesterday's challenges.

Dave McCurdy could be one of the potential new architects of a more robust alliance between the auto sector and environmental groups on a more positive policy agenda on energy and the environment. I hope to work with him on that front -- and hope many others in the progressive community will as well -- even with James "Jihad Jim" Woolsey.

But a Dem heading the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers?

That's Andy Card's old job. Times really have changed.

(press release here)

-- Steve Clemons

Today, while Flynt Leverett was speaking at a program I was chairing at the New America Foundation, White House spokesman Tony Snow was fielding a question on Flynt Leverett's charge that the White House was politicizing the "secrets clearing" process and punishing policy critics who had previously worked with classified policy material.

Snow's response was hilarious. As Think Progress points out, Tony Snow denied that the White House censored Leverett after saying he knew nothing about the matter.

You can watch Tony Snow's response at the Think Progress site.

Flynt Leverett's speech today is airing repeatedly on C-Span and a digital video link is available here.

-- Steve Clemons

(New America Foundation Middle East and Energy Policy expert Flynt Leverett; photo credit: The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer)

John Bolton when he served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security was famous for pounding intelligence officials hard until they coughed up intel reports and "frames" that fit the political objectives he had in mind.

The practice of politicizing intelligence in the Bush White House seems to be continuing with "friends lists" and "enemies lists" determining who should be rewarded or punished in the "secrets-clearing process" in cases where former goverment officials publish materials on U.S. foreign policy debates.

In an unprecedented case, the White House National Security Council staff has insinuated itself into a "secrets-clearing" process normally overseen by the CIA Publications Review Board which screens the written work of former government officials to make sure that state secrets don't find their way into the op-ed pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, or in other of the nation's leading papers, journals, and books.

Flynt Leverett, a former government official who worked at the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of State, and on the National Security Council staff of the George W. Bush administration, is now a senior fellow and Director of the Geopolitics of Energy Initiative at the New America Foundation.

He has written numerous books, manuscripts, working papers, and many dozens upon dozens of some of the most important public policy op-ed commentary on American engagement in the Middle East and has always dutifully submitted his materials to the CIA's review process. Never -- not even once -- has been a word or item changed in anything submitted.

The White House has now forced the CIA to heavily censor a 1000 word op-ed draft planned for the New York Times that is based on a much larger product he produced under the sponsorship of the Century Foundation titled "Dealing with Tehran: Assessing US Diplomatic Options Toward Iran." (A pdf of the article can be downloaded here.)

Leverett believes that the White House is now politicizing the "secrets review" process and is rewarding those who support Bush's policies and punishing those don't.

Flynt Leverett's official statement -- sent to this blogger tonight -- follows:

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.

Flynt Leverett will also be speaking at the New America Foundation on Monday, 18 December, 12:15 pm EST on the subject of "Dealing with Tehran." I will be moderating the meeting and also offering comments.

This event will air live on C-Span at the same time.

I am positive that Leverett will comment extensively on this unprecedented and disturbing policy of punitively censoring former government officials of the Bush administration engaged in constructive policy debate.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: Larisa Alexandrovna and Juan Cole weigh in.

My colleague Flynt Leverett will be speaking on the subject, "Dealing with Tehran," at a New America Foundation/American Strategy Program on Monday, 12:15 pm EST. I will be moderating the meeting and offering comments as well.

This meeting is open to the public and RSVPs should go to wu@newamerica.net.

Leverett's responsibilities as head of Middle East affairs in the National Security Council during part of the first term of the George W. Bush administration give him unique insights into the President, his team, and how they perceive the challenges in the Middle East. Two months ago, Leverett wrote a piece for the American Prospect that called for tough-minded but direct negotiations with Iran and Syria -- both avenues of which have been rejected thus far by the White House.

To add to the drama surrounding Leverett's talk, which reflects on an important new Century Foundation paper he released Friday -- "Dealing with Tehran: Assessing US Diplomatic Options Toward Iran" -- the White House National Security Council and the CIA are censoring Leverett's "op-ed" on the history of negotiations between Iran and the U.S. -- and are censoring material normally and in most cases previously approved or largely available already from public sources in what appears to be a punitive action against Flynt Leverett and his wife -- also a former National Security Council and State Department staff member -- Hillary Mann. Stay tuned for more on this battle.

The pdf of Leverett's latest article can be downloaded here.

Leverett is a senior fellow and directs the Geopolitics of Energy Initiative in the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation.

The session will be carried "live" on C-Span on Monday.

-- Steve Clemons

I would rather have Lincoln Chafee on board our team as a Distinguished Scholar at the New America Foundation, but Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies beat us. (We have Gary Hart with us. Maybe we can arrange a sharing agreement?)

Starting in January 2007, Senator Chafee -- a Brown alum -- will be a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Watson Institute -- and this blogger highly recommends that students, donors, academics, staff soak up what the Senator has to say about America's shaky standing in the world, missteps in the Middle East, and the need to invest in some serious "constructive" revamping and improvement of our key international institutions.

Last night, when I attended a truly star-studded evening of experience-sobered and globally concerned realists at the Nixon Center's Distinguished Service Awards Dinner, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft reflected on the complexity of real challenges today and the pettiness of politics and stated "if we did not have the United Nations today, we could not build one."

More on this later -- but Scowcroftism (which David Frum has derided in the past) and Chafeeism are clearly what this country needs more of.

-- Steve Clemons

(Close aide to Saudi National Security Advisor Bandar bin Sultan, Rihab Massoud)

The escalating tension between Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the current Saudi National Security Advisor and former Saudi Ambassador to the United States, and Prince Turki al-Faisal, who only this this week resigned his position as Saudi Ambassador in Washington, is taking some new and disturbing turns.

An Associated Press story written by Cairo-based correspondent Salah Nasrawi cites a Saudi official as saying that:

Many in the royal family concluded that if he stayed longer, things might even get worse.

While the AP story cites only one official with "close working ties with the Saudi Foreign Ministry," the comment sounds seriously at odds with the reports that TWN has received from dozens of Saudi commentators within and around the Saudi royal family and foreign ministry.

What is clear from reports is that while King Abdullah did not stop an escalation in tensions between Bandar and Turki, no one pushed Turki to leave or resign. In fact, the King expected Prince Turki to find his own way of dealing with Bandar and his staff -- not to resign. If anything, Turki's resignation forces the King to find a way to reconnect Turki and his clan of brothers back to the regent and will probably cause damage to Bandar's loftier ambitions.

Four current Saudi Foreign Ministry officials and one royal family member report to TWN that the "likely source" for Nasrawi's article and the negative commentary about Prince Turki is allegedly Rihab Massoud, a close aide of Prince Bandar who served as Charge d'Affaires in the Saudi Embassy in Washington during Bandar's tenure and frequent absences and who -- while formally a Foreign Ministry official -- is now on leave to serve as Bandar's "No. 2" in his National Security Advisor office.

Massoud is considered by many to be the person who has played the most active role animating and driving the escalating war between Prince Turki and Prince Bandar. One person called Massoud Bandar's "Rasputin". Another called Massoud a "flamboyant, mean-spirited vassal of Bandar" who has tried to maintain power and status through obsequiousness to Cheney and his team.

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.

-- Steve Clemons

(Steven Clemons and Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Prince Turki al-Faisal at 31 July 2006 New America Foundation/American Strategy Program salon dinner; speech text and story)

The New York Times' Helene Cooper has an important piece out today on Ambassador Turki's resignation and some of the surrounding context.

Turki's predecessor in his job, Prince Bandar, who was Saudi Ambassador to the US for 22 years, is reportedly jealous of the rave reviews Turki was getting in Washington -- and has been jockeying with Turki in Washington power circles by continuing to manage his own White House relations and contacts throughout Bush world without consulting and coordinating with Ambassador Turki.

Whereas Ambassador Turki has been forthright with the Bush White House about Saudi views of what America needed to be doing in the Middle East -- particularly with regard to checking Iran's growing power, dealing with Israel's flamboyant response to Hamas and Hezbollah incursions earlier this year, moving Israel-Palestine negotiations from pathetic illusion to reality, and getting the calculus in Iraq on a more constructive course -- Bandar is perceived to be somewhat of a "good old boy" by the Bush crowd and somewhat sycophantic when around Bush and Cheney.

Saudi sources report to TWN that Turki is highly irritated by Bandar's "immaturity, unprofessionalism, and self-indulgent political games." These are strong words in nearly any context -- but these kinds of visible cracks in the Saudi royal family are usually fairly well hidden and massaged.

Some believe that King Abdullah's failure to stop an escalating feud between Bandar and Turki was a serious miscalculation by the King and also illustrates the challenges the King faces in managing and rationalizing leadership succession to the throne among rival family factions.

Bandar, who is eager to succeed Foreign Minister Saud and Prince Turki's brother as the next Saudi Foreign Minister, may have overplayed his hand in lobbying for the job.

The King is now in a position that if he loses both Saud as Foreign Minister because of health and then loses Prince Turki, he's lost two of the key brothers in a cluster of children of the former King Faisal who have been key allies of his during his reign and are clearly part of the modern, reformist, and professional/less corrupt parts of the Saudi ruling family.

The King may be compelled after all of this to return to Turki al-Faisal to succeed his brother as Foreign Minister to assuage that clan and consequently to push back Bandar's ambitions -- and essentially, punish him for the antics Bandar has been engaged in.

-- Steve Clemons

(Steve Clemons and Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Prince Turki al-Faisal)

This is bad news.

There has been no formal announcement by the Saudi government yet -- but sources have reported that HRH Prince Turki al-Faisal has resigned his job as Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the US.

Sources report that the Ambassador's decision has come after a long bout of battles with anti-reformers in the Saudi government. Turki, according to one source, believes that these are critical times and that the kind of intrigue that others in Saudi political circles want to play is a waste of his time, energy, and beneath him.

Prince Turki, however, has been a significant "truth-teller" to the Bush administration and has been one of the key players in resurrecting the Saudi proposal on Palestine-Israel negotiations. He is the two-decade long former chief of Saudi intelligence and is considered by many in the Saudi establishment to be one of the sharpest and shrewdest among Saudi elites.

King Abdullah has reportedly accepted Turki Al-Faisal's resignation, according to sources -- but some are hoping that the King and Ambassador Turki reconsider this and reverse what some consider to be a silly and distracting escalation by petty back-stabbers jealous of Turki's role and intellectual abilities.

-- Steve Clemons

OK -- I am off to former Oklahoma Congressman and Electronics Industry Alliance President Dave McCurdy's home for his annual, awesome holiday party.

But TIVO is set for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart who will have Senator Lincoln Chafee on tonight. No doubt John Bolton will come up -- but Chafee was also articulating sensible positions on the Middle East before it became the fad it recently has.

My former New America Foundation pal, Laurie Rubiner, who is now Hillary Clinton's Legislative Director used to do health policy for Lincoln's dad, Senator John Chafee. And she does an incredible impersonation of the late, tough as nails, with a Northeastern twang, Rhode Island Senator.

Jon Stewart should have had Laurie on the show to meet up in 'John Chafee persona' with son Lincoln. Would have been "neat".

Watch Chafee wrestle with Stewart. In my book, he is very cool and ought to be our deal-maker envoy to the Middle East.

-- Steve Clemons

Barack Obama is sizzling -- and now he's flirting with New Hampshire.

There is no doubt about it -- and it looks like what was a Mark Warner-Hillary Rodham Clinton battle will increasingly look like a primary battle between Hillary and Barack Obama. Edwards is still in -- but he's not getting much oxygen in the press. I still like Wesley Clark as well.

The next campaign will be about the Iraq War, potentially the Iran War -- and a competition of "personal narratives" -- what each of these candidates overcame in their lives.

McCain, Obama, Clinton, Clark -- all have compelling narratives.

I was just traveling in the UAE with the first woman Governor of New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen, and her Democratic powerhouse husband Bill Shaheen. As hard as I tried, I didn't get any sense of who they might support in New Hampshire in 2008.

Wesley Clark was also in Dubai and good some good face time with the Shaheen political franchise.

The campaigns they have helped run or chaired included Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Al Gore and John Kerry. While their candidates aren't batting 1000 on getting into the White House -- they certainly have a good record for New Hampshire primary wins.

-- Steve Clemons

One of the things that most impressed me when I was in the UAE this past week was the sensible, informed perspective that every single government official I met had. There was no anti-Israel jingoism among government elites, though i can't say the same about people in the private sector. UAE elites are very shrewd realists about their situation -- and they are clearly becoming the Hong Kong or Singapore of the Middle East.

There was instead a belief that the entire region was at a cross-roads where either an incredible stormy and politically convulsive future faced them or alternatively, that a new "equilibrium of interests" could be reached that would take guts and brilliant statecraft.

That said, there is something to keep in mind when Americans pontificate about what Arab regimes should or should not do.

They have a much more serious terrorism problem than we do.

A senior national security official in the UAE reported to me that they have uncovered 28 plots inside their country -- mostly al Qaeda and a handful Hezbollah.

This was surpising to me as there has been little to no reporting about the UAE's problems with domestic terrorism -- and I had never heard of Hezbollah activities anywhere outside of Lebanon.

This revelation was not to hype a threat. It was a comment shared to give those of us in a small meeting with this official some sense of the overlapping complexities in the region today. This person preferred a quiet approach to solving these problems and dealing with the political agendas driving the terror groups. This person's approach was as sensible as one could imagine -- and nothing like we have seen out of Washington.

-- Steve Clemons

This is from a discussion between former Secretary of State James Baker and Anderson Cooper on Wednesday evening, 6 December 2006 on Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees:

COOPER: And is it possible that getting the U.S. troops out will actually lessen that violence, that it will at least take away the motivation of nationalist insurgents?

BAKER: Many people have argued that to us. Many people in Iraq made that case.

COOPER: Do you buy it?

BAKER: Yes, I think there is some validity to it, absolutely. Then we are no longer seen to be the occupiers. We're still going to have a very robust -- forced presence in Iraq and in the region for quite a number of years after this thing sorts itself out whichever way it sorts itself out. We have to do that because we cannot -- we have vital national interests in that region.

We have the problem of al Qaeda. We cannot leave the country to be a Taliban-like base for al Qaeda. So we're going to have a -- we're going to maintain even after we do what we said here, there's still going to be a lot of force protection combat capability, a lot of training, equipping and supporting, and there will be rapid reaction teams and special ops forces to chase al Qaeda.

Let's give this a reality test -- or a partial one.

None of the top tier strategists I met from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Jordan, or Egypt -- none of them -- thought that America could achieve its interests in Iraq with a smaller force.

While strategic analysts differed tremendously on what America should do -- some advocating a regathering of confidence and forces in a coalition to bump up stewardship of and security in Iraq while others advocated total withdrawal -- none saw a draw-down to a smaller presence without combat brigades as solving any fundamental problems of the state. In fact, they argue that if "God wills" the talibanization or al Qaeda-ization of Iraq or deems that it should become a vassal state of Iran -- a smaller presence of US forces in Iraq will not prevent that outcome.

They suggest that either a complete withdrawal or a massive surge in presence are the only two options that might affect Iraq's course. A withdrawal could lead, in the view of some of these strategists, to circumstances that actually "undercut" Shia domination and actually revive Sunni participation in the equation inside Iraq.

Alternatively, some suggest that America needs to de-flag and encourage a substantial increase in troop presence -- perhaps with the French in the lead with Arab and other support in the ranks -- for a massive new commitment to re-configuring the political order in Iraq and "hiring" all of the Iraqi military forces that were disbanded.

I'm not commenting now on how realistic these prescriptions are. But I think it is important to realize that Gulf region Arab strategists uniformly -- in my fairly extensive survey of them this week in Dubai -- think that a more modest base presence of Americans in Iraq in four or five bases actually continues to aggravate a domestic Iraqi insurgency while having fewer resources to solve the security problem.

Withdraw completely -- or increase the troop presence under international colors two or three-fold. This is what Arab strategists recommend.

Probably won't happen -- but seems to me that these thinkers are more schooled in realpolitik and the dimensions of hard core realism than the erstwhile bipartisan team trying to solve George W. Bush's (and America's) Iraq problem.

-- Steve Clemons

Ed Note: Special thanks to Marcia J for sending this clip.

Senator Chuck Hagel gave a speech a short time ago at the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington titled: "A 21st Century Frame of Reference."

Thus far, I like much of the Iraq Study Group's work -- particularly the proposals on how vital a new round of regional deal-making is, with Palestine-Israel as a core piece of that process. However, with all due respect to the Study Group, it is impressive to watch Senator Hagel work and articulate a set of foreign policy proposals on the Middle East that are as good if not better than the ISG.

Frankly, Hagel and other Senators like Lincoln Chafee have been articulating smarter moves in the Middle East over the last couple of years than what we have seen coming from the White House. Much of the ISG report reads like passages from speeches and commentary that both Hagel and Chafee have given in the past.

The entire speech is posted above, but here is one passage I found to be particularly important:

I believe America is coming dangerously close to isolating itself in the Muslim world.

If we continue to lose our political capital with the Muslim world, we will lose our credibility, trust and ability to lead a renewed Middle East peace process and see a further erosion in East-West relations. We may be on a very precipitous course toward an East-West collision.

A Judeo-Christian/Muslim split would inflame the world. In 2005, Gallup conducted a poll in ten Muslim countries -- Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Indonesia, Turkey, Morocco and Bangladesh -- to gauge Muslim views of the United States. Gallup's findings were sobering. Gallup found that a substantial majority of the people in eight of the ten countries do not believe that the United States is serious about improving their well being or that the United States is serious about establishing democratic systems in the Muslim world. The only exceptions were Bangladesh. . .where views were evenly split. . .and Morocco. . .where there remains some trust and confidence in the United States. Across all ten Muslim nations, an average of 60 percent viewed the United States unfavorably. In Saudi Arabia, our unfavorable rating was 79 percent. . .in Jordan, 62 percent. . .and in Pakistan, 65 percent. The lowest unfavorable rating was in Lebanon. . .it was 42 percent. I would expect that number has risen in the last year. We must not allow this fracture to occur, and it need not happen.

One of the ten Muslim countries that Gallup polled was Turkey. It is a critically important Muslim country and represents Muslim views of America and the West. It is located at the crossroads between Europe and the Middle East, a geostrategic link of commerce, energy, culture and history between East and West. This Muslim country has a secular democratic government and has been a strong ally of the West since World War II.

Turkey, along with Greece, joined NATO in 1951, two years after NATO was created. A Gallup Poll conducted in October 2006 found that between 2001 and 2005, the percentage of Turks who view the United States as "very unfavorably" jumped from 14 percent to 42 percent. Sixty-two percent of Turks view the United States either "unfavorably" or "very unfavorably." If this trend continues with a new generation of Turks, it will have disastrous consequences for the Middle East, Europe and the United States.

For more than five decades, Turkey has been one of America's indispensable allies. But we are witnessing a dangerous unwinding of a key relationship between the West and Turkey. We must not allow this to become a reality.

Hagel could safely add the UAE to his list of previously friendly and strong allies of the US who are now considering their options for the future.

More later.

-- Steve Clemons

In the buildup to the first Gulf War, President Bush's father put a lot of pressure on Japan to get involved -- preferably with cash to support the U.S. operation. Many perceived Japan to dither but it was the only country in the world to formally tax its population to support the Gulf War, eventually contributing more than $13 billiion.

But at that time, then Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu said Americans play tennis and Japanese play golf -- to explain the difference in response times.

At this week's "Arab Strategy Forum" in Dubai, Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali Larijiani said:

Americans play baseball. We play chess.

Let them come."

After a few days in the UAE, it's clear that everyone here is considering the motives, aspirations, failures, and feints of a wide field of players all playing chess. In fact, if George W. Bush showed -- even mockingly -- that he could play chess, respect for him would tick up a bit.

I have more to say on this region, the Iraq Study Group Report, and the reactions of many here to it later -- but have been in back to back meetings with business people, government officials, and aspiring politicians running in the upcoming National Council elections and haven't had the time I need to post something that would add value to the debate about the ISG. But I will shortly.

-- Steve Clemons

Bravo to General Wesley Clark for making his way to Dubai for the Arab Strategy Forum taking place here this week. It was fun to see him earlier today make his way quickly across the room to kibitz with former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen who I am traveling with this week in the UAE.

Tomorrow, Clark speaks on a panel along with my New America Foundation/American Strategy Program colleague and CNN Terrorism Analyst Peter Bergen. Clark regularly impresses me with his vision of what needs to be done in this region as well as his clarity and bluntness. More on his remarks tomorrow.

I plan to write more when I get a bit more time about various aspects of this conference -- and particular want to mention my brief meeting this morning with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani.

But let me just put something out there that I learned this evening during a 90 minute discussion from one of the most prominent incumbent national security officials in the Middle East:

This senior policy official stated that he had never seen a Secretary of State as weak, disorganized, and without a plan of any kind than Condoleezza Rice -- and this from someone who strenuously insists that he and many other regional foreign policy officials want to be supportive of her and the U.S.

He stated that American withdrawal from Iraq -- despite the growing clamor for that -- would yield a complete change in the profile and character of nearly every one of the Middle East's 22 countries. He said that several governments in the region -- outside of Iraq -- could very easily "and would probably fall."

He said that America would be facing a new roster of regimes that were loyal either to Tehran or to al Qaeda.

He said that there is only one non-military way to break Iran's current course, and that the military option was not credible and would not be supported in the region. This official said that the only way to stop Iran at this point was to make the price of oil plummet.

He said that America could engineer this with coordinated support from oil producers in the Gulf Cooperation Council.

The price of a dramatic increase in oil production would be expeditious movement -- real movement -- on Israel-Palestine negotiations towards a viable state of Palestine and a clear, coordinated plan on Iran.

He said that though the GCC were close, many-decades-long allies of America that the U.S. regularly ignores its regional allies and has not communicated its basic policy course on Iran.

Without a clear and credible plan, there would be no confidence in America's effort to knock back Iran's growing pretensions and nothing would be done on the oil front.

But it seemed clear to me that this prominent person believed that it was well within the power of major oil suppliers to get the price of oil below $40/barrel -- and that this would stifle Iran's growing influence significantly.

He said that America needed only to get re-engaged, set a course, and build allies to move forward -- but that America continues to approach these matters in disconnected, reactive, and ultimately futile ways that show no fundamental understanding of regional realities and demonstrate a lack of strategic vision or common sense.

I cannot divulge this individual's identity, but while I don't agree with every point he made, his comments were extremely candid and very important for American policy makers and strategists to hear and consider.

There was more that he said -- which I will recount when I have more time to think through how to frame his comments responsibly and in a way that protects his identity.

More on this conference and these side discussions soon.

-- Steve Clemons

From time to time, I will invite "guest bloggers" to share ideas and proposals that I feel deserve attention. I may not always agree with the respective blogger. However, in the spirit of principled debate about US foreign policy and national security policy issues, I think it's important to invite some "big ideas" people into the mix. Brent Budowsky and I wrestle about policy proposals and politics frequently via email -- and here is his latest 'full flourish proposal' on deal-making and potential deal-makers in the Middle East.

-- Steve Clemons

The POTUS Plan: Mobilize All Living Former Presidents For A Historic Middle East Peace Initiative

by Brent Budowsky

At this moment of crisis and chaos, it is time for American leaders to lead and lift this land we love, to rally what Thomas Jefferson called the decent opinion of mankind, and to inspire young generations everywhere with a panoramic vision for a lasting peace in the Middle East.

The real America is never a choice between the arrogance of power and the fear of failure, it is the sustenance of military and economic power put in the service of great aspirations of good and decent people everywhere.

President George W. Bush, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Minority Leader John Boehner should announce together that the United States is undertaking a great mission to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East, with the active involvement of every living former American President.

A former diplomat I greatly respect advised me to avoid dwelling on the John Bolton confirmation and to move on to new policy subjects. He wrote:

steve -- he's resigned. let it go. . .you have other and better causes, and it only makes you appear petty and vindictive to continue to harp on the issue. in your terms, you won... be gracious and move on.

He's absolutely right -- and I have in fact tried to do this a number of times, but the administration was as unwilling to let go of the contest as were those who opposed Bolton's confirmation. I believe in graciousness after political battles involving non-elected officials just as much as genuine elections.

Despite a rather loud outcry from numerous TWN readers, I tipped my hat to Ambassador Bolton and wished him well after a post I wrote that was the first among blogs as well as mainstream journalism to call the end to the real battle for Bolton's 'confirmation.'

I want to do the same thing again. I do wish Ambassador Bolton and his family well. He is a brilliant person who cloaked his designs in a style of pugnaciousness and occasional bullying that served his ends -- though I think not as often the country's.

My problem with Ambassador Bolton was never his cosmetic behavior, it was the content of his views and policy objectives, and the numerous times in which he undermined or sabotaged fragile diplomatic efforts underway and conducted by his colleagues and direct superiors.

John Bolton, in my view, saw a significant portion of his job as not to achieve success at the United Nations but rather to set the UN up for failure.

I do hope that I one day get the chance to encounter John Bolton in a public forum and debate national policy with him as well as how civil society managed the debate about his nomination and confirmation process. I commit to be a gentleman and genuinely civil when that future meeting takes place.

Oddly enough, I have been paired increasingly frequently on radio programs and in public policy events with a good friend of John Bolton's from the American Enterprise Institute, Joshua Muravchik. I ran into Muravchik again today at the Arab Strategy Forum here in Dubai -- and Muravchik and I manage quite well a serious ongoing debate about tough policy differences and divergent world views.

I do hope that Ambassador Bolton and some of those who supported and opposed him during his service in the Bush administration maintain a respectable demeanor.

Now for a quick take on outstanding issues, winners and losers, and other thoughts on implications of the Bolton resignation:

1. John Bolton's resignation reflects a loss of ground by Jesse Helms' inspired 'pugnacious nationalists'. It is also a clear loss for Vice President Cheney and his loyal followers. Jim Lobe captures this quite well in a piece he has written tonight on Bolton.

2. Bolton's resignation also hurts Condoleezza Rice in the short term because while she had to "manage" him more frequently than she liked -- often sending Undersecretary for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns to manage the most fragile diplomatic agendas -- Rice now has NO Deputy Secretary of State, and will soon face in January NO Counselor and NO Ambassador to the United Nations.

Losing Robert Zoellick, Philip Zelikow and John Bolton is an awful lot to lose without having clear successsors in place and ready to go. The already stretched thin Secretary of State will be stretched even thinner with Bolton's departure.

3. On the good side, if the White House and State Department get their mutual acts together, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is 'likely' to expedite at lightning speed reasonable, even partly controversial, nominees to both Bolton's UN position and to the Deputy Secretary position. This Bolton Battle won't be replayed soon. I think the incoming Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden will bend over backwards to help Rice get a full team back in place at State as fast as possible.

4. This has not been picked up by the press, but I believe that the theatrical dimensions of the Bolton resignation were designed to make it look like the President was giving up something he really, really wanted in order to encourage Dems to 'de-complexify' the confirmation process of Defense Secretary nominee Robert Gates. Watch for Dems who previously opposed Gates or had serious concerns about his Iran Contra involvement to ratchet down their concerns.

The President's dropping of Bolton may very well be designed to facilitate a fast confirmation process for Gates.

5. Who will succeed Bolton is unclear. I have written about Jim Leach in the past -- as well as many others including Paula Dobriansky and Zalmay Khalilzad.

I think Dobriansky has a strong chance of getting the job as she is respected around DC, is acceptable to both Rice and Cheney, and is not a complete rejection of John Bolton's views. She is neocon-friendly if not a true neoconservative, and she manages diplomacy and achieving America's diplomatic objectives well.

Jim Leach could also be extraordinary -- and Khalilzad could be an important asset there too as a Muslim envoy from America to an institution representing the nations of the world. He is also a well-experienced strategist and diplomat.

There are other choices I won't list here tonight as I think that these three are all qualified and realistic choices given the fact that George W. Bush is going to make the appointment.

6. Finally, it is important to remember that the Bolton Battle was not a true partisan struggle. It was one in which many Republicans covertly supported leading Democrats in the process -- and on the other side, some Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Ben Nelson openly advocated Bolton's confirmation.

Bolton did not get confirmed because of the failure of the White House to either unite the Republican caucus behind Bolton or to select a candidate that was easier for the whole Republican caucus in the Senate to accept. Republicans with a conscience stopped Bolton's confirmation process, with support from the Democrats who were in the minority.

This effort took about 21 months from the time Bolton was nominated for his current position.

It's been a long time. But again, I do insist on tipping my hat to Ambassador Bolton after this long fought campaign and wish him well.

I don't know if the story is true, but one reporter who works for one of the more right of center Northeast publications interviewed John Bolton some time ago and asked him "So are you aware of what the opposition is saying?"

Allegedly, Bolton replied "I tune into The Washington Note every morning."

I don't know if the story is in fact true -- but it was something I thought about often when writing the blog -- knowing that Ambassador Bolton would be reading it.

It's important to maintain balanced but tough debate in our society -- and now it's time to move on to the next big challenges.

Stay tuned.

-- Steve Clemons

I have been 95% sure it was over -- but the administration has always tenaciously held on to that 5% chance -- just as those who opposed Bolton held their grip as well when the administration "acted" as if it had the Bolton nomination ready to ram through the Senate.

It's over. John Bolton Download file">resigned on December 1st as UN Ambassador to the United Nations when Congress adjourns.

If any media want to reach me to discuss this, it's a long distance call to Dubai this week.

The number is:

+971 - 4- 366 - 8888 (ask for Steve Clemons)

More soon on what this means and how it happened.

-- Steve Clemons

I think Donald Rumsfeld is substantially responsible for many of the most vexing problems facing the United States today in the Middle East, but George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney trump him on the accountability front.

However, a classified memo has been leaked to the media in which Rumsfeld personally advised the President to do the following:

1. Boost the number of trainers of Iraqi security forces and supply more equipment.

2. Decrease America's 55 bases in Iraq to 5 by July 2007.

3. Provide security only in cities that actively cooperate with the U.S.

4. Focus reconstruction efforts on cooperative regions -- get out of the uncooperative, turbulent regions.

5. Use U.S. forces to stop infiltration of borders by Syria and Iran.

6. Begin modest withdrawals of US forces to nudge the Iraqis to take more responsiblity.

7. Provide money to religious leaders to get them to be more cooperative with collaborative American-Iraqi interests

8. Get a jobs program going for Iraqi youth

9. Annouce that the U.S. is embarking on a "new approach".

10, And understand that change is needed and that one of the less attactive options is "staying the course".

This is another remarkable Rumsfeld memo.

Remember the Rumsfeld memo long ago that asked whether American policy was leading anywhere and whether American actions were possibly helping to generate more extremists and terrorists rather than less? Rumsfeld asked all of the right questions then -- but in his vaunted position as Secretary of Defense seemed to do very little to respond constructively to the key questions he himself posed.

Rumsfeld's latest memo anticipates some of the positions that the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group will take as well as some of what Senator Carl Levin and other Members of Congress calling for troop withdrawals to begin.

I just watched "The Fog of War" the other night. It's a brilliant, important film -- and Donald Rumsfeld bears an uncanny resemblance in looks and demeanor to Robert McNamara. But clearly, Rumsfeld and his pal, Dick Cheney, and boss, George W. Bush, ignored the lessons that might have been learned from Vietnam and America.

Rumsfeld is guilty for his complicity in duping and lying to the American public about the Iraq War and for failing to take the responsibility for Guantanamo, Haditha, Abu Ghraib, and the shortage of body armor for U.S. soldiers -- among many other bad decisions.

But he is the modern McNamara who was and is smart enough -- as seen by this and previous leaked memos -- to see the right course but did nothing substantial to move a President who was making horrible decisions in a less destructive direction.

-- Steve Clemons

P.S. I'm traveling tonight and tomorrow to Dubai via Kuwait and will be at the Arab Strategy Forum and engaged in various meetings around the UAE all next week.

I'm heading back from Vienna, Austria to Washington, DC today. Had several interesting meetings, particularly with IAEA officials here. The technical expertise of those who work in the guts of the IAEA is extremely impressive.

Looks like the Baker-Hamilton report is getting leaked in bits and pieces. Glad it will say some of the things some of us have been saying for nearly two years. But then again, it's remarkable that the basic findings of the study group are considered achievements.

As one Austrian think tank chief told me last night, it really didn't take rocket scientists or even the star-studded political cast Baker and Hamilton assembled to come up with the roster of policy suggestions being made.

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons