CIA approved Iran report but White House blocks former official's Op-Ed based on it

A former Bush official has been blocked by the White House from writing an Op-Ed for The New York Times based on a report which was already approved by the CIA.

In a letter sent to The Washington Note's Steve Clemons, Leverett points out that his "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."

"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," Leverett writes. "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."

Leverett blasts the conduct of "the White House staffers who have injected themselves into this process" as "despicable and un-American in the profoundest sense of the word."

According to Leverett's sources, the staffers work for "Elliott Abrams and Meghan O'Sullivan, both politically appointed deputies to President Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley."

Here is an excerpt from Leverett's report, "Dealing with Tehran Assessing U.S. Diplomatic Options Toward Iran," as highlighted by Raw Story's managing news editor Larisa Alexandrovna at her blog, At Largely:

#

Unfortunately, the Bush administration is moving at a glacial pace, if at all, toward such an approach. Throughout the administration’s first term in office, the president and his senior national security and foreign policy advisers seemed collectively unable to deal with the imperatives of a comprehensive diplomatic strategy toward Iran. While there have been some tactical adjustments since the beginning of President Bush’s second term, the fundamental strategic deficit in the administration’s approach remains uncorrected.

To be sure, for a year and a half after September 11, the administration pursued a limited tactical engagement with Iran with regard to Afghanistan.

Well before President Bush took office in January 2001, the United States had joined the United Nations’ “6+2” framework for Afghanistan.21 In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration used the cover of the “6+2” process to stand up what was effectively a freestanding bilateral channel with Iran, with regular (for the most part, monthly) meetings between U.S. and Iranian diplomats.

U.S. engagement with Tehran over Afghanistan provided significant and tangible benefits for the American position during the early stages of the war on terror.

At a minimum, U.S. engagement with Tehran helped to neutralize the threat of Iranian actions on the ground, either by Afghan proxies or by Iranian intelligence and paramilitary assets, which could have made prosecution of Operation Enduring Freedom and subsequent post-conflict stabilization more difficult. More positively, engagement elicited crucial diplomatic cooperation from Iran, both during the war and afterwards. Over years, Iran had cultivated extensive relationships with key players on the Afghan political scene, including important warlords in northern and western Afghanistan.

#

'Credit crisis caused by fighting wars and short-term vision'

What we now have is stagflation - stagnation versus inflation. And where we'll soon find ourselves is hyperinflation. [...] Keynes' idea was that if you go into debt, you have to pay it off in good time. It was never his intention to say, 'We've gone into debt, and as long as everything's okay we'll go deeper into debt'. [...] This paper money then went into circulation, and the gold was used as backing for the weapons industry, at which point an arms race started first between France and Germany, followed later on by all other Western countries.

read more

The facts behind the fiction of the Lebanon war of 2006

read more

Webster Tarpley in Amsterdam, July 22nd: Historical changes in false flag terrorism

As students of the manipulation of the political and social process by intelligence agencies through false flag terrorism and through other forms of covert operations, we need to be aware that the intelligence agencies are not Johnny one note, but rather change their tactics as the world political and economic situation evolves.

read more

'Buy gold, rent a house and in the end move to a warm country': financial expert

I've already hedged my own capital by putting 10% of it into gold. I've already transferred my pension into raw materials and raw material shares. I sold my house in 2002, and I've been renting since then. As far as pension funds go, we're currently advising that a minumum of 10% of pension assets be put into gold.

read more

'House prices collapse by 60% in 7 years'

The housing market is only now starting to collapse, but soon it will be coupled with huge collapses...  

read more