In his book Disarming Iraq, Hans Blix, the former director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, revealed what then French president Jacques Chirac once told him: Western "intelligence services sometimes 'intoxicate each other'."

The Chirac quote came to mind this past week in the aftermath of the Chas Freeman fiasco because its chief protagonist was a prominent former American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) official. What are the consequences of this first political defeat for President Barack Obama and what should diplomats learn to say?

After he withdrew his nomination as chair of the National Intelligence Council (NIC), and as expected from a former high-ranking government official with no further political ambition, Freeman lashed out against the 'Zionist lobby' that presumably derailed his appointment. This smart former envoy, who served his country in various capacities, notably as charge d'affaires in Beijing and ambassador to Saudi Arabia, typically donned the outspokenness shroud in retirement. Like most diplomats who customarily toe the line while in office, he burst out at the first opportunity, in what can only be described as a full release from policies he knew to be detrimental to the US.

Sadly, the frustrations must have been considerable, given Freeman's record in the national security arena, including service as assistant secretary of defence during the Clinton administration.

Still, the frontal assault should not have come as a surprise, especially after his 2003 controversial position to oppose the War for Iraq. In 2006, he delivered a highly unorthodox speech to the United States Information Agency Alumni Association, in which he labelled both American political parties "xenophobic, Islamophobic, Arabophobic, and anti-immigrant." He firmly asserted that Washington under the Bush Administration had become "the planet's most despised nation" and, in a 2007 speech, lamented the fact that Washington identified itself unnecessarily with Israel.

"The brutal oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending," he uttered without fear, not realising that such a bold declaration disqualified him from future government work. Even worse, he dared to assert that oppression existed in the first place, that it was brutal, and that it was a perpetual affair.

Surely, this was unacceptable, but as long as a 'former' official articulated them, such statements could be tolerated. No one with any governance responsibilities would be allowed to say them, however, for one was always trained to display tolerance towards the Jewish community.

Over a very short period of time, Freeman was blasted on right-wing blogs and in what passes for elite publications such as the Weekly Standard, the National Review and The New Republic, as well as the venerable Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. In the latter, Jonathan Chait called Freeman a "fanatic," though no such statements were ever made about thieves such as Bernard Madoff and Richard Fuld. At the speed of light, several members of Congress demanded clarifications.

Some found his associations bizarre. One interpreted Freeman's opposition to specific Israeli policies as nothing more than "irrational hatred of Israel." Another believed that Freeman "orchestrated his own fall," because his advisory service to the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (for which the ambassador allegedly received $10,000 per year for his service) was, to put it mildly, unacceptable.

According to a Virginia Congressman, Freeman received a salary from the Middle East Policy Council that cashed "ample funding from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whose regime is responsible for funding madrassas around the globe that have given rise to Islamic fundamentalists such as Mohammad Omar, leader of the Taliban." Presumably, and while Freeman denying being paid by any foreign government, these transactions disqualified him from the NIC post.

Despite their entertaining value, such declarations were disingenuous given that the anti-Freeman campaign was orchestrated by none other than Steve Rosen, a former AIPAC official who was indicted in 2005 for violating the Espionage Act.

Which brings us back to spying.

According to investigative reporter Christopher Ketcham, "scratch a counterintelligence officer in the US government and they'll tell you that Israel is not a friend to the United States," a declaration that speaks volumes.

In fact, legislators who dare criticise the Jewish state are chastised and defeated (Senators Charles H. Percy of Illinois or Mike Gravel of Alaska come to mind), though politicians are fair game.

Intelligence matters are quite different, however, painstakingly collected data by the FBI over a very long period of time. Some of these highly controversial facts are routinely published in the annual Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage, which list Israel prominently.

In 2005, for example, the FBI noted that Israel maintained "an active programme to gather proprietary information within the United States," which focused on scientific intelligence (read classified defence projects), computer intrusion and wiretaps. A few of these shenanigans are amply documented in The Shadow Factory, a highly informative book by James Bamford published in 2008, that provides corroborative evidence on how the Israeli surveillance industry operates inside the US.

Given these realities, Freeman was nothing more than a sideshow, even though his fate should be a lesson to American diplomats: You have a single opportunity to be honest. Please, do not become intoxicated with the idea that you might get a second chance to correct past mistakes.

Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is a commentator and author of several books on Gulf affairs.