Read the Opinion piece again. It easily could be written by an outsider with communication to the White House staff. The example they highlight is Russian Foreign policy. He definitely would be in constant communication with this staff at a minimum.
I re-read the piece and nothing convinces me he is not in day to day communication. Huntsmen’s own words. We set policy.
If you have occasion to visit us in Moscow, I will introduce you to hundreds of colleagues, who are the most highly trained in their field with years of experience working in Russia. Representatives of our foreign service, civil service, military and intelligence services have neither the time nor inclination to obsess over politics, though the issues of the day are felt by all. Their focus is on the work that needs to be done to stabilize the most dangerous relationship in the world, one that encompasses nuclear weapons, fighting terrorism, stopping bloodshed in Ukraine, and seeking a settlement of the seemingly intractable Syrian crisis. Their dedication to service to their country is above politics, and it inspires me to the core. It is my standard.
People act as if phones and telecommunication does not exist. The Russian Embassy has hundreds of support personnel, both foreign and domestic. It requires everything from videoconferencing to basic emails. But, the ambassador must maintain constant communication with the Whitehouse.
Nothing in the OpEd indicated that the person served inside the Whitehouse, just that he communicated with the staff.
Jon Huntsmen checks a lot of boxes and thinks it his responsibility to protect the world from politicians.
I spent 28 years as a foreign service officer. As an ambassador, Huntsman would be in regular contact with the State Department (Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasia Affairs and the Russian desk officer.) Even political appointee ambassadors are not in regular contact with the WH. They would be circumventing the Secretary of State. Pompeo would never stand for it.
When I read the op-ed, I am struck by a number of phrases that indicate to me that it was written by someone who considers themselves to be a "true conservative" in much the same way the National Review dedicated an entire issue criticizing Trump for not being a conservative.
For example,
"Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright. I am sure this person dislikes the renegotiation of NAFTA and dropping out of TPP.
In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic. The RINOs and conservatives are free trade advocates. They are globalists when it comes to trade and not economic nationalists.
The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making. Only hardcore conservatives use terms like first principles."
Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations. No doubt a dislike of Trump's treatment of NATO.
If this is an authentic piece from someone within the Administration, I would be looking for a National Review/ Bill Kristol type conservative. This is not an Obama holdover or someone with leftist motivations.