Iran Analysis: Fall of the Islamic Republic, Pros and Cons (Mohammadi)

Majid Mohammadi writes for Gozaar:

The Islamic regime in Iran is now on a path to demise and it is time to discuss the arguments for and against its survival. Every observer of Iran’s political developments will consider the advantages and disadvantages of this demise.

There have been some letters (Ezzatullah Sahabi) and statements (Mir Hussein Mousavi) describing the developments of the Green Movement and criticising its speed, but they do not offer any definition of moving fast or slow while complaining about the pace of activists’ actions. This requires discussions on the necessity or the lack of necessity to overthrow the Islamic regime, including the background and consequences.

Most of the people who are against the existing government and do not talk about its demise use this position to avoid radicalisation of the political situation and violence. They are aware of the levels of violence and bloodshed in social revolutions and are frightened of repeating the experience of 1979 when the situation went from bad to worse. Nevertheless, the continuation of this regime may lead to more bloodshed, compared to the price that protesters pay to overthrow it.

Those who believe in overthrowing the regime have very clear reasons: inefficiency, its black profile in violating human rights, its despotic character, a long experience of resistance to reform, multiple dead ends and contradictions in the legal system, and institutionalised discriminations and privileges.

Those who still want this regime to survive have one or more of four rationales: 1) they still see this regime as the only vehicle to enforce Islamic ordinances that they believe in; 2) they have embedded political and economic benefits in this regime; 3) they still hope for reform in this regime; and 4) due to the closed media sphere, they do not have enough information on the regimes’ brutalities and wrongdoings.

There is also a group who is against the existing rulers but does not want the regime to fall for several reasons that will be discussed below.

Why is it that some groups who had suffered under this regime do not want it to collapse but only ask for some gradual reforms? On the other hand, why do some groups insist on overthrowing the regime?....

Too Big to Fail

One possible argument [for those who oppose regime overthrow] is based on the enormous size of the Iranian government and the dependence of millions of people on this monster. They believe if this monster collapses, lots of other institutions and networks towards which this huge vulnerable population leans will be affected.

On the other hand, some people would argue that...we should let (the system) collapse because it leaves no room for efficiency and rationality. The state in Iran has grown in size to a level that every group who comes to power will soon be a bunch of dictators. To make the state small, there is no way other than overthrowing the regime: no political regime voluntarily shrinks its size to limit itself.

In addition, the demise of the Islamic regime will be very expensive for the Iranian people. It is not clear how this monster will react in its last days and how many individuals will be crushed under his feet or how many or which public institutions or resources will be ruined. But nobody can trust this scary phenomenon and every day left of its life means more damage. The Islamic regime has always been fighting against its own citizenry in all aspects of their life and one day people should win this battle....

However what happens after the collapse of the regime is not clear. Whether the government will shrink depends on the policies, agendas, and manifestos of the alternative forces and the mood of the society in that situation.

Collapse

Another possible argument against the toppling of the government is the equivalence of its demise with the disintegration of the whole country and decline of territorial integrity.

The presumption of this argument is the necessity of repression for integration: if Iranian ethnicities are still part of the nation, it is due to that repression....

In reality, the process of integration is due to the cultural developments in the country, and democracy and human rights will further invigorate this national cohesiveness. Iranian ethnicities look for more participation and involvement in their affairs, not disintegration.

The End of Iran and Islam

The tactic of the Iranian totalitarian and authoritarian faction is to equate the Islamic regime and Islam and to label dissidents of the first as the opponents of the second. The ground for this claim is that Islam may guarantee Iran and the Islamic regime will guarantee Islam.

Neither of these correlations holds. Logically, Iran may survive without Islam, and Islam would survive without Iran and without its Islamic regime. The collapse of the Islamic regime will be beneficial for Islam when its darkest features go away....

In the real world, it is not possible to wipe out Islam from the face of Iran, but the elimination of Islamism in power is under way.

Chaos

Some people believe that it is impossible to live in peace in a country with a diverse set of ethnicities, religions, classes, ideologies, and perspectives without a dictator in charge. They do not see a tangible alternative for the existing coercive forces and believe that these forces are the hardcore of the existing regime. Without this hardcore that includes the Islamic Republic Guards Corps and Basij paramilitary, the whole regime will collapse, and that is not in the interest [of these people].

Based on this perspective, the guardian jurist and his plainclothesmen and IRGC loyal members, presenting the regime’s coercive features, have the upper hand. But the 1979 Revolution experience showed Iranians that with the collapse of any regime, the society will not breakdown. People are able to run their communities by themselves while the government is in transition.

Foreign Domination

Loyalists believe that if the regime collapses, foreign countries will conquer Iran and plunder her resources. But the policy of fear does not have sufficient foundation in Iranian society.

In today’s world, foreign powers look for good deals, not the occupation of a country that wants to live in peace with others. The conspiracy theorists who rule Iran scare people about imaginary enemies to prevent people from even thinking about toppling the regime.

Israel-Palestine Analysis: Washington's New Push for an Agreement

Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has said that he is ready for direct negotiations with Israel if specific conditions --- a total halt to settlement building in the West Bank and an acceptance of an independent Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders --- are met. As a sign of "cooperation", his political advisor Nimar Hamad stated that the PA is not opposed to the deployment of a NATO force, including Israeli soldiers, along the borders of a Palestinian state under a peace agreement.

Meanwhile, Washington has sent special envoy George Mitchell back to the region. On Tuesday and Wednesday, Mitchell had separate talks with Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mitchell brought a proposal based on a March statement of the Quartet (US, Britain, United Nations, Russia) and a “defined timeline” and agenda for talks.

The Quartet statement asserted that negotiations should lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties within 24 months, ending the occupation that began in 1967 and resulting in an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours. The Quartet urged Israel to freeze all settlement activity, including natural growth, and to dismantle West Bank outposts erected since March 2001, and it underlined that the international community does not recognize Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem.

In his meeting with Israel's Netanyahu, Mitchell said that Abbas was ready to enter direct talks immediately if Israel accepted this offer. (Haaretz reports that Washington had rejected two earlier proposals put forth by Abbas.)

Netanyahu's answer? A firm "No". An anonymous Israeli official said:

The Palestinians have been raising different preconditions. As time goes on they have talked about a settlement freeze, then about Jerusalem as a precondition, about continuing where [former prime minister Ehud] Olmert left off, about accepting the ‘67 borders and now they are talking about the Quartet statement. If they want to look for excuses, they can find them. Let us move to direct talks.

On Friday, Netanyahu's office also released a statement denying a report from London-based newspaper Al-Hayat, that said that Israel would evacuate 90% of the territory and 50,000 settlers in the West Bank. The Prime Minister's officials said the claim is a lie.

After Mitchell's failure, Washington increased its pressure. US State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said on Wednesday that the Quartet was likely to issue a statement of support for the talks in the coming day.

Greece: The Economic Crisis Continues (Christodoulou)

Eleni Christodoulou writes for EA:

It was only last week, after panic and media outbursts over the financial crisis, that the words "good", "progress", and even "strong began to appear beside "Greece". This combination, almost an oxymoron to our ears, came after an assessment by a team from the European Union, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund, preceded by a two-week audit, in which the lenders said Greece had made “impressive” progress in revamping its economy, from restructuring pensions to overhauling the tax system.

This report cleared the way for Athens to receive the next installment of its bailout package. The New York Times described it as "the latest sign that the crisis surrounding European finances was starting to ebb". The BBC reported, "Greece's efforts to tackle its public deficit have had a 'strong start', the International Monetary Fund and European Union have said."

The report added that the Greek government had made "impressive" efforts regarding structural reforms, trimming pensions and continuing efforts to reform the labour market. "The programme has made remarkable progress," said Servaas Deroose, a representative for the European Commission.

Earlier this year, the media was flooded by negative waves of heavy criticism, fear of potential spread of the crisis, and even hostility against Greece –--- both the state and its people. Pessimism loomed, and it seemed that Greece’s default was inevitable, a financial disaster simply waiting to happen.

Gradually a decline in these media outbursts became apparent, reflecting perhaps a period of behind-the-scenes workings between Greek and international financial and political experts. Still, an editorial of The New York Times criticised European leaders for going "from panic to complacency" in a few months and warned that there is no time for such attitudes as "the eurozone crisis is not over".

Complacency was followed by optimism and relief, only for the short-lived nature of this euphoria to be exposed. Stories are once again placing Greece side-by-side with gloomy verbs and nouns: "shrank", "decline", and, of course, "unemployment".

The BBC, headlining, "Greek Economy Shrinks a Further 1.5%", says a further contraction of the Greek economy in the second quarter of the year suggests an accelerated rate of recession. Reduced government spending, an outcome of the aggressive austerity policies, accompanied not only a decline in Gross Domestic Product but also a continuing rise in unemployment figures.

According to the Greek Statistics Agency, there was a rise of 43.2% in the number of unemployed in May, compared with the same month last year. This effectively means 181,784 people who were employed in 2009 are now without a job. Even worse, unemployment is due to rise further.

Anyone who lives in Greece has a drama of job loss to tell, either their own story or that of a person related to them. More than one in three in the 15-24 age bracket are out of work: that should worry the social services, given that a high proportion of those involved in violence during the recent strikes were youngsters.

The latest strike, that of the Greek truck drivers, paralysed the country for almost a week. The strike, which began on 25 July at the height of the holiday season, protested planned reforms aimed at liberalising the freight industry. The havoc created by the lack of fuel not only affected citizens who could not get to their jobs but also destroyed food exports, such as the peach industry, and crippled the tourist industry, leaving thousands stranded at their destinations. The government was forcedin the end to call in the army to ensure supplies of fuel to airports, hospitals, and power stations and to halt the devastating effect on the already burdened economy.

Meanwhile, the editor of the Greek newspaper ‘H KAΘHMEPINH’ argues that ‘the intensity of true public discontent has been surprisingly low’. This statement, given the prevailing chaos and violence which resulted in the death of four innocent people working in a bank, seems overly optimistic. Even if there is relative tolerance of the existing austerity cuts, the long-term effects of reduced wages and pensions are more likely to be felt in the following months. The more the discontent, the greater the resistance. And the less that the state claims it can do, the more the people will turn to past offenders who are perceived to have led the country into the brink of bankruptcy.

Although many lists of tax evaders (including doctors and lawyers) have been published by the media, arrests for corruption, tax avoidance, and money laundering have yet to be made. And until the perpetrators are brought to justice, Greek society remains volatile, even during this holiday mood.

A popular Greek blog ‘Fimotro’ wrote about a telling event that occurred this week in a fish tavern in Paros, one of the Cyclades Islands). When a Greek couple finished eating, they took their bill to the nearby table where Dimitris Sioufas, the former President of the Greek Parliament under the conservative party of Nea Dimokratia, was dining with colleagues. The couple placed the bill in front of the politicians’ plates and shouted, "Take it, and pay it using the stolen money."

The Latest from Iran (13 August): Letters to the Judiciary

1830 GMT: Your Belated Friday Prayer Update. Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, head of the Guardian Council, tried to bounce back from a recent rough patch --- you know, the $51 billion US-Saudi-opposition plot episode --- by taking the podium.

Lots of banter about bad America, but no apparent big numbers today, before Jannati laid down the reassurance that everyone was accountable in the Iranian system: "If you don't serve the people, they will not trust you and not vote for you. If they have committed the error to vote for you, they will take back their votes."

1825 GMT: The Battle Within. Mohammad Hashemi, member of the Expediency Council (and brother of former President Hashmei Rafsanjani), has declared that the President's duty is to implement laws, not to interpret them --- saying that he doesn't accept a law is illegal and outside of his duties.

1815 GMT: Ahmadinejad, Unifier-in-Chief. Declaration of the day comes from the President, who told Algerian counterpart Abdelaziz Bouteflika in a Friday telephone call that unity among Muslim nations will lead to the elimination of inequality and oppression everywhere.

1310 GMT: Black Economy Watch. Iran Focus claims that a leaked internal Islamic Revolution Guards Corps report confirms the IRGC is running a major smuggling network from the southern Iranian island of Qeshm in the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

The report also says that the IRGC is building a large base at Roudkhaneh Sarbaz in the southeastern province of Sistan and Baluchistan as part of smuggling, including drugs, from Pakistan.

1300 GMT: The Nuclear Plant. Russian officials say that, after repeated delays, nuclear fuel will be loaded from 21 August into Iran's reactor at Bushehr.

Russian and Iranian specialists will spend 2-3 weeks putting uranium-packed fuel rods into the reactor:

"This will be an irreversible step," Sergei Novikov, a spokesman for Russia's state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, said. "At that moment, the Bushehr nuclear power plant will be certified as a nuclear energy installation."

Novikov said the first fissile reaction would take place in early October.

The Bushehr plant is monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agnecy and has no link with Iran's uranium enrichment programme. Tehran has agreed to return spent fuel to Russia.

1200 GMT: Parliament v. Government. MP Mehrdad Lahouti says the demand for impeachment of agriculture minister Sadegh Khalilian, with 22 signatories, will be handed over to Parliament on Sunday when it returns from summer vacation. The allegation is that Khalilian has inflicted heavy damage to domestic agriculture and caused severe irregularities in the sector.

Ahmad Tavakoli, speaking about the President's refusal to accept Parliament's authorisation of $2 million for the Tehran metro, has said that Ahmadinejad is "dictatorial in his decisions", breaking the law and the Constitution.

1145 GMT: Execution Watch ---Germany Gets Vocal (cont.). According to Die Welt , an (unnamed) official of Germany's Foreign Ministry has demanded the cancellation of the death sentence Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani.

1000 GMT: In Afghanistan. The Washington Post claims --- probably from a US Government official ---- that a "human intelligence asset", in a report for Afghanistan’s domestic intelligence agency, has said that Iran has supplied fresh batteries for about three dozen shoulder-fired SA-7 missiles stockpiled by Taliban forces in Kandahar, in anticipation of a U.S. attack.



The Post adds a note to the dramatic claim:

Any reports linking Iran to the Afghan conflict must be viewed with caution. A previous intelligence report, surfaced by WikiLeaks, describing a 2005 missile-buying mission to North Korea by rebel leader Gulbiddin Hekmatyar and a senior aide to Osama bin Laden, is now suspected of having been fabricated by elements in Washington or elsewhere who wanted to implicate Iran in the Afghan insurgency.

0900 GMT: Execution Watch --- Germany Gets Vocal. Leading Free Democrat politician Rainer Stinner, who visited Iran from 31 July to 3 August, has said that not only Tehran's sentences to death by stoning but its entire legal procedure are flagrant violations of human rights. He claimed that Iran cannot pretend this is a domestic affair, as it has ratified the International Human Rights Convention, and it is isolated by such practices.

The statement is a significant modification of the "live and let live" approach of the Free Democrats towards Iran in the 1990s.

0815 GMT: The Battle Within. Mehdi Khalaji, summarising many of the events covered by EA in recent weeks, writes an analysis for the Washington Institute on Near East Policy, "Internal Divisions among Iranian Hardliners Come to the Fore".

0755 GMT: International Affairs Update. Yesterday we noted the British Ambassador's diplomatic response to 1st Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi's rather un-diplomatic remarks about "England". We cited The Daily Telegraph as the source, but we have learned that the original story was by Martin Fletcher in The Times of London.

0715 GMT: US-Iran. We have posted a separate analysis by Greg Thielmann on the latest US intelligence and Iran's nuclear programme.

0710 GMT: Execution (Ashtiani) Watch. Human Rights Activists News Agency has more information on Wednesday's "confession" on Iranian state television by Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, condemned to death for adultery and then complicity in murder of her husband. The New York Times, in an article by William Yong and Robert Worth, has also picked up on the article.

The Guardian of London reports that the execution by stoning sentence of Mariam Ghorbanzadeh, who allegedly miscarried after being beaten up in Tabriz prison this week, has been changed to hanging in a rapid judicial review.

0700 GMT: You Can't Go Home Again. Tehran has set new restrictions on Iranian expatriates coming into the country.

Mohammad Sharif Malekzadeh, head of the High Council of Iranian Expatriates, said Wednesday that Iranians residing abroad can return for academic reasons only after being approved by certain institutions. Asked if the "Iranian expatriates with political problems" who want to return would face any difficulties, Malekzadeh said that "certain institutions will do their duties in this regard".

0655 GMT: Sanctions(-Busting) Watch. Officials say recent UN Security Council and unilateral sanctions will not affect the €18 billion gas contract between the Swiss energy group EGL and the National Iranian Gas Export Company (NIGEC).

According to Fars News, Turkey's Energy Minister has said Ankara will respect its €1 billion deal wfor the construction of a 660km pipeline to transfer Iran's gas supplies to Europe.

The minister also reportedly said that Iran and Turkey will continue plans for the joint construction of power plants with a total capacity of 6,000 megawatts. And another minister has supposedly confirmed that Turkey paid Iran a $600 million fine for failing to import natural gas at the amount previously agreed between the two countries.

0645 GMT: Sensitive Journalism of the Day. The headline in Keyhan in an article on US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent remarks on human rights abuses in Iran: "Bill Clinton's Slave Defending the Murderers".

0640 GMT: All the President's Men. More on President Ahmadinejad's defence of his controversial chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, against criticism from clerics, members of Parliament, and even Iran's top military commander:

There is an abnormal sensitivity against Mashai....I fully trust him....If someone has any criticism or believes what he says is wrong, he should invite Mr. Mashai to speak with him and even debate with him. Why all this row? Some want to change the issues of our enemies, illegal sanctions and enemies at home into secondary issues....

0630 GMT: International Affairs. Khabar Online writes of possible problems between the Foreign Ministry and the Government because the President's office is taking over the appointment of ambassadors.

(This is far from a new development, as Ahmadinejad's staff pushed out many Iranian ambassadors soon after thge 2005 election. What is interesting here is that Khabar would highlight this and the timing: only yesterday EA's Scott Lucas spoke with The National about Foreign Ministry disquiet over un-diplomatic statements by the President and 1st Vice-President Rahimi.)

0625 GMT: Economy Watch. MP Musalreza Sarvati has challenged the Minister of Works in Majlis that the official unemployment rate of 14.6% is untrue: "employed" includes people who work 1 hour per week and others who work 100 hours without being able to earn a living.

Sarvati claimed that every year 1.1 million new jobseekers are added in Iran.

0615 GMT: The Cleric's Apology. Ayatollah Dastgheib's has replied to a letter of prisoner families: "I, for my part, apologise for not being able to follow your pledges for justice."

Dastgheib warned Iran's ruling class they are "going the wrong way", asking them to "sit down for once" with a group of the people's representatives and senior clerics without harrassing them to explain the reasons for arresting the so-called "uproarers".

Dastgheib's message to these leaders? "This situation will pass, but your deeds will be documented by God and history."

0545 GMT: Friday is expected to be quiet in Iran, as the holy month of Ramadan begins, but news arrives that the head of the judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, has more work in his in-box....

The reformist Mosharekat (Islamic Iran Revolution) Party has demanded that the High Court to investigate the files, submitted by seven political prisoners and including a claimed audio proving manipulation by the Revolutionary Guard, of a rigged election:

The wide distribution of a tape of commander Moshfegh's speech, a high official of [Revolutionary Guard] Sarollah Forces, has proven the claims of Green leaders on the manipulation of 10th presidential elections. This person, who boldly and crudely describes the organisation of the putsch intoxicated by power, openly confesses to actions, which cannot be named other than a putsch according to all political schools of the world.

Families of former hunger strikers, having gone three days without news, have written Larijani: "Have our beloved outlived the hunger strike?"

The families of political prisoners have also asked Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi:

How can we be sure of the physical condition of our lovedones after two grueling weeks of hunger strike? The only way we can be reassured of their well-being is if we are given the opportunity to hear their voices, if they are transferred back to the general ward at Evin (Prison), and when we are finally given permission to visit with them.

Students of three Tabriz univerisities have appealed to Larijani that it is time for him to break his silence in the face of major corruption committed by the "ruling body" of Iran. They complain about the lack of justice and the judiciary's independence, with silence amidst unpunished bloodshed, slander, insults, and lies.

Iran's Nukes: The CIA's Latest Analysis (Thielmann)

Greg Thielmann, a former analyst in the State Department, writes for the Arms Control Association:

Comments by senior U.S. officials in 2010 have continued to endorse the principal conclusions of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), "Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities." This may come as a surprise for those accustomed to seeing that earlier document described by pundits and journalists as "flawed," or "erroneous." In fact, from the moment the NIE's sanitized Key Judgments were released in late November 2007, the estimate has been subject to virulent criticism, particularly by those who regret that it did not provide justification for a preventive attack on Iran's nuclear program.

Many critics have impugned the motives of its authors. Former CIA Director James Woolsey has called the NIE "deceptive." Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Ranking Minority Member (and former Chairman) of the House Intelligence Committee has called it "a piece of trash."

There is some considerable irony in hearing such criticism from those intimately familiar with the inner workings of the intelligence community, who seemed to have sleep-walked through the serious professional lapses of the 2002 NIE on Iraq WMD.

It is time to take another close look at the claims made by the Iran Nuclear NIE in light of the critical choices now confronting policy makers.

The most important conclusions from the fall of 2007 still obtain:

* Iran had been working steadily on the facilities and expertise for
enriching uranium, which would eventually allow it to make fissile material for a bomb, if it chose. (Making fissile material is generally considered the most technically demanding and time-consuming hurdle to developing a
nuclear weapons capability.)

* For many years, Iran had had a government-directed and clandestine nuclear weapons program (defined as: "nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work"), but Tehran halted it in the fall of 2003 and the halt lasted at least several
years.

* The estimate indicated that the Department of Energy and the National Intelligence Council were less certain that the halt to these activities represented a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.

* Iran still faces significant technical problems operating its uranium enrichment centrifuges at Natanz, but would probably be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.

* Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so. Only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from producing nuclear weapons.

There has been no retreat from the key historical judgment that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and no advance to a conclusion that Iran had decided to develop nuclear weapons. According to open source information, foreign intelligence services have suggested that some level of nuclear weapons program activity has been underway since 2003. (See, for example, Mark Hosenball, Newsweek, June 28, 2010). It is reasonable to conclude that Iran wants at least to develop the capability to build nuclear weapons.

Yet Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, Jr., Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in early 2010 that: "The bottom line assessments of the NIE still hold true. We have not seen indication that the (Iranian) government has made the decision to move ahead with the program." The State Department's July 2010 Compliance Report stated flatly that: "Iran had a comprehensive nuclear weapons development program that was ordered halted in fall 2003."

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reached a similar conclusion in his Annual 2010 Threat Assessment: "We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that bring it closer to being able to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."

If a decision is made to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons, CIA Director Leon Panetta claims that it would probably take a year for Iran to enrich sufficient uranium from its current stockpile of LEU (following the expulsion of IAEA inspectors) "and another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable."

It would appear then that the long-anticipated "Memorandum to Holders", which is expected to update the 2007 NIE, is likely to revise it rather than revoke it by acknowledging that some kind of ongoing research on nuclear weapons is occurring, without questioning the validity of the 2003 halt that was detected or concluding that Iran has definitively decided to build a bomb.

Iran's secret construction of a uranium enrichment facility near Qom, exposed and effectively neutralized in September 2009, deepened suspicions that Iran was interested in developing at least a breakout capability for clandestinely producing fissile material for weapons, independent of its existing LEU stockpiles, which are monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

However, if there were shocking discoveries of unambiguous nuclear weapons intent in the revelations of defectors like Asgari and Amiri, one would have expected to see an alteration in the phraseology used by senior U.S. intelligence officials to describe Iran's nuclear program. This has not happened.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Government has decided to withhold from the American people even the bottom line judgment of the next estimate on this critical issue for U.S. security policy. This means that we will have to do our best to divine what our government thinks it knows and when it is making an educated guess. This also means that the public and the press will continue to be vulnerable to careless or deliberate misinterpretations of estimates by pundits with an axe to grind.