The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran expressed with some confidence that Iran had in 2003 halted active work on building a nuclear warhead.

There are still questions on whether or not this is actually solid intelligence, but I assume for now that it is. It does not obviate our need to be cautious with Iran. We should be investing a great deal of resources into better intelligence, as well as active diplomacy with Iran. This includes the gamut of options from sanctions to bi-lateral talks. It does not, at this time, include military operations - in my opinion.

That being said, I found this article interesting. It coincides with my views on Iran generally and the course the US should take with regards to the NIE.

Foreign Policy: How has the release of the recent U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program changed the tenor of the Iran debate?

Dmitri Trenin: It allows for a broader range of views. I think that the importance of this debate is not to discuss the technical issues, but rather to use the technical issues as a platform to a higher plane of strategizing about Iran. I’m not an American and I can only say so much being a foreigner, but I think the focus should be on U.S. policy, rather than on what Iran is doing. I am struck by people debating what Iran is doing, and not thinking enough, in all due respect, about what the United States should be doing. In other words, people are prepared to give Iran the initiative, rather than to seize the initiative.

FP: What’s the view from abroad about the new estimate?

DT: I think the view from here is that the intelligence community, heavily battered over Iraq, has thrown a monkey wrench into what they believe could be the possibility of another major blunder. [That possibility] is that strong-willed persons within the administration would persuade the president to finish business, and not pass the Iranian issue onto his successor. But there’s only so much that you can see from several thousand miles away from Washington.

The emphasis is mine. I point this out because I respect a view from this standpoint. Trenin holds views much in line with mine on several topics, and I am an American. Much to the distaste of some of my acquaintances, Trenin and I share views on Putin.

I predict emails and comments regarding Trenin’s motives, qualifications, or integrity, however, we often judge a person’s intelligence by the amount one agrees with us. Trenin is obviously a genius.

It is quite possible Iran has halted nuclear weapon construction in order to garner favor with the US. This does not mean to suggest Iran is going through any radical shift in ideals - but we have to focus on the goal of Iran in the Middle East. Iran wants to be the influence in that region. If America gains enough support in the international community, that goal is finished for Iran. Especially in light of the vast amounts of US money going into Iraq. Iran coming into the fold geopolitically, so to speak, is a possible strategy to ensure Iran is not bypassed as the Mid-East power base.

On the other hand - it this is going to take some very hard work to find out - this could just be a way of defusing the pressure being brought to bear on Iran, while they secretly finish their weapons work with enriched uranium.  Time, and hopefully better intelligence than we currently have, will tell.

The Secretary General of the UN stated Iran must provide the United Nations with a confidence that their enrichment of uranium is  for civil, peaceful purpose.

Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) — Iran hasn’t proven to the world that it has been developing nuclear technology exclusively for peaceful purposes, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today.

“We still do not have full confidence what the real intention of the Iranian government is up to as far as their nuclear programs,” Ban said in an interview.

Now, this is not going to be easy for Iran to do at all - I’m not sure how it is possible. There is certainly no way to prove you are only using enriched uranium as fuel in your power-generating reactors without a great deal of oversight. The level of oversight Iran has bristled at in the past. Inspections alone will not be enough to accomplish this. The implication here is the United Nations - certainly most western governments - are going to remain suspicious of a nation which opens its parliamentary sessions with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”; which supports terrorist organizations; and which has materially contributed to activities to perpetuate instability in Iraq. This is especially difficult when the “vindicative proof” Iran has stopped making weapons is coming under question (again - enriched uranium is dual use - take the questions with a grain of salt).

My thinking is that this statement by Secretary-General Moon has less to do with the extent of Iran’s nuclear ambition and more to the intent of Iran’s geopolitics in general. I am not a nuclear materials expert, but it would seem Iran is in the same boat Iraq was in. They have dual-use programs which have the capacity to produce weapons. Since their rhetoric is extremely violent in nature, it must be reasonably assumed they intend to make good on their threats.

What might clear all of this up - inject some confidence in the international community - is for Iran to make some definitive overtures of peace. Sign a peace agreement with Israel or the United States - and offer to re-establish full diplomatic relations. Iran could display a “we are sovereign, Islamic, and in disagreement with much of your western values - yet we are a nation at peace” relationship within the international community and the burden of proof of their peaceful intentions for enriched uranium would diminish greatly.

However, that would be like asking the KKK to make an overture of good intent to the NAACP, wouldn’t it? Things like this don’t help much either.