The report states that the mullahs of Iran may be have been susceptible to outside pressure viz their alleged covert nuclear weapons program in 2003, but if there was never any covert nuclear weapons programs in the first place, which the IAEA should confirm soon, then what are we talking about here.
As others have pointed out, the report also states that because of pressure from the USA the Iranians halted their alleged program in 2003. What American diplomatic pressures are we talking about here running up to 2003? Well the fact that Iran was included in the 'Axis of evil' list in January 2002. I am not sure a regime like the mullahs who aren't that PR savvy or 'sensitive' would take much notice about being publicly named as a rogue state; they've been in that state for quite a while, and being called a rogue state by the 'Great Satan' would be a badge of honor for them. Name calling, a not too inconsiderable amount which the mullahs do themselves wasn't going to shake them to their core to effect a fundamental policy shift on such an alleged sensitive program, if it existed in the first place.
A better argument would be that the presence of American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq had a psychological impact, i.e that Iran could, and would be next, but here again, the Iranians cooperated with the USA militarily in Afghanistan via the Northern Alliance in 2001.
They were happy to see the SUNNI Taliban defeated by the USA using their Northern Alliance. The Taliban with al-Qaeda had killed several Iranian diplomats in a Mazar-i-Sharif consulate in 1998, resulting in the mobilisation of 250,000 Iranian troops on the Afghan/Iranian border. So from an Iranian perspective the removal of the Taliban, and the imposition of a puppet pro-Western regime in Kabul, with the Northern Alliance playing an important role, backed by 17,000 foreign troops wouldn't be considered a threat but a satisfactory outcome for Iran.
So much so, thinking that they had just cooperated with the USA viz Afghanistan they were looking to expand the relationship far more comprehensively with the full blessings of the Supreme Leader, until they were thwarted by Dick Cheney and his Neo-cons. (7 countries in 5 years agenda October 2001---'The New Crusade', Wesley Clarke, and the private January 2003 conversation between Blair and Bush, leaked memo, that after Iraq, it would be Iran, Pakistan and the Saudis turn)
In relation to Iraq again from an Iranian perspective things couldn't be better. The Americans defeated the regime and occupied the country which Ayatollah Rohullah Khomeini had vowed would be removed, hence Iran turning down Iraqi overtures of peace in 1982. A regime which had expelled Khomeini from Iraq after an agreement between the Shah and Saddam in 1978. Saddam was captured and executed by the USA. The Shi' tes are in a dominant position in Iraq for the first time in Iraq's 1,400 year Islamic history-----that from an Iranian perspective is a HUGE achievement, thanks to American arms, and their puppets the Dawa Party and SICRI are prominent in the administration of Iraq. The Americans since are bogged down fighting SUNNIS, so from an Iranian perspective everything is perfect! They wouldn't want to rock the boat at this juncture.
Between January 2001 and mid 2003 when the alleged nuclear weapons program in Iran ceased there wasn't a concerted effort by the Bush administration to isolate and focus on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Can anybody find a list of speeches by Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice et al pointing to this fact? I can't.
You would think that a nation fearing an American attack or any such similar consequences, and thus closing its alleged covert nuclear program in response, would take other measures than the sole response of shutting down their nuclear weapons program, wouldn't you? You would expect in a sweaty palm way, the mullahs would expand conventional defence spending from 2003-2007 in response to a perceived threat, and yet a close scrutiny of credible sources state that Iran's real defence spending during this time has stayed more or less steady. Their ground forces have remained the same size, 550,000 in 2003, and the same in 2007. That's not a nation shitting in the pants, anticipating an immanent attack, and closing down none existent covert nuclear weapons programs.
The Iranians are human, not particularly special; its a Third World country. But nor is it Mexico or Guatemala. The Persian fought 8 years against Iraq, and the whole world, poorly equipped, starved of resources; hampered by 5 separate commands doing their own thing with no coordination; over seen by interfering mullahs who wanted to keep the armed forces busy whilst they consolidated power back in Tehran------yes they are that cynical; with commanders being executed or going into exile left right and center, and sacrificing 1,000,000 men in the battle field------------few nations on earth can do this. We do not need to conduct foreign policy using the stick only, verifying falsely that it is very effective, as it encourages chicken hawks/Israel for some more. A great nation like the USA has got to be more sophisticated than that. We understand that sometimes you have to pander to the idiots misguided ego, but that such things can be dangerous.
Also the mullahs are the UK imposed and managed puppets and the UK would never allow their mullah clients to develop nuclear weapons, and it is quite telling that unlike the American 'mainstream' media the British media, which no less is also managed by the elite of that country is decidedly less excited by the allegations of covert Iranian nuclear programs. By contrast the British media went 'full throttle' about Pakistan's 'Islamic bomb' in the late seventies and eighties. The British brought the mullahs into power for a variety of reasons in 1979, but one of the key reasons was to de-modernise and de-industrialise Iran, i.e to prevent it from developing technically and in many other respects (The mullahs froze the Shah's nuclear program on coming to power, and closed all universities, destroyed the middle class, and .........................), and is the main reason why the UK has been in the forefront of not allowing nuclear technology transfer to Iran, and British intelligence has also been quite successful and active in denying Iran any WMB technology.
But of course the UK being puppet masters of the mullahs have to perform a delicate act of on the one hand seeming to support Washington in its policy objectives over Iran, and at the same time keeping their mullah puppets safe from harm, and not over antagonizing them. We see the speed with which relations between the UK and mullah Iran are patched up after a 'misunderstanding', and perhaps America can learn from this and see there true interests finally. We note that the British dominated Gulf countries are trying to make up with Iran, inviting Ahmedinejad to their security meetings for the first time. The perception is that the British for their part want to make Iran into a status quo mullah power, and as a permanent part of the Gulf texture.
We note that intelligence from the UK states that Iran had indeed halted its alleged covert nuclear program in 2003--------more Niger Yellow cake? 'Good' news about a none existent fact.
All in all the NIE 2007 report in the short term is good for America, Iran and the world. In the long term however it leaves a big stick with which to beat Iran, i.e that they had a secret covert nuclear arms program which they were hiding from the IAEA and the rest of the world, and only stopped it because of our threats. That is not a good state of affairs as it leaves the door open for Bilderberger Hilary, the favorite democratic princess of Israel to reopen the issue, and start doing what Bush has been doing because a future NIE could just as easily say, 'We are reasonably certain the Iranians have once again started their covert nuclear weapons program'.
