"nuclear program"
as something that is either definitively "started" or "ongoing" or "stopped". I had the same problems with most discussions of whether Saddam Hussein had "weapons programs" (chemical weapons "programs", bio weapons "programs", etc) or whether he "stopped" them.
Question: just what, exactly, is a "nuclear program" that it can be so easily "stopped"? Everyone seems to acknowledge, including Iran, that she is busy enriching uranium. This sort of uranium has only one plausible purpose, and that is for use in a nuclear weapon. So why isn't the action of enriching uranium considering a "nuclear bomb program"? How is it not, exactly? Does a nuclear "program" have a precise definition and enriching uranium doesn't count? why not?
Digging deeper, let me stipulate for sake of argument that Iran "had" a nuclear bomb "program" and then "stopped" it in 2003. Question. What exactly did the "stopping" of the program consist of. I mean, apparently prior to 2003, the state of Iran employed some number of scientists and workers in the development of a nuclear bomb. Those scientists studied, learned, went to conferences, bought pamphlets, whatever... they gained all or at least some of the knowledge of the development and logistics required to build such a bomb. That knowledge was in their heads, and their notebooks, and on their computers. Meanwhile the workers toiled. Presumably, prior to 2003, together they made at least some progress - in manufacturing, setting up facilities, purchasing parts, etc.
Does this knowledge and progress no longer exist because the "program" was supposedly "stopped"? Were the scientists executed or at least their brains washed clear? Were the computer hard drives formatted? Were the parts thrown away? Were the facilities destroyed? If not, then what the hell does "stopping" really mean? What exactly was "stopped" that couldn't be started again at a moment's notice? I mean are we talking about the scientists' paychecks? Was the Iranian Secret Nuclear Bomb Department officially disbanded and all former employees transferred to the Iranian Post Office? what?
Recall also that up until very very recently we were repeatedly told by anti-war types how "hardened" Iran's nuclear facilities were (!), which was considered at the time by them to be a tactically-clever argument for not bombing Iran ("it won't work anyway because their facilities are hardened").
But now I am left to wonder, what facilities? The ones that no longer exist and haven't existed since 2003 because the "program" was "stopped"?
If there's any truth to the "stopped" meme, it's the same as was presumably with Iraq: "stopped" really just means paused. For tactical reasons, logistical reasons, political reasons, whatever. For example, I could buy that Iran looked at the situation in 2003 and said "we're not going to make enough progress to get the bomb by 200x anyway, and our timeline is hung up on [such and such logistical benchmarks] anyway, so let's play it cool on the nuke thing for a while, and maybe it will even buy us some PR points against the Americans". I could buy that.
What I don't buy is that this somehow constitutes "stopping the program" in any meaningful way, i.e. in any way that an intelligent person could possibly conclude "therefore Iran isn't trying to and won't try to get the bomb".
You make excellent points throughout!! This NIE is a crock, that is obvious. If some one warhead program really was paused or cancelled in 2003, even if THAT info is reliable, it is preposterous to infer from that that Iran has stopped any movement forward in a “military” nuclear program. They have proudly ANNOUNCED their 3000 centrifuges are operational, in a uranium enrichment program that has only military purposes, no matter what the liars of Tehran and the Democrats here may say. They have not other use for that uranium enrichment except to work the process until they can enrich to a high enough purity for weapons-grade uranium. They have no civilian reactor program which can use it.