Interpreting Iran Intelligence

From the New York Times:

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

That's a relief. But what's this...

"'It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,' [national security advisor Stephen J.] Hadley said."

Now pay close attention here. Just as Bill Clinton said "there is no improper relationship" between himself and Monica Lewinsky (their relationship had supposedly ended by the time he said that), the U.S. government "were right" about nuclear weapons development in Iran (emphases added). Because at one time, their worries were true. But, according to NYT's and CNN's headlines, not anymore. Just because they were right to worry does not mean they will be right if they worry in the near future. So now we can call bullshit on any continued alarmism from the White House or the Republican presidential campaigners, right?

[Hadley continued,] "...But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem."

Crap. I was planning to submit this apparently contradictory statement to Jon Stewart-style ridicule, but I guess it's actually true, because the intelligence showed that the Iranian uranium enrichment program that is supposedly for civilian purposes but could produce weapons-grade material is still going on, and (I assume, not having read otherwise) all the public rhetoric from Tehran continues to imply that the Iranian government wants nuclear weapons.

So now what I wish I could remember is what the administration's official words were on what conditions Iran would have to meet in order for us to engage them in diplomacy.