There was a report that came out that said weaponization had stopped a couple of years ago. Weaponization is a relatively easy process once you have nuclear energy. It doesn't take very long and doesn't involve that much effort. It's like putting the pieces together. What had stopped at that time was the weaponization, but the nuclearization continued.
I should say that I've been involved in a group called Lawyers for Social Responsibility, which is the Canadian affiliate of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, IALANA, so I'm familiar with this whole issue of nuclearization on a technical level--at least at some level, as much as a lawyer can be. I've talked with others about this, and what they say is that what you're dealing with in Iran is a question of intent. Once they get to the state where they are nuclearized, they can switch to weapons almost overnight if they want to do it--even if they haven't actually begun the process of switching yet. So you really have to gauge their intent. In my view, their intent is pretty clear, for a number of reasons.
Some of the information I have is confidential, because of my refugee practice and so on, so I know some things that the leadership have said, but I can't give you the minutes. But there are lots of public indicators as well. Why in the world would they be smuggling in the components of nuclear parts? Why are they causing the inspectors...? The International Atomic Energy Agency is not very happy with Iran, and indeed, ElBaradei got the Nobel Peace Prize a couple of years ago largely because he was pressing Iran on this issue, regrettably with not that much success. And they're still very unhappy. I wouldn't say that the International Atomic Energy Agency has to be the final word on this, but I think if they're concerned, we should be concerned.