I do not think that he and I are arguing. That is why the risk assessment that it made differed so markedly from any risk assessment made by any previous American Administration. The commission did not consider intent and, additionally, simply extrapolated forwards. It considered current weapons possession, decided what it thought those states might do, and said that America itself might be under threat, when it is not. Under the current presidency, however, the concept has changed back to that of a rogue state.
Rogue states are in the eye of the beholder.
One could list many criteria for defining a rogue state that could be used by some states to label as rogue states others that we regard as allies. The criteria include being unpredictable, intending to take action outside national law, and believing that national self-interest justifies action regardless of the framework of international law. Member for Ruislip-Northwood will know that there are countries that believe that the NATO action in Kosovo which we supported was outside international law. Although I do not agree with that assessment, some states genuinely question whether our action in Kosovo complied with international law. Inasmuch as they believe that we contravened international law, they may reasonably feel that they could view us as a rogue state.