The IRA statement is interesting both for what it says - and what it doesn't say. It doesn't say that decommissioning will never happen. It does say that those seeking disarmament are "in the current context" following a "failed agenda" of seeking to defeat the IRA.
The statement is fairly hardline where one would expect it to be hardline, that is in attacking the British government and David Trimble and his Ulster Unionist Party, but it could have been a lot worse.
The author of the statement, before embarking on a paramilitary career, probably spent some time in a Jesuit seminary. He may not write often but, like any Jesuit, he writes carefully.
Unionists will see more than a veiled threat in the missive, and such an interpretation is possible, but another interpretation is that provisional republican paramilitary patience is going to last at least for a period it deems reasonable for politicians to rescue the Belfast Agreement.
Viewed as a bank balance sheet, there are more credits than debits in this statement, which appears to keep the peace and political processes in the black.
In May last year, shortly after the signing of the Belfast Agreement, the IRA issued a statement saying "there will be no decommissioning". Last January it did not refer specifically to decommissioning but spoke of "old preconditions" collapsing the 1994 ceasefire. Last April, after deadlines for the establishment of the Assembly and the institutions had passed, it issued a more benign statement in which there was no mention of decommissioning.
Now, in this fourth statement, the IRA repeats the republican claim that the first IRA ceasefire of 1994 collapsed on the Tory demand for disarmament. It adds: "Those who demand the decommissioning of IRA weapons lend themselves, in the current political context, inadvertently or otherwise, to the failed agenda which seeks the defeat of the IRA. The British government have the power to change that context and should do so."
If it was a failed agenda in 1994, it would appear, as far as the IRA is concerned, that it is a failed agenda in July 1999 and therefore, just as the original IRA ceasefire collapsed over decommissioning, so could this two-year-old ceasefire crumble.
However, the key phrase in the above paragraph is "in the current political context". A reasonable deduction is that if that context is changed, i.e. if the executive and that the institutions which devolve from it are formed, then any implied threat disappears.
It might be reasonable to deduce that with that context changed, the IRA might also move on decommissioning. The IRA does not say that would happen but, more importantly, it doesn't say it would not happen.
On the day of The Way Forward document at Stormont, Mr Gerry Adams felt able to tell RTE that he believed IRA decommissioning would happen. The British and Irish governments spoke of a seismic shift in republican thinking, and while Mr Tony Blair in particular can be susceptible to hyperbole, it is reasonable to conclude they were working on more than a nod and a wink from the very senior republicans involved in the talks.
All that was contingent though on David Trimble being in a position to take the gamble to bring his Assembly team into government with Sinn Fein. The deal was that it had to be government before guns.
Unionists will now talk of the IRA putting more than a metaphorical gun to their heads on the formation of an executive, but equally it can be stated that the British and Irish governments and all the pro-agreement parties want the UUP to take the risk and at least test whether republicans are bluffing.
The IRA statement is also interesting because it says that "over the past five years" the IRA has "contributed in a meaningful way to the creation of a climate which would facilitate the search for a durable settlement". In the right context that contribution would remain, the statement appears to suggest.
The IRA statement ups the ante but it does not alter where the various protagonists stand politically. Unionists will be annoyed with the comments; the two governments and the pro-agreement parties will be relieved. As said, it could be a lot worse.