(Update II) Iran "Fantasies" at the New York Times?

(This NYT piece, "New Worry Rises After Iran Claims Nuclear Steps," is not good news if true. "The assertion involves Iran's claim that even while it begins to enrich small amounts of uranium, it is pursuing a far more sophisticated way of making atomic fuel that American officials and inspectors say could speed Iran's path to developing a nuclear weapon," the Times reports. "Iran has consistently maintained that it abandoned work on this advanced technology, called the P-2 centrifuge, three years ago. Western analysts long suspected that Iran had a second, secret program - based on the black market offerings of the renegade Pakistani nuclear engineer Abdul Qadeer Khan - separate from the activity at its main nuclear facility at Natanz.")

(The New York Times follows up their recent Iran editorial with a front-page piece today quoting nuclear analysts who say "nothing had changed to alter current estimates of when Iran might be able to make a single nuclear weapon, assuming that is its ultimate goal. The United States government has put that at 5 to 10 years, and some analysts have said it could come as late as 2020." But as we know intelligence estimates can overestimate AND underestimate a target nation's nuclear program.)

Posted on April 11, 2006:

The editors at the paper have weighed in on what to do about Iran's quest for nuclear weapons -- in two words, not much. Their argument boils down to this: Tehran is a decade away from a bomb; so all the "saber rattling" is unnecessary and counterproductive. We should encourage Iran's political evolution and let their government know that they're "better off" without nuclear bombs. Sanctions are not mentioned. They make no statement that Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, which puts them to the left of Howard Dean who has declared, "Under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power." And they say nothing on the consequences should Tehran produce them. One person who has offered his thoughts on the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran is Gerard Baker of the Times (London), who wrote:

If Iran goes nuclear, it will demonstrate conclusively that even the world's greatest superpower, unrivalled militarily, under a leadership of proven willingness to take bold military steps, could not stop a country as destabilising as Iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions.

No country in a region that is so riven by religious and ethnic hatreds will feel safe from the new regional superpower. No country in the region will be confident that the US and its allies will be able or willing to protect them from a nuclear strike by Iran. Nor will any regional power fear that the US and its allies will act to prevent them from emulating Iran. Say hello to a nuclear Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia.

Iran, of course, secure now behind its nuclear wall, will surely step up its campaign of terror around the world. It will become even more of a magnet and haven for terrorists. The terror training grounds of Afghanistan were always vulnerable if the West had the resolve. Protected by a nuclear-missile-owning state, Iranian camps will become impregnable.

I hope Iran is "about 10 years away from building" nuclear bombs as the editors claim, but how do they know with such certainty? They don't say where they got that number. In fact, their favorite weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has pegged the number at "five years" and the Los Angeles Times has reported that the number may be "within three years."

Iran's Nuclear Steps Quicken, Diplomats Say

VIENNA - With efforts to halt its nuclear program at an impasse, Iran is moving faster than expected and is just days from making the first steps toward enriching uranium, said diplomats who have been briefed on the program.