This NYT article, “<a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/world/middleeast/15sunnis.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

“>Eye on Iran, Rivals Pursuing Nuclear Power,” is something of a breakthrough in the public debate over Iran’s nuclear plans. According to the Times, “Intelligence agencies and nuclear experts now estimate that Tehran is 2 to 10 years away from having the means to make a uranium-based bomb.” So even NYT has given up on the old 5 to 10 year figure. This puts the first reasonable moment when Iran might be expected to have a bomb at 2009, a fact which will surely loom large in the 2008 campaign.

The article focuses on the knock-on proliferation effects of an Iranian bomb. This is a matter of the highest significance. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East would pose a massive threat to America’s strategic position, and to world peace. Western allies could lose control of the Gulf (and thus the world’s economy) to increasingly Islamist-dominated countries. We could see nuclear exchanges among Middle Eastern powers, perhaps escalating into world-wide conflicts. And the chances of untraceable nuclear terrorism in the United States and Europe would grow significantly. The Times may not mention all this, but it clearly show just how many Middle Eastern countries could go nuclear if Iran gets a bomb.

Perhaps the most telling detail in this piece is about the president. President Bush is deeply concerned about the proliferation consequences of an Iranian bomb, and has consulted with experts about his fears: “‘It’s a constant source of discussion,’ a senior administration official said recently. ‘But it’s not something the president thinks he can discuss publicly’ after the imbroglio over faulty weapons intelligence on Iraq.”

I understand the administration’s reluctance here, but I think it’s making a huge mistake by not speaking frankly about the whole panoply of strategic disasters that will flow from an Iranian bomb. This is where the nonsensical “Bush lied” claim has genuinely damaged our national interests. The administration is not even talking about the greatest threat this country faces–the threat that best explains why unilateral surrender in Iraq would be a disaster. In the absence of honesty about the real dangers of a nuclear Iran, how can we fight, let alone win, the war on terror?

Do read this important article. It moves public debate one significant step closer to honesty about what is at stake in Iran. Expect this issue to increasingly focus the presidential campaign.