While the international community is busy hammering out a new and more attractive package of incentives for Iran, the Times of London reports on the exposure of an clandestine Iranian missile facility:

Analysis of the photographs taken by the Digital Globe QuickBird satellite four days after the launch has revealed a number of intriguing features that indicate to experts that it is the same site where Iran is focusing its efforts on developing a ballistic missile with a range of about 6,000km (4,000 miles).

This is the latest in a series of revelations about Iran’s military programs which Iran is trying to conceal from the world. In particular, as emerged from the latest IAEA report circulated last February, Iran has detailed designs of uranium metal hemispheres, re-entry vehicles and other components which would likely be needed to build a nuclear warhead and secure it on a missile like the ones Iran is developing at the site now exposed. Among other things, the IAEA report described

parameters and development work related to the Shahab 3 missile, in particular technical aspects of a re-entry vehicle, and made available to Iran for examination a computer image provided by other Member States showing a schematic layout of the contents of the inner cone of a re-entry vehicle. This layout has been assessed by the Agency as quite likely to be able to accommodate a nuclear device.

Now, consider the Iranian case to date: Iran has just announced the installation of 6,000 new centrifuges – apparently of a more advanced design than the P-1 and P-2 centrifuges already operating at the Natanz nuclear site; Iran is alleged to have ballistic missiles that can accommodate a nuclear warhead; Iran is now developing ballistic missiles with a 4,000 mile range that could easily reach any European capital; Iran admits having a design for uranium hemispheres; Iran was already offered a long list of incentives in June 2006 and took two months to carefully phrase its response – “NO!”. So, why are the nations of the world trying to increase the incentive package for Iran exactly?

Technical hurdles are the only things that stand between Iran and the bomb. If an Iranian bomb is so terrifying a prospect – as both US president George W. Bush and French President, Nicholar Sarkozy have repeatedly acknowledged – is it not time for a bit more pressure to be brought to bear, rather than more incentives?