Iranian Nuclear Test? Probably not. Yet.

An Israeli website is reporting the Iranians may have tested a nuclear device on Oct. 25, but the rest of the news media either hasn't noticed or is ignoring the story.

Israel Insider bases its claim on comments by an Iranian nuclear scientist who said a 5.0 earthquake in southern Iran on Oct. 25 was actually an underground nuclear test.

Here's what the blog In From the Cold, written by presumed  former U.S. intelligence personnel, has to say about it:

According to the U.S. Geological Service (USGS), a magnitude 5.0 earthquake was reported near the Persian Gulf coast around midnight (Iranian time) on 25 October. The tremor was centered near the town of Korig, north of the Strait of Hormuz. An earthquake measuring 4.8 on the Richter Scale was reported in the same area on 21 October; the Iranian source claims that earlier tremor was associated with another nuclear test.
At this point, there is little evidence to corroborate the report. The coastal region where the quakes occurred is hundreds of miles from Iranian range complexes where a nuclear weapon might eventually be tested. Additionally, the referenced site is easily monitored by U.S. intelligence assets, including WC-135 CONSTANT PHOENIX aircraft. So far, there's been no report of a recent WC-135 deployment to the Persian Gulf region.
Additionally, if Iran had successfully conducted a nuclear test, there would have been an announcement from Tehran. Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is a "game changer" in the Middle East, and Tehran would have little reason to conceal the news. Indeed, the announcement might actually lessen the chances of an Israeli attack, since a test would indicate that Iran had mastered all stages of nuclear development. It would also mean that prospects for successfully derailing the program had all but vanished.
There is also reason to believe that Iranian preparations for a test would be detected by western intelligence agencies. An underground nuclear blast is (typically) preceded by extensive tunneling work; the deployment of test vans and other monitoring equipment; the installation of required cabling, and heightened security at the site--measures that are often detected by satellites and SIGINT assets, among other sources.
And, quite often, the U.S. leaks these discoveries to the press, to let our adversaries know that we're aware of their activities. To date, there have been no western press reports about Iran conducting a test--let alone, preparing for one.
While the odds are admittedly slim, the possibility of an Iranian nuclear test cannot be totally ruled out. In recent years, there has been extensive tunneling along the Persian Gulf coast. While much of the work has been associated with upgrades in Tehran's coastal defenses, it would be relatively easy to bore an extra shaft or two, with an eye towards future nuclear testing. Iran could also (potentially) conceal other preparations for the test, drawing upon its expertise in denial and deception techniques.
It's also worth noting that North Korea is playing a key role in supporting Tehran's nuclear ambitions. The North Koreans are even more adept at deception than their Iranian counterparts, and they learned valuable lessons during their own nuclear test in 2006. With assistance from Pyongyang, Iran would have a better chance at hiding an underground nuclear blast.
But not all traces of a nuclear test can be successfully concealed. Particulate and gaseous debris from a subterranean blast make their way into the atmosphere, and are readily detected by the WC-135 and other sensors. The absence of such discoveries (so far) suggests that claims of an Iranian "test" are nothing more than fiction--at least, for now.

You may recall that I posited a few weeks ago the notion that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear program before the U.S. elections on Tuesday. Such a move makes sense to the Israelis for these reasons:

The Iranians are considered to be no more than six months away from being able to make a nuclear weapon and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made it abundantly clear that he would destroy Israel if he could.

The Israelis have demonstrated repeatedly that they have the will and the ability to make preemptive strikes on hostile Arab states that pursue nuclear ambitions.

A new crisis in the region would instantly shift the U.S. presidential campaign dialogue from the economy to national defense and foreign policy - an area where John McCain has a distinct advantage over Barack Obama - and cause voters throughout the political spectrum to turn to the man who has the military credentials to protect their interests. McCain has repeatedly expressed his commitment to support Israel, while Obama has a penchant for consorting with Israel's enemies, including a willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. So the prospect of an Obama presidency is a troubling thing for Israel.

Since the international community seems unable to squelch Iran's nuclear program, it's obvious and inevitable that the Israelis will have to do it themselves. And if they have to do it sooner or later, why not do it at a time that will assure an American presidency that will stand by them?

There is a rather shameful precedent for this kind of gaming of another country's elections. Islamic terrorists conducted a series of coordinated train bombings in Madrid - an action that is credited with the election soon after of a government that pulled Spain out of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. There are probably those in Israel who are arguing this weekend that striking Iran to influence the U.S. elections could backfire if political sentiment in the U.S. rises in anger over an attempt to meddle in our election.

If the Israelis decide against striking between now and Tuesday, they almost certainly will act before the end of George W. Bush's term, given the fact that Bush has been the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House.