News story Here.

Iran, which announced a year ago it had successfully produced its first batch of enriched uranium, has said it will install 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz as the first stage towards "industrial scale" fuel production.

Eventually it plans to have 54,000 of the machines which spin at supersonic speeds to produce fuel for nuclear reactors or, if enriched further, nuclear bombs.

With 3,000 centrifuges, Iran could make enough material for a bomb in one year, if it wanted, Western experts say.

There seems to be a conflict of experts:

Experts say the Natanz plant needs between 50,000 to 60,000 centrifuges to consistently produce fuel for a reactor or build a warhead.

From Brian Ross at ABC:

Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material.

The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News.

Now what?

Hypothetical question:

If post-invasion inspection had found in Iraq exactly the nuclear processing capacity Iran possesses, right now, today, would it have justified the invasion?

Bonus question:

Who would have been more dangerous with a nuclear weapon? Saddam, declared by the Enlightened Current Wisdom to have had no links with terrorism, or Iran's current leadership, with many such links?

Note: I personally don't support an invasion of Iran, or at this point, even aerial attacks on facilities. Just asking, "Now what?"