I think it is you who has got it wrong. Signatories to the NPT have the right to use nuclear energy in any and all ways for peaceful purposes including enrichment, reprocessing of nuclear fuels and so on. The US, Britain etc are demanding that Iran cease uranium enrichment. This is clearly outside the bounds of the NPT, and Iran is within it's rights under the terms of the treaty to continue with it's nuclear program. There is no evidence that any nuclear material has been diverted to military use according the IAEA inspections. Nor has there been any convincing evidence of such from any other source. Israel, India and Pakistan are not signatories to the NPT, certainly have nuclear weapons and the US provides military aid hand over fist. It makes the all the non-proliferation talk sound very hypocritical.
Israel, India and Pakistan are not signatories to the NPT, certainly have nuclear weapons and the US provides military aid hand over fist. Exactly, they are not signatories and are therefore unlike Iran not in violation of any treaties. It makes the all the non-proliferation talk sound very hypocritical. It sure does if you look at it from the position of moral equivalency. But in real world allies and enemies are not treated the same, rogue states and responsible governments are not treated the same, theocracies and dictatorships and democracies are not treated the same. Nothing at all hypocritical about it. Just common sense.
This really shows what clowns the Iranians are. The Manhatten Project started in 1942 and by August 1945 we not only had the bomb but had successfully deployed it against enemy targets. These jerk-offs in Iran have been screwing around with this for how many years and have not even had a successful test? Being this stupid gives us all the excuse we need to bomb these losers back to the stone age. Ohhh wait a minute, they never left.
According to this strange logic, it would be perfectly OK if Iran withdrew from the NPT and started a nuclear weapons program. It seems that it is the US and hangers on that are incapable to honoring international treaties.
When you start your post by stating I am ignorant, then its tough to have a meaningful argument In sake of debate nevertheless, I understand you siding with abiding to international protocols. But is it not true that the U.S. violates treaties? For example, the Bush Administration tortured terrorist suspects (Abu Ghraib) and hence violated several UN Human Rights (Geneva) treaties. Furthermore, is it not true that our CIA overthrows governments to install puppets in power. How is that legitimate? Also, when has our government paid our UN dues... or does just Ted Turner take care of that? While I am a realist and understand that the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world and therefore we write the rules in foreign affairs and diplomatic relations, I do not see us benefiting from our behavior in the long-term Let's face it, history has proven that stronger countries cannot always defeat weaker ones... especially when man has to defend his homeland. The Soviet Union failed in Afghanistan and even we can't win the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.... As drjekyllus would refer to poor countries living in the Stone Age. Even with the most sophisticated technology in the world, we cannot defeat these stone age cultures nor can we find the world's biggest fugitive who is likely hiding in a cave. In terms of Iran, they are playing defense. It is the U.S. that is invading its neighbors. Historically, Iran has not been aggressive in foreign policy nor has it done any harm on American soil. A treaty alone is not sufficient to why they cannot have nuclear weapons (although they claim it is obviously just for energy purposes). If we can break treaties, why can't other countries do the same? Also, what would be so bad if they actually did have nukes? What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that they will use them on us? No. The U.S. fears that if Iran has weapons then we won't be able to bully them. We failed at preventing China from obtaining nuclear capabilities, largely from the Russians, and now we respect them. America is the strongest country, economically and militarily in the world. Instead of imperalizing nations through the gun or through international law, why don't we just dominate on the market? Why do we have 50,000 troops in South Korea? Why do we give aid #1 aid to Israel and #2 aid to Egypt, countries with historical wars and tensions. Let's stop dividing and conquering the world and focus on our problems at home. We are rich enough to get what we want without using force.
It would be legal, they would not be violating the treaty they signed but that would not necessarily be OK. The world would still have the right to treat them as a pariah state, just like North Korea is treated nowdays. Again I am sure from your moral equivalency point of view it may look hypocritical. But in the real world having crazy mullahs and ayatollahs with nukes is a really bad idea. And from the practical and pragmatic perspective there isn't really anything that can be done about the states that already have nukes so the emphasis is on preventing the emergence of new members, especially rogue members like Iran and NK. It's bad enough that Pakistan has nukes.
For a brief period of time now, around 30 years or so, Iran (to some) has leaned towards being an extremist muslim state. And extremist muslims (some say) don't appear to nuzzle up to those who don't believe in 'their way'. As a matter of fact, I recall having read somewhere that they (em's) may have even shown to be somewhat violent towards non-muslims ... I could be wrong, but I think I read that. Now,it seems that they are indeed some time away from developing weapons grade nuclear material let alone a means for delivery, but that may not be the true concern. I think there is concern that ANY extremist muslims possess ANY grade of nuclear material. I'm not sure why, though ... I mean ... it's not like there should be any concern that an extremist muslim state would consider making such nuclear material available to any of their extremist muslim bros who might be eager to construct, deliver and detonate a 'dirty' bomb somewhere ... or anything like that. I mean ... I understand that extremist muslims seem to have issues with 'non-believers' and all ... but that surely doesn't mean that they would consider anything like detonating some sort of device that had the potential of hurting - or even killing - a lot of people ... does it ????