Iran is a signatory and has not renounced the treaty; they are saying that their use of nuclear power is not for the purpose of producing weapons so it is permitted by the treaty.Originally Posted by Major Strickland
Israel
The Palestinians
Two States
Neither, some other State or people rule.
Neither, mutual destruction.
One State, two peoples
One State, one people (intermarriage)
Iran is a signatory and has not renounced the treaty; they are saying that their use of nuclear power is not for the purpose of producing weapons so it is permitted by the treaty.Originally Posted by Major Strickland
If this is so, then they have every legal right to pursue nuclear energy so long as they allow IAEA inspections, just as every other sovereign nation. I agree that it is silly to believe that they need this alternative source of energy with the proven reserves of oil and natural gas they have; however, the law is the law.
Last edited by Strickland; 01-23-2006 at 12:05 PM.
I think they are actually not allowed to pursue weapons and their complaint is that restrictions meant to prevent them from pursuing weapons are preventing them from pursuing legitimate research. Basically the argument is over how the IAEA is interpreting the treaty. I think the bottom line is that they what to at least keep the option of acquiring nuclear weapons open, to guarantee their own security. The catch is that many Israelis feel they can not guarantee their security if Iran has such weapons. Further complicated by the fact that the US has tough talked itself in to a corner on this issue. Finally we add good old fashion nationalistic pride and we get one big mess.
Since history shows us that no nuclear powers have gone to general war against each other, unless you count the Siachen Glacier conflict; maybe Iran seeks weapons to ensure its survival and national defense.
Last edited by GorTex6; 01-23-2006 at 09:04 PM.
It is interesting too that 3 nations that declined to sign the non-proliferation treaty (Israel, Pakistan, and India) are hardly mentioned. If Iran had wanted to pursue such weapons, they probably should not have signed the treaty.Originally Posted by Major Strickland
Mark
Discuss at: The Irregulars Visit at: UW Review
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G. K. Chesterton
But when did Iran become a signatory to the treat? As administrations (or even regimes) change, governmental priorities can change. But it's a lot harder and more aggravating to withdraw from a treaty than it is to not sign it in the first place. This is one reason why the US doesn't sign treaties willy nilly - no guarantee we'll want the landmine ban affecting us fifty years from now, for example.
Ultimately, we need a strategy for living with a nuclear armed Iran and not just containing it. Of course, that takes us well beyond the realm of "small" wars - except to the extent that Tehran chooses to use its influence to liven up neighboring conflicts. Are we seeing the beginning of a South West Asian Cold War?
It is a tough spot for Iran indeed.... Perhaps they thought that not signing would be considered tantamount to reveling a secret weapons program and so they chose to sign in order to mislead - deception being a good move of political strategy perhaps. After all, is it ever wise to reveal to potential enemies what you are NOT going to do?
I think that expecting anyone to remain without such weapons indefinitely is silly. Every nation is going to want them - some will sign treaties to imply they don't but its only a matter of time. Eventually, they're going to get them. So, as you say, we have to figure out how to live with that.
Mark
Discuss at: The Irregulars Visit at: UW Review
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G. K. Chesterton
Bookmarks