NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sorry this isn't fresh news (December 20th); the main reason I find it interesting is that most media have not mentioned it at all.


Iran has called for the UN Security Council to compel Israel to give up its nuclear weapons.

The request, made on Tuesday in a letter to the Security Council, comes after Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, appeared to admit in a TV interview that Israel had nuclear weapons.

Javad Zarif, Iran's UN ambassador, said that Olmert's comments had "removed any excuse - if there ever were any - for continued inaction by the council in the face of this actual threat to international peace and security".

He said the council should "compel it [Israel] to abandon nuclear weapons, urge it to accede to the NPT [nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] without delay and demand this regime to place promptly all its nuclear facilities under IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] full-scope safeguards".

The letter marks the first formal call for action to be taken against Israel and comes at a time when the Security Council is debating imposing sanctions on Iran in an attempt to halt the country's own nuclear programme.


You can read the rest of the article here (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E8F80F7F-E1A8-49A5-8424-EAA471228126.htm).

Of course, a crucial difference is that Iran (contrary to popular belief, and to what I've heard politicians say on British radio) is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, whereas Israel is not. The whole reason why the UN is coming down hard on Iran is because Iran has bound itself to certain obligations under the NPT, while Israel has not.

Another difference, though, is that Israel is known to have nukes, while Iran insists it has no intention of developing nukes, and claims the right to civilian nuclear power (which it has a right to under the terms of the Treaty).

All this comes at a time when there has been controversy over the United States' nuclear deal with India (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/science.html), considering that India has nukes and is not a signatory of the NPT (not a direct link, sorry; scroll down by clicking "More news", and select "Americans gain ground in Asia - an analysis").

So... What do you think? Is there a double standard? Is the US' position (namely, that India and Israel are trustworthy democracies, whereas Iran is not) justified? Thoughts in general on this issue?

Here (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm) is a link to the text of the NPT, which anyone who wants to discuss NPT issues really should read.

So I guess the $64,000 question is: Do you feel safer knowing that Iran is trying to develop nuclear power in accordance with it's treaty and is suspected of trying to circumvent the treaty, or that Israel and India actually HAVE nuclear weapons and have no treaty obligations whatsoever. I'd also point out that political system is no indication of safety: The only nation to actually USE a nuclear weapon against another was a democracy. :p

I will be pondering that question in my underground bunker. Good day. :)

I’d rather Iran have nukes than Isreal.

International diplomacy, especially in the ME, seems to get more childish by the day.

With regard to the US deal with India, if that deal breaches Article 1 of the NPT (I can't see how it doesn't, but there might be some technicality) then they've got to be accountable for that. If they wanted to sell tnuclear technology to non-signatories they shouldn't haven't signed up themselves.

I’d rather Iran have nukes than Isreal.

Yes, a country that thinks Isreal should be destroyed is the better choice of nuke holders. Bravo.

Can't they just rely on MAD?

Yes, a country that thinks Isreal should be destroyed is the better choice of nuke holders. Bravo.

Can't they just rely on MAD?

As opposed to the country that likes ignoring treaties on a whim?

As opposed to the country that likes ignoring treaties on a whim?

You mean Lebanon? Hezbollah was lobbing rocket after rocket into Isreal, I can't say I expected them to take the attacks laying down.

Also if Isreal wanted to use their nukes they could of already destroyed the entire middle east by now, same goes for the US, Russia, China, India etc. etc.

I'm sorry this isn't fresh news (December 20th); the main reason I find it interesting is that most media have not mentioned it at all.



You can read the rest of the article here (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E8F80F7F-E1A8-49A5-8424-EAA471228126.htm).

Of course, a crucial difference is that Iran (contrary to popular belief, and to what I've heard politicians say on British radio) is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, whereas Israel is not. The whole reason why the UN is coming down hard on Iran is because Iran has bound itself to certain obligations under the NPT, while Israel has not.

Another difference, though, is that Israel is known to have nukes, while Iran insists it has no intention of developing nukes, and claims the right to civilian nuclear power (which it has a right to under the terms of the Treaty).

All this comes at a time when there has been controversy over the United States' nuclear deal with India (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/science.html), considering that India has nukes and is not a signatory of the NPT (not a direct link, sorry; scroll down by clicking "More news", and select "Americans gain ground in Asia - an analysis").

So... What do you think? Is there a double standard? Is the US' position (namely, that India and Israel are trustworthy democracies, whereas Iran is not) justified? Thoughts in general on this issue?

Here (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm) is a link to the text of the NPT, which anyone who wants to discuss NPT issues really should read.


I agree with that statement. If you remember Iran was a trusted country too at one time before the current government took over by force. This current government has made it quite clear of there intensions,
this attitude is what makes them untrustworthy.

If you remember Iran was a trusted country too at one time before the current government took over by force.

Just to correct you on that point, Ahmadinejad's government was elected, not installed by a coup. If you're refering to the Islamic Revolution, it overthrew the Shah... who had been brought to power by the US and the UK.

To refresh your memory, the US and UK overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mossadegh in the early 1950s, and brought in the Shah's dictatorship instead.

I agree with that statement. If you remember Iran was a trusted country too at one time before the current government took over by force. This current government has made it quite clear of their intentions, this attitude is what makes them untrustworthy.This government did not take over by force.

I'd rather bother Israel and Iran have short range nuclear weapons. That way Israel wouldn't act like a superpower and Iran wouldn't think about going after any of its neighboring oil supplies.

Just to correct you on that point, Ahmadinejad's government was elected, not installed by a coup. If you're refering to the Islamic Revolution, it overthrew the Shah... who had been brought to power by the US and the UK.

To refresh your memory, the US and UK overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mossadegh in the early 1950s, and brought in the Shah's dictatorship instead.

Biggest American diplomatic blunder of all time.

Good for them. If the US can use the UN to force Iran to do something, Iran can do the same with Israel, and no one can accuse Iran of being unreasonable, since the UN exists to try and resolve international differences.

Biggest American diplomatic blunder of all time.
In hindsight, of course. If we knew that it would start this chain of events that led up to the Iranian theocracy of today then perhaps we wouldn't have done it. But then, you can say that about a lot of things.

Good for them. If the US can use the UN to force Iran to do something, Iran can do the same with Israel, and no one can accuse Iran of being unreasonable, since the UN exists to try and resolve international differences.

An endless cycle of retaliation is all I see.

In hindsight, of course. If we knew that it would start this chain of events that led up to the Iranian theocracy of today then perhaps we wouldn't have done it. But then, you can say that about a lot of things.

Aye.

Biggest American diplomatic blunder of all time.

Or a very good candidate for that title, anyway.


Good for them. If the US can use the UN to force Iran to do something, Iran can do the same with Israel, and no one can accuse Iran of being unreasonable, since the UN exists to try and resolve international differences.

To play devil's advocate, the difference is that Israel hasn't bound itself to abide by the NPT, which makes it difficult for the UN to accuse Israel of violating a Treaty it hasn't signed.

To play devil's advocate, the difference is that Israel hasn't bound itself to abide by the NPT, which makes it difficult for the UN to accuse Israel of violating a Treaty it hasn't signed.
But it can still whine about it.

Iran with nuclear weapons would be a very bad thing. Which just makes it all the more frustrating what a moral corner everyone who wants to stop them has painted themselves into.