Iran calls for UN to stop being hypocrites regarding Israel's nukes

[drone]

IIRC, India and Pakistan also are not signatories of the NPT.

This says nothing about the "rightness" of Israel, India, and Pakistan having nukes. However, in signing the NPT, Iran has declared that it will not pursue nuclear weapons, and therefore should get grief from the international community if it tries. If Iran wants nukes, they should withdraw from the treaty, then start developing them. Israel probably had nukes before the NPT opened for signatures, so I'm don't see what the fuss is about.

[Papewaio]

IIRC, India and Pakistan also are not signatories of the NPT.

This says nothing about the "rightness" of Israel, India, and Pakistan having nukes. However, in signing the NPT, Iran has declared that it will not pursue nuclear weapons, and therefore should get grief from the international community if it tries. If Iran wants nukes, they should withdraw from the treaty, then start developing them. Israel probably had nukes before the NPT opened for signatures, so I'm don't see what the fuss is about.

There is a flip side to the NPT where signatories will not help states to acquire nuclear weapons. The US by quite publically pushing for Australia to supply Uranium to India is breaching that commitment and trying to make others break the treaty to. So how can the US then turn around and with a straight face try and enforce the treaty on Iran?

And its not like that part of the NPT is hidden down in the small print... it is the first Article.

[drone]

There is a flip side to the NPT where signatories will not help states to acquire nuclear weapons. The US by quite publically pushing for Australia to supply Uranium to India is breaching that commitment and trying to make others break the treaty to. So how can the US then turn around and with a straight face try and enforce the treaty on Iran?

And its not like that part of the NPT is hidden down in the small print... it is the first Article.

India already has nuclear weapons, so the first article restriction doesn't really apply (aside from possibly aiding in producing more). I thought the main beef was with the third article, where the US is helping India with civilian nuclear tech, but is denying Iran the same peaceful use. If Iran's intentions are for weapons, this is a non-issue.

Iran is either trying to disarm Israel because it feels Israel is breaking international law, or is trying to disarm Israel to make it easier to wipe it off the map. Opinions vary on this, I believe in the latter. Regardless, Iran has signed the treaty, and should withdraw before starting a weapons program. Until then, they are subject to inspections. If Israel had weapons before the NPT (and are currently not part of the treaty), I don't really see what sanctions can be imposed. Would Israel signing onto the NPT as a Nuclear Weapon State (not possible, unless they secretly tested one sometime before 1967 ) satisfy Iran?

[Papewaio]

Very hard to impose sanctions on Iran when the US is circumventing the NPT and applying pressure on Australia to change its domestic and international laws to supply India with Uranium. Australia will not supply uranium to countries that are not signatories to the NPT. While the US should not be enabling a country that is guilty of proliferation as part of the NPT states that as a weapon enabled state they are not to help others gain access to weapons...

It is not a very good way to enforce policy when there is a clear double standard in place.

[BigTex]

It may seem like a double standard. But it is very good farsighted planing on our part. It's quite a good thing to have an ally next to China with a large stockpile of nukes. Not to mention India's had them for a couple decades.

It is also far from a double standard. When was the last time you heard isreal or india screaming for a genocide? What do you expect us to say when a country who has created terrorist groups that have attacked us, seeks to create nukes? If they stopped funding terrorist organizations, stop creating terrorist organizations, stop screaming for the genocide of all jews to begin. Then maybe they could be allowed to have nukes.

[Reenk Roink]

When was the last time you heard isreal or india screaming for a genocide? ...stop screaming for the genocide of all jews to begin. Then maybe they could be allowed to have nukes.

I agree that nuclear Israel is a lesser evil than nuclear Iran, but Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the middle east (outside of Israel). This is false.

[Pannonian]

I agree that nuclear Israel is a lesser evil than nuclear Iran, but Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the middle east (outside of Israel). This is false.

Their businesses are apparently quite popular, as they're not subject to the restrictions that Muslim businesses have to observe.

[BigTex]

I agree that nuclear Israel is a lesser evil than nuclear Iran, but Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the middle east (outside of Israel). This is false.

Last I checked, when your screaming to a worldwide audience that you want to rid the middle east of the jew's. Correct, they have been screaming for a genocide of the jews.

As for having the largest jewish population outside of isreal. Of course they are one of the largest countries in the region. Still that population is incredibly small.

3) Israel must be disciplined. I don't mean that a war should be fought, and I certainly don't mean they should be "wiped off the map", but hard-hitting economic sanctions should be put in place to show Israel that they cannot get away with what they do. They have the right to self-defense. No more.

Lebanon, rather affiliates of Lebonese officials, invaded isreal, fought and captured Isreali soldiers. Then went onto attack Isreal with a rocket bombardment. What in the world do you expect? For a sorveriegn country to simply allow itself to be invaded by a foreign power and not expect a war? The Isreali's carried the war into lebanon to ensure they wouldnt be invaded again. Lebanon started the war, if they werent prepared for the consequences they shouldnt have attacked.

[Papewaio]

It's quite a good thing to have an ally next to China with a large stockpile of nukes. Not to mention India's had them for a couple decades.

It's not a good thing to have an ally who is going to go down one of two paths:

The lesser, it becomes a trigger point and you are now in a war that makes Korea look like child's play.

The more likely, as the economies of India and China grow they stop playing hard to get, eyes start smouldering and suddenly they can't stop the thrill of a unilateral trade agreement of the worlds two largest populations. Threes a crowd and you are left outside the new relationship because you have been the bitchy best friend trying to stop them get together.

[drone]

Very hard to impose sanctions on Iran when the US is circumventing the NPT and applying pressure on Australia to change its domestic and international laws to supply India with Uranium. Australia will not supply uranium to countries that are not signatories to the NPT. While the US should not be enabling a country that is guilty of proliferation as part of the NPT states that as a weapon enabled state they are not to help others gain access to weapons...

It is not a very good way to enforce policy when there is a clear double standard in place.

Like I said, India already has access to weapons. Should the US be pressuring Oz to supply the uranium? No. But that's a different thread.

2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards required by this article.

It's my understanding that the US/India deal is covered by the IAEA safeguards mentioned. India (as a non-signatory, a "non-nuclear-weapon State" for the purposes of the treaty, I believe) will open some reactors to international inspection as "civilian use", the material will be used at these facilities. Granted, by importing material from Oz, it would free up local material from energy production for weapons use, but, hey, no one's perfect.

In that case the only fair thing to do is to let Iran make nukes so they can defend themselves.

Iran can make nukes whenever it wants, by withdrawing from the NPT. Until then, it is subject to IAEA inspections.

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have two main points, and a third backing point.

1) I agree with Iran. Israel has shown just how responsible they are in Lebanon. They do not deserve the right to nuclear weapons. Neither does Iran, though. However, the thing that I find amusing is that Iran builds nuclear facilities that could possibly be used for a nuclear bomb, whereas Israel has already produced or aquired nuclear bombs, and the airpower to carry them over long distances, and yet Iran is still condemned instead of Israel.

2) The UN will prove useless in this issue, thanks to the single-member veto policy. I believe at least two members of the Council should have to vote against a bill for it to be turned down. This way, only petty resolutions with no real effect are passed. In this case, it's obvious that America would veto a resolution on Israel. They've used the veto more then anyone else in history, and I would not be suprised if it was done here.

3) Israel must be disciplined. I don't mean that a war should be fought, and I certainly don't mean they should be "wiped off the map", but hard-hitting economic sanctions should be put in place to show Israel that they cannot get away with what they do. They have the right to self-defense. No more.

[IRONxMortlock]

One thing everyone is missing here - Iran doesn't have, and by all credible sources is decades away from being able to produce, nuclear weapons.

They want nuclear power plants. They signed the NPT are going about this process as is appropriate under international law.

The countries currently roaring about the huge threat possed by Iran are the same countries you might remember from wars such as "Iraq - Sadam has weapons of mass destruction" and "Iraq - They can attack us with WMD's in 45 minutes from NOW".

After the monumental #$%#up that has occured in Iraq how can anyone in their right mind continue to have faith in and allow the same leaders who created that mess to dictate anything other than a serving suggestion for more fries in a drive thru window?

[KrooK]

Actually government into Iran is much more stable than into Israel.
Iran has its own constitution , which is mayor source of law.
Muslims priests can cancel new laws made by parliament but now because they are muslim priests only because that is being written into constitution.
Iran don't fight with every neighbour and it was fighting with Saddan Hussejn when USA and Israel supported him.

On the other hand Israel is military dictature - have you noticed that most of politicians are former generals? Some political leaders of Israel demand talmud law (eye for eye, tooth for tooth) and they want get rid of every non-jew into Palestine. According to their words get rid means kill.
Into 70ties Golda Meyer - Israeli Prime Minister kept telling that "Palestinian nation does not exist." - its very hard to find more nazist statement.

So in my opinion Israel is bigger enemy than Iran. Iran want calm existence into their country - Israel want chaos into all East.

[Conqueror]

On the other hand Israel is military dictature - have you noticed that most of politicians are former generals?

Oh come on. They may be former generals, but that's just because the Israelites are willing to vote former generals. That doesn't make it a dictature.

Iran want calm existence into their country - Israel want chaos into all East.

Iran (or rather, the radical politicians) are rather loud about wanting the destruction of Israel. And Israel naturally wants chaos where chaos suits it's interests and calm where calm suits it's interests. 'All East' would hardly be in the former category.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually government into Iran is much more stable than into Israel. Iran has its own constitution , which is mayor source of law.
Muslims priests can cancel new laws made by parliament but now because they are muslim priests only because that is being written into constitution.
Iran don't fight with every neighbour and it was fighting with Saddan Hussejn when USA and Israel supported him.

If by "stability" you mean consistency of governmental form, than Israel edges out Iran by having a Govt./Constitution in place for nearly 60 years vis-a-vis Irans 25+. If by "stability" you mean constancy in foreign policy and governmental directives, then you could argue for Iran as more stable as the mullahs have been fairly consistent in their goals/efforts and Israel has been forming new coalition governments with every election -- sometimes with significant policy shifts.

Actually, while the USA did support -- at least tangentially -- S. Hussein's war against Iran, we also let/aqueisced to the Israeli's selling spare parts to Iran to keep their F-14s flight worthy. So to some extent we were playing off both sides against one another to bleed off two threats at the same time.

On the other hand Israel is military dictature - have you noticed that most of politicians are former generals? Some political leaders of Israel demand talmud law (eye for eye, tooth for tooth) and they want get rid of every non-jew into Palestine. According to their words get rid means kill.
Into 70ties Golda Meyer - Israeli Prime Minister kept telling that "Palestinian nation does not exist." - its very hard to find more nazist statement.

Poppycock. Most of their key leaders have been former Generals, true, but they've adopted political policies all across the political spectrum. The Knesset has changed direction many times and a series of coalition governments has run the country democratically -- more or less -- since shortly after its inception. A perfect Western-style democracy with a strong track record on individual rights? By no means. A military dictatorship? By no means.

Have aggressive and sometimes militaristic policies been their preference? Yes, and with more frequency than for most other countries. However, most other countries have not faced direct invasions at least 3 times during the current lifetimes of most of their leaders. Some good arguers on this forum have suggested that Israeli hard-line reactions to Arab/Palestinian provocation have actually worked against them -- with a fair bit of evidence in support -- but the reactions are "natural" enough from the Israeli perspective.

Meyer was arguing that their was no Palestinian nation because she believed the individuals involved to be Arabs hailing from a particular area with no distince ethnicity or tradition. While certainly not a "welcoming" utterance, labeling it as "Nazist" is a bit over the top. As I understand it, most Israelis no longer share that view, either (though a significant minority probably do).

So in my opinion Israel is bigger enemy than Iran. Iran want calm existence into their country - Israel want chaos into all East.

Both want the same thing: calm, stability, and economic success for their own people and -- as the old toast goes -- confusion to their enemies. This does, of course, create a situation where Israel profits from internicine conflict among Arab nations while Iran profits from those same nations focusing their hatreds/angst on Israel. Neither country is likely to achieve both portions of this objective.

[Tribesman]

Actually, while the USA did support -- at least tangentially -- S. Hussein's war against Iran, we also let/aqueisced to the Israeli's selling spare parts to Iran to keep their F-14s flight worthy. So to some extent we were playing off both sides against one another to bleed off two threats at the same time.

Seamus , don't forget getting Israel to step in and ship the 5,000 missiles to Iran in exchange for the US hostages once the checks and balances kicked in and stopped the direct shipment .

[Watchman]

If by "stability" you mean consistency of governmental form, than Israel edges out Iran by having a Govt./Constitution in place for nearly 60 years vis-a-vis Irans 25+.

Well the Iranians did have to get rid of one earnestly disliked, in due form US-backed, autocrat first you know... Nevermind now that I seem to recall hearing something about Persia having had a reasonably working republic-democracy sort of thing going for a while before the Shah was reinstated as the de facto dictator with the due US backing...

Being a little forgetful here, are we ?