Thank you for the well reasoned response. Yet I beg to differ. There is no proof of the sort that would be conclusive in a court of law that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. But there is similarly no evidence that would be conclusive in a court of law that Israel has nuclear weapons. But this isn't a court of law. This is a matter of opinion. I believe Israe has nuclear weapons in all likelihood. I also believe that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
After El Baradei left as head of the IAEA he was replaced by a Japanese citizen who issued a report saying that Iran was in violation of its disclosure obligations under the NPT. Please don't make me hunt for it, but if you insist I will take the time to track it down. Its a paragraph in the late 2009 period.
America isn't going to attack Iran. America is involved in a form of civil war. That is the only conflict of any importance to most Americans. If Obama tried to attack Iran he would only get Americans killed for nothing because he is an inexperienced incompetent.
There is a movement in America to return to isolationism. I agree with that position. The only way to save America from a future nuclear attack is to make America as small a target as possible. So America must withdraw from the eastern hemisphere completely toward that end. Sorry to ramble.
Oh, one other thing. The international order established by Western powers is ending. A new international established by China and other rising powers will replace the Western order. As evidence of this I direct your attention to the role of China, India, Brazil and South Africa in frustrating European, American and Canadian ambitions at the Copenhagen Global Warming Conference in December of 2009.
Some differences between Israeli and Iranian nuclear programs.
Israel has not signed the NPT and has been deliberately vague about possessing nuclear weapons.
Iran has signed the NPT, is compliant with all mandatory parts of the NPT and has made clear statements that they do no not seek nuclear weapons.
Iran has violated
voluntary, confidence building disclosure requirements, but none of the
mandatory requirements.
I think people are having a hard time figuring out the difference between voluntary and mandatory.
mandatory: Required by law or rules; compulsory
voluntary: Done or undertaken of one's own free will
As you can see the two words have two completely different meanings. I've noticed how the meaning of voluntary often appears to have the same meaning as mandatory when applied to Iran's nuclear program.
As far as Iran's failure to disclose is concerned, Iran wasn't hiding a functioning nuclear weapons factory. Iran failed to disclose a hole they were digging. As per the
voluntary confidence building part of the NPT, Iran failed to inform the IAEA during the planning stages before they started digging. Instead Iran decided to inform the IAEA that they were digging a hole after they started digging. At the time of the Iran's voluntary disclosure, the hole was still being dug and they were at least a year away from installing any equipment, let alone going into production. Their decision not to involve the IAEA during the planning stages probably had something to do with US and Israeli threats to bomb Iran's other NPT compliant facilities. Meanwhile every part of Iran's active nuclear program is closely monitored by the IAEA and many parts of it are open for public tours.
Most experts recognize that non-compliance with an NPT safeguards agreement is not equivalent to a violation of the NPT or does not automatically constitute a violation of the NPT itself.[291][292] The IAEA does not make determinations regarding compliance with the NPT,[293] and the U.N. Security Council does not have a responsibility to adjudicate treaty violations.[294] [297]
Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Compare that violation with Israeli violations of the NPT. They don't allow any IAEA inspections and they've never disclosed any nuclear facility locations.
Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have no problem condemning Iran's appalling human right's record and its medieval criminal justice system. But I disagree with double standards. Let me know when Iran:
1) imprisons millions of civilians behind razor wire topped walls with guard towers
2) lays waste to civilian infrastructure.
3) blocks humanitarian food and medical aid
4) un-signs itself from the NPT and tosses out the inspectors
5) commits war crimes and crimes against humanity
Until then, Iran is far more NPT compliant and far less of a threat to world peace than Israel.
Other issues:
When are the nuclear weapon powers going to eliminate their nuclear arsenals? That part of the NPT is mandatory. Kind of Ironic that of the countries pressing for sanctions against NPT compliant Iran, only Germany is NPT compliant.
What right does Israel have to press Iran for 100% compliance with a treaty they haven't even signed?
I would agree that the NPT is becoming irrelevant. But I don't blame Iran. I blame the misuse of the NPT by NPT violators to interfere with Iran's legal NPT compliant nuclear program as the main problem.
The majority of the UN supports Iran's legal NPT compliant nuclear program:
On September 16, 2006, in Havana, Cuba, all of the 118 Non-Aligned Movement member countries, at the summit level, declared their support of Iran's civilian nuclear program in their final written statement.[482] The Non-Aligned Movement represents a majority of the 192 countries comprising the entire United Nations.
On July 30, 2008, the Non-Aligned Movement welcomed the continuing cooperation of Iran with the IAEA and reaffirmed Iran's right to the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. The movement further called for the establishment of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East and called for a comprehensive multilaterally negotiated instrument which prohibits threats of attacks on nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.[483]
Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
