All this talk about the additional protocol to the NPT is well and good, but it begs the question of why we do not press other rogue nations to even sign the basic NPT? Nations like - Israel. Israel lied to the world and to the US in particular in order to develop a nuclear capability and probably stole plutonium as well. It engaged in reckless proliferation with the other rogue apartheid regime in South Africa. With a history of deceit and proliferation far worse than Iran, why do we not press Israel?

jklfairwin:

All this talk about the additional protocol to the NPT is well and good, but it begs the question of why we do not press other rogue nations to even sign the basic NPT? Nations like - Israel. Israel lied to the world and to the US in particular in order to develop a nuclear capability and probably stole plutonium as well. It engaged in reckless proliferation with the other rogue apartheid regime in South Africa. With a history of deceit and proliferation far worse than Iran, why do we not press Israel?

HYPOCRISY is answer why!

Ever notice when people including the author talk about the NPT, how they never talk about the FACT that the nuclear nations like the United States have been in violoation of the NPT for years!

The non-nuclear nations only agreed to the NPT and promise not to build nuclear weapons, ONLY under the condition that the nuclear weapons get rid of their nuclear weapons.

Yeah - notice how well is that going!

If a person in the United States or Isreal or any other country doesn't want Iran or any other non-nuclear country to have nuclear weapons, then FIRST convince your own government get rid of your own couyntry's nuclear weapons, or else you HYPOCRITES need to STFU!

If the United States which is one of the few countries to have enough non-nuclear weapons to win a war without nuclear weapons, and yet they still refuse to give them up because of their advantage, why the hell should any other country give up that advantage?

Israel is not a Rogue nation. No matter what Jimmy Carter tells you.

So...are you suggesting the US pursue policy based on principles or world stability? Trying to do both has rendered us as hippocrites.....and world stability...is questionable.

It is circular logic. Iran is determined to be a rogue nation only BECAUSE is pursues nukes. Perhaps also for sponsoring terrorism. If Israel were investigated and held to the same standards the footprints of nuclear weaponry and terrorism would be equally found. If Iran is a rogue nation, Israel is at least its equal.

Early on, Iran offered to abandon it's nuclear ambitions if the Middle East was made a nuclear free zone. This was a request that Israel get rid of its nukes. The Bush administration did not even reply.

If Israel were investigated and held to the same standards the footprints of nuclear weaponry and terrorism would be equally found. If Iran is a rogue nation, Israel is at least its equal.

Nonsense. Via the various treaties that have been signed, the world is broken into three camps.

Nuclear Powers: USA, USSR, England, France, & China.

Non-nuclear powers: Everyone else except for Israel, India, and Pakistan. I.e. countries that forswore getting (or trying to get) nukes in exchange for various considerations, such as help getting nuclear power.

Countries outside the system: Israel, India, and Pakistan. These refused to sign the no-nukes plague and decided to go it alone. No help from the outside world for their nuclear program (although Pakistan stole much of it's from some country in Europe).

Israel, even if it has hundreds of nukes, hasn't broken any treaty agreements. Iran on the other hand is claiming it *isn't* trying for nukes but appears to have a weapons program anyway, in direct contradiction of it's various treaty obligations and such.

That's over and above Iran's support of terrorism, etc.

Soo...the important thing is whether or not you have signed a treaty? Possession or use of nuclear weapons matters not a whit, as long as you haven't promised not to have them and haven't promised not to use them. Hm...

It should be obvious to anyone by now that Iran wants nuclear power and at least the threat of possessing nuclear weapons for two reasons- 1. National pride 2. A deterrent against invasion and having their leaders imprisoned, photographed in their underwear, then hung by the neck.

If I was a leader of Iran, if I took a quick look at what has happened next door to the nation in the west....and next door in the nation to the east, I sure as hell would want some nuclear weapons. So would you. Don't be a putz. They are acting exactly as any normal person would act in their position.

Soo...the important thing is whether or not you have signed a treaty?

Basically, yeah. That determines the legality of what you're doing.

If I was a leader of Iran, if I took a quick look at what has happened next door to the nation in the west....and next door in the nation to the east, I sure as hell would want some nuclear weapons.

Iran's lies about it's nuclear program long predate our invasions.

So would you. Don't be a putz. They are acting exactly as any normal person would act in their position.

Iran lives in a tough neighborhood, no disagreement. The US has invaded two of it's neighbors, and Pakistan & Russia both have nukes too. If you want to count Israel as a regional rival then there are 4 nuclear powers around.

However, we have the problem that Israel's neighbors aren't afraid of it's nuclear program, but Iran's neighbors are afraid of it's. When one child in school is known to have a hand gun all the other children have to follow suit. When India went nuclear, the immediate result was that Pakistan did so as well.

If (when) Iran goes nuclear, most of the rest of the oil rich middle East will as well. That will be because Iran is a terror supporting threat to most of the middle East while Israel isn't.

The world would be a lot better off if Iran lives up to it's obligations and doesn't get the means to threaten it's neighbors. The alternative is a nuclear armed middle east and sooner or later, some school shootings.

Soo...the important thing is whether or not you have signed a treaty?

Basically, yeah. That determines the legality of what you're doing.

Ah, a believer in the authority of International Law. We're gonna have to revisit the torture debate now. And the Iraq invasion. USA would appear to be in violation of international law on both counts.

Iran's lies about it's nuclear program long predate our invasions.
Iraq also lied and misled about its nuclear program. You wanna guess why? The reasons are basically the same, regardless of timing. National pride, invasion deterrent. And the USA isn't the only nation that has invaded others (see Iraq).

However, we have the problem that Israel's neighbors aren't afraid of it's nuclear program

Hah! you have GOT to be kidding. I suppose some miserable Palestinian tent peasants don't fear a nuclear strike for obvious reasons. But you really think the leaders in Amman, Cairo, Beirut and Damascus aren't just a little fearful and thus on their best behavior for the past 30 years? You really think the next, next door neighbors in Tehran are carefree regarding Israel's nukes?

If (when) Iran goes nuclear, most of the rest of the oil rich middle East will as well. That will be because Iran is a terror supporting threat to most of the middle East while Israel isn't.

This is your best point and there may be some truth to it. I still say, so what. The USA and Russia and to a lesser extent, China vastly dominate the nuclear arms race. If Saudi Arabia gets nukes they will do exactly what Israel and Pakistan have done and what Iran will do. Nothing. Just sleep a bit better. Amman, Cairo, etc. being on their best behavior for 30 years is something to consider.

Israel itself could improve things in the M.E. immensely if only it would also remain on its best behavior. Currently it has no motivation to do so. My guess is that you are incapable of labelling Israeli behavior as "terrorist" (same as US behavior?) because they are the good guys.

But if you are willing to be objective you can see that both Israel and the USA have performed actions which clearly fall under the dictionary definition of terrorism, i.e. they have used military violence, not for the purpose of expelling invaders or gaining control of new pieces of land, but rather to instill fear in a population of people as a means of coercion, or behavior modification. This attempt to use terror as a behavior modifier defines 9/11 as easily as it does Israeli incursions into Gaza and USA actions in Kosovo.

However, we have the problem that Israel's neighbors aren't afraid of it's nuclear program

Hah! you have GOT to be kidding. I suppose some miserable Palestinian tent peasants don't fear a nuclear strike for obvious reasons. But you really think the leaders in Amman, Cairo, Beirut and Damascus aren't just a little fearful and thus on their best behavior for the past 30 years? You really think the next, next door neighbors in Tehran are carefree regarding Israel's nukes?

So... Egypt has gone nuclear because they're afraid of Israel's nukes? Oh, wait, they haven't have they? Saudi Arabia? Ditto them. But both appear to have become a lot more interested in going nuclear as Iran has gotten closer.

That's because fundamentally, Israel's program is viewed and being defensive while Iran's is viewed as being offensive. While Israel invades countries that are attacking it, it doesn't attack countries for not being Jewish. Iran on the other hand does try to stir up trouble for non-Shia countries.

If (when) Iran goes nuclear, most of the rest of the oil rich middle East will as well. That will be because Iran is a terror supporting threat to most of the middle East while Israel isn't.

This is your best point and there may be some truth to it. I still say, so what. The USA and Russia and to a lesser extent, China vastly dominate the nuclear arms race. If Saudi Arabia gets nukes they will do exactly what Israel and Pakistan have done and what Iran will do. Nothing. Just sleep a bit better. Amman, Cairo, etc. being on their best behavior for 30 years is something to consider.

So you think Iran will stop sponsoring terror movements after it gets the bomb? You're sure every bomb in every 3rd world nation will be kept under lock and key by it's government? That every one of those governments will remain stable or if (when) they fall apart no non-state entity will get nukes? And you're sure that non of these governments will ever get into a war with each other through misunderstanding or whatever? Will they all drop the Palestinian issue since Israel is also a nuclear power?

Israel itself could improve things in the M.E. immensely if only it would also remain on its best behavior. Currently it has no motivation to do so. My guess is that you are incapable of labelling Israeli behavior as "terrorist" (same as US behavior?) because they are the good guys.

Israel does lots of bad things, and lots of unhelpful things. They live in a brutal, nasty part of the world and they've shown that they can be as brutal and as nasty as they need to be to stay alive. But not all brutal or nasty activities are "terrorism". Israel has an army to do it's dirty deeds, and it (at least in theory) doesn't deliberately target civilians, but they're certainly not always gentle with other people's civilians if the other side deliberately puts them in harms way.

But unfortunately most of your "Israel on it's best behavior" is likely to translate into "Israel is expected to tolerate dead or terrorized civilians", which is a non starter for any Democracy. It'd be nice if they'd do something about the settlements, but I seriously doubt that we're going to see peace in that area until it's neighbors accept it's not going away and stop blaming it for it's existence. A normal country isn't expected to tolerate this kind of thing.

But if you are willing to be objective you can see that both Israel and the USA have performed actions which clearly fall under the dictionary definition of terrorism, i.e. they have used military violence, not for the purpose of expelling invaders or gaining control of new pieces of land, but rather to instill fear in a population of people as a means of coercion, or behavior modification. This attempt to use terror as a behavior modifier defines 9/11 as easily as it does Israeli incursions into Gaza and USA actions in Kosovo.

The US is global cop. That excuses a lot. IMHO the world is better off with having a cop for the same reason that a neighborhood is better off with having a cop.

Israel is dealing with a popularly supported terror movement, that also excuses a lot. Faced with acts of war against it, Israel doesn't *have* to go to war... but they can. I.e. when we the US were subjected to terrorism, our response was to go to war. If you treat them as a normal country, then if we can do it, I don't see why they shouldn't.

Dbuss, I see your obvious logical and perceptive flaws. I can't really do anything to change them.

You are determined to see certain nations or ethnicities or religions as inherently evil, intent on evil, genetically evil or something.

It escapes you that we are actually all members of the same species and we all behave pretty much the same way in similar circumstances. If some British colonials feel they've been treated unfairly by a great power, they go to war, fight for freedom, use guerilla and terrrorist tactics, do what ever Freedom Fighters need to do to obtain precious liberty and become the USA. People who supported the British Empire were Loyalists, Royalists and traitors to their nation. God Bless America.

Yet, when that nation itself becomes a great power and starts stationing troops in foreign nations, imposing its own culture, economic systems and ways of governance in smaller weaker nations, suddenly all is reversed. The people in the small nations have no right to use guerilla and terrorist tactics. They have no right to self-governance, their own economic, religion or culture. Local people who support the USA's interference are valiant patriots. Local people who resist the USA's stationed troops and influence are evil insurgents who must be crushed, ironically in the name of "freedom".

I know you want to have it both ways....so that Americans are always right. But you'll never quite achieve that goal until you recognize that people are people, the same around the world. We act the same way under the same conditions. If you don't want terrorism, you need to change the conditions. Stop invading and stationing troops and economically and culturally dominating smaller nations. Because as long as you do, there will be terrorism/freedom fighters. Because you are not going to change people. We, as a species, are who we are, and we don't like being dominated, no matter how big and powerful the enemy is.

Nothing you just said responded in anyway to what I said, nor did anything you said lesson the danger to the world of Iran having atomic weapons.

Let's just pare all that down to one question, after Iran gets nukes, do you expect them to cease their support of terrorism in other countries?

Yes.

Perhaps once they have nukes they will not need to use terrorism sponsorship to feel they are important and have an influence on others. They have a lot of ethnic pride in Iran and they chafe at being labelled a third world nation, given their proud Persian heritage. They would like to be considered among the world's leaders. It seems rather obvious that possession of such weapons is a pre-requisite for leadership (who are the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council again....?)

All that in regard to the supposition IF they get nukes. Their currently stated position is that possession of nuclear weapons is an evil thing and their judgement of other nations is based partly on the fact of their possession.

Or another question it raises is Who is actually threatened by Iranian nukes? Israel and Saudi Arabia mostly. Maybe France, I don't know, Sarkozy has been talking that way. So why not delegate the role of deterring Iran to Israel, France, and Saudi Arabia? They're all grown up now, right?