What right do we have in telling Iran that they cannot seek nuclear tech?

[mikelewis]

Under what treaty or international law does our ability to deny and intimidate Iran lie? While I am against the idea of an Iran that has Nuclear Weapons, I am not opposed to Iran developing nuclear technology to help generate energy. The Right-wing asks why they need it since they are rich in oil but I hardly see this as an arguement for denying them something that is thier right according to the Nuclear NPT.

In the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm

It clearly states:
Article IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.

If it can be proven that Iran is intending a breach of this treaty, then I agree, actions should be taken to coerce them into compliance. However, there is no public evidence that they even intend to break this treaty. It's possible they would like to but a desire to break a contract and breaking the contract are two completely different issues.

Also, in the text of the treaty it states:
Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and that the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security are to be promoted with the least diversion for armaments of the worlds human and economic resources.
Aren't we beholden to this treaty just as much as Iran? Isn't Cheney's warning of immediate retaliation against Iran for any terrorist attack a direct violation of this treaty and the U.N. Charter? Isn't the threat of using nuclear "bunker busters" a violation of this treaty? What the hell do they think they're doing?

The last thing I want to see is Iran with a nuclear weapon. I'm trult not all that keen on Iran running a nuclear power plant. That's a scary thought in itself especially after the last earthquake. But according to our agreement with them, they have every right to use this source of energy as long as it is for peaceful purposes and the U.N. can provide oversight.

The only thing this sort of hostile approach can accomplish is the withdrawal of Iran from the NPT agreement, which they are in thier legal rights to do. Article X states:
"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."

If I were in charge of Iran, this clause would start to look very appealing to me. Clearly, maintaining this treaty in the face of such overt and as yet, unjustified hostility would constitute a jeopardy of the supreme interests of the country. Before anyone refers Iran to any security council, I want to see some proof of thier violating the treaty. Until then, as much as I dislike the idea of Iran dabbling in the Nuclear energy feild, according to treaty, we really don't have much choice.

A deals a deal, if we don't like the terms, we shouldn't have agreed to them in the first place. All this bluster accomplishes is weakening an important treaty. If we're not going to honor it, we should withdraw from it ourselves instead of using it as a club to intimidate a member.

[KeepItReal]

1. Its the same right Bush & Co. have to let North Korea run wild with nukes

Those people do what they wanna.

Nuclear proliferation is good for business, if you're in the Missile Shield (son of star wars) building business.

[Deja Q]

2. They've bent the rules for India... I vaguely recall Iran having a tantrum

over that.

Iran is probably right when throwing their tantrum, but the EU sees Iran as a risk and rightfully so.

And if it's true that reagan and his buds conspired with iran about the 1980 hostage situation, I wonder if this is Iraq Redux... we sold weapons to Iraq and were quite good friends with them too. Amazing how that works... I'll scratch your back, you stick a knife in mine... but they're a dictator! But we support other dictators so naturally I'm confused...

An enemy of an enemy makes a friend not!

[oscar111]

3. no one should have nukes, either for power or bombs

ALL URANIUM BACK INTO THE GROUND

NUCLEAR POWER = NUCLEAR WAR

every six months another tiny nation siphons off "peaceful reactor" uranium, to secretly build a bomb.

Time to end all peaceful nuclear power plants. Go wind power and solar.

Whoever sold the peaceful reactors made a huge error.

India and Pakistan ... how long till the bombs fly? Think it will be held off forever? How many regional nuclear wars will happen? Israel and Iran? Argentina and england again? Columbia and Equador again? China and Taiwan? Ukraine and Germany again? Poland and Check? Nuclear peaceful power will end all when it matures as the bomb.

WW2 was a nuclear war. Man has no innate bar to using the bomb.

Man cannot handle uranium. It must all go back into the ground.

[mikelewis]

4. While I don't disagree with you - the issue is one of legality

Right now it is legal to use and develop nuclear energy as long as it is used peacefully. Regardless of the moral question, the treaty that we have entered into with Iran and a host of other nation states clearly says we and they have the right to use it for energy.

Just as abortion is completely dead wrong to the Right-wing fundies, Nuclear experimentation strikes a similar chord in left-wing activists. However, in regards to our treaties, we are obliged to uphold not only the letter of the agreement but the spirit of it. It was designed to allow member nations access to technology they deem "safe" and deny access to that which is dangerous. The fact that Bush and Co are using this as a club to strike at Iran is completely against the spirit of the treaty.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Yeah, I do agree with all you say, oscar11. Carl Sagan laid it out in

his book "The Cold and the Dark." Even a limited nuclear exchange will be curtains for all life on earth. It is madness!

To answer the poster's question, though: What right do we have? Absolutely none.

But...the Bush Cartel has now invaded TWO countries that it had no right to invade, Iraq on the lying pretext that they had WMDs, and Afghanistan, which has no WMDs, but which appeared to be harboring an accused criminal. When the recognized, ruling government of Afghanistan asked for proof against this criminal, the US refused, invaded them, slaughtered thousands of their citizens, topped their government, installed a US-backed government, sent a number of its citizens off to indefinite detention and torture in Guantanamo Bay, and continues to occupy the country. And has yet to find the criminal they say they were after.

Maybe justified, maybe not. (I have yet to hear of any proof against Osama bin Laden--and the Bush Cartel itself is still a suspect, in my mind). But certainly illegal and murderous.

The Bush Cartel is a rogue power and it will do what it wants to, with our nuclear arsenal and our military. They may not even bother with pretexts any more--or any international discussion (let alone discussion in the relevant, legal bodies, the UN and the US Congress). But they may come up with a manufactured Gulf of Tonkin type of lying B.S. The newsturds they are leaving around recently do point to some such.

Also, they have blinded the CIA to worldwide illicit movement of WMDs--by outing Valerie Plame and her front company, Brewster Jennings, which had covert eyes and ears around the world, specifically to track WMDs. So, they can do anything they want to--and, I imagine, are doing anything they want to, at great profit to Dick Cheney and others.

This is an extremely dangerous situation. We can only hope that the "good CIA" (as opposed to the Bush Cartel-purged CIA) is looking out for us, and I think they are, and that the Europeans will not permit any nuking on the Mediterranean so close to their shores. Those countries are a lot closer to the situation, and in much more immediate danger from devilish Bush Cartel actions. Also, Iraq is a frigging disaster. U.S. forces are extremely over-extended. And Iran has the ability to defend itself with considerable armed force (unlike Iraq, which was a basket case by March '03 when they invaded it). I don't see how they CAN invade Iran. Where would they get the troops to fight such a war? We have 3-tour Nat'l Guard RESERVE is Iraq now.

A limited missile strike by the Bush Cartel or Israel against any possible Iranian nuke weapons may be the best we can hope for. What's really going on here is, how to keep the military contractors fat with money--so that may work in favor of survival of the planet and the human race.

Ah, me.

[Doo_Revolution]

6. That's a good question for John Bolton....

We don't have any right whatsoever, to demand that Iran not use nuclear technology for energy fuel.

Same way we have no right to destroy other countries for WMD that doesn't exist.

Israel's government might think they have that right, though.....

I bet they truly don't care if one thinks they have the right or not. Its OIL, its survival.

[mikelewis]

7. Funny you mentioned Isreal...

Part of that same treaty clearly states:

"Article I

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

Article II

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. "

Essentially, we believe Iran wants to break the treaty all the while we have broken Article 1 of the Treaty and Isreal has broken Article 2 of the treaty. A dose of Hipocrasy, anyone?