• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

IAEA rejects Arab resolution on "nuclear-armed" Israel

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Member states of the U.N. nuclear watchdog rejected on Friday an Arab-proposed resolution calling on "nuclear-armed" Israel to join a global anti-atomic arms treaty.

US administration has pledged to shield Israel from criticising at the meeting, pressing countries to vote against the resolution.

An assembly meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency last year approved a resolution calling on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation treaty.

IAEA rejects Arab resolution on "nuclear-armed" Israel [ WORLD BULLETIN- TURKEY NEWS, WORLD NEWS ]

It seems double standards are at play again. But not only with Israel - Both Pakistan and India are not signatories either and all three should have their nuclear arsenals inspected. These are nuclear weapons we're talking about here and not signing the NPT is extremely worrying. Especially when we have NK becoming a nuclear power largely due to Pakistan's inability to control the flow of information regarding the technical aspects of nuclear power and weapons. Not to mention Israel's attempted sale to Apartheid South Africa back in the 70s.

This becomes all the more ridiculous when we consider that the issue of nuclear 'weapons' is currently being used as a pretext to target Iran, a country that is using its nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
20,135
Reaction score
6,384
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It seems double standards are at play again. But not only with Israel - Both Pakistan and India are not signatories either and all three should have their nuclear arsenals inspected.

Yes, a double standard, but not the one you'd expect.
There is no law or agreement that forces a country to sign on the NNPT agreement, so it's pretty much absurd to try and pass a resolution to force a country to do so.
Now the double standard exists, as you say, because the Arab world did not go after Pakistan and India, but only after Israel.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
When it is Israel leading the charge against Iran, I'm surprised you can't see the relevance of bringing them into the discussion or why the Arabs would 'single' them out. I don't hear India or Pakistan calling for Israel to sign it, or to allow inspections? Because that would be the height of hypocrisy.

I also don't think it is absurd to pass a law that records how much nuclear material any country has. Do you even know what non-proliferation means? It is designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Israel have already tried to spread them, and to a racist, apartheid regime no less.

Also what makes it even more relevant is that Obama is calling for a nuclear free Middle East future.. yet it isn't even nuclear free right now!

And by the by, you should read the OP - I already mentioned the double standards at play with regards to Pakistan and India.
 
Last edited:

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
20,135
Reaction score
6,384
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
When it is Israel leading the charge against Iran, I'm surprised you can't see the relevance of bringing them into the discussion or why the Arabs would 'single' them out.

First of all it really doesn't change the obvious and crude double standards of the Arab world.
Secondly Iran is signed on the NNPT, it is already in an agreement to get itself inspected.
Thirdly the leading of the charge against Iran is done by the US, and sided by the majority of the Western world.
Fourth, once again, double standards by the Arab world.
Fifth, in case we forget, double standards by the Arab world.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
First of all it really doesn't change the obvious and crude double standards of the Arab world.
Secondly Iran is signed on the NNPT, it is already in an agreement to get itself inspected.
Thirdly the leading of the charge against Iran is done by the US, and sided by the majority of the Western world.
Fourth, once again, double standards by the Arab world.
Fifth, in case we forget, double standards by the Arab world.

Like I mentioned, the double standards are noted in the OP

And thank you for mentioning that Iran are signatories of the NPT, for this means that if they were ever to try to build a weapon, they would have to divert material (which they have not done) after throwing out the inspectors. And even after that, they have only currently enriched uranium to the 20% needed for medical isotopes (themselves, after the US rejected a swap deal involving Brazil and Turkey - again showing the rather obvious agenda), meaning it would literally be years from throwing out inspectors to attaining nuclear weapon status.

By which time they would already be glowing - and not from any nuclear weapons created by them.

And just to mention - the leading charge has been Israel. They have been stating falsely now for nearly 20 years that Iran are 'close to acquiring the bomb'. The US' stance on the matter has nothing to do with nuclear weapons and everything to do with the fact that Iran are the only country (along with Venezuela now, actually) who have managed to get rid of US influence, showing they are not afraid. The US has a bone to pick and it has nothing to do with nukes and everything to do with pride and wiping out the only resistance in the region, and also the only source of inspiration for the hundreds of millions of suppressed people in the region, to the US empire. In other words, Iran are a threat to US corporate interests and Israel's dominance of the region.

Could you please back up your statement that the 'western world...'? I mean, considering the western world are basically political lapdogs for the US, it's a weak connection to make anyway, but please, list these western countries for me who have, by majority, agreed in unison that Iran is a threat.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
20,135
Reaction score
6,384
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Like I mentioned, the double standards are noted in the OP

The double standards of the Arab world, yes.

And thank you for mentioning that Iran are signatories of the NPT, for this means that if they were ever to try to build a weapon, they would have to divert material (which they have not done) after throwing out the inspectors. And even after that, they have only currently enriched uranium to the 20% needed for medical isotopes (themselves, after the US rejected a swap deal involving Brazil and Turkey - again showing the rather obvious agenda), meaning it would literally be years from throwing out inspectors to attaining nuclear weapon status.

No idea what you're talking about, and as usual it appears that any connection between your words and reality is completely coincidental.
Nevertheless; Iran has not been following the NNPT and has been violating it constantly, whether by not allowing inspectors when necessary or by enriching centrifuges way beyond the maximum limit the NNPT allows it to.

And just to mention - the leading charge has been Israel. They have been stating falsely now for nearly 20 years that Iran are 'close to acquiring the bomb'.

Once more, no facts to see here it would seem, besides the fact that Israel and Iran have shared a close alliance 20 years ago and besides the fact that Israel has only became worried and has only begun expressing its worries for a nuclear Iran after Iran has started its hostility crusade against it, Israel is indeed not the one "leading the charges". The US is the one that leads this wave in the UN, if only because the US like the other countries who have shown opposition to a nuclear Iran understands the meaning of a tyrannical mad and fanatical regime getting its hands on the world most destructive power.

The US' stance on the matter has nothing to do with nuclear weapons and everything to do with the fact that Iran are the only country (along with Venezuela now, actually) who have managed to get rid of US influence, showing they are not afraid. The US has a bone to pick and it has nothing to do with nukes and everything to do with pride and wiping out the only resistance in the region, and also the only source of inspiration for the hundreds of millions of suppressed people in the region, to the US empire. In other words, Iran are a threat to US corporate interests and Israel's dominance of the region.

Feel free to test your conspiracy theories, I know Ahmadinejad did yesterday in the UN.

Could you please back up your statement that the 'western world...'? I mean, considering the western world are basically political lapdogs for the US, it's a weak connection to make anyway, but please, list these western countries for me who have, by majority, agreed in unison that Iran is a threat.

You mean the US, Canada, Israel, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Australia, Spain, Finalnd, Czech Republic and so on and so on and so on?
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No idea what you're talking about, and as usual it appears that any connection between your words and reality is completely coincidental.
Nevertheless; Iran has not been following the NNPT and has been violating it constantly, whether by not allowing inspectors when necessary or by enriching centrifuges way beyond the maximum limit the NNPT allows it to.

This shows how ill informed you are. Iran have completely complied the the NPT. The only thing they have 'violated' are the measures that have been installed (thanks to the US) which are above and beyond the original requirements, simply employed as a means to humiliate them, most likely in an attempt to get them to leave. After which, the northern lights glow will be nothing compared to Persia's.

You mean low enriched uranium? Do you even know what you're talking about? If they aren't allowed to enrich uranium to 20%, then please tell me, how the hell can Turkey or Brazil or any other country that has offered to give them uranium for isotopes, do so?

Once more, no facts to see here it would seem, besides the fact that Israel and Iran have shared a close alliance 20 years ago and besides the fact that Israel has only became worried and has only begun expressing its worries for a nuclear Iran after Iran has started its hostility crusade against it, Israel is indeed not the one "leading the charges". The US is the one that leads this wave in the UN, if only because the US like the other countries who have shown opposition to a nuclear Iran understands the meaning of a tyrannical mad and fanatical regime getting its hands on the world most destructive power.

Can you show me that Iran and Israel had a 'close relationship 20 years ago' please? I think you need to go back to the time of the US puppet, the Sha, before you'll find.

Why don't you learn even the most basic knowledge of the region? After all, you do live there..

Feel free to test your conspiracy theories, I know Ahmadinejad did yesterday in the UN.

Ah yes, the old dismiss anything out of hand as a conspiracy theory tactic. It is common knowledge what I have said. This is why the US is hated in the region, this is why 9/11 happened, this is basically the reason behind hatred for the US government worldwide (most notably in South America and the Middle East though).

Dismiss it all you want, I know I get more debate out of my cat than I do from you anyways.

You mean the US, Canada, Israel, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Australia, Spain, Finalnd, Czech Republic and so on and so on and so on?

Got a link? I haven't seen one that includes 'the majority of the West'. As if that even qualifies for anything anyways.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Just to add. All Iranian nuclear facilities have cameras installed that are watched constantly, along with many other measures which ensure they cannot divert material. These trumped up claims and illegal sanctions are deplorable and blatantly transparent in their agenda.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yes, a double standard, but not the one you'd expect.
There is no law or agreement that forces a country to sign on the NNPT agreement, so it's pretty much absurd to try and pass a resolution to force a country to do so.
Now the double standard exists, as you say, because the Arab world did not go after Pakistan and India, but only after Israel.

Even if that were not the case, Israel developed its nuclear arsenal prior to the NPT. Hence, it would come under the Treaty as a nuclear arms state. Recent efforts aimed at Israel merely serve to detract from the larger issues concerning Iran's nuclear activities and the IAEA's concerns over those activities.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Even if that were not the case, Israel developed its nuclear arsenal prior to the NPT. Hence, it would come under the Treaty as a nuclear arms state. Recent efforts aimed at Israel merely serve to detract from the larger issues concerning Iran's nuclear activities and the IAEA's concerns over those activities.

What exactly are Iran's 'nuclear activities'? People keep on saying this but they clearly have no idea. Even with the IAEA's top honcho replaced with the US subservient, and even with forged documents, there is still no case against them. Hell, the US and EU had to go it alone, illegally, to sanction Iran to the extent they wanted.

Here's a quick video from (I think) last year that sums things up nicely

YouTube - Iran Propaganda debunked in less than 6 minutes

People fell for the crap with Iraq, and guess what...

And to add. The IAEA had no concern with Iran - read the past reports - until they had their top dog replaced (I think he retired) with a pro-US puppet. The whole situation is a joke.
 
Last edited:

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Here is basically an updated version of that video from the same man, Scott Horton. In it, he spells out why Iran have been given the label of 'not cooperating'. I suggest reading the full article for anyone who is interested in the falsities of this farcical situation. Enjoy.

From around 3/4 of the way through the article:

Real reason for lack of cooperation

The US and the UN, acting upon no legitimate authority whatsoever, have demanded that Iran submit to an Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement, which would ban any further enrichment on Iranian soil, as well as demanded they submit to an endless regime of IAEA inspections and questioning, based mostly on the “alleged studies” documents, which several sources have said are forgeries posing as a pilfered laptop of a dead Iranian nuclear scientist.

These separate, UN Security Council-mandated investigations have even demanded blueprints for Shahab 3 missiles – a subject far removed from hexafluoride gas or any legitimate IAEA function. In 2003, Iran voluntarily agreed to the extra burden of the unratified Additional Protocol during “good faith negotiations” with the so-called “E-3,” Britain, France, and Germany, acting on behalf of the US. When those negotiations broke down, Iran withdrew in 2006.

With these details left out of the discussion, the impression is left that Iran is refusing to abide by international law, when in fact, it is completely within its NPT obligations.

Reality check: Iran is not a nuclear threat - CSMonitor.com
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
20,135
Reaction score
6,384
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Even if that were not the case, Israel developed its nuclear arsenal prior to the NPT. Hence, it would come under the Treaty as a nuclear arms state. Recent efforts aimed at Israel merely serve to detract from the larger issues concerning Iran's nuclear activities and the IAEA's concerns over those activities.

Yes, that is pretty much obvious to your average logical person, it's also obvious because the Arab states do not go after Pakistan and India who share the same status of Israel as countries that have not signed on the NNPT and unlike Israel have actually declared that they have nuclear powers.

Very unfortunate that such hypocrisy is not something that should surprise anyone following this subject.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, that is pretty much obvious to your average logical person, it's also obvious because the Arab states do not go after Pakistan and India who share the same status of Israel as countries that have not signed on the NNPT and unlike Israel have actually declared that they have nuclear powers.

Very unfortunate that such hypocrisy is not something that should surprise anyone following this subject.

I think the bold is the point. They are looking for an end to Israel's 'ambiguity'.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
20,135
Reaction score
6,384
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This shows how ill informed you are. Iran have completely complied the the NPT.

Tell that to the IAEA, they tend to disagree.

Can you show me that Iran and Israel had a 'close relationship 20 years ago' please?

While Israel and Iran have been very close allies during the Pahlavi dynasty, after the Islamic revolution Iran has begun cutting its ties off with Israel, and while 20 years ago the relations were still friendly, they became hostile once Ahmadinejad begun his hate speeches on the Zionist entity and making it the scapegoat of his government.

Before those statements Israel did not regard Iran as an hostile entity and there were really no conflicts between the two nations.

Ah yes, the old dismiss anything out of hand as a conspiracy theory tactic. It is common knowledge what I have said. This is why the US is hated in the region, this is why 9/11 happened, this is basically the reason behind hatred for the US government worldwide (most notably in South America and the Middle East though).

Dismiss it all you want, I know I get more debate out of my cat than I do from you anyways.

While I find the fact that you debate with cats to be unsurprising, I do not engage in one 'tactic' or another, but merely point out the lack of basis in reality of those conspiracy theories you preach on.

Got a link? I haven't seen one that includes 'the majority of the West'. As if that even qualifies for anything anyways.

Name the Western countries that you believe are not opposed to a nuclear Iran and I'll refer you with a link to actions/statements taken by those countries that prove otherwise.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
3,482
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I think the bold is the point. They are looking for an end to Israel's 'ambiguity'.

You would have to agree that is not the endgame. It is not to say, OK we thought Israel had nuclear weapons now we know thanks. It would be the first step in trying to disarm Israel of their weapons.

With all the talk about the Israeli isues with the Palestinian problem it tend to make people forget that this is a tiny country with many very rich enemies in the area.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
20,135
Reaction score
6,384
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think the bold is the point. They are looking for an end to Israel's 'ambiguity'.

They do not go after Pakistan and India who have declared they have nukes, while Israel, a state that has never declared to have nuclear weapons, is being chased after.
They have a political interest, nothing more and nothing less, they make use of the IAEA as a political tool to promote their anti-Israeli agenda, and then get surprised when their "offer" is refused.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
They do not go after Pakistan and India who have declared they have nukes, while Israel, a state that has never declared to have nuclear weapons, is being chased after.

Yes, this is the point.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You would have to agree that is not the endgame. It is not to say, OK we thought Israel had nuclear weapons now we know thanks. It would be the first step in trying to disarm Israel of their weapons.

With all the talk about the Israeli isues with the Palestinian problem it tend to make people forget that this is a tiny country with many very rich enemies in the area.

Other than finally after nearly four decades getting Israel to admit they have nukes, what could be the possible end-game of IAEA inspections? I agree that they are no doubt bringing this up to show the double standards at play with regards to Iran but no one can deny that ending the 'ambiguity' is something all Arab states would welcome and it is definitely a legitimate end-game.
 

expandmymind

Banned
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
229
Reaction score
120
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Tell that to the IAEA, they tend to disagree.

Really? Would you care to quote the relevant IAEA text that shows this? Because other than news outlets falsifying, exaggerating and outright lying about the report, there is nothing to back up the claim.

From the link I provided above which I suggest you read:

On September 6, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a new paper on the implementation of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement which reported that the agency has “continued to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran to any military or other special purpose.”

The article (as you can see from my previous post) explains clearly why Iran have been unfairly targeted and labeled as 'not cooperating'. If you aren't even going to read the material I provide to back up my claims, then how can you debate what I am claiming?


While Israel and Iran have been very close allies during the Pahlavi dynasty, after the Islamic revolution Iran has begun cutting its ties off with Israel, and while 20 years ago the relations were still friendly, they became hostile once Ahmadinejad begun his hate speeches on the Zionist entity and making it the scapegoat of his government.

Before those statements Israel did not regard Iran as an hostile entity and there were really no conflicts between the two nations.


This is completely false. Ahmadinejad did not precipitate the bad feelings towards Israel or the reverse. Considering elements inside Iran have been funding Hamas practically since their birth, I thought you would already be aware of this.


While I find the fact that you debate with cats to be unsurprising, I do not engage in one 'tactic' or another, but merely point out the lack of basis in reality of those conspiracy theories you preach on.

It is common knowledge (or at least I thought it was) that the Arab world dislikes the US because of their foreign policy. They install, prop up and arm brutal dictators who suppress the people of their countries. Just look at the US sponsored Arab regimes kept in power through US funding, arming, training and most importantly political support, at the expense of their populations. For you not to be aware of this is surprising.

And the people of South America feel the exact same way after years of the US installing dictators and suppressing democracy. This is all documented record. It's not even controversial yet you are claiming I am speaking of conspiracy theories?

From a quick Google (which is all I'm inclined to back this up with when it should definitely already be known).

Second half of the 20th Century:
bullet
Relations between Islamic countries and the U.S. were profoundly affected by the west's cold war on communism. U.S. foreign policy promoted the creation and training of terrorist, gorilla, and military units. Usama Bin Laden's group was originally trained by the CIA.
bullet
The U.S. fought the growth of a pan-Arab nationalism in the region. Rather than supporting it as a cohesive force -- a source of stability -- throughout the Middle East, the U.S. encouraged divisions among Islamic states.
bullet
Some believe that the U.S. government supported Fundamentalist religious movements as an additional mechanism to fragment the Arab world.
bullet
Petro-dollars brought enormous wealth to many Muslim countries. Unfortunately, only Turkey out of the 50 or so Islamic countries involved are democracies. The leaders are generally autocratic, unelected, and not particularly accountable to public opinion. Their governments see no need to be responsive to the needs of their people. Civil liberties are sharply curtailed.
bullet
Political commentator Gynne Dyer writes: "The West created the modern Middle East, from its rotten regimes down to its ridiculous borders, and it did so with contemptuous disregard for the wishes of the local people. It is indeed a problem that most Arab governments are corrupt autocracies that breed hatred and despair in their own people, which then fuels terrorism against the West, but it was the West that created the problem -- and invading Iraq won't solve it. If the U.S. really wants to foster Arab democracy, it might try making all that aid to Egypt conditional on prompt democratic reforms. But I wouldn't hold my breath." 11

Why do "they" hate us so much

There are more reasons given if you follow the link (this isn't even half of the ones provided). I would post them all but there are forum restrictions on the amount of material we are allowed to be posted. As you can clearly see, the link backs up my claim.

Unless you believe the empty rhetoric that it's all about freedom and jealousy?

Name the Western countries that you believe are not opposed to a nuclear Iran and I'll refer you with a link to actions/statements taken by those countries that prove otherwise.

You made the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you. This is how debate works.
 
Last edited:

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Tell that to the IAEA, they tend to disagree.

That is correct. The IAEA has not certified Iran's full compliance with its obligations. For example, if one examines IAEA reports from 2005 and 2010, one finds examples of IAEA concerns.

From the September 24, 2005 report:

In view of the fact that the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important outstanding
issues after two and a half years of intensive inspections and investigation, Iran’s full transparency is
indispensable and overdue. Given Iran’s past concealment efforts over many years, such transparency
measures should extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional
Protocol and include access to individuals, documentation related to procurement, dual use equipment,
certain military owned workshops and research and development locations. Without such transparency
measures, the Agency’s ability to reconstruct, in particular, the chronology of enrichment research and
development, which is essential for the Agency to verify the correctness and completeness of the
statements made by Iran, will be restricted.

From the September 6, 2010 report:

Previous reports by the Director General have detailed the outstanding issues related to possiblemilitary dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and the actions required of Iran necessary to resolve those issues. In the Director General’s February 2010 report (GOV/2010/10), the Agency described a number of technical matters it needed to address with Iran. Since August 2008, however, Iran has declined to discuss the outstanding issues with the Agency or to provide any further information or access to locations and people necessary to address the Agency’s concerns, asserting that the allegations relating to possible military dimensions to its nuclear programme are baseless and that the information to which the Agency is referring is based on forged documents…

Based on an overall analysis undertaken by the Agency of all the information available to it, the Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. There are indications that certain of these activities may have continued beyond 2004.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the link I provided above which I suggest you read:

On September 6, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a new paper on the implementation of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement which reported that the agency has “continued to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran to any military or other special purpose.”

While you are pointing to a statement concerning the non-diversion of declared nuclear material, that statement does not provide a complete picture of the IAEA's assessment. It omits critical information. The IAEA is concerned about the possible military dimensions associated with undisclosed nuclear activities. The IAEA declared in the very same report that you quoted, "...the Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile..."
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,897
Reaction score
8,834
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- This becomes all the more ridiculous when we consider that the issue of nuclear 'weapons' is currently being used as a pretext to target Iran, a country that is using its nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

While I don't agree we should consider targeting or invading Iran, calling Iran's attempted development of nuclear technology something done for "peaceful purposes" is fanciful at best. I certainly think if Iran was truly only interested in peaceful development of nuclear technology that it would have no qualms with co-operating with the IAEA, certainly as a signatory should.

-- not only with Israel - Both Pakistan and India are not signatories either and all three should have their nuclear arsenals inspected.--

I'm curious what inspecting Israel's nuclear arsenal would achieve
 

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,100
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
IAEA rejects Arab resolution on "nuclear-armed" Israel [ WORLD BULLETIN- TURKEY NEWS, WORLD NEWS ]

It seems double standards are at play again. But not only with Israel - Both Pakistan and India are not signatories either and all three should have their nuclear arsenals inspected. These are nuclear weapons we're talking about here and not signing the NPT is extremely worrying. Especially when we have NK becoming a nuclear power largely due to Pakistan's inability to control the flow of information regarding the technical aspects of nuclear power and weapons. Not to mention Israel's attempted sale to Apartheid South Africa back in the 70s.

This becomes all the more ridiculous when we consider that the issue of nuclear 'weapons' is currently being used as a pretext to target Iran, a country that is using its nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Double standard indeed.
Iran should pull out of the treaty unless Israel is forced to also sign up to it.
Since Israel can not be held to the treaty, why should Iran if they pull out of NPT.
 

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
20,135
Reaction score
6,384
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Double standard indeed.
Iran should pull out of the treaty unless Israel is forced to also sign up to it.
Since Israel can not be held to the treaty, why should Iran if they pull out of NPT.

Iran was not forced to sign up on the treaty, why should Israel?
You can't force people to sign on agreements, but once you violate those you've signed on you must face the consequences.

Besides that the double standards as I've explained are all yours, as you call specifically for Israel to sign on the NPT and not for India and Pakistan who are also not signed on the agreement.
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Double standard indeed.
Iran should pull out of the treaty unless Israel is forced to also sign up to it.
Since Israel can not be held to the treaty, why should Iran if they pull out of NPT.

But Iran enjoyed co-oporation from foreign countries to build their nuclear reactors because they signed the treaty, they didn't develop it on their own.
If they would have said "we renounce the NPT treaty" and then develop nuclear capabilities on their own I'd agree with you.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom