You’re just saying: that;s the way it is.
I KNOW that’s the way it is, but the way it is isn’t working.
That it isn’t fair would be fine if it worked, but it isn’t.
It just gives countries like Iran (and others?) something to hide behind.

It isn’t about being fair for it’s own sake.
It’s about finding an approach that would be attractive to all nuclear powers, present and future.
This would mean a very long process. Starting now would nto be too early.

I’m just frustrated that the US throws away evey opportunity to be a leader in anything but waging war
Climate change? No.
Human rights? No.
Managing nuclear power? No.

We just wait for crises and then try to solve them with guns and bombs.

Exception: Our policies on health in Africa seem to be working. The one ray of simshine. I wonder why that isn;t taken as an object lesson.

Of course Israel is treated differently. First of all, Israel is an ally, and Iran is a sworn enemy and continually declares itself so. Secondly, Iran has signed the NPT and Israel has not – So Iran has agreed to not develop nuclear weapons, among other things – Israel never made that agreement. Big difference. Now one might criticize Israel (and Pakistan, and India, and North Korea – all nuclear weapons states who are not part of the NPT) for eschewing the international arms control regime altogether, but Israel isn’t violating an arms control treaty it signed – Iran has and did.

That’s why a new approach, a new treaty, is necessary- to bring everyone in and to apply the same standards of transparency to everyone.

That would be nice, but the problem is the existing nuclear weapons states – all of whom have veto power on the UNSC. I don’t think any is ready to forgo nuclear weapons entirely as part of a global treaty. Here the criticism by Iran and a lot of other countries is valid. The UN itself and the NPT are inherently and deliberately biased institutions that carve out special rights for 5 countries. Rising powers like India are right to question why France gets veto power and not it. Or why doesn’t Germany for that matter? It IS unfair – by design – a design that all five permanent members don’t seem willing to mess with or change….

You and I see the difference in responsibilty and reliabilty between Iran and Israel, but the Iranians don’t look at the wrorld through our eyes and will never do so.

That’s why a new approach, a new treaty, is necessary- to bring everyone in and to apply the same standards of transparency to everyone.

The “additional protocol” to the NPT is designed to do just that. All the original NPT has the authority to do is monitor nuclear activities the nations themselves declare to ensure there is no military diversion. The AP goes much further and really is designed to provide more rigid transparency.

Now, the AP is “voluntary” meaning that nations cannot be forced implement it. Iran has signed the AP, but has not ratified, nor is it adhering to it. It did adhere, mostly, to the AP for about a year, but then quit.

Of critical importance is to get Iran to ratify and adhere to the AP – it would do a lot to ensure Iran remains compliant, even considering the way Iran games and lawyers the system.

“All options” by the USA obviously refers to air strikes on Iran, not using nuclear weapons (especially on cities); lay off the wrongly-blame-the-USA nonsense, please.

It’s a global problem, and should have been treated as such all along, IMO. To get a global solution, the US would have to give up ground, not just act as judge and jury.for everyone else. It has to be a participant in the solution, cooperating instead of proclaiming.
The idea of a new and much broader treaty has been raised off and on for years, sometimes at the UN. Since the US, is opposed to anything where it can’t call the shots, it is stuck with the consequences. That has been and continues to be a big mistake, IMO.

Considering how long it takes to negotiatie these things, it’s probably too late re Iran tooay.
But to lead by presenting new ideas instead of presenting ever bigger and more guns would be a boon for the US, as well as the rest of the world.
Even at this late date, coming up with a plan for drawing everyone in instead of picking and choosing, among friends and enemies might calm the situation down.
On the surface, preventing nuclear wars woulg be attractive to all govenments. Signing treaties brings responsibilites as well as advantages, so the means for preventing spillover to non-state actors could be incorporated. One such idea is the ‘home address’ requirement for nuclear material.

As the wrold changes, we can’t stay stuck in old ways of thinking, if we are to keep our heads above water. It looks to me like we are still using cold war strategies in a much more complex and heated world.
As I said, it’s a global problem, and it should be treated as such. Running from crisis to crisis just means we’re running in place.

So far, everything revolves around who is and who is not a signotory to the old treaty. Obviously, the old treaty does not work, because countries are not treated in a uniform fashion.

As usual, Wiki only has 1/2 the story – so many omissions that I can’t even begin to cover them. Still at least the article admits that Iran used assassination and terrorism as a negotiating tool – is it really any wonder no country had much incentive to help them? This is leaving aside the fact that Iran canceled all those contracts unilaterally (violating the terms for most of them), including those with the US, then demanded refunds on its invested capital – then began killing people all over europe.

There is nothing wrong with any nation building/buying nuclear power plants or otherwise having nuclear power plants. The problem is enrichment since it is a dual-use technology. Most ME nations do not have the uranium reserves to support domestic enrichment anyway, and this includes Iran (Iran’s reserves will only last 1- 2 decades, then it will have to import uranium).

Kazakhstan, for example, is the “Saudi Arabia” of uranium – it has the world’s largest reserves. It’s implementing a deal to provide nuclear fuel to the world market through a consortium using Russian enrichment facilities. Once this project gets going, uranium prices will dramatically drop and Iran’s economically-challenged enrichment program will be even more pointless for Iran’s energy needs than it already is.

Speaking of Iranian energy needs, did you know that Iran spends almost $5 billion a year importing gasoline and tens-of billions more on gasoline subsidies? Did you know that absorbs about 40% of government revenue annually? Imagine if the US paid the equivalent of all the revenue from social security and medicare each year to keep the price of gas at 40 cents a gallon – that’s what Iran is doing! Their “energy independence” rhetoric for their nuclear program is a bunch of bull.

If we seriously want to stop these countries from developing their own nuclear capacity we should be prepared to pay VERY dearly. Perhaps a $1 trillion dollar payment might get their attention.

In all seriousness, the US has been free to subtly wave it’s nuclear stick at countries by saying ” ALL options are on the table”. It seems to me that until we take ALL nuclear weapons off the table, ours and everyone elses – we don’t have a leg to stand on.

Another result of the 1979 Revolution was France’s refusal to give any enriched uranium to Iran after 1979. Iran also didn’t get back its investment from Eurodif. The joint stock company Eurodif was formed in 1973 by France, Belgium, Spain and Sweden. In 1975 Sweden’s 10% share in Eurodif went to Iran as a result of an arrangement between France and Iran. The French government subsidiary company Cogéma and the Iranian Government established the Sofidif (Société franco–iranienne pour l’enrichissement de l’uranium par diffusion gazeuse) enterprise with 60% and 40% shares, respectively. In turn, Sofidif acquired a 25% share in EURODIF, which gave Iran its 10% share of Eurodif. Reza Shah Pahlavi lent 1 billion dollars (and another 180 million dollars in 1977) for the construction of the Eurodif factory, to have the right of buying 10% of the production of the site.

The U.S. was also paid to deliver new fuel and upgrade its power in accordance with a contract signed before the revolution. The U.S. delivered neither the fuel nor returned the billions of dollars payment it had received. Germany was paid in full, totaling billions of dollars, for the two nuclear facilities in Bushehr, but after three decades, Germany has also refused to export any equipment or refund the money.[19] Iran’s government suspended its payments and tried refunding the loan by making pressure on France by handling militant groups, including the Hezbollah who took French citizens hostage in the 1980s. In 1982, president François Mitterrand refused to give any uranium to Iran, which also claimed the $1 billion debt. In 1986, Eurodif manager Georges Besse was assassinated; the act was allegedly claimed by left-wing militants from Action Directe. However, they denied any responsibility during their trial.[20] In their investigation La République atomique, France-Iran le pacte nucléaire, David Carr-Brown and Dominique Lorentz pointed out toward the Iranian intelligence services’ responsibility. More importantly, they also showed how the French hostage scandal was connected with the Iranian blackmail.