America’s nuclear policy towards Iran

A major policy and effort of the current administration is to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons (The Bush Doctrine that Sarah Palin was unaware of)
When a superpower makes major foreign policy and wishes support from the world community, that policy needs to be legitimate and credible. The current nuclear policy on Iran is not legitimate nor credible. Here are the reasons: Superpower- or in the case of the United States, hyperpower, policies need to be somewhat fair in its application, otherwise, it’s merely a hegemonic move against a weaker country. America’s aggressive efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program and its assumption that Iran is acquiring nuclear weapons is not based on a consistent policy of nonproliferation. America’s close strategic partner in the Middle East, Israel, is known to possess upwards of 100 nuclear weapons, yet, no sanctions or efforts on the part of the U.S. to remove those weapons or pressure for Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). For the same reasons it says Iran cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, the same should equally apply to Israel. (although this author is not necessarily against Israel possessing nuclear weapons and Israel is not a signatory to the NPT.) Pakistan, a strategic partner of the U.S.in its fight against terrorism, has exploded a nuclear bomb and possess at least several nuclear warheads, yet again, America is not using the kind of world sanctions and pressure brought to bear against Iran to force Pakistan to join the NPT. Pakistan is an ally and not a signatory to the NPT. India, although not a strategic ally of the U.S., is a growing economic partner of the United States, where again, India has exploded a nuclear bomb and is stockpiling nuclear weapons.
India is not a signatory to the NPT, yet in light of India’s nuclear weapons program and stockpiling- America is not taking an aggressive stance for India to either join the NPT or quit its nuclear weapons program.

Another major reason that the U.S. policy against a nuclear armed Iran is not legitimate is that in part, it’s America’s fault that the Iranians sought nuclear weapons. During the first Gulf War, the U.S. made clear In no uncertain terms- that if Iraq used chemical weapons against U.S. troops, the U.S. WOULD respond with tactical nukes against Iraq. That was a violation of the NPT since Iraq’s possible attack with non-conventional weapons- chemicals- was not supported by a nuclear state (a technical provision of the NPT). So many countries- or as the administration wishes to classify as “rogue” states- are clearly responding to an America that is using its nuclear monopoly to threaten non-nuclear states in cases where the very existence of America is NOT threatened.

Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and so far, it’s not been proven that they have committed any major violations of the treaty. America’s own NIE- national intelligence estimate last year concluded that Iran had halted is weapons program. In addition, as late as 2007 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that there was no evidence of Iran making nuclear weapons. But this article is not to argue that Iran is or is not making nuclear weapons or violating the NPT of which it is a signatory. It is to argue that the reasons for Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon are due to inconsistent application of the NPT, America’s own violation of the NPT and America’s threat to Iraq and North Korea- indicating even more so to non-nuclear states that only nuclear weapons may provide a deterrent to possible U.S. nuclear or conventional attacks upon them.

Nuclear weapons, possessed by the few countries that are allowed to possess them by the NPT, should state clearly that they are weapons for deterrence or as a last resort to save their nations from utter destruction- nothing less. However, since France, the UK and the USA have all threatened at one time or another, the use of their nuclear weapons short of facing complete national destruction- they created nuclear utilization policies which were not soley for the prevention of national annihilation. It made “operational” the tactical use of nuclear weapons- making nuclear war- a usable and viable military operation which is not just for national salvation. It allows the nations that legally possess nuclear weapons to use those weapons to bully non-possessing nuclear states. This is the very reason for non-possessing states to obtain nuclear weapons at all costs. The NPT states have agreed in the past not to threaten to use their nuclear weapons against non NPT states unless themselves threatened by a nuclear attack or a non-conventional attack supported by a nuclear possessing state. The current administration wishes to stress to Iran its requirement to adhere to the provisions of the NPT, while it breaches the treaty itself, i.e. the treaty forbids members to transfer, lend, etc. nuclear weapons to non-possessing states, yet, the U.S. currently does exactly that with NATO allies who are themselves, non-possessing nuclear states. These reasons make America’s nuclear policy towards Iran, illegitimate and hypocritical.

*Many of the same arguments presented in this article apply to Syria and North Korea.