Timing is everything

"Iran is the only party to the NPT that cannot demonstrate the peaceful intentions of its nuclear program, and those actions have consequences. Through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, we made it clear that international law is not an empty promise." - U.S. President Barack Obama

North Korea: Backed out of the NPT in 2003. Tested a nuclear weapon. World powers have limited influence over North Korea’s actions. Still in a state of war with its neighbour.

India: Never signed the NPT. Probably never will. Doesn’t need to sign because Pres. Bush and the U.S. Government agreed to a nuclear assistance package for India even though they tested a nuclear weapon. Still in a state of war with its neighbour.

Pakistan: Never signed the NPT. Probably never will. Tested a nuclear weapon. Billions of dollars in military aid over the last decade. The Pakistani secret service (ISI) is alleged to be aiding the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Still in a state of war with its neighbour.

Israel: Never signed the NPT. Probably never will. Billions of dollars in annual military aid. Still in a state of war with its neighbours. 

It is important to note that Iran is a signatory to the NPT and their (declared) nuclear facilities are under the supervision of the IAEA. The other three countries don’t have the problem of having to prove anything to the IAEA because they simply don’t allow the IAEA to poke around at all. Want proof? Here’s an excerpt from a Sept. 20, 2010 statement issued  by the IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano:

Turning to the safeguards issues on the agenda of this General Conference, the nuclear programme of the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea remains a matter of serious concern. The Agency has had no inspectors in the country since April last year, and I therefore have nothing to report on any activities of the IAEA in relation to the DPRK. The DPRK has not permitted the Agency to implement safeguards in the country since December 2002 and it has not implemented the relevant measures called for in Security Council resolutions 1718 and 1874. I again call on all parties concerned to make concerted efforts for a resumption of the Six-Party Talks at an appropriate time. (My emphasis)

This idea of waiting for 'an appropriate time' is significant because today the annual meeting of the IAEA voted down a proposal calling for Israel to accede to the NPT. The reasoning here being that passing the proposal at this time would derail the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians and kill a conference on a nuclear-free Middle East planned for 2012.


So, wait, lemme get this straight: The countries with nukes (the P5 + the non-NPT4) get to decide when is an appropriate time for them to deal with those things that they don’t really wanna deal with. And those countries without nukes get bullied into proving that they don’t have nukes that they don’t have.

I get it now. If we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, then we’ll have to let Iran get away with all of the things that the rest of us get away with right now.