Iran parliament votes to reduce ties with Britain

[lucy]

The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is, as the name says, a treaty, not law. And even if it were law, why didn't anybody bother too much (well, with the exception of India) when Pakistan tested a bomb? Maybe because Pakistan never signed it (along with India and Israel). So all Iran had to do is to leave the treaty and they'd be in the clear? Doesn't sound right to me.

Anyway, me, personally, I don't see much of a difference between Pakistan and Iran. Well, maybe there is one: With Iran you know they're fooling you and will stab you in the back as soon as you turn around whereas with Pakistan you can only guess as much.

Either way, that doesn't mean I think it's not important to keep the mullahs in Teheran from obtaining nuclear weapons. But then again, I firmly believe that nobody should have them.

[js207]

The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is, as the name says, a treaty, not law. And even if it were law

Treaties are international law (dictionary definition: "a body of rules established by custom or treaty"). What did you think international law consisted of, if not treaties?

One key difference is Iran's stated agenda of extermination; where Pakistan and India essentially seek nuclear weapons as part of their standoff over Kashmir, Iran seeks to destroy another country utterly - by some accounts, even at the expense of its own existence. If they sought peaceful coexistence, their weapons program would be less of an issue ... but then, if they sought peaceful existence rather than extermination of others, they wouldn't be pursuing these weapons in the first place.