Iran and Nuclear Proliferation

[Angakuk]

The recent proliferation of heated rhetoric about Iran's nuclear policy has got me asking a question. Under what principle of international law is a sovereign nation prohibited from exercising its sovereignty through the development of any particular technology, nuclear or otherwise?

[Adam]

They signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

[livius drusus]

I suppose any treaty is going to require resignation of sovereignty to one degree or another in that they all seek compromise for an ultimate end.

Iran claims that they're developing the technology only to fuel power plants (which is okay by the NNT). The US disagrees, mainly based on analyses of the facilities, as I understand it.

[Dingfod]

That's true, but look what the U.S. said about Iraq and WMD. I'm thinking in particular those trailers that were supposed to be for some nefarious purpose.

[livius drusus]

That's definitely a factor for me, Warren, but in the end I must admit I simply don't know enough about nuclear facilities to be able to judge the validity of the claims.

[Adam]

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying anythgin about the validity of the claims being made either by Iran or its accusers, because I honestly don't know enough to judge them (although, to go by my gut a) Iran is working at least on a contingency plan to get nuclear weapons and b) the claims made by the US are overblown anyway), I was just pointing out that the principle by which Iran's actions are being questioned is the suspicion that they are developing technology that they have signed a treaty stating they will not develop.

[TomJoe]

Yesterday, I was under the impression that Iran threatened that, if the IEAE recommended bringing them to the UN Security Council they would start producing weapons-grade nuclear material. Now, that would seem to me to be a clear indication that they already have potential to do so, which would mean they are in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Am I wrong?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...rap/index.html

Iran has said it is pursuing nuclear research for peaceful purposes and that it would start enriching uranium if the issue of its nuclear activities was sent to the council.

This makes no sense to me. We want peace, but if you want to confirm that ... we will make bombs.

ETA: After further reading, it appears that I'm wrong on this point ... but it still seems like a silly threat to make.

[TomJoe]

It gets even better ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11080906/site/newsweek/

India, a nuclear-weapons state, is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) ... The problem is that Tehran has signed the NPT, technically giving it the right to enrich uranium.

Perhaps it's just me (again), but if we could play a consistency card now and again ... we'd be better off in the long run, no?

[Dingfod]

When did Iran sign the NPT? Was it prior to their 1979 Revolution?

[Angakuk]

I'm not sure when they signed it, but in any event it does not appear that the present government has repudiated it.

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, though it has not ratified two additional protocols to the International Atomic Energy Agency's Program 93 + 2, which is designed to prevent states from developing nuclear weapons covertly despite IAEA inspections as Iraq was able to do prior to the Gulf War. Iran maintains that it will not ratify 93 + 2 due to it being denied civilian nuclear technology for Bushehr, despite its positive record with the IAEA.

Global Security
Program 93+2