Why aren't Iran allowed nuclears?

I didn't say Iran is bringing the validity of the Treaty into action, I'm saying that NPT could not be the sole reason.

Pls attach links to the detailed agreement Iran had at Geneva last year.

That's like asking 'why aren't serial offending savages allowed shotguns?'

Iran clearly sees itself as bound by the treaty, really that's all that matters here.

That's like asking 'why aren't serial offending savages allowed shotguns?'

You're not challenging my statememt, just affirming your previous one.

What if Iran suddenly says NPT is void is Iran's case (for whatever reason) then can Iran have nukes? (Since you stated that Iran can't because of NPT)

They are? Israel is much more of an serial offending savage than Iran

Only the US should be allowed nukes. No one else can be trusted.

But it won't so why bother arguing hypotheticals?

If you really want other reasons then destabilization of the region as the Saudi's and others will start their own weapons programs.

The idea that nuclear weapons create a more dangerous global situation so should be limited to the status quo (and ideally a draw-down of all weapons on all sides, but it won't happen in the current climate)

At present though these arguments aren't particularly relevant as Iran is party to the NPT and won't leave it as it would lose a lot of international legitimacy if it did so.

Assad / Syria neither signed nor ratified treaty for Chemical weapons Convention, the world still went nuts.

Iran can withdraw from NPT (North Korea).

Iran can also argue that NPT was signed by Shah and not by The Islamic Republic of Iran.

I'd rather Iran didn't develop them. Not withstanding the fact that they're crazy enough to actually use them,

a nuclear Iran would very quickly be followed by a nuclear a Saudi Arabia.

Any nation would threaten to use them if they are being bullied by the likes of US and the Arab nations.



1) Why SA if I may ask? If its because there are tension b/w the two then I'd say if Iran and SA go to war, it'll happen regardless of having nukes or not. (Having nukes would be a big plus though)

2) If SA is going to say "Iran has it, I want it too" then Iran can say the same thing that Pakistan (a Muslim nation) has it.

3) I can use this argument in favor of Iran. Throughout History SA has injected loads of money to whomever fights Iran (does more than giving away money aswell with Qatar) so with Iran having Nukes SA wont dare to repeat their acts.

Why should it be that USA, Israel can have nuclear bombs but Iran is prohibited from doing so?

So because US has much greater influence on India and Pakistan so they can have 'em?

SA have already said that if Iran goes nuclear so will they.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846

Don't fall into the trap of Arab = Muslim & all Muslims = friends.

The sunny Shia split creates huge tension throughout the Middle East and beyond.

India is a future superpower so not much choice there.

If we could pick and choose who had them then clearly Pakistan would not.

Iran clearly sees itself as bound by the treaty, really that's all that matters here.