Iranian Nuclear Negotiations are going exactly as you would suspect

We can still bomb Iran's illegal nuclear program. Or overthrow their government.

 

I would doubt that. More likely scenario is that we have to live with a nuclear armed Iran.

 

RE: Iranian Nuclear Negotiations are going exactly as you would suspect
※→. Lil Mike, Toggle Almendro, et al,

(COMMENT)

I know that many people like to say that Iran has an "illegal" nuclear program. Strictly speaking, this is a false assumption. Iran has stipulated that it would exercise its option to withdraw from the NPT if the Allied Powers of Europe were to refer the matter to the Security Council over disputes arising from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This matter has NOT been settled. The Iranian option has effectively frozen any progress forward. The matter has been in political limbo.

Many people believe that the United States is the ranking superpower. While it is true that the US has the most military power, it has declined in virtually every other standard by which you measure human development. In fact, the United States has fallen out of the top 20 in the world.

​

The United States, in terms of Human Development, ranks just barely above Israel and just below Korea. Think about that in terms of leadership in the world.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

It is against the law for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran will only be allowed to withdraw from the NPT if they have a valid reason.

"I'm a rogue nation and I want illegal weapons" does not count as a valid reason.

That is why the world slammed North Korea with crippling sanctions when they tried to withdraw from the NPT.

 

All we have to do is fly over their nuclear sites and drop bombs. Both the US and Israel are capable of doing this.

The US is also capable of overthrowing governments. Ask Saddam Hussein.

 

Ask Trump.

 

RE: Iranian Nuclear Negotiations are going exactly as you would suspect
※→ Toggle Almendro, et al,

Repeating an unsubstantiated claim without a citation does not make it true.

(COMMENT}

International law are "rules which are legally binding on states." Iran has stated that IF the matter is referred to the Security Council, THEN they will withdraw from the treaty. IF Iran withdraws, THEN it is no longer in conflict with the binding agreement.

This is political gamesmanship on the international level. While the notion of a Nuclear-Armed Iran is unappealing to The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a conflict of any sort is a very serious threat to the six oil-exporting countries of the Persian Gulf. There are all sorts of sensitive targets that ring the Gulf. Even the damage to the desalination Plants is a critical issue. There is only one way in and one way out of the Gulf, which is through the Strait of Hormuz.

While militarily the greatest threat is the increase and improvements of cruise missiles and UAVs, the successful defense might be more simply the use of unarmed Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCC) and Ultra Large Crude Carriers (ULCC) that might be sunk at strategic locations along the shallowest points of the navigatable lanes of the straits. In comparison to the cost of a nuclear weapons program, the refurbishment of a couple of decommissioned tankers as passage disrupters could bring serious consequences to the GCC. Such a well-thought-out strategy is many times more of a threat than an Iranian Nuclear Strike Capability (INSC). But that is a discussion of another color.
.

(QUESTION)

What law actually has that wording?

(COMMENT)

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) DOES NOT say that at all. It says"

"that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country."​

Iran has already given the three-month advance warning.

A valid reason is not a criterion for withdrawal. All the nation has to state is that the treaty is no longer in its best interest.

It is also important to remember that the UN Charter specifically states that: "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state..." This means that the UN has very limited influence over what happens inside the sovereign territory. The UN CANNOT make laws governing the domestic activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons.

 

He is however a great example of the US' ability to overthrow a government.

 

Did the US overthrow any governments during the Trump Administration?

 

If they do, then either the US or Israeli is likely to bomb their nuclear sites. Another likely option is that the entire world crushes Iran with devastating sanctions like they did to North Korea.

The NPT.

That is incorrect. Mentioning "extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the treaty" is saying that such events are the only valid reason for withdrawing.

If Russia were allowed to use nuclear weapons in an aggressive act against Ukraine with no catastrophic consequences or repercussions, that might be cause for nations around the world to reassess and pull out of the NPT.

Iran merely being a rogue nation that wants illegal weapons is not a valid reason for withdrawing.

 

If they havnt just traded a buncha their drones for some Russian nukes yet...

 

Sure...for non nuclear states.

 

That would actually be a good use of Russian nuclear weapons, selling them to rogue states in exchange for men and material that can be used on a conventional battlefield.

 

No.