Policy, which was brought up recently by government ministers purportedly as a way to deter potential terrorists, was ruled out by state's top legal officials.03:29 10.02.16 | 0 comments
Israel never signed NPT, FACT Israel is accordingly not bound to NPT as it never signed it, FACT Iran has signed NPT FACT Iran is accordingly bound to NPT having signed it, FACT Accordingly, what incentive is it for Israel to take a position one or the other? If it does not require nuclear trade with other nations than why would it give away an asset in exchange for what? For a promise that Iran will obey the treaties and its laws that it willingly accpeted upon itself?? The treaty that allowed it to amass nuclear technlogoy in the first place??? What type of incentive is: Give up your asset and in turn we will make sure that country Iran is bound to the treaty that it signed, a treaty that you are not in contravention of becuase you never signed??? Many people read this article, perhaps (if it is posted) see a post like this and term it as a too black and white as if shades of grey should exist, BUT WHY MUST THEY EXIST??? IF THEY EXIST HOW IS IRAN NOT GETTING SOMETHING THAT IT SHOULD NOT BECAUSE IT WILLINGLY AND UNDER NO DURESS LIMITED ITS SOVEREIGNTY AND IN DOING SO WAS ABLE TO RECEIVE TECHNOLOGICAL TRADES THAT ENABLED ITS CURRENT NUCLEAR POSITION. Surely one could make a logical argument that would state that Iran could opt out of NPT (ideally one could argue they'd have to start the whole program from scratch) and then not be bound to NPT and in doing so what wrong would they have done?? You know what, perhaps I'm just taking crazy pills, i mean its insane to demand that a sovereign state who willingly binds themselves to a treaty be bound the rules and laws of the treaty they willingly binded themselves to!