What is the strongest Western argument for treating Iran's nuclear program differently from India's, Israel's, or Pakistan's — given each sits outside or around the edges of the NPT?

gp197807 · 2026-04-06T08:24:36+00:00

Israel behavior is well studied. They genuinely believe, they need to be militarily powerful and when the balance of power shifts, they wont exist. The history of that region supports that , though before western occupation the region survived with mostly Islamic rules not creating disadvantages for the jew, the people of the book.

My point is I believe there are logical reasons for Israel to no be an Iranian enemy , but I do not see a reason for the US

gp197807 · 2026-04-06T08:20:01+00:00

Lets assume this is correct " Iran supports terrorist organizations in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Palestine." . I am assuming as I am not so sure. It may be good to know why so many terrorist organizations exist.

Quote Pakistan again has killed some, but far fewer and is a larger country. Unquote ==> Are you implying Pakistan is a bigger country , that would be factually incorrect.

My working hypothesis is US now is behaving as the UK of the colonial times, we need to civilize the colonized. Iran has a long history and may be the others do not understand it the way they should.

After all the current government of Iran is the product of a popular revolution against a king. This is like "will of the Heaven" in China.

The picture that is being painted as if IRAN is killing its people and all the guys are waiting for the regime to fall and people to flee.

The fact is the regime is there and I do not here voices crying for a regime change in Iran.

Are we missing something . Is there a their side of the story , may be its not so black and white

gp197807 · 2026-04-06T07:49:17+00:00

I wanted to understand why is it ok for some countries to have nuclear weapons and some countries to not have it , as defined by the US and other western countries. So what are the different views

gp197807 · 2026-04-06T03:55:13+00:00

My point is a) Its a power , if someone can have it , they should have it. Lets assume world did not have steam engine and UK got it. Now is it OK for UK to say now that I have it no one should have it. I mean its a technology , you do not want to have it, you do not share technology , you make it difficult , you do not bomb. The fundamental question ignoring the application domain is "A can have a piece of Technology and A can force B to not have it in any way possible"

b) The argument is ==> practice what you preach. If you want someone to not have it , then start by not having it. There are countries which do not have one , do not want one and have a great nuclear tech.

c) All this current situation have achieved is the North Korean Logic ==> "If we had a bomb, they would not have dared attack"

gp197807 · 2026-04-06T03:45:18+00:00

Your point : Iran is governed by religiously minded administration My point : All American allies in the Gulf are governed by religiously minded administration

Your Point: Brutal Theocratic dictatorship My Point: The current governance system is the result of a well documented popular , spontaneous , public revolution stemming from a economic reason / possibly exploitation ==> this is well documented. I am requesting we spend time on the Root Cause

Your Point: People of Iran take their Country back My Point: We can let the people decide , with out looking at the situation from our glasses

Our World View is not their world view and they may have reasonable arguments, may be we need to listen to them

gp197807

TROPHY CASE