Up to now, the U.S. has not been distinguishing Iran’s legal right under international treaty to peaceful nuclear energy from the development and building of nuclear weapons. Iran has insisted that the U.S. recognize its right to peaceful nuclear energy.
Several days ago in Jakarta, Hillary Clinton said “Iran has a right to the use of peaceful nuclear energy, but Iran must abide by its international obligations and cannot be permitted to get a nuclear weapon.” The first part of this statement is a shift of the U.S. position. However, it is not a concession because all it does is bring the U.S. out of its own position of denying Iran its treaty right and into acknowledgment of that treaty right. The second part of the statement about “cannot be permitted” is in the vague passive tense. Who is in a legal position to deny Iran permission? Iran can, if it wants to, withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Is Clinton saying that the U.S. will not permit Iran under any circumstances to develop a nuclear weapon? It sounds that way. By what right? The NPT doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism by which one state controls other states unilaterally. By the defense of the U.S.? But Iran would pose no threat to the U.S. even if it had nuclear weapons because to use them would cause an horrific retaliation. By the defense of Israel by the U.S.? But Israel is neither part of America nor a location that is critical to the defense of America. Besides, since Israel has nuclear weapons, doesn’t Iran have an option to develop them in its own defense? And besides, Iran and Israel have had a history of cooperation. Why should U.S. policy be swayed by anti-Iran extremists in Israel?
