On the eve of a nuclear arms treaty with Iran, the nature of
which I cannot guess at, my shopping trip musings turned to the logic of
nuclear arms. The general background, I learned later, is that we have nations
with nuclear arms, nations without them, and one nation (Israel) which will not
say so one way or the other. There is a major treaty, the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), 1968, to which most nations are signatories except North Korea;
North Korea had once been a signatory but then withdrew. Four nations have
never signed NPT: India, Israel, Pakistan, and South Sudan. Of those outside the NPT, India, Pakistan, and
North Korea have nuclear warms; South Sudan has none; Israel is believed to
have them.
Iran is a signatory but believed to be in violation of the NPT.
Now the logic seems to be, here, that some nations are “grandfathered
in” and thus no one disputes their ownership. Others fall, through alliances,
under the protection of those who do. Iran is something of an exception, being
the sole major Sh’ia nation and not a member of a recognized bloc. But it is
geographically also close to Israel, a nation with an ambiguous status, but
most closely allied with the United States. Therefore Iran is the target of
very, very special oversight. But why? Because it threatens Israel? That
assumption is at least logical.
Nothing else is in
this context. If nuclear arms are so dangerous, why may so many have them. Why
is no pressure placed on India to rid itself of such arms? Is that because it
is aligned to the West, more or less?
I wonder what would happen if Iran withdrew from the NPT. It
would at least make logical sense, in a way, because no one seems intent on
attacking India, Pakistan, or even North Korea. So the problem seems to be—Israel. And its ambiguous status. Maybe they are the chosen people. And Truman must
have known that when he finally agreed to impose an Israeli state on
Palestinian territory—or was Palestine a British Colony then? I better stop
before I drown in an overflow of muddy logic.
