Iran in its long time ambition of procuring a Nuke arm to counter any eventual attack from its enemy duo of US-Israel launched a programme to acquire the capability clandestinely.
In 2003 it came out to public and received wider condemnations and till the date survives as a controversial issue. US and EU consider the issue as a breach of trust because Iran is a signatory of NPT and has obligation not to engage in proliferation of nuclear arms in the region.
Prominent nuclear powers of Asia – India, Pakistan and China one way or other have contributed towards nuclear aspirations of Iran and Russia an open supporter of Iran in many cases moderate and neutralise the tension between Iran and its opponents.
Now, after becoming a recognised nuclear trading partner with NSG tag, India preaches Iran not to go for nuclear powered status in against committed as earlier. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has reiterated its position identical with EU.
However, India was never a signatory of either NPT and CTBT but conducted nuclear tests thrice and now associated with US, France, Russian Federation and other member nations of NSG for receiving fuel for running nuclear power plants.
India’s clever bargain does not mean any legitimacy to acquire fuels to run civilian nuclear reactors to produce power to boost economic activities.
Iran as an Islamic nation which also a prime rivalry and major threat to Israel is subject to same treatment as India but refused to go ahead since potentially endangers the Zionist state. In case of India it waited for 34 years to come over the nuclear apartheid through the 123 agreement with US. Of course, Iran could do the same thing to get a short cut legitimacy to procure fuel to produce power and subsequently produce arms in a clandestine manner. Any how, the partner will help out to sustain international pressure if the clandestine bomb being discovered. They need not to bother about it.
Israel clearly has produced nukes and argues on the ground of fear of attack from hostile Arab neighbours. US support the theory as usual and protect Israel from any international ban or economic blockade in case it accepts existence of a Jew bomb.
The issue here lay is not about the possession of a bomb but partisan approach from the nuclear club in regard of nuclear arms and acquiring of arsenals. They encourage selected nations on their own convenience and willingness but not on the merit of accountability of such nations.
This approach may lead to more complications rather than stopping nuclear arms race in the region. The nuclear diplomacy has shortened itself to a minimal position setting aside chances to use it as an attractive bargaining tool to end conflicts in the Mid-West region.