Why shouldn't Iran have access to nuclear power, or nuclear weapons for that matter?

It's particularly interesting considering Israel's ambiguous nuclear capabilities for which international entities have more than simply closed an eye; let alone the shallow, steady claims Iran would be in possession of nuclear weapons "within few years" since 1980s. Needless to say, it is within everyone's interests to keep another player from joining the nuclear club so that they will continue to have the advantage in negotiations, understandably so. This is not the first time and presumably not the last: when will Iran break?

It is entitled to nuclear power (and indeed help from nuclear weapons states in developing that technology) under the terms of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (to which it is a signatory). That is the same reason it is not entitled to nuclear weapons.

> is not entitled to nuclear weapons

But.... Why?

Why do some nations with weapons get to decided who else should and shouldn't have them?

If you subscribe to the MAD theory then every nation or organisation should have a stockpile and that would create world peace over night.

Iran voluntarily signed up to the treaty and received various benefits for doing so in return for agreeing not to pursuing nuclear weapons capability (same as every other non-nuclear weapons state signatory).

That is of course true, but also a legalistic take, as Iran not signing on to the NPT, or indeed leaving it, would not make Western powers go "oh ok, so it's fine now".

The reality is that most of the non-nuclear states are largely happy with the arrangement of living within the US nuclear umbrella and acknowledge that more nuclear weapon states do not benefit the common good, the nuclear weapon states have no interest in losing their monopoly (and are arguably breaking the treaty by failing to pursue disarmament).

The difference between Iran and North Korea is that the political system in Iran is much more nuanced, and makes it much harder for them to pursue a "lets acquire a nuke at all costs" policy, so they have to play it smart, and acquire the ability to build a weapon without actually doing it.

The difference between Iran and say India is that both the US and Israel justifiably see Iran as an antagonist, and in addition Israel is able to command significant political capital in Washington.

- Israel justifiably sees Iran as an antagonist, and they have a significant influen

> The difference between Iran and say India

As far as I know, India recognizes Pakistan's right to exist, and doesn't regularly threaten to wipe Pakistan off the map / drive all of its citizens into the sea.

Because they're them and we're us!

Disclaimer: this is not an endorsement but a statement of fact.

There is no should or shouldn't. This is power, and those with power make, change, and break the rules as they wish.

Just consider that the US flagrantly violated the Iran deal, and nothing punitive happened.

Sure, there's an NPT on paper, and yes we have a far smaller stock pile of 4k nukes... but how can the US get away running nuclear tests in 1992, 30 years after an NPT which "obligates the nuclear weapons states to liquidate their nuclear stockpiles and pursue complete disarmament." How did the US pull off nuke research in 2003 or actually building new bombs in 2007? Why did no one else start pounding their chests demanding sanctions or IAEA inspectors?

Simple: The "rules" don't apply to the US or most major powers.

Its actually quite weird. Israel, France, the UK, and the USA all saying Iran cannot have nuclear weapons while all having nuclear weapons themselves (and the USA having used it on two civilian populations).

It's not weird at all. It is what Iran (and almost every country) voluntarily agreed to under the terms of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...

So the US also signed the NPT where all the nuclear states also pledged to eliminate their arsenals... But we built a few more in '07. We also didn't sign the '17 treaty on prohibiting nuclear weapons.

Definitely not weird at all.

And the Tory government in the UK just announced a plan to build more. Smacks of irony.

And they can leave the treaty with 90 days notice.

That's my point.

Only one nation has ever demonstrated and itchy trigger finger when it comes to these weapons.

Maybe you could make a case that having these weapons would make them more hostile/expansionist/aggressive. It certainly has merit considering what the US has been up to since 1945.

Some people and country may hate America for its foreign policy but underlying principle of America is liberty and democracy. Its for this reason other countries willingly at best or grudgingly approve the status of America as super power.

But Iran or any other middle east countries are too religious and follow Islam which is violent in its fundamental principle. Even if exceptional leaders emerge and manage to make progress in women rights, individual libery etc(Example saudi arabia for providing driving license to women) it will short lived as in the case of Turkey. The reason is state can not be separated from the religion according to Islam. For this fundamental reason Islamic countries possessing nuclear weapons is very dangerous to entire world and non muslim country should approve.

It's dangerous for countries that are run by demagogues to have nukes. Pakistan is a muslim country, but they've had nukes since 1998 without much fanfare. On the flip side, North Korea has nukes, and that's far more unsettling.

Imran Khan who is the current prime minister of pakistan was pro women rights and individual liberty but as soon as he came to power, he was forced to let go of his ideas and stick to religious preaching to stay in power. This is the state of Islam. No change is possible.

Even more outrageous is when well read muslims migrate to other countries they expect their religious rights to be respected. This is very sad state.