Hmmm.... does the death come with chocolate on the side?
Seriously, more dictatorial states with nuclear weapons in the middle east aren't going to lead to more happiness, fairness, or understanding... any more than arming crips and bloods in South Central. Unless you believe that earlier nuclear annihilation is preferable for humanity, it is objectively bad.
One might as well argue that importing cocaine to create the crack epidemic and fund the Contras was morally neutral.
> Seriously, more dictatorial states with nuclear weapons in the middle east aren't going to lead to more happiness, fairness, or understanding...
The idea that Israel should be disarmed of its nukes is a nonstarter in Washington.
This conflict has nothing to do with "happiness, fairness, or understanding" and everything to do with Washington's and Tel Aviv's power over the region.
Iran's attempts to develop nuclear weapons were illegal as a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As per the terms of the treaty, the UN Security Council decides what is legal.
It doesn't matter which government was in power in Iran when they signed the NPT. They remain legally bound to it until they formally withdraw.
The NPT doesn't state anything about Israel. You should read the actual treaty instead of posting misinformation. Israel isn't a signatory and is thus not prohibited from developing nuclear weapons.
You are quoting a text, and I am providing the context. You can try and strip away the context and focus on the text. But that doesn't change the inherent dubiousness of the NPT. Slavery was legal in the USA in 1850. Apartheid was the law in 1980 South Africa. That doesn't make it right.
Why would other countries sign the NPT that locks up nuclear power with the 5 superpowers. Because they would be punished if they didn't. Why didn't Israel need to sign it? Because Israel would face zero punishment for not signing. Israel is actually more free than the 5 super powers to pursue any and every kind of nuclear strategy. Their status is actually higher than all of the 5 super powers! You can argue that Israel is not even mentioned in the NPT. But that's the magic.
And Iran was getting punished by the US after the Shah was deposed. Why should Iran adhere to the NPT in such circumstances? Note that Obama got Iran to agree to curtail their nuclear program by promising to stop punishing them. Just because you have a text and signatures, does not mean that there was no immoral, bullying and coercion involved.
As an aside, what are the legal implications of USA organizing a coup to depose elected prime minister Mossadegh of iran? Eisenhower organized riots that got 300 people killed in the process. Any legal implications, as per any international treaty? The US puppet Shah then signed the NPT. Sounds about as perfectly legal and proper as it can possibly be.
Several other countries including India and Pakistan are not NPT signatories, and haven't suffered any real punishment. Signing the NPT comes with a mix of responsibilities and benefits. If Iran no longer wants to fulfill their responsibilities then they can simply withdraw as is allowed under the treaty terms. But they can't have it both ways.
What is an illegal attempt to do something? Who decides what is legal?