7

Iran is suspected of building nuclear weapons, then world powers hold Iran nuclear talks in order to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile Israel most likely already has nuclear weapons (for example, when asked if Israel has nuclear weapons, John Kerry said "sure. everybody's common knowledge"), but why is there no such talk to force Israel abandon their nuclear weapons?

Improve this question
15
  • 10
    Both this post and your last one have been arguments, not questions; your question presumes that having a problem with Iran's nuclear program logically implies that one should have a problem with Israel's nuclear program.
    – Publius
    Aug 7, 2015 at 23:27
  • 4
    Both this comment and your last one are trying to surppress the questions, not addressing the questions; they presume that a questions is not a legitimate one if I don't like it or can't answer it
    – chaohuang
    Aug 8, 2015 at 1:54
  • 9
    These are not questions suitable for the politics SE. They aren't even really questions, they are arguments. You are free to ask what countries stances are on the Israeli nuclear program and why they hold them, but when you try to make an argument justifying why countries should hold a certain stance, you're making an argument, not asking a question.
    – Publius
    Aug 8, 2015 at 3:04
  • 4
    Re: [surppress the questions]. In order this question to become a question, it must, at minimum, contain prooflinks supporting the statements within. With it, the question becomes valid and answerable. Without it, the question is nothing but a bunch of bareword accusations that invite for denials (usually, also bareword ones). See the comments above for a proof.
    – Be Brave Be Like Ukraine
    Aug 8, 2015 at 20:56
  • 3
    Downvoting for unreferenced claims.
    – Andrew Grimm
    Aug 9, 2015 at 1:57

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
22

From a legal perspective:

Israel hasn't signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Iran did sign the treaty and got the benefits from it - so Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon or not cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency to prove otherwise is a breach of the treaty.

From a political / practical point of view:

Israel most probably has owned nuclear weapons for decades. However, the other countries in the region don't freak out because of this, thus it doesn't threaten the relative stability of the region. The Iranian nuclear program is different. Iran supports a handful of extremist groups or groups directly opposing the acting government in various countries in the region (the most notable example as of now should be those in Yemen). That's essentially part of Iran's foreign policy which is how they gain and exert influence over the region. It's an effective and well thought out policy to become one of(?) the most influential countries in the region but on the other hand it makes Iran the number one hated entity in the region (and yes, despite all the loud talks, it is not Israel, as it was also shown in the wikileaks). So if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons putting them in a position of undeserved authority, then all the Arab countries in the region would recognize this as a direct threat - not simply because Iran would bomb them but because it could help them support their local enemies and put pressure them. No suprise that e.g. the Saudis would try everything to convice the US to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities and even offer their airspace for Israel to help them bomb Iran

So should Iran gain nuclear weapons then

  • this would be a clear sign that the Non-Proliferation Treaty means nothing and that could give ideas to other countries who signed the treaty
  • most probably would destabilize the middle-east region
  • and the Arab countries in the region would most probably answer (among others) by launching their own nuclear programs.
Improve this answer
7
  • 7
    I totally agree with the Legal perspective because that's the truth but the rest of your answer is mostly opinion based. First of all, Iran is a peaceful country, Israel is not. Saudis (by borrowing troops from other countries) are trying to take over a totally legitimate country like Yemen and are bombing and killing millions of innocents and yet no country is trying to help them, except Iran. it is totally a humanitarian behavior against terrorists like Saudis. why doesn't America help them if they support peace in ME?
    – user2977
    Aug 8, 2015 at 10:33
  • 3
    Second, Israel for a long long time has been killing innocents in Palestine (specially children) and stealing and taking over their houses and building their own cities instead. so Israel is more motivated to bomb Palestine than any other countries. and your total assumption of Iran and its defensive/offensive measures are completely wrong. It's not an abandoned place where you can launch any successful airstrike, nuclear missile and things like that. You don't know anything about Iran's foreign policy, Intelligence and defense or attack mechanism so better provide a more believable answer.
    – user2977
    Aug 8, 2015 at 10:43
  • 2
    To say Iran supports extremist groups and Israel doesn't is a bit disingenuous. You could say Israel is more stable politically, but I think there are plenty of valid arguments that could be made towards Israel also supporting extremist groups.
    – user1530
    Aug 8, 2015 at 18:38
  • 3
    @blip such as? The leaders of the Arab countries in the region made clear that they see Iran as a threat due to it's proxies. On the other hand they quite clearly don't see the already nuclearly equipped Israel as a threat to their rule. Thus they are quite clearly frustrated by the prospect of a nuclear Iran while we quite clearly don't see the same reaction toward the Israel. And that's the point.
    – David Herskovics
    Aug 8, 2015 at 19:49
  • 1
    @user2977 (1) as you are probably already aware by now, Iran is meddling all across the ME (including Yemen), (2) your views on Israel are highly biased; Israel does not intentionally hurt civilians, and especially not children. Any casualties in armed conflicts are because the Palestinian terrorists fire from within their own population (as a strategic decision; they can't win on the military front so they try to win on the media). regardless, Israel would not use a nuclear weapon on the Palestinians because (a) it's not necessary, (b) it's way way too close and would be very harmful to IL)
    – obe
    May 30, 2021 at 11:13

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .