Obama Administration Trying to Sell a Dead Horse -- The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

UPDATING 5-8-2009 see at bottom

The Peace Process -- Peace of Mind for Judeophobes

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a dead horse. It doesn't work. Iran is a signatory to the treaty, yet, as everyone with any sense knows, Iran is working to develop nuclear weapons, which is a violation of the treaty. And the so-called "international community" does nothing to stop them. Several Euro powers have been negotiating with Iran for years to have them stop the nuclear weapons development. Yet nothing concrete is done. Several deadlines have been set. When Iran fails or refuses to meet a deadline, a new, later deadline is set, or more concessions are offered by the Euro side. Now Obama, the boy genius and would-be messiah, wants "tough diplomacy" with Iran. Maybe he thinks that he has a magic secret that the seasoned Euro diplomats are unaware of. Yet his administration is against force or the threat of force against Iran's serious violations of the treaty, not to mention Iran's violation of international law by making threats to destroy Israel. So the NPT treaty is a dead horse. Yet one of Obama's dimbulb underlings is trying to sell that dead horse. Presumably she is speaking for the Administration.
What do we make of a government that tries to sell dead horses?

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States," Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting, according to Reuters.
....

What good is the treaty if it does not in fact prevent nuclear proliferation? Since it is obvious that the treaty doesn't work -- in fact any treaty can be violated if no one tries to enforce it-- then why is the Obama regime pushing it? If the USA opposes nuclear proliferation and upholds international law, then why has it not taken effective forceful action against Iran, starting perhaps with severe sanctions but not ending there, if necessary? Why foreclose the use of force from the start? Does the Obama Administration --or the Bush regime before it-- really mean to oppose the ayatollahs getting the bomb?

The report goes on:

She [Gottemoeller] declined to say, however, whether the Obama administration would press Israel to join the treaty.

A senior White House official said the administration considered the nuclear programs of Israel and Iran to be unrelated "apples and oranges."

Asked by The Washington Times whether the administration would press Israel to join the NPT, the official said, "We support universal adherence to the NPT. [It] remains a long-term goal."

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
[Eli Lake, Washington Times, see full article here]

Instead of trying to stop proliferation, precisely proliferation to an aggressive state motivated by a fanatic ideology, it seems that Obama & Co. want Iran to have the Bomb and want to take it away from Israel.
- - - - - - -
For our reasoning as to why the Bush regime may have wanted Iran to have the Bomb, see here. For EU help for Iran's bomb see here. For Alan Abelson on "small nuclear wars" see here.
- - - - - - -
UPDATING 5-8-2009 A study from Israel's Institute for National Security Studies about the weaknesses of the NPT.