Iran’s recent announcement — that it remains committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but is suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — has once again stirred debate about the credibility and neutrality of international institutions. It raises a critical question: Are global treaties meant only to restrain weaker nations, while powerful states remain above the rules?
Iran’s Stance: Sovereignty or Resistance?
The Iranian government maintains that if the United States and Israel can attack its nuclear facilities without consequence, and if international watchdogs remain silent in the face of such aggression, then Iran has the right to defend its sovereignty through unilateral measures. Tehran argues that treaties and agreements lose their legitimacy when they are selectively enforced.
Germany’s Criticism and Western Hypocrisy
Germany has condemned Iran’s suspension of cooperation with the IAEA. However, it has failed to criticize the military actions taken by Israel and the United States. This silence speaks volumes. It reflects a recurring pattern of “selective justice” — where countries like Iran are expected to be transparent, while others like Israel, with known nuclear capabilities, are given a free pass.
Questioning the Neutrality of Global Agencies
Organizations like the IAEA are supposed to operate under the umbrella of the United Nations as neutral, unbiased institutions. But in recent years, their actions have raised concerns about politicization. If such agencies are used as tools to serve the political interests of powerful countries, how can the international community place its trust in them?
—
Rising Tensions in the Region
The Iran-Israel conflict has reached a dangerous threshold. Any escalation involving nuclear assets could have catastrophic consequences for the entire Middle East. Regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey may also feel pressured to reconsider their nuclear policies, potentially triggering a new arms race in the region.
What’s the Way Forward?
The only viable path forward is a return to fairness and balance. If Iran is expected to maintain transparency and restraint, then the same standards must be applied to all nations, including Israel. Without equal accountability, the global system will continue to lose credibility — and the risk of long-term conflict will only increase.
Conclusion:
Iran’s current position is not merely an act of defiance — it is a symbolic protest against the hypocrisy embedded in the international order. If the world continues to ignore this protest and labels it as extremism, another crack will emerge in the already fragile foundation of global peace.
Iran, the Nuclear Treaty & the Double Standards of Global Politics
By: Masood Ahmad Khan Nasir
Iran’s recent announcement — that it remains committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but is suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — has once again stirred debate about the credibility and neutrality of international institutions. It raises a critical question: Are global treaties meant only to restrain weaker nations, while powerful states remain above the rules?
Iran’s Stance: Sovereignty or Resistance?
The Iranian government maintains that if the United States and Israel can attack its nuclear facilities without consequence, and if international watchdogs remain silent in the face of such aggression, then Iran has the right to defend its sovereignty through unilateral measures. Tehran argues that treaties and agreements lose their legitimacy when they are selectively enforced.
Germany’s Criticism and Western Hypocrisy
Germany has condemned Iran’s suspension of cooperation with the IAEA. However, it has failed to criticize the military actions taken by Israel and the United States. This silence speaks volumes. It reflects a recurring pattern of “selective justice” — where countries like Iran are expected to be transparent, while others like Israel, with known nuclear capabilities, are given a free pass.
Questioning the Neutrality of Global Agencies
Organizations like the IAEA are supposed to operate under the umbrella of the United Nations as neutral, unbiased institutions. But in recent years, their actions have raised concerns about politicization. If such agencies are used as tools to serve the political interests of powerful countries, how can the international community place its trust in them?
—
Rising Tensions in the Region
The Iran-Israel conflict has reached a dangerous threshold. Any escalation involving nuclear assets could have catastrophic consequences for the entire Middle East. Regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Turkey may also feel pressured to reconsider their nuclear policies, potentially triggering a new arms race in the region.
What’s the Way Forward?
The only viable path forward is a return to fairness and balance. If Iran is expected to maintain transparency and restraint, then the same standards must be applied to all nations, including Israel. Without equal accountability, the global system will continue to lose credibility — and the risk of long-term conflict will only increase.
Conclusion:
Iran’s current position is not merely an act of defiance — it is a symbolic protest against the hypocrisy embedded in the international order. If the world continues to ignore this protest and labels it as extremism, another crack will emerge in the already fragile foundation of global peace.
Share this:
Like this:
Related
Related Posts
Japan–US Trade Talks: A Step Toward Reconciliation or the Onset of a New Economic Clash?
Recent developments in Japan–US trade relations have placed both nations at a critical juncture. According to the Japanese government, its
Share this:
Like this:
OPEC+ Boosts Oil Production: A Strategic Move Amid Global Economic Recovery and Energy Politics
In a significant policy shift, OPEC+ has announced an increase of 548,000 barrels per day (bpd) in oil production for
Share this:
Like this: