Christopher Jon Bjerknes
The Islamic Republic of Iran cannot lawfully be punished for exercising its due rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which states, in the relevant part,
"Considering the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples, [***] Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and that the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security are to be promoted with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources,
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world."—TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
However, the United States of America is expressly barred from the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State" by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and by the Charter of the United Nations, which states in the relevant part,
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."—Charter of the United Nations, Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraph 4.
America is illegally threatening Iran with an American Naval presence in The Persian Gulf, American calls for "regime change" in Iran, American plans and actions to attack the political independence of Iran, and the American threat that "all options are on the table" indicating that the US will use military force against Iran if Iran does not comply with unlawful American demands that it cease enriching uranium and desist from developing nuclear technology to enrich uranium. The standards used in determining that these American actions do indeed constitute illegal threats must be broad, given that the criminals issuing such threats will naturally seek to avoid prosecution for their crimes and will be inclined to use guarded language, which, however, is nevertheless likely to be seen as a threat. It must also be taken into consideration when judging the nature of these unlawful threats, that the US has made similar threats in the past and carried through with them with forceful and devastating aggression, thereby leaving no doubt as to the threats contained in such statements and ultimatums.
It can hardly be said that America is attempting "to make every effort to avert the danger of [a nuclear] war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples," given that America refuses to negotiate with Iran without first making impossible preconditions, preconditions which demand compliance with unlawful American demands, and which impossible preconditions subvert the proposed purposes of the negotiations themselves, preconditions which achieve the results sought by one party (the Americans) in advance of negotiations, while concurrently violating the rights asserted by the opposing party (the Iranians) which are the subject of the proposed negotiations.
It is clear from the American refusal to engage in normal, responsible and effective diplomacy, that America does not desire a negotiated settlement of the dispute, but instead desires a pretext to aggressively attack Iran. This contention is further bolstered by substantial evidence that controlling elements of the American Government have been planning an attack on Iran for decades in order to secure the interests of the Nation of Israel. Neo-Conservatives have openly stated that their goal is not "to safeguard the security of peoples," but rather to promote instability and chaos in the predominantly Islamic nations of the Middle East.
They have openly called for war on Iran, and their open calls for war on Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon have been heeded by the Israeli and American Governments, governments which are today calling for an aggressive American war against Iran. Given this demonstrable and well known history, America's actions must be reasonably interpreted as illegal threats against Iran, and it is America, and Israel with Israel's illegal nuclear weapons arsenal and illegal threats and use of force against its neighbors and Iran, which are violating the spirit and the letter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and not Iran.
Another issue to be considered is the proliferation of "depleted uranium" munitions to Israel by the United States. A broad interpretation of the Treaty would deem the transfer of these weapons as a violation of the Treaty. Even a rigidly narrow interpretation of the Treaty would forbid the transfer of tactical nuclear weapons from the United States to Israel.