I also agree that the anglo/american military industrial complexes lust for oil & control thereof is a not insignificant factor.

" ... Wolves in sheep's clothing, killing in *God's* name. ... "
quote *HILL TOP HOODS* (Ozzie Hip Hop)

Indeed, it is *auntie sam* that is the problem when it comes to WMD's & not Iran. Even as we speak, significant 6 figure amounts are being invested into the ongoing research & developement of so called mini-nukes. What a sick hypocritical joke it is for them to parade around as if they are some sort of example for the rest of the world to follow.

A 1996 UN Resolution banned DU (more appropriately known as Uranium 235 enrichment waste munitions) as a WMD; the UN Human Rights
Commission 2002 stated that US/UK use of DU violated The Hague
Conventions, the Geneva Protocol, the Nuremberg Principles, the
Charter of the UN, Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, etc.

" ... Depleted uranium weapons are an unacceptable threat to life,
a violation of international law, and an assault on human dignity.
We have an obligation to do what is right for our servicemen and women, for our children and our grandchildren, and for all citizens of the world. We must ban the use of depleted uranium in our military and worldwide; we must provide medical care to all DU casualties; and we must clean up all the places where we've used this poison that has the power to kill for countless generations, far into the future. ... "

– Dennis J. Kucinich

Bushbred:

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Nuclear_Research_Center , construction of Israel's reactor started in 1958, and Israel probably had nuclear weapons before 1967.

The NPT opened for signature in 1968.

Thus, France's assistance to Israel did not violate the treaty. (Israel also never violated the treaty because it is not a signatory.)

If, as seems likely, Israel already possessed nuclear weapons when the NPT was written, the treaty's terms should have recognized this, just as they recognized the other nuclear powers at the time. As a condition for its ratifying the treaty, Israel should have been considered one of the Nuclear Weapons States, alongside the US, USSR (now Russia), UK, China, and France. And like them, it should have received a permanent seat on the UNSC.

Perhaps the UNSC should now be expanded to include permanent seats for Israel, Pakistan, and India, and all seats should be conditioned on abiding by the NPT so that the "nuclear club" is not further expanded. That, after all, was the treaty's original intent.

This may seem to foolishly reward India and Pakistan, who only acquired their nukes after the NPT was written. The foreign governments that assisted their nuclear programs did so illegally. But India and Pakistan themselves, like Israel, never signed the treaty, and so did not violate it.

Also, this would provide a "necessary correction" to the current UNSC, which no longer reflects the real balance of power. India is a rising superpower and the largest democracy in the world; Israel a long-recognized regional power whose moderate, democratic voice has been unfairly vilified in and proscribed from the UNSC (to the detriment of Israel, its neighbors, and the UN); and Pakistan's inclusion would provide the Islamic world with permanent representation on the Council.

This expansion could be seen as symbolic, but the symbolism is important. It makes no sense that France and Britain get permanent seats while Israel has been prevented even from holding one of the rotating seats; and no sense that Europe has two permanent seats -- three if you include Russia -- and the entire Indian subcontinent and Islamic world none.