Iran talks expose nuclear double standards

by AZADEH AKBAR
Special contributor
TEHRAN, (CAJ News) – THE ongoing Iran-United States peace negotiations in Pakistan have intensified debate over what critics describe as unequal treatment of countries in the Middle East, particularly regarding nuclear capabilities, missile programmes and regional security policies.

Supporters of Iran argue that Tehran faces persistent pressure over its military and nuclear activities while Israel, widely believed to possess a substantial nuclear arsenal, remains largely outside the scope of similar scrutiny.

The issue has become a focal point in discussions surrounding regional stability and the conditions being attached to the latest diplomatic engagement between Washington and Tehran.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has strongly defended his country’s investment in missile technology, describing it as an essential deterrent in a region marked by conflict and foreign intervention.

“If we did not have our missiles, which are for our self-defense, Israel and America would have plowed through Iran the way Gaza was plowed through, and they would have shown no mercy to the old or the young. They speak of human rights. It is a great lie,” Pezeshkian said.

He further insisted that Iran’s defensive capabilities would never be part of any negotiations.

“If we could not defend ourselves, they certainly (Israel-US) would not have shown mercy to our country and would have destroyed our power. Therefore, we will never, under any circumstances, negotiate with anyone over our defensive capabilities.”

The remarks have resonated among those who question why Iran’s missile programme remains a source of international concern while Israel’s military capabilities are seldom subjected to equivalent pressure.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari reportedly echoed those concerns, saying: “We can’t have double standards. Some countries get ballistic missiles, but Iran can’t?”

Critics of Western policy argue that Israel has carried out numerous military operations beyond its borders on multiple occasions, including in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and the Palestinian territories, while avoiding the level of sanctions and diplomatic isolation often directed at Iran.

They contend that this disparity has fuelled perceptions of selective enforcement of international norms.

The debate has also centred on nuclear oversight.

Commentators frequently point to Israel’s position outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty framework and allegations regarding its nuclear capabilities.

Social media commentator Maura Moynihan stated: “As far back as 2016, Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State, revealed that Israel possessed 200 plutonium nuclear warheads. As of today, Israel has not ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty and does not allow any inspections.”

The issue has generated extensive discussion online, where many users have questioned whether a sustainable peace framework can be achieved without applying consistent standards across the region.

Haral Iqbal argued: “Every nation has the right to defend itself, Iran should ensure its own sovereignty through credible deterrence. If Israel can keep all sorts of weapons including nuclear, why not Iran? Weakness invites war, credible defense brings peace.”

Others went further.

Madegwa Byron remarked: “Nuclear bombs are also defensive capability. (Iran) Enrich the uranium to 90% and weaponise it. It will end this drama.”

Meanwhile, Tekzilver Tekzilver defended Iran’s military posture, writing: “Of course President Masoud Pezeshkian is right. Iran did the right thing investing in whatever was necessary for national security. Iran’s missiles and their excellent strategy saved Iran against the invading Israelis and Americans. Without both, Iran would have been just another destroyed country in the Middle East, just like Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya etc.”

As negotiations continue, the debate surrounding deterrence, sovereignty and regional security remains deeply contested.

For many observers, the broader question extends beyond Iran alone: whether peace and stability in the Middle East can be achieved through a framework that is viewed by all parties as fair, balanced and consistently applied.

– CAJ News