There are five countries that are entitled to have nuclear weapons and do not want others to have them. But this dangerous game has much more to hide and new participants wanting to risk
Two countries with nuclear weapons have launched a “illegal attack” to prevent another from having access to weapons of massive destruction, but may have triggered a perverse effect by aiming at Iran’s nuclear program.
And this is a real danger in the perspective of Rafael Seidel, a professor at the Federal University of Latin American Integration (Unila) and has a published work on nuclear weaponry. To CNN Portugal, the academic warns of the possibility of the joint action of Israel and the United States to have the “opposite effect” to the intended.
“Although this type of action may determine some countries that want to develop nuclear weapons, it may also have the opposite effect, encouraging them to seek this weaponry as a form of deterrent,” says the author of a scientific article that deals with.
And this hypothesis gains more strength in a “international system in which the use of force occurs to the default of international law,” says Rafael Seidel, who launches various doubts about the legality of this attack.
Doubts that do not have: according to the answers given to CNN Portugal, this organization understands that the military operations of Israel and the United States represent an “illegal attack” and are not a viable way to deal with the possibility of having a nuclear arsenal, arguing that it is by the logic of international law that the issue should follow.
Rafael Seidel recalls that only in two specific cases could this attack be understood as legitimate, and neither was. “The use of force between states is an exception in international law, and is generally prohibited by the United Nations Charter, except in a few hypotheses, such as the authorization of the Security Council (Article 42) or the self -defense (Article 51),” says the university professor, noting that the Israeli thesis of a “preventive self -defense” is “quite controversial and normally finds no international law.”
Nuclear, a dangerous game
This coordinated attack between Israel and the United States increases tension and risks growing regional and global instability, warns the Unila professor, stressing that it becomes essential to “strengthen existing international mechanisms for peaceful resolution.”
For Icanw, the attack not only does not prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but the life of civilians at risk – there are more than 900 dead in what US President Donald Trump has.
“Israel, the United States, and will be overlooked to. For Israel and the United States, TPAN allows nuclear weapons to join and then verify the dismantling of nuclear weapons over a 10-year period. For Iran, it requires all states to update their nuclear security levels,” says Icanw, who points out this treaty as an essential tool.
An essential tool, yes, but it was not ratified by either state with nuclear weapons. But the problem is greater: if we look at, four of these countries are not part, while the other five nuclear giants are authorized by the document to have this type of weaponry. Among those outside is Israel, who has never signed the agreement that aims to control nuclear weaponry.
Distribution of nuclear warheads per country, according to ICANW
In practice, Israel and the United States want to make the Iran comply with the rules of a game in which they are also breaking the rules. On the one hand, Israel is not part of any treaty and totally hides the true dimension of its nuclear capacity. On the other hand, the United States does not give full access to independent agencies to verify its arsenal.
And that’s when Rafael Seidel sees some legitimacy on the Iranian side, which he doesn’t realize why he can’t have what his enemies already have. In the case of TNP, Iran has just gained arguments to leave the treaty, as article X includes a situation like the current one. “Each part has, in the exercise of its national sovereignty, the right to denounce the treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject of this treaty, endanger the supreme interests of the country,” he can read.
In practice, if Iran will claim that its national sovereignty is at stake, there is automatically legitimacy to leave the TNP and cease to have any legal obligations to fulfill the word that there will be no nuclear weaponry.
“Recent events could reinforce the Iranian conviction that they have grounds that fit the hypothesis provided for in article X, seeking to justify the withdrawal procedure – which, if realized, would represent a weakening of the international regime of non -proliferation,” says Rafael Seidel.
“From the point of view of international law, the main reason why Iran cannot possess or develop nuclear weapons is that it is part of the TNP,” he reinforces.
Icanw warns that the eventual departure of Iran from the TNP begins by being dangerous to the Islamic Republic itself, as nuclear nations are beginning to be threats to themselves. “Iran’s departure from the treaty will not contribute to its safety – on the contrary, it will trigger punitive repercussions from the international community,” the organization says.
Words that may take into account Donald Trump’s repeated threats, which has already made it clear that it is not going to destroy the capacity of Iran to manufacture nuclear weapons – which may not even have happened.
“Countries that have nuclear weapons are not only threatening us all, but they do it at their own risk – it is only a matter of time until our luck is over and nuclear weapons are used again,” adds Icanw, throwing an almost utopian but necessary request: that end with nuclear arsenals.
Although there are fewer weapons, those that exist are more powerful
There is an earlier case with some similarities. North Korea was part of the TNP but decided to unilaterally exit in 2003, when the indomitable Kim Jong-Il-which decisively advanced for the development of the country’s nuclear program was already in charge of the country, announcing the construction of the first bomb just two years later.
And this shows the “limitations of the regime in preventing proliferation when a state chooses to detach itself” of TNP, says Rafael Seidel. Lastly, Iran can now find a legal reason to fail to comply with any international standards and advance decisively with its nuclear program, especially when one realizes that US attacks will not have had so much effect on the dismantling of Iranian investigation.
“This possibility becomes even more worrying in the face of the current international scenario, marked by the cooling of important bilateral treaties for nuclear weapons control, especially in the context between Russia and the United States, the increase in nuclear threat rhetoric and the ongoing modernization of nuclear arsenals by most countries that have these weapons,” says the university professor.
The danger therefore exists in two strands: countries like North Korea, Pakistan or the other seven can make a race to nuclear weaponry, while countries like Iran can see legitimacy to advance even with their own programs.
ICANW assumes concern for the theme, but points to finger to states whose ratification of the TNP gives greater responsibility. “The treaty is being undermined by some of its members, as shown by the rhetoric of states such as France, Germany and Poland to share nuclear practices,” says the organization, which also does not forget the failures of countries such as Israel, India, Pakistan or North Korea, which are not part of the treaty and have nuclear weapons.
It is in this sense that Rafael Seidel points out that what will prepare to do what only happened once. It was North Korea, precisely in 2003. Although it remains “one of the main pillars” to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the university professor notes that it is not enough. It is that, although there are fewer weapons, the ones that exist are more powerful.
“This kind of mass destruction weapon has been undergoing technological advances that often enhance its destructive capacity, when compared to pumps launched over Japan. Therefore, mere reduction or control of proliferation is not enough to mitigate the inherent risks they have for all humanity,” warns the university professor.
The problem may be, in part, in the preceding, since countries that have the current ambitions of Iran – which have been in times of North Korea – may always claim that the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China do not fully comply with the TNP, whose obligations “were established from what is often called a ‘big bargain’,” adds Rafael Seidel.
An agreement in which those five countries committed to others not to transfer nuclear weapons to other states, moving even towards disarming their own arsenals. Not only the second did not happen but it is known that there are third countries that have nuclear warheads from the United States and Russia.
On the other hand, countries that did not yet have nuclear weapons had an obligation to abandon this option. It was a “legal obligation” between both parties, stresses Rafael Seidel. But if one part does not fully comply with the agreement, the other feels more legitimized to do the same.
In the light of an arms climbing, Icanw points to Colombia as an example. The South American country ratified TPAN on June 16, already after Israel launched the operation against Iran.
“Nuclear weapons are not weapons of responsible nations, but illegal weapons arrested by a minority in the world,” adds Icanw, which appeals to the total dismantling of nuclear arsenals.
