Even so, Iran is not "violating" the treaty by moving ahead with a
program for "enriching uranium". They don't even have the centrifuges
for conducting such a process. The re-opening of their facility at
Isfahan signals that they will continue the "conversion" process to
produce the nuclear fuel that is required in nuclear power plants. This
is all permitted under the terms of the NPT. They temporarily suspended
that right, and accepted other confidence-building measures, to show the
EU their willingness to find a reasonable solution to mutual concerns.
But, now, under pressure from the Bush administration, the EU is trying
to renege on its part of the deal and change the terms of the treaty itself.
No way.
So far, Iran has played entirely by the rules and deserves the same
considerations as the other signatories of the treaty. The EU members
(England, Germany, and France) are simply back-pedaling in a futile
effort to mollify Washington and Tel Aviv. Besides, when Iran re-opens
its plant and begins work, the UN "watchdog" agency (IAEA) will be
present to set up the necessary surveillance cameras and will resume
monitoring everything that goes on during the sensitive fuel-cycle process.
Iran has shown an unwillingness to be bullied by Washington. The Bush
administration has co-opted the EU to enforce its double-standards by
threatening military action, but that doesn't' conceal the duplicity of
their demands. Why should Iran forgo the processing of nuclear fuel for
peaceful purposes if it is written right into the treaty? Would Israel
or Pakistan accept a similar proposal?