The US APPEARS to follow a different standard regarding the nuclear aspirations of India and Iran. Isn’t this unfair discrimination?
The Chief thinks discrimination – yes, unfair – no! Rich Lowry writing in JWR explains why.
Iran-EU Talks End Without Nuclear Deal
Talks between European foreign ministers and Iran over its nuclear ambitions broke up Friday without any agreement, making U.N. Security Council action against Tehran as early as next week appear more likely.
Who knows what (if anything) that gutless wonder called the UN (dis)Organization (UNO) will accomplish. Based on past performance probably not much. The US and Israel will probably have to do the heavy lifting there to deal with it.
Striking contrast in the US response and attitude here!
In New Delhi, Mr. Bush and Mr. Singh signed the nuclear pact just hours after negotiations of the agreement concluded….Under the deal, the U.S. would share nuclear technology and fuel, including uranium, with India, while the world’s largest democracy would separate its civilian and military nuclear programs and place the civilian plants under international inspections.
Lowry lays out the context of President Bush’s visit, and the nuclear agreement, which is certain to generate some static in congress. His summary seems to the Chief to hit the nail on the head pretty well:
Now, the administration has cut a deal  finalized on Bush’s trip, and pending congressional approval  to aid India’s civil nuclear program in return for India opening up its civilian facilities to international inspections. This has prompted charges of hypocrisy: How can we bless India’s nuclear breakout while trying to stifle North Korea’s and Iran’s? But there should be privileges to being a democratic, responsible government presiding over an open society. Nonproliferation advocates worry about the signal sent to the rest of the world by the deal  that message should be, “Create a consistent record of decent governance, and we won’t be as alarmed if you pursue nukes.”
Sounds reasonable to me!