Semantics

I agree with HM's comment on my previous post. She writes about having "a bigger tendency to trust apparent allies than wellknown enemies". That's a basic human trait which I can't deny.

This is what I've gathered from some reading I've done:

From a BBC Article: Its (The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty or NPT) aim was to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons beyond the five "declared" nuclear armed powers: Britain, France, China, the United States and the then Soviet Union...

...The US is investigating new types of nuclear weapons to attack deeply-buried targets; China is busy modernising its nuclear arsenal to make it more mobile; and Russia and China have both altered their nuclear doctrines in ways which might make the use of nuclear arms more likely.

From The Guardian: France is obliged, under the same treaty (NPT), to make progress towards disarmament. But like Britain, now considering replacing the Trident system, it shows no sign of moving to a posture of minimum deterrence, let alone disarming completely.

As a signatory of the NPT, Iran is entitled to the right to carry out a peaceful nuclear program. It has allowed frequent compliance inspections, implying transparency on their part.

Furthermore, Iran has not made a big fuss despite the US exploring other nuclear capabilites. Neither has it raised an issue with France who reportedly have 350 nuclear warheads (refer to this). With regards to 'wiping Israel of the map', note that Israel themselves have acquired nuclear arms along with India and Pakistan and are not signatories of the NPT.

When the West says that Iran "poses a threat to international security" do they not mean just posing a threat to their own security -specifically North America and Europe? Would an Iranian not say the same thing with regards to the nuclear proliferation efforts and the failure to disarm by the countries mentioned above?