Or, how about this one: “A nation who protects, finances or endorses the violent replacement of democratically elected regimes is a nation that encourages the violation of the inalienable rights of others. Such a nation has absolutely no right to any technology that will enhance its offensive capability.” Again, if you paint the U.S. with appropriate colours, you can apply these factors to the right to posses nuclear weapons, and the U.S. is once again on the losing end.

What do both paragraphs have in common with your article?

All 3 pieces take historical factors, throw in some supposition, prediction, character assassination, and accusations of future actions which haven’t taken place yet - and we apply these arguably irrelevant factors to that piece of international legislation known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty. You can’t take the facts you cited and apply them to this legislation, because those facts are not proven, and are based on old history which YOU feel should be relevant (but it isn’t).

Any judge would have definitely thrown you right out of court on the very weak arguments above. I’d say this does a very poor job of convincing anybody that Iran should receive special, unique treatment under the treaty that no other regime receives.