It is likely that Tehran has concluded that if Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, Putin would not have dared to invade the country.
Here’s a question. If Ukraine had retained its nuclear weapons, instead of giving them up in 1994, would Vladimir Putin have so brutally attacked it this year? After all, there was no particular rationale for the attack, other than Putin’s own fantasy legacy, convinced that he is the true successor to Peter the Great? The reason why this question is so important is that it is being asked in small countries around the world. If you are facing a large irrational bully such as Russia, what chance do you have of protecting yourself without nuclear weapons? Of course, if you’re a member of NATO, then you will be protected under Article 5, which means that an attack against one member is considered as an attack against all. In other words, you won’t need your own nuclear weapons. If you’re not a member of NATO, you’re on your own. Which is precisely why Finland and Sweden rushed to join after Russia attacked Ukraine five months ago.
Let me remind you. When the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, Ukraine had the world’s third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile on its soil. A concerned Russia and the West eventually persuaded Kiev to give up the weapons in return for assurances from Russia that its borders would be protected and its sovereignty respected. By signing the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, Russia not only recognised Ukraine’s sovereignty as an independent country, but also guaranteed its territorial integrity. Three years later, Russia even signed a Friendship Treaty with Ukraine. We now know that a treaty with Russia isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. We certainly know what President Putin thinks of international treaties that get in the way of his greater glory.
Which leads us to Iran.
Putin is not the only world leader who tears up treaties—former US President Donald Trump did the same. Iran filed a lawsuit against the US when Trump in 2018 unilaterally pulled out of the nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, and announced that he would be authorising new “economy-crippling” sanctions against Iran. Tehran argued successfully at the International Court of Justice that the sanctions violated the earlier Amity Treaty of 1955, leading to an enraged Trump also ripping up this Treaty, as he pursued a determined strategy of confrontation with Iran.
Much has been written about the JCPOA. It wasn’t perfect, but at least it brought Iran’s nuclear programme under tight international control. The JCPOA delivered unprecedented international oversight and access to Iran’s nuclear programme and imposed strict limits to guarantee Iran could not weaponise its programme, in exchange for economic relief from sanctions on the country. Even after the US pull-out, Tehran initially stayed in accordance with the agreement, while also trying to salvage a deal with the remaining stakeholders—Russia, China, Germany, Britain and France. The JCPOA appeared close to being resumed in March, following 11 months of indirect talks between Tehran and the US under President Joe Biden, with the EU acting as a go-between. But they became bogged down over Tehran’s insistence that Washington removes the hugely influential elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps from the US Foreign Terrorist Organisation list.
Read more: https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/world/ukraines-plight-hastening-irans-nuclear-bomb
