You are quoting a text, and I am providing the context. You can try and strip away the context and focus on the text. But that doesn't change the inherent dubio

You are quoting a text, and I am providing the context. You can try and strip away the context and focus on the text. But that doesn't change the inherent dubiousness of the NPT. Slavery was legal in the USA in 1850. Apartheid was the law in 1980 South Africa. That doesn't make it right. Why would other countries sign the NPT that locks up nuclear power with the 5 superpowers. Because they would be punished if they didn't. Why didn't Israel need to sign it? Because Israel would face zero punishment for not signing. Israel is actually more free than the 5 super powers to pursue any and every kind of nuclear strategy. Their status is actually higher than all of the 5 super powers! You can argue that Israel is not even mentioned in the NPT. But that's the magic. And Iran was getting punished by the US after the Shah was deposed. Why should Iran adhere to the NPT in such circumstances? Note that Obama got Iran to agree to curtail their nuclear program by promising to stop punishing them. Just because you have a text and signatures, does not mean that there was no immoral, bullying and coercion involved. As an aside, what are the legal implications of USA organizing a coup to depose elected prime minister Mossadegh of iran? Eisenhower organized riots that got 300 people killed in the process. Any legal implications, as per any international treaty? The US puppet Shah then signed the NPT. Sounds about as perfectly legal and proper as it can possibly be.