This article by Nathan Donohue is a reaction to another article written by Michael Makovsky and Blaise Misztal of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Foreign Policy Project in the Wall Street Journal.  Makovsky and Misztal argue that the NPT does not give Iran the “right” to enrichment, something Iran stresses at every opportunity.  Donohue however, maintains that the issue is not so clearly defined and examines the wording and history of the NPT to validate his claims.  Donohue argues that the wording of the treaty is one of main reasons the situation is so ambiguous.  Indeed, the wording is often confusing and ambiguous at best.  The treaty declares that states without nuclear weapons are not permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon or develop technology to that end, but that it can develop peaceful nuclear energy to any extent.  Thus, a state such as Iran can maintain it is developing peaceful technology right up until it makes a quick transition to a nuclear weapon.  And while we can argue about the technical aspect of treaty, Iran’s actions leave little doubt of their pursuit for nuclear weapons.  If they desired peaceful nuclear energy, Iran would develop its energy structure and also use its cheaper natural gas deposits instead of undergoing an expensive enrichment program.  In response to both these articles, I would argue it is pointless arguing over a treaty that deliberately contains ambiguous wording and instead concentrate on the real problem of Iran’s continual march towards acquiring a nuclear weapon.