This article broke news concerning international talks held in Geneva between the United States, Great Britain, France, China, Russia, Germany, and Iran. The talks centered around Iran’s desire to develop nuclear capacity as a nation, despite historical resistance from the international community.

Iran has received sanctions by the international community because of the fear that Iran is using nuclear development as a guise under which the nation could develop a nuclear bomb. This fear is perhaps supported by the fact that Iran develops and pursues possession of enriched uranium, a vital component of for nuclear weapons.

Iran is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and has forcefully argued that as a state, it has the right to develop nuclear capacity to pursue peaceful, civilian applications.

As press on these talks in Geneva has spread, Israel has issued statements arguing against the lifting of sanctions currently in force on Iran. As a critical ally of the United States, Israel’s perspective on these developments will likely have respectable influence.

The proliferation of nuclear capacity, for peaceful or military applications, consistently causes a stir in the international community. When a company has civilian nuclear capacity, there is a continued risk that the nuclear-capable state will pursue weaponization to increase its military capabilities.

As a disclaimer, it is probably obvious that support for Iran’s actions will disappear if it comes to pass that Iran pursues nuclear weapons. If Iran is acting in good faith and does not develop nuclear weapons, their approach might set a good precedent. There is a tension around the world between the nuclear states and the non-nuclear states. Those states who do not possess nuclear weapons might feel like second-rate global citizens, and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons commands non-nuclear states to cease or avoid developing nuclear capacities, putting them at a strategic disadvantage in global conflicts.

Nuclear capability is something of a Pandora’s Box, the knowledge and capability is not going to disappear. The P5+1 should adopt an approach to deal with and/or assist nations who wish to develop nuclear capability, without increasing the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation.

Should the P5, or perhaps U.N. Security Council, be the gatekeeper of nuclear capability? Does every state have an inherent right to nuclear development? What are the risks of a worldwide community with nuclear capabilities, even if developed for peaceful goals?