knowledge at work- Nuclear Issue with Iran

In this article we see how two countries are perturbed by different issues. Iran has social and political issues that it wishes to discuss with while US wants to discuss the Nuclear deal. Both countries are unwilling to understand the other’s concerns. Both countries do evidently not understand each others perspective and want to further their own motives.
Iran has been procrastinating and using ambiguous language. Tehran promises to ‘embark upon comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations” but conveniently ignored the nuclear issue. USA seems to be agitated by this evasion and wants a “head on” answer. Here Iran is using language s a medium of deception, and USA has realised it and is losing faith in Iran’s words. That is why it is taking drastic measures like making Iran meet the P5. However is settling the matter in a meeting of the P5 a fair solution. The P5 counties are all developed, industrialised nations occupying the first room whereas Iran is in the third room. This is like the League of nations where only a selected countries were given the power to make decisions on world peace. Russia which was a major power was not allowed to be a member because the ones in power did not want a Communist country in. The League of Nations failed and the Second World War took place. These countries had a common perception and since they did not include Germany, Russia and many other countries they did not know their point of view. Even in this case the P5 have common ideologies that will be imposed on Iran. A fairer decision would be to include a balance of countries like some Islamic countries that will be able to explain Iran’s needs. Also in this case Iran is repeatedly telling America to discuss a “number of issues” but all America wants to do is discuss the Nuclear Issue because it is affected by it. Even the Treaty of Versailles ignored Germany’s social and political conditions and created unrest and dissatisfaction. Likewise America’s complete disregard to issues faced by Iran will create resentment among Iran’s populous.
Nuclear Armaments and the Arm’s race have been critical issues since decades. It is ironical that the US was the one who first started producing nuclear weapons and is now trying to curtail them but I guess it is now too late. Even Alfred Nobel who invented the dynamite to be used for construction purposes did not realise that it would be used for such destructive purposes. He tried deleting his formulas and preventing them from spreading but by then it was too late and dynamite became one of the first explosive to be used.
Ultimately is the accumulation of nuclear armaments ethical? This article does not elicit this major issue which should be considered while talking about nuclear armaments. Rtionally if I think about it in terms of world peace I would say it is unethical. But Iran thinks this it is ethical as helps in national defence and some Arab countries would agree. America thinks it is not because it threatens world peace. However is it ethical for America to allow P5 and countries like India to continue producing nuclear arms but prevent Iran and Iraq from doing so just because it feels that they are irresponsible? US believed that Iraq was accumulating nuclear armaments and therefore attacked Iraq. However the true reason was that president George W Bush wanted to weaken Iraq’s oil monopoly. This evidence raises a question on America’s intentions and creates suspicion in readers like me. Maybe America could have some concealed motives that we are unaware of. With incomplete information and we cannot make a judgement on whether Iran’s actions are ethical or not.
This issue is very sensitive and both sides need to deal with it with a more open mind leaving behind their biases. Ultimately nuclear armaments are a threat to world peace. Concealed motives need to be revealed to develop mutual trust, understanding and free communication.