The Morally Bankrupt Should Not Be Trying to Make a Withdrawal

I happened to flip to CNN over the weekend and saw one of the many viewer polls that seem to be so prominent in this era of TV "news entertainment". This particular poll was referring to the recent much-publicized enrichment of uranium by Iran. The question being posed was along the lines of:

How should the current situation in Iran be dealt with?

1. Diplomacy
2. Sanctions
3. Military Actions

Now here are three very different choices, but to me this seems like the now-too-common practice within the mainstream media to premise an outcome and the make it seem as though there are several different choices that could be taken to arrive at said outcome. To even engage in this question is to assume that the outcome is valid and to take at face value the premise that Iran has been bad and needs some sort of disciplinary action by the world community (read the United States). From all I can gather, this enrichment of uranium for stated peaceful energy purposes is the only action that is being stated as being the problem. According to Paragraph 1 of article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the UN document regulating the spread of nuclear technology amongst the world's states,

Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right
of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity
with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

With Articles I and II stating, respectively:

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to
any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or
control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not
in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to
manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive
the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly,
or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other
nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the
manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

As far as I can tell, and I imagine it would be quite widely circulated if it were not the case, Iran has not breached any of the conditions of the NPT. All I have seen is a repeated fear-mongering that Iran's enrichment of uranium for any purposes whatsoever is a necessary step in the potential creation of a nuclear weapon. Does anybody else see the problem with this logic? In the words of British Labour Party MP Jeremy Corbin, written in a letter to the Guardian:

Saying Iran is a step closer to a nuclear bomb is akin to saying that Britain
will invade France due to the breakdown in negotiations over the CAP [Common
Agricultural Policy].

Also from the same letter:

Inherently the technologies of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are similar,
but not necessarily a stepping stone, as nuclear activities can be monitored to
ensure they remain peaceful - the aim of Mohammed ElBaradei's current visit.
Iran's breakthrough was in its civil nuclear programme; failure to differentiate
paves the way for another illegitimate war in the Middle East. Iran's
announcement is not a breach of international law or regulation. Whatever our
views of nuclear energy, Iran is allowed to be in the nuclear club as a
signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It voluntarily halted its
uranium enrichment plans to negotiate additional protocols to the NPT. But when
negotiations landed them before the security council, Iran overturned its
voluntary ban and resumed enrichment.

So what does one suppose is going on? With an ongoing war nextdoor in Iraq that was started on completely false grounds, with claims such as:

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United
Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and
must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten
America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic
weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best
achieve it?

How similar does this sound to the CNN poll referenced above? Who is wanting to get on the same ride all over again? Who will this benefit? Has anyone been following how much financial gain has been had by US Corporations, many with close ties to the White House, during the Iraq war and subsequent "rebuilding". This is just one angle of the slew of not publicly disclosed reasons for the removal of Saddam Hussein. More on this later.