Wait, What?

A piece in the New York Times today discussed how Bush wants to subvert the negotiation process for rewriting the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to ensure that it excludes any non-nuclear nation (Iran) from enriching uranium for fuel. Quite frankly, I have no problem with this.

True it may be that the Bush administration moves too fast at times, it is also true that Europe (and really, they're the only other ones who matter in any of this) moves too slowly. I do not dispute their right to move slowly; I mean, I'd be very cautious too if I were Europe, wary of anything that looks like it could start a war after 2000 years of being torn up by war, rebuilt, and torn up again. So pretty much, although I hate to do it, I support this mending of the NPT.

Iran's argument for enriching uranium, however, is, on the surface, understandable. Still, I am not convinced. Iran says it needs to enrich uranium for its energy needs. While I understand it can't really use the sea of oil its floating on for its own purposes lest its economy tank, this paragraph from the Times article struck me as... we'll say 'odd':

While Mr. Bush and the director general of the I.A.E.A., Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, have different proposals to deal with the problem, they agree that established nuclear nations should supply fuel to countries that need it. While this would help ensure that no nation could secretly produce bomb-grade fuel, smaller countries say they should not be dependent on the West or international consortiums for a crucial source of energy.

Iran doesn't want to give up its uranium enrichment because it doesn't want the US (or any
"consortiums") to have it by the balls when it comes to energy.

Hmm...