Iran's parliament is in the process of drafting a bill that could lead to the country's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This development follows military strikes by Israel on Iran, which began on June 13, amid rising concerns about Iran's nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently reported that Iran is in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in two decades.

The NPT, effective since 1970, aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons while allowing member states to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It recognizes five nuclear-armed states: the United States, Britain, France, China, and Russia. Currently, 191 countries are parties to the treaty. However, notable non-signatories include India and Pakistan—both of which have developed nuclear weapons—and Israel, which is believed to possess a nuclear arsenal but has not confirmed it.

North Korea signed the NPT in 1985 but withdrew in 2003 after being confronted with evidence of a covert enrichment program. The treaty includes an escape clause allowing any state to withdraw if extraordinary events threaten its supreme interests; however, it requires three months' notice to other members and the U.N. Security Council.

Iran has been a signatory since 1970 and maintains that its uranium enrichment activities are intended for peaceful purposes. Nevertheless, Western nations and Israel express skepticism regarding Iran's intentions. The recent IAEA resolution highlighted Tehran's failure to cooperate fully with inspections related to undeclared nuclear material.

In response to these developments and ongoing sanctions imposed since 2006 due to non-compliance with U.N. resolutions demanding an end to uranium enrichment activities, Iran has ramped up its nuclear program after former President Donald Trump withdrew from a significant agreement aimed at limiting its atomic activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

As tensions escalate between Iran and Israel over these issues—especially following missile strikes by Iran against Israeli targets—the situation remains precarious as discussions about potential changes in Iran’s commitment to international treaties unfold.

Original article

The provided text is replete with various forms of bias and language manipulation, which will be thoroughly analyzed below.

Political Bias and Virtue Signaling

The text exhibits a clear Western-centric bias, with a focus on the actions of Western nations, particularly the United States, Britain, France, China, and Russia. The narrative emphasizes the importance of these countries' nuclear-armed status within the context of the NPT. In contrast, non-Western nations like India and Pakistan are portrayed as notable non-signatories to the treaty. This framing reinforces a narrative that Western powers are responsible for maintaining global security and stability. The use of phrases such as "Western nations" and "Israel" (which is not explicitly stated as a Western nation but is often associated with Western interests) creates an implicit distinction between "us" (the West) and "them" (non-Western countries). This dichotomy perpetuates a simplistic view of international relations, where Western powers are seen as benevolent actors working to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Furthermore, the text virtue signals by highlighting Iran's alleged failure to cooperate fully with inspections related to undeclared nuclear material. This portrayal creates an impression that Iran is somehow less trustworthy than other signatory states. The use of words like "skepticism" regarding Iran's intentions reinforces this notion. However, no similar skepticism is expressed towards other countries' nuclear programs or their compliance with international agreements.

Cultural and Ideological Bias

The text assumes a Eurocentric worldview by implicitly framing international relations through the lens of Western values and norms. The NPT's recognition of five nuclear-armed states – all from Europe or North America – reinforces this assumption. The narrative also perpetuates a binary opposition between peaceful uses of nuclear energy (associated with Western values) and military applications (linked to non-Western states). This dichotomy ignores alternative perspectives on nuclear energy development in non-Western contexts.

Moreover, the text employs nationalist language when discussing Israel's alleged possession of a nuclear arsenal but does not apply similar scrutiny to other countries' military capabilities or strategic interests.

Racial and Ethnic Bias

The text omits any discussion about racial or ethnic dynamics in international relations related to nuclear proliferation. For instance, it does not address how colonialism or imperialism have contributed to global power imbalances that shape national security concerns in developing countries like Iran or North Korea.

However, there is an implicit marginalization of Iranian perspectives through selective representation: while acknowledging Iran's compliance issues under IAEA inspections, it fails to mention potential historical grievances against European powers that might have influenced Tehran's stance on uranium enrichment activities.

Gender Bias

There is no explicit gender bias in this text; however, traditional roles are reinforced by using masculine pronouns for leaders ("former President Donald Trump") without mentioning female counterparts from other countries involved in these negotiations (e.g., Angela Merkel from Germany).

Economic Class-Based Bias

The narrative frames economic sanctions imposed on Iran since 2006 due to its uranium enrichment activities as legitimate measures aimed at preventing proliferation rather than exploring alternative solutions for regional stability or economic development opportunities for Tehran.

Moreover, there is an implicit preference for wealthier nations' interests over those from poorer ones: when discussing Israel's alleged possession of a nuclear arsenal without confirming it publicly versus India/Pakistan having developed their own arsenals despite being non-signatories highlights how some narratives prioritize economic growth over disarmament efforts among developing states.

Linguistic Semantic Bias

Emotionally charged language such as describing recent IAEA resolutions highlighting Tehran’s failure to cooperate fully with inspections related to undeclared material creates tension around Iranian compliance issues rather than providing balanced information about its intentions behind uranium enrichment activities. Passive constructions obscuring agency ("Iran has been ramping up its program") reinforce ambiguity surrounding motivations behind increased activity levels rather than directly attributing responsibility. Manipulative rhetorical framing emerges through juxtapositions between US/Israeli skepticism towards Iranian goals versus lack thereof towards other signatory states’ programs; emphasizing extraordinary events threatening supreme interests within NPT escape clauses implies existential threats emanating primarily from one direction only – reinforcing binary oppositions further still