Foreign policy and international relations have no time or space for principles or morality, only self-interest and everything that perpetuates it compels the actions of the big powers. This has been demonstrated once again in the actions of the United States and some European countries since the issue emerged a couple of years ago, and again since last week when apparently Iran stepped on their toes by resuming its nuclear programme after two years of moratorium. Iran, and in fact all those countries that have tried to assert their nationalism, have been the targets of the US government's wrath over the years, particularly in the years after the Second World War and more assertively after the US debacle in Vietnam.

Seeing the US attitude towards Iran vis a vis the nuclear issue and the role of the "free press" in the US one gets a feeling of deja vu. Just see what Chomsky has to say in respect of US attitude towards nationalism in other countries and the reaction of one major US newspaper following the rein statement of the Shah in Iran in 1953, courtesy the CIA and MI6:

"The major threat to US interest is posed by 'nationalistic regimes' that are responsive to popular pressure for 'immediate improvement in the low living standard of the masses' and diversification of the economies. The need to protect and promote American investment and trade is threatened by nationalism -- that is efforts to follow an independent course (italics mine).

"The threat of nationalism is recognised in the public record as well. Thus after the successful CIA coup that overthrew the parliamentary regime of the conservative nationalist Mossadeg in Iran, the New York Times commented that all of this was, 'good news indeed,' however costly 'to all concerned' primarily Iranians, the 'affair may yet be proved worthwhile if lessons were learned from it.

"Underdeveloped countries with rich resources (italics mine) now can learn object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their numbers, which goes berserk with financial nationalism. It is perhaps too much to hope that Iran's experience will prevent the rise of Mossadegs in other countries, but that experience may at least strengthen the hands of more reasonable and more far-seeing leaders who will have a clear understanding of our overriding priorities." (Chomsky: Deterring Democracy)

Do not the motivations of the US administration and the supportive comments of the US press fifty years ago ring familiar tones now?

While the West go after Iran and plan to report it to the Security Council it hardly cares to remember that Iran's nuclear program began under the Shah in 1958, with the first US-supplied reactor becoming operational in 1967. And according to Middle East watchers, "The program will likely continue under future governments unless fundamental regional dynamics are altered."

And let's once again ask why can't Iran have a nuclear program? Is it because Iran is a signatory to the NPT? We often conveniently overlook the three important pillars of the NPT, and the treaty will technically remain unconsummated if all the three elements namely, nonproliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology, remain unfilled.

And if Iran is pilloried for breach of the NPT for causing proliferation of nuclear weapons, then there are several Western countries that can be similarly treated for violation of the NPT, either for directly providing raw materials for weaponisation and nuclear technology or letting the development of nuclear weapons go unchecked under their nose.

It is no secret that Israel's nuclear weapon was developed with the full support of the West, although Britain's supply of twenty tons of heavy water to Israel was well before the NPT regime came into being.

As for disarmament very little has been done in respect of reduction of nuclear arsenal by the declared and the non-declared nuclear weapons state. In fact there are reports that suggest that new and more devastating variety of nuclear weapons may be under development by the US.

And what of the double standards in this regard?

While all the attention of the world is focused on Iran and its alleged attempt to develop nuclear weapons and the furor that this has created, to the extent that military options are talked about in certain quarters in the US, one hardly finds any mention of the other side of the equation -- Israel's nuclear weapons programme.

But as many observers believe, "The tough talk against Tehran has inadvertently put on the table a program that no one in Washington wants to discuss openly -- Israel's nuclear weapons program."

And that is as it should be, because undeniably, in spite of Israel's nuclear opacity and what the world knows to be true, and reiterated last week by the Saudi foreign minister, most Middle East weapons programs were a response to Israel's development of nuclear weapons, which started in the early 1950s and had secretly yielded a bomb by 1968. And again, according to some estimates, Israel is now believed to have between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons, a stockpile of chemical weapons and a biological weapons program that may have developed several weapons agents.

The NPT itself was biased since it only legitimized the continuing possession and multiplication of nuclear stockpiles by those few states possessing them. Possession of weapons that are capable of wiping out the human race is immoral; no rationale can justify their possession or acquisition by any country, and every effort must be made to eliminate the world's arsenal of nuclear weapons.

While the US and its allies, some of whom are themselves responsible for proliferation of nuclear weapons, go after a signatory to the NPT on suspicion that it might be on its way to producing nuclear weapons, they chose to support and countenance a non-signatory to the NPT who is known to possess not only nuclear weapons but also the means of delivery, whose range extends right up to the Russian heartland.

Thus when we hear about a particular world order we shudder at its character that thrives on double talk and double standards.

The author is Editor, Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.