A: To me, it’s a little hypocritical. In fact it is very hypocritical. You can’t deny that.

S: Yes, but don’t look at it in such absolute terms, think of how history has led up to this point, and on the intentions behind the deal and such statements. There always would have been haves and have-nots, even when it comes to advanced weapons of mass destruction.

A: All that is well and good, history, subjectivity. But you have to agree that keeping Iran from making a nuclear weapon has a lot less to do with principles or morals but has a lot more to do with preserving hegemony. Obama may present this deal as a principled victory, but when I see him speaking at the podium, lecturing Iran and North Korea, I can’t ignore that he has the power to deploy the world’s largest nuclear arsenal in his hands.

S: So just to be fair and principled, every nation that wants a nuclear weapon should be given one? If you can have it so can I, is that our mantra? The world wouldn’t see out this year if that happened. Somebody has to monopolise power that is the only way to ensure order, always has been. The government has tanks and aeroplanes that is why you stay in line. Fairness would require all of us to have such weapons. You can imagine the chaos I’m sure.

A: Vividly. But you misunderstand me; my point is not that every state should be able to develop a nuclear weapon because it is fair; my point is that when we stop them from doing so we should stop crouching behind empty moralistic standards of ‘peace’ an ‘security’. You said it yourself, it is all about monopolising power.