In this article, Professor Daniel Joyner analyzes the legal arguments on both sides of the Iran nuclear issue. The article address what the sides regard as the relevant sources of international nuclear law, and their respective interpretations of these sources law. Professor Joyner argues that Iran’s case illustrates warped and incorrect legal interpretations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other sources of law, and a prejudicial and inconsistent application of the law by the West and by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The article posits that this warped interpretation of NPT obligations has led to a bleak future for the Treaty as the normative cornerstone of international law’s regulation of nuclear energy. The article concludes by calling for a new grand bargain—one that progresses the aim of global nuclear disarmament, strengthens the legal framework governing nonproliferation, and ensures that civilian nuclear energy programs may be freely pursued and developed by states that choose to do so
