yes, but......

Submitted by Mohammed Waza Khiddif id'Ullah (Australia), Oct 6, 2016 at 08:13

....But the treaty has not entered into force because it still needs ratification by eight countries that had nuclear power reactors or research reactors when the U.N. General Assembly adopted the treaty in 1996 — the United States, China, Iran, Israel, Egypt, India, Pakistan and North Korea......Obama's initiative, on the other hand, calls upon even NON-RATIFIERS such as Israel to comply with the treaty.."

I read this week that Putin reneged on a plutonium agreement - so obviously these treaties mean very little when push comes to shove. So treaties come and go - and the various actors watch and are cognizant of this. Obama scrambling to leave a meaningful legacy behind is one thing - but expecting that to actually happen is something else entirely.

Russia reneging on a very fundamental treaty is far worse than Israel not signing another one which several others have not signed.

"...Repeat: The resolution provides a basis for future US military action against Israel....

There is way more of a pretext for going to war against Russia, given its unwillingness to follow US policy. Not that securing plutonium stocks is not a bad thing. But Israel is not a direct threat to the USA

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".