Condi Rice has an op-ed article in the Washington post, which defends the US historic deal with India on nuclear energy. She writes, "our agreement with India will make our future more secure, by expanding the reach of the international nonproliferation regime" and she argues that, Our agreement with India is unique because India is unique." She is right, but two questions come to mind after reading her article. First, is India going to be the only country which gets special treatment from the United States on the Nuclear issue? I believe that the deal with India was a good thing, but I am nevertheless aware of the message that it sends which is the one of inconsistency. It is essential for the United States to address that issue, but clarifying the new rules of the game for it is clear that this deal changed the role. Second, can other countries do the same kind of deal with countries that they consider unique? Can China or Russia have the same type of deal with Iran for example by arguing that Iran is unique (which it is) and that they believed that it deserve preferential treatment too? The danger here is not only inconsistency, but the disintegration of the system, that attempted to restrain nuclear proliferation. If Miss Rice is going to argue that India is unique and that it is fighting terrorism, she must also answer the central question of what happens now and why this deal isn't a tacit admission that the non-proliferation treaty is dead..