You are of course right when you say that no country is obliged to trade with other countries but I would still argue that trading with other countries is the normal status. Then putting an embargo on a country and only lifting it under conditions you dictate is a form of punishment to achieve your goals. The nice way to achieve your goals is to offer something in addition to the normal status. Essentially I see it as the same difference as between giving you money to buy your car and forcing you to hand me the key by pointing a gun at you. Or an even better analogy, I deny you access to gas stations - I own all of them - making the car useless for you. Here too I have no obligation to sell you gas but the normal status is that I sell it to everyone asking for some.
> Essentially I see it as the same difference as between giving you money to buy your car and forcing you to hand me the key by pointing a gun at you.
I'd argue a more apt comparison would be saying "I'll buy your car, but only if you stop waving that gun around".
In any case, the point of foreign policy isn't to be nice or fair; it's to create norms and incentives that lead to a stable and peaceful world. If the international community pays off Iran, above and beyond normalized participation in international commerce, to dismantle its nuclear program, then the incentive is clear for other nations to start such programs in hope of a payoff. Regardless of the fairness arguments (which cut both ways - it's not really "fair" to peaceful nations if Iran gets rewarded and they don't), that is a precedent you don't want to set.
If the international community pays off Iran, above and beyond normalized participation in international commerce, to dismantle its nuclear program, then the incentive is clear for other nations to start such programs in hope of a payoff.
You want something from them, waiver of nuclear weapons to which they have the same right as any existing nuclear power, why would you expect to get this for free? And nuclear programs are expensive, I don't think starting one only because of possible compensations when you stop it would be a worthwhile move.
But let me turn the thing around. Would you say it would be good foreign policy if the rest of the would put an embargo on the USA until the USA dismantles all its nuclear weapons and facilities? If the rest of the world would start sabotaging those weapons and facilities? Ignoring for the argument that the USA is as power
> waiver of nuclear weapons to which they have the same right as any existing nuclear power
No one has a "right" to nuclear weapons. You can search the Magna Carta, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the United Nations Charter, etc. No international agreement recognizes any such right. In fact the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran is a party to, does exactly the opposite.
> Would you say it would be good foreign policy if the rest of the would put an embargo on the USA until the USA dismantles all its nuclear weapons and facilities? If the rest of the world would start sabotaging those weapons and facilities?
Anything that forces the current nuclear powers to give up their weapons would be excellent. In the current balance of power, that's unlikely to occur outside of mutual disarmament agreements.
I will point out that it's not like the rest of the world is refraining from sanctioning the US out of some sense of higher morality. International relations is power politics for everyone. Aside from the pure power differential and the economic consequences of refusing US trade, many countries (not all, obviously) benefit from the security of the American military umbrella. Many countries (e.g. much of the EU) refrain from developing their own nuclear programs precisely because of American security guarantees. Those guarantees would still exist in a post-nuclear world, but only if everyone disarms at the same time, which is, again, hard to coordinate.
I did not mean any written right just that if it is okay for one country to have nuclear weapons then it is okay for every country. There is nothing to justify the position that only a selected group of countries is entitled to poses nuclear weapons.
You have a bit of a point with non-proliferation treatise but they essentially mean that countries voluntarily refrain from spreading nuclear weapons.
And you sidestepped the question about embargoing the USA by discussing it powerful position. I am only arguing that it would be better foreign policy to, for example, offer a discount on oil for 20 years if the USA dismantles its nuclear weapons as opposed to enforcing an oil embargo until they do so.
And party you are saying what I mean, some countries refrain from having nuclear weapons because they got military protection in return which in turn also implies that in some sense possessing nuclear weapons is a good thing. Here the USA is essentially paying for other countries wavering a good thing.
Or compare Russia and Iran. The USA is giving something to Russia in return for the reduction of it's nuclear stockpile namely the reduction of its own nuclear stockpile. Iran on the other hand is not as powerful as the USA and company and so they can bully them to achieve similar goals. This looks like abuse of power to me.
