> 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.
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.