The Middle Eastern countries have long-simmering tensions, both internationally and internally, and those conflicts do not make possession of nuclear weapons a good idea. Allowing more countries in the Middle East to acquire nuclear weapons is probably strategically bad for the entire world. Therefore, the rest of the world, including the evil hegemonic United States, will use considerable political and economic means to try to prevent that. And military force, if it can be done with reasonable safety, given that it's not just the U.S. that doesn't want new members in the nuclear club, but the entire world, including NATO and the UN.

It's not a matter of "we're better than you, therefore we get nuclear weapons and you don't, ha ha." It's that our political system and domestic behavior, however dysfunctional, is still more stable, and we have some experience holding onto nukes without using them, having muddled our way (luckily) through the Cold War.

> It's that our political system and domestic behavior, however dysfunctional, is still more stable, and we have some experience holding onto nukes without using them, having muddled our way (luckily) through the Cold War

Isnt US the only country to have used multiple nuclear bombs in a real war, but still allowed to keep them?

‘Allowed’ by whom? Themselves?

> given that it's not just the U.S. that doesn't want new members in the nuclear club, but the entire world, including NATO and the UN

Everyone, as per the comment I replied to

Even themselves. Might makes right?

See, the thing about international relations is this: All those carrier battle groups, and ballistic missiles, and submarines, and main battle tanks, and commandos, and spy satellites, and long range strategic bombers, etc, etc, constitute a country's "right" to XYZ, where XYZ is anything related to international relations. That's why they are created and maintained.

>Why can America get Npower and nukes but SA can't?

Mostly cause America got Nukes first