But.... Why?
Why do some nations with weapons get to decided who else should and shouldn't have them?
If you subscribe to the MAD theory then every nation or organisation should have a stockpile and that would create world peace over night.
The reality is that most of the non-nuclear states are largely happy with the arrangement of living within the US nuclear umbrella and acknowledge that more nuclear weapon states do not benefit the common good, the nuclear weapon states have no interest in losing their monopoly (and are arguably breaking the treaty by failing to pursue disarmament).
The difference between Iran and North Korea is that the political system in Iran is much more nuanced, and makes it much harder for them to pursue a "lets acquire a nuke at all costs" policy, so they have to play it smart, and acquire the ability to build a weapon without actually doing it.
The difference between Iran and say India is that both the US and Israel justifiably see Iran as an antagonist, and in addition Israel is able to command significant political capital in Washington.
- Israel justifiably sees Iran as an antagonist, and they have a significant influen
As far as I know, India recognizes Pakistan's right to exist, and doesn't regularly threaten to wipe Pakistan off the map / drive all of its citizens into the sea.
There is no should or shouldn't. This is power, and those with power make, change, and break the rules as they wish.
Just consider that the US flagrantly violated the Iran deal, and nothing punitive happened.
Sure, there's an NPT on paper, and yes we have a far smaller stock pile of 4k nukes... but how can the US get away running nuclear tests in 1992, 30 years after an NPT which "obligates the nuclear weapons states to liquidate their nuclear stockpiles and pursue complete disarmament." How did the US pull off nuke research in 2003 or actually building new bombs in 2007? Why did no one else start pounding their chests demanding sanctions or IAEA inspectors?
Simple: The "rules" don't apply to the US or most major powers.
Only one nation has ever demonstrated and itchy trigger finger when it comes to these weapons.
Maybe you could make a case that having these weapons would make them more hostile/expansionist/aggressive. It certainly has merit considering what the US has been up to since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...
Definitely not weird at all.
But Iran or any other middle east countries are too religious and follow Islam which is violent in its fundamental principle. Even if exceptional leaders emerge and manage to make progress in women rights, individual libery etc(Example saudi arabia for providing driving license to women) it will short lived as in the case of Turkey. The reason is state can not be separated from the religion according to Islam. For this fundamental reason Islamic countries possessing nuclear weapons is very dangerous to entire world and non muslim country should approve.
Even more outrageous is when well read muslims migrate to other countries they expect their religious rights to be respected. This is very sad state.