system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The foreign policy of the United States encourages unfriendly dictators to pursue nuclear armament as fast as possible if it's feasible and to never give up nuclear weapons under any circumstances.

The United States has a long history of invading/attempting to overthrow the governments of and meddling in the affairs of foreign countries unfriendly to them. This behavior is a consistent trend over it's history, and one that has become more prominent since it's rise as a global superpower. Due to it's desire to assert itself as a global superpower and curtail unfriendly interests, it either creates or overthrows dictators who are unfriendly to it's interests.

Consequently, any dictator who is unable to partner with the United States for geopolitical or ideological reasons is essentially forced to pursue nuclear weapons research as fast as possible, such as Iran. Any trust in the US to not engage in hostile action if not nuclear armed is completely null, given the US's history of overthrowing countries that oppose them. Consequently, if a dictator wants to remain in power he has to make the risk of a nuclear exchange a possible one if he is invaded or overthrown violently. Any expectation of honesty and not being at risk of foreign intervention once research into nuclear weaponry is ceased or limited is a bullshit paper agreement and both sides know it.

Essentially, in steps  
1) The US has a history of regime change, and overthrowing both democratic and undemocratic governments that oppose their interests.  
2) Any claims from the US to the contrary are either lies or justifications and therefore any promises they that they will not do so cannot be trusted.  
3) Dictators wish to hold onto their power, and are afraid of being overthrown, either by military intervention or backed coup.  
4) The United States has overwhelming conventional military power, and has a history of effectively destabilising other governments internally.  
5) If a dictator wishes to prevent either from happening to their regime, they must pursue nuclear weapons to either 1) Make a conflict nuclear instead of non-conventional, making the US less likely to start one 2) Increase the risk of a nuclear launch/detonation in the event their government is destabilised.
gpt
That’s not enough to get the US coming after you. Take for example: Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan’s an authoritarian dictatorship, its closest allies include Iran and Russia, it’s got a disastrous human rights record, gives Muslims preferential treatment over other religious groups, and it’s even rich in oil and gas. Basically it’s geopolitical and ideological opposite of the US with 0 nuclear weapons. 

So how are US-Turkmenistan relations? Fine. They cooperate on normal government stuff like regional security programs, trade, and environmental efforts. They’re not besties but they’re not going to war.

The problem for most dictators is they need an evil other to demonize, and the best way to do this is to use a group the general public’s already suspicious of. Like the US. And then once you’ve created a race of demons that’s the source of all evil in the world, why aren’t you using nukes to destroy them? You’ve got to escalate to cover up your exaggerations.