So?
The point is had the US not meddled with a democratically elected leader and installed the Shah, thus creating 50 years of Western resentment for doing as much, we may not have these problems today. It was the same with Iraq and WMDs, Vietnam with communism, and countless banana republics in Latin America.
And now you are pulling the same bullshit with North Korea. They have insistently stated that they would only resort to using nuclear weapons if someone violates their sovereignty - the same reasoning the US and just about every other country claims they need them - self defense.
But you want to know what the big difference is? North Korea doesn't have 5000 nukes sitting in Canada pointing at the US. It doesn't have a military base in Mexico. And it isn't flying bombers over US territory - which was the reason why NK threatened Guam - ie., that's where the bombers are stationed. I think if someone was running around in my backyard pointing guns at me, I'd feel a little threatened.
They also agreed to disarm several times in the past if the US agreed to reduce it's nuclear arsenal. Obviously that was a no go, because god forbid the US of A not have the biggest military in the world, the most bases in the world, have conducted the most aggressive military and/or intelligence operations under the guise of "regime change" than any other country since 1950 - installing fascist dictators to boot, and also have the distinction of being the only country to ever drop not one, but two nuclear bombs in history.
If the goal is to "have less nukes in the world", why don't you petition the US government. They have 5x the arsenal of anyone else, and have proven that they will actually use them.