Yes, it very much is anything else. The primary function of the UN is to provide a venue of discussion and arbitrage in order to help prevent war. The SC veto everyone harps on is there to help prevent world war. And if I may say so, it has been pretty successful, particularly at that last one. If the UN was just might-make-right, then there would be no reason to sidestep it the way we see it done. In fact, if anything, the false equivalence of Iran and Israel is actually an excellent example:
Iran was subject to a number of SC resolutions, in particular regarding their nuclear program, up to and including supervisions, sanctions, arms embargoes and asset freezes. As a result, Iran eventually accepted a nuclear monitoring and the sanctions were lifted, thus the conflict being solved through diplomacy, without resorting to war, and without fighting any kind of explicit protection from Russia. Point for the UN.
On the other hand, looking at the US golden child, they’re practically the only reason the US even uses it’s veto since Apartheit ended (huh. strange, that). But even with Israel being the rogue nation that it is, and being defended by the 900lb gorilla as it is, it’s capacity for damage was largely constrained, not even by veto, but by the simple fact that everybody votes against them, and all of their neighbors hate them. Until, of course, the cold war ended, Fukuyama wrote the worst article of all time, and the anglos decided negotiation is for pussies who don’t have the guns to make shit happen. Now, if Russia or China actually decide to protect Iran, we’re staring down the barrel of WW3, just like we were when Russia invaded Ukraine. You may think this is the UN’s fault for not stopping this, but this is, in fact, how things worked before the UN. The UN is the alternative to precisely what we’re looking at in the news right now.
The primary function of the UN is to provide a venue of discussion and arbitrage in order to help prevent war. The SC veto everyone harps on is there to help prevent world war. And if I may say so, it has been pretty successful, particularly at that last one.
Yea, the discussion part is very strong with the UN. We see a constant stream of arguments, opinions, etc presented there. Everyone can present their country’s view on things. But then what? When it comes to decision making, to actually enforcing the rules and values these countries once said to obey, the UN is paralysed.
And I’d strongly disagree: the veto is not there primarily to prevent world war (which rather is prevented by a huge global stockpile of nukes pointed at eachother), but to ensure for the global elite of nuclear powers that they’d never have to face a decision against their will.
So, while the commoners of countries on the cheap seats keep on exchanging heated discussions based on international law and values they feel more or less obliged to, the elite in the front watches them smiling, knowing they themselves aren’t bound to the same set of rules as them. They literally are above the law.
Iran was subject to a number of SC resolutions, in particular regarding their nuclear program
Yea. Because that theocratic regime determined to obliterate a whole nation was so unhinged that no veto power saw use in openly protecting it. Or wanted them to get nukes. They still are as unhinged, killing tens of thousands of their own citizens for daring to speak up against oppression, but since they’re now also a key enabler of Russia’s imperialistic war aspirations, at least Russia would not let Iran be punished by the UN again. So there’s that.
When it comes to decision making, to actually enforcing the rules and values these countries once said to obey, the UN is paralysed.
Only if by “enforcement” you mean “going to war”, which, once again, is what the system is designed to prevent. Military intervention is difficult to authorize by design, precisely because it is, and should, be the last resort. Thinking of anything short of war as “paralyzed” is the exact “Stop-war association is worthless because it won’t let me go to war” anglo brainworms that are to blame for the 21st century being what it is.
to ensure for the global elite of nuclear powers that they’d never have to face a decision against their will.
Yes. Exactly. That’s how they prevent WW3. By making sure everyone else knows what the red lines of nuclear powers are. Otherwise, every time a nuclear power would want to take an action, it would be playing a game of chicken with all the other powers.
Because that theocratic regime determined to obliterate a whole nation
Who, Israel? Because from where I’m sitting, Iran’s foreign policy has been, on the whole, more than reasonable. Last I heard, they even agreed to completely stop uranium enrichment alltogether - and then the theocratic regime determined to destroy their whole nation murdered their head of state.
If what you’re saying is true, every single resolution on Iran’s nuclear program would have been vetoed by Russia, and none were. None. Zero. Instead, the nuclear rogue state under the veto shield by a global power is the exact country you’re defending.
No, by enforcement I mean actually applying the law to stop the trespassing of the law. Or at least punish the trespassing if you couldn’t stop the actual trespassing in time.
That’s how they prevent WW3.
How? WW3 would need a direct, open conflict between at least two major nuclear powers. A constellation we - luckily - haven’t seen since WW2. I’d argue that this is because each of those countries knows that a conflict like that cannot be reliably contained and would end in MAD. So nukes are the balancing factor keeping these countries at check. I cannot see how the architecture of the UN comes into play here.
Who, Israel? Because from where I’m sitting, Iran’s foreign policy has been, on the whole, more than reasonable.
I guess you’re sitting in an IRGC hq then. Because, not trying to downplay Netanyahu’s actions, calling Iran’s foreign policy, “on the whole, more than reasonable” is quite a hot take. One key aspect of Khomeini was to export the Islamic Revolution worldwide until everywhere on the globe we would shout “There’s no God but Allah”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t fancy to live in a theocracy under sharia law. Also, the position to outright annihilate Israel is one at least I cannot condone, won’t fly legally in my jurisdiction, and is a position that will not bring peace to the region, let’s be honest.
If what you’re saying is true, every single resolution on Iran’s nuclear program would have been vetoed by Russia, and none were. None. Zero.
As I said: Iran was so isolated that neither Russia nor China saw any gain in protecting them. That was then, though. Today, I think we both agree, Russia would veto.
is the exact country you’re defending.
Not blindly jumping on the echo chamber hate-wagon in every aspect is not defending. Netanyahu is a criminal and should be prosecuted. He does not want peace but to save his skin. Setting up more and more settlements on Palestinian soil and deporting the inhabitants is a crime. Starving the population in Gaza is a crime. But also: Israel has the right to exist as a country within its international borders. And those that cannot accept that are bringing injustice on themselves and are more part of the problem than of the solution.
Yes, that’s what the sanctions are for. And I once again point out you literally brought up a case in which they demonstrably worked.
A constellation we - luckily - haven’t seen since WW2
Yes. Thanks in no small part to the UN.
calling Iran’s foreign policy, “on the whole, more than reasonable” is quite a hot take.
I know, it’s crazy, and yet entirely correct. They took on the chin decades of open warmongering and multiple naked acts of war, retaliations that they did take were very carefully measured and precisely executed, going so far to telegraph their strikes a full day in advance so they would cause no casualties, and they even agreed to compromise on an armament program they (as we now see, rightfully) considered vital to the security if not outright survival of the country. It was like Ukraine agreeing to the Budapest agreement again. When their competition is a state that throws a hissyfit when asked nicely to stop killing children, I’d say they have been more than reasonable, even without considering we’re talking about an Islamic theocracy.
Iran was so isolated that neither Russia nor China saw any gain in protecting them.
So, then, you agree that “under the explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US” was a false equivalence?
Today, I think we both agree, Russia would veto.
Veto what? A naked war of aggression US and Israel can’t even articulate why they’re starting? I’d hope there would be no need to have to resort to a veto.
But also: Israel has the right to exist as a country within its international borders.
So does Iran. And the UN’s job is to try and enable both, no matter how much they’d like to run eachother over with a Zamboni machine. That’s the whole point.
…which won’t come into effect if the trespasser is (under the protection of) a veto power.
And I once again point out you literally brought up a case in which they demonstrably worked.
Iran failing to secure a veto power that saw something to gain in protecting it in the past isn’t proving or disproving anything. Today, since they are - as I said - a key enabler for Russia’s war ambitions, they would be protected.
So, then, you agree that “under the explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US” was a false equivalence?
No. I said:
As soon as you’re under the explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US, you can do whatever you want.
And that is still correct.
Veto what?
For example prosecution for killing its own citizens en masse a couple of weeks ago for daring to stand up against the ongoing oppression by the regime. You know, something people on the left side of the political spectrum normally show great sympathies towards (fighting the oppression, that is, not killing the citizens).
So does Iran.
Who said otherwise? I haven’t head many people opposing the mere “idea” of Iran. It is the sclerotic theocracy despised by the own populace, being so hellbent on annihilating another country, that makes that regime a strain on the international community. Mind you, of course it’s not the only strain. Yet, there’s an awful lot more people completely sympathetic to the idea of making Israel itself disappear from the map than there are that wish for maps without Iran.
And the UN’s job is to try and enable both, no matter how much they’d like to run eachother over with a Zamboni machine. That’s the whole point.
How good does that work if there’s an elite caste that can veto whatever goes against their will? How can you get countries to abide by the rules if these rules only apply to certain countries?
They didn’t need a veto, they secured a vote. By complying. To the sanctions. Because they worked. If anything, had the sanctions still been in place when Trump first won, I would expect a US veto on lifting them.
Today, since they are - as I said - a key enabler for Russia’s war ambitions, they would be protected.
[…]
And that is still correct.
No it is not.
You’re equivocating real, actual vetos on real, actual resolution proposals with vetos you imagine would be invoked to resolutions you imagine would be proposed. You keep making arguments that don’t exist outside your head. And possibly Congress.
For example prosecution for killing its own citizens en masse a couple of weeks ago for daring to stand up against the ongoing oppression by the regime.
Oh? So not the war? You’re arguing for illegal war because veto umbrellas make the UN useless, but even in your imagination the veto is used against sanctions, instead of a war?
Who said otherwise?
Uh… something something western world, something holy crusade, blabla Amalek, blablabla red heifer, blablabla Jesus coming back. It’s been all over the news recently, but various rephrasings and dogwhistles were around for decades. Hell, now that I think about it, Iran’s theocracy being sclerotic and unpopular might even be a point in Iran’s favour.
being so hellbent on annihilating another country, that makes that regime a strain on the international community.
See, this is another one of those equivocations: This entire phrase applies a lot more directly to Israel than it does to Iran. Iran makes a lot of noise, but I don’t remember them assassinating Israeli officials or bombing Israel out of the blue, and when the international community gets serious, they are willing to make concessions. Israel, on the other hand, is under cover of more than two dozen SC vetos, and currently arguably engaged in an ethnic cleansing, a genocide, and an illegal war of aggression two, actually, they just invaded Lebanon. Again.
How good does that work if there’s an elite caste that can veto whatever goes against their will? How can you get countries to abide by the rules if these rules only apply to certain countries?
That is an excellent question, except it would seem to basically only apply to US and Israel. Maaaybe the NorKs. Past Apartheit, Russia was by and large covering it’s own ass, and China was mostly backing Russia up, presumably to fuck with the yanks. America is the only one with a problem child that needs constant bailing out of juvie. So, really, the question is less about the UN, and more “how do we get the US to either reign in their brat, or stop covering for it”.
Yes, it very much is anything else. The primary function of the UN is to provide a venue of discussion and arbitrage in order to help prevent war. The SC veto everyone harps on is there to help prevent world war. And if I may say so, it has been pretty successful, particularly at that last one. If the UN was just might-make-right, then there would be no reason to sidestep it the way we see it done. In fact, if anything, the false equivalence of Iran and Israel is actually an excellent example:
Iran was subject to a number of SC resolutions, in particular regarding their nuclear program, up to and including supervisions, sanctions, arms embargoes and asset freezes. As a result, Iran eventually accepted a nuclear monitoring and the sanctions were lifted, thus the conflict being solved through diplomacy, without resorting to war, and without fighting any kind of explicit protection from Russia. Point for the UN.
On the other hand, looking at the US golden child, they’re practically the only reason the US even uses it’s veto since Apartheit ended (huh. strange, that). But even with Israel being the rogue nation that it is, and being defended by the 900lb gorilla as it is, it’s capacity for damage was largely constrained, not even by veto, but by the simple fact that everybody votes against them, and all of their neighbors hate them. Until, of course, the cold war ended, Fukuyama wrote the worst article of all time, and the anglos decided negotiation is for pussies who don’t have the guns to make shit happen. Now, if Russia or China actually decide to protect Iran, we’re staring down the barrel of WW3, just like we were when Russia invaded Ukraine. You may think this is the UN’s fault for not stopping this, but this is, in fact, how things worked before the UN. The UN is the alternative to precisely what we’re looking at in the news right now.
Yea, the discussion part is very strong with the UN. We see a constant stream of arguments, opinions, etc presented there. Everyone can present their country’s view on things. But then what? When it comes to decision making, to actually enforcing the rules and values these countries once said to obey, the UN is paralysed.
And I’d strongly disagree: the veto is not there primarily to prevent world war (which rather is prevented by a huge global stockpile of nukes pointed at eachother), but to ensure for the global elite of nuclear powers that they’d never have to face a decision against their will.
So, while the commoners of countries on the cheap seats keep on exchanging heated discussions based on international law and values they feel more or less obliged to, the elite in the front watches them smiling, knowing they themselves aren’t bound to the same set of rules as them. They literally are above the law.
Yea. Because that theocratic regime determined to obliterate a whole nation was so unhinged that no veto power saw use in openly protecting it. Or wanted them to get nukes. They still are as unhinged, killing tens of thousands of their own citizens for daring to speak up against oppression, but since they’re now also a key enabler of Russia’s imperialistic war aspirations, at least Russia would not let Iran be punished by the UN again. So there’s that.
Only if by “enforcement” you mean “going to war”, which, once again, is what the system is designed to prevent. Military intervention is difficult to authorize by design, precisely because it is, and should, be the last resort. Thinking of anything short of war as “paralyzed” is the exact “Stop-war association is worthless because it won’t let me go to war” anglo brainworms that are to blame for the 21st century being what it is.
Yes. Exactly. That’s how they prevent WW3. By making sure everyone else knows what the red lines of nuclear powers are. Otherwise, every time a nuclear power would want to take an action, it would be playing a game of chicken with all the other powers.
Who, Israel? Because from where I’m sitting, Iran’s foreign policy has been, on the whole, more than reasonable. Last I heard, they even agreed to completely stop uranium enrichment alltogether - and then the theocratic regime determined to destroy their whole nation murdered their head of state.
If what you’re saying is true, every single resolution on Iran’s nuclear program would have been vetoed by Russia, and none were. None. Zero. Instead, the nuclear rogue state under the veto shield by a global power is the exact country you’re defending.
No, by enforcement I mean actually applying the law to stop the trespassing of the law. Or at least punish the trespassing if you couldn’t stop the actual trespassing in time.
How? WW3 would need a direct, open conflict between at least two major nuclear powers. A constellation we - luckily - haven’t seen since WW2. I’d argue that this is because each of those countries knows that a conflict like that cannot be reliably contained and would end in MAD. So nukes are the balancing factor keeping these countries at check. I cannot see how the architecture of the UN comes into play here.
I guess you’re sitting in an IRGC hq then. Because, not trying to downplay Netanyahu’s actions, calling Iran’s foreign policy, “on the whole, more than reasonable” is quite a hot take. One key aspect of Khomeini was to export the Islamic Revolution worldwide until everywhere on the globe we would shout “There’s no God but Allah”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t fancy to live in a theocracy under sharia law. Also, the position to outright annihilate Israel is one at least I cannot condone, won’t fly legally in my jurisdiction, and is a position that will not bring peace to the region, let’s be honest.
As I said: Iran was so isolated that neither Russia nor China saw any gain in protecting them. That was then, though. Today, I think we both agree, Russia would veto.
Not blindly jumping on the echo chamber hate-wagon in every aspect is not defending. Netanyahu is a criminal and should be prosecuted. He does not want peace but to save his skin. Setting up more and more settlements on Palestinian soil and deporting the inhabitants is a crime. Starving the population in Gaza is a crime. But also: Israel has the right to exist as a country within its international borders. And those that cannot accept that are bringing injustice on themselves and are more part of the problem than of the solution.
Yes, that’s what the sanctions are for. And I once again point out you literally brought up a case in which they demonstrably worked.
Yes. Thanks in no small part to the UN.
I know, it’s crazy, and yet entirely correct. They took on the chin decades of open warmongering and multiple naked acts of war, retaliations that they did take were very carefully measured and precisely executed, going so far to telegraph their strikes a full day in advance so they would cause no casualties, and they even agreed to compromise on an armament program they (as we now see, rightfully) considered vital to the security if not outright survival of the country. It was like Ukraine agreeing to the Budapest agreement again. When their competition is a state that throws a hissyfit when asked nicely to stop killing children, I’d say they have been more than reasonable, even without considering we’re talking about an Islamic theocracy.
So, then, you agree that “under the explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US” was a false equivalence?
Veto what? A naked war of aggression US and Israel can’t even articulate why they’re starting? I’d hope there would be no need to have to resort to a veto.
So does Iran. And the UN’s job is to try and enable both, no matter how much they’d like to run eachother over with a Zamboni machine. That’s the whole point.
…which won’t come into effect if the trespasser is (under the protection of) a veto power.
Iran failing to secure a veto power that saw something to gain in protecting it in the past isn’t proving or disproving anything. Today, since they are - as I said - a key enabler for Russia’s war ambitions, they would be protected.
No. I said:
And that is still correct.
For example prosecution for killing its own citizens en masse a couple of weeks ago for daring to stand up against the ongoing oppression by the regime. You know, something people on the left side of the political spectrum normally show great sympathies towards (fighting the oppression, that is, not killing the citizens).
Who said otherwise? I haven’t head many people opposing the mere “idea” of Iran. It is the sclerotic theocracy despised by the own populace, being so hellbent on annihilating another country, that makes that regime a strain on the international community. Mind you, of course it’s not the only strain. Yet, there’s an awful lot more people completely sympathetic to the idea of making Israel itself disappear from the map than there are that wish for maps without Iran.
How good does that work if there’s an elite caste that can veto whatever goes against their will? How can you get countries to abide by the rules if these rules only apply to certain countries?
Which, as we can plainly see, they are not.
They didn’t need a veto, they secured a vote. By complying. To the sanctions. Because they worked. If anything, had the sanctions still been in place when Trump first won, I would expect a US veto on lifting them.
No it is not.
You’re equivocating real, actual vetos on real, actual resolution proposals with vetos you imagine would be invoked to resolutions you imagine would be proposed. You keep making arguments that don’t exist outside your head. And possibly Congress.
Oh? So not the war? You’re arguing for illegal war because veto umbrellas make the UN useless, but even in your imagination the veto is used against sanctions, instead of a war?
Uh… something something western world, something holy crusade, blabla Amalek, blablabla red heifer, blablabla Jesus coming back. It’s been all over the news recently, but various rephrasings and dogwhistles were around for decades. Hell, now that I think about it, Iran’s theocracy being sclerotic and unpopular might even be a point in Iran’s favour.
See, this is another one of those equivocations: This entire phrase applies a lot more directly to Israel than it does to Iran. Iran makes a lot of noise, but I don’t remember them assassinating Israeli officials or bombing Israel out of the blue, and when the international community gets serious, they are willing to make concessions. Israel, on the other hand, is under cover of more than two dozen SC vetos, and currently arguably engaged in an ethnic cleansing, a genocide, and an
illegal war of aggressiontwo, actually, they just invaded Lebanon. Again.That is an excellent question, except it would seem to basically only apply to US and Israel. Maaaybe the NorKs. Past Apartheit, Russia was by and large covering it’s own ass, and China was mostly backing Russia up, presumably to fuck with the yanks. America is the only one with a problem child that needs constant bailing out of juvie. So, really, the question is less about the UN, and more “how do we get the US to either reign in their brat, or stop covering for it”.