Where? Did the UN recently decided something grave against Iran?
They didn’t need a veto, they secured a vote. By complying. To the sanctions. Because they worked.
Sanctions that only came into place because the failed to gain the favour of a veto power.
You keep making arguments that don’t exist outside your head.
Are you seriously believing that Russia today would again allow the UN to sanction Iran and would not exert its veto? Honestly?
Oh? So not the war?
What? Why would Iran be sanctioned for this war??? Iran has its own actions to be sanctioned for, but this war isn’t one of them.
It’s been all over the news recently
I’d love to see “the news” that call for a map without Iran as a country.
Iran makes a lot of noise
Since day one of their existence as an “Islamic Republic”, they threatened Israel with annihilation. A threat that Israel knows only too well, after having to fight a war against all neighbours in the moment of founding of their state. I can’t blame them that they want to take that “noise” seriously. It is a core objective of the IRI to destroy Israel. Not Netanyahu’s Israel, but simply Israel. They don’t want a Jewish state in “their neighbourhood”. Israel, in turn, is capable of coexisting with Muslim countries around it if they accept that there will be an Israel around. Is Iran ready to accept that?
That is an excellent question, except it would seem to basically only apply to US and Israel.
Yes, yes. I know. We can’t talk about anything without immediately focussing on US and Israel. If you’re too fixated on these two to be able to discuss a broader picture, that’s fine. But then, that’ll be a very limited discussion to be had with you.
To conclude and loop back to where we actually started here: there’s a fundamental flaw in the principle of the UN. The veto powers created a system in which they are able to protect them and their proteges from whatever unwanted consequences they’d have to face. This effectively paralyses the UN, and especially the application of international law. A commenter wanted to criticise NATO’s actions in Yugoslavia, as they weren’t backed by an UN resolution. Although ethnic cleansing was going on.
You said:
But if you both accept that a veto blocks an intervention if backed by firepower, but doesn’t if not, then the vote itself is just window dressing and all you’re left is might makes right.
The veto would not necessarily block the intervention. It would only block the legitimisation by the UN of said intervention. The veto can stop the work of the UN, but not of the member states. As happened here: the UN was too paralysed to react to the human rights violations, so the NATO states took it in their own hands. That isn’t ideal but a direct consequence of the flawed architecture of the UN thanks to the veto the nuclear global elite gave themselves. And now, everyone is free to pick a side to stand: either saying that it is more important to end human rights violations, even if the body responsible to approve that is incapable of doing so - or saying that it is more important to strictly stick to the rules, even if that means idly watching ethnic cleansing when the responsible body has been deliberately put in standstill by other members affiliated with the perpetrator.
Where? Did the UN recently decided something grave against Iran?
Sanctions that only came into place because the failed to gain the favour of a veto power.
Are you seriously believing that Russia today would again allow the UN to sanction Iran and would not exert its veto? Honestly?
What? Why would Iran be sanctioned for this war??? Iran has its own actions to be sanctioned for, but this war isn’t one of them.
I’d love to see “the news” that call for a map without Iran as a country.
Since day one of their existence as an “Islamic Republic”, they threatened Israel with annihilation. A threat that Israel knows only too well, after having to fight a war against all neighbours in the moment of founding of their state. I can’t blame them that they want to take that “noise” seriously. It is a core objective of the IRI to destroy Israel. Not Netanyahu’s Israel, but simply Israel. They don’t want a Jewish state in “their neighbourhood”. Israel, in turn, is capable of coexisting with Muslim countries around it if they accept that there will be an Israel around. Is Iran ready to accept that?
Yes, yes. I know. We can’t talk about anything without immediately focussing on US and Israel. If you’re too fixated on these two to be able to discuss a broader picture, that’s fine. But then, that’ll be a very limited discussion to be had with you.
To conclude and loop back to where we actually started here: there’s a fundamental flaw in the principle of the UN. The veto powers created a system in which they are able to protect them and their proteges from whatever unwanted consequences they’d have to face. This effectively paralyses the UN, and especially the application of international law. A commenter wanted to criticise NATO’s actions in Yugoslavia, as they weren’t backed by an UN resolution. Although ethnic cleansing was going on.
You said:
The veto would not necessarily block the intervention. It would only block the legitimisation by the UN of said intervention. The veto can stop the work of the UN, but not of the member states. As happened here: the UN was too paralysed to react to the human rights violations, so the NATO states took it in their own hands. That isn’t ideal but a direct consequence of the flawed architecture of the UN thanks to the veto the nuclear global elite gave themselves. And now, everyone is free to pick a side to stand: either saying that it is more important to end human rights violations, even if the body responsible to approve that is incapable of doing so - or saying that it is more important to strictly stick to the rules, even if that means idly watching ethnic cleansing when the responsible body has been deliberately put in standstill by other members affiliated with the perpetrator.
You can choose yours, I’ve chosen mine.