Check out the attached link to the source, that should make it clearer what the graph is showing.

I know what it’s showing, but “Actually, Russia does veto more!” isn’t the interesting part.

Well, you will know why you sneaked in “directly” here. Iran is the main sponsor of the terrorist groups exerting violence against Israel for decades. It doesn’t matter if they use the hands of others to harm their enemy. But I’m sure we actually both know that, so what’s there left to say.

I didn’t sneak it in, I wrote “directly” because Israel has attacked Iran directly, and repeatedly. It very much does matter who pulls the trigger. Terror groups are not UN members.

But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?

Frankly, I think they already have accepted it, and that’s the big reason they’re being as measured as they have. There were attempts to destroy Israel before, some came pretty damn close, but Iran wasn’t involved in any of them, I don’t think, and they all stopped when Israel got nukes. It’s politically unacceptable for Iran to say it out loud, but they have the full triad now. I believe the motivation for Iran even considering a nuclear program is precisely the fact that they’re facing a foe they can’t destroy, and don’t trust to keep a peace, so their approach is to try and keep the conflict from boiling over.

As has been the case all along. Your point being?

So, now you put together a very interesting picture here. You “can accept […] member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands”, and that “exigent circumstances” is defined by the mighty, “As has been the case all along”. Therefore, you can accept that the mighty decide when matters are to be taken into their own hands, and therefore, you do, in fact, “can accept” might to make right. But you also “don’t advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases”, so you accept might to make right sometimes, but other times, nations must be limited and not do as they please. Hm. Have you ever encountered the term “Crooked Timber Conservative”?

I absolutely don’t. Do you?

Fuck no. There is a web of triggers and precedents, but there’s no head vampire everything traces back to. Evil is an emergent phenomenon, not a river with a source.

There has been only one person trying to drag the whole discussion into a competition between Israel/US and Iran/Russia. And that wasn’t me. In fact, I’ve tried to tell you numerous times that I don’t care at all about who did what when but only about the underlying mechanisms that allow this behaviour - by both teams! I’m under the strong impression that you are getting really emotional about points you read into my words but which I didn’t make at all and hence this is a discussion where we’re talking at cross-purposes.

I believe you were the one who brought up the comparison of Iran and Russia, and Israel and the US. I just ran with it. And it’s not a competition, but a comparison. Time and time again, I see arguments made by what I’m sure are people who consider themselves egalitarian, that basically boil down to “the good guys should just kill all the bad guys”, and I find the shortest, simplest way to throw a wrench in this mindset is to flip the positions and see if they recognize what they’re doing. This either gets people’s gears going, or devolves into the “No you don’t get it, I’m a Good Person.” meme, which is always funny.

The second, broader point, to put it plainly: Either there are laws, or there are no laws. And if there are no laws, then might makes right. And I believe strongly that having laws is wildly preferable.

If you will forgive a history lesson to point out a few highlights, ever since war got too expensive to be profitable, countries went to great effort to prevent it, or at least minimize it. After the 30 Years War, the powers that be effectively invented the modern state. After the Big One, they effectively invented the international community. Then the Other Big One happened, they went to troubleshoot the problem, and what they settled on as a solution is honestly kinda interesting. In essence, the vast majority of states like working together. Or, at the very least, they prefer it to war. This is to be expected, this is normal, this is how humans are. Those that aren’t willing are mostly just stubborn, and can be incentivized to compromise, usually through sanctions and other pressure tactics. For those who genuinely refuse to play nice, the UN solution is to force compliance. However, even putting aside the “fucking for virginity” paradox, the first time the UN enforced their will some 70 million people died, so this isn’t to be done lightly. The answer we ended up with is the GA, the SC, and the veto: the GA to be used for negotiations, when those fail, the SC will assist with coercion, and, if nothing works, move to enforcement. However, to prevent enforcement turning into Another Other Big One, the major powers were given the veto, to block actions that would end with them fighting eachother. This may sound ridiculous looking at what peacekeeping looks like now, but I remind you the UN police action know as the Korean War ended with some 3mil. dead.

And if you’ll forgive a games lesson, the reason vetos are such a popular tool in system design is that they’re inherently reactive and limited: you can’t force a thing done, just prevent it. For example, a veto can prevent the UN from officially declaring sanctions that all members would need to follow, but it can’t stop individual members from imposing them - in theory, this is the approach to be taken when a veto power is stonewalling action, and if it isn’t, then the implication is the community consensus on what is right isn’t really there, and either is preferable to a conflict between veto powers. The system is stable as long as you’re not allowed to cheat: If a country breaks the law and gets away with it, the other countries will rightfully wonder how protected they are by law. Worse yet, if a country breaks the law, then hides under a veto to get away with it, the veto itself is still the same as a regular veto stonewall, but instead of freezing an issue or kicking the can down the road, it has turned into an “I can do what i want” card. If the lawbreaking continues, and there’s no response, countries will eventually decide there are no laws and go rogue, until they’re either brought back in line or the line disappears. It won’t happen instantly, but every time it happens the community gets a little bit closer to falling apart. And if it does, you’re back to might-makes-right, at least until another war reminds everyone why we made the system in the first place.

The graph you posted is interesting, but not for the reason you think. What that graph shows is the number of times a veto power announced to the world “I find this decision, that the majority of the council agrees with, so unacceptable that I am considering going to war over this!”. What the red on that graph tell me is that instead of one veto power being outvoted and fighting a delaying action against decisions everyone else agrees with, we now have a situation of the international community facing at least two veto powers wilding out. This is not good.

It’s why I take a dim view of “yes, it’s illegal, but it’s the right thing to do”. It’s also why I have more patience with countries that operate by supporting their enemies’ enemies, instead of blowing up embassies and murdering negotiators outright. And, honestly, it’s why I’m a lot less worried when a country goes to war and gets kicked off of swift, instead of getting a lukewarm “well, democracy, his own people, R2P, nationbuilding”. Which I now realize is also “yes, it’s illegal, but it’s the right thing to do”.

Yea… no. See attached the number of vetoes. Reality paints a different picture.

Ah, you’re finally looking stuff up. Fantastic. I don’t know what picture you think the graph paints, but I’ll take the win.

It doesn’t go against current

Yes it does. There was no veto for sanctions. That’s the current. You’re doing it again.

No. Iran has supported, organised, financed terror against Israel for a very very long time and the destruction stemming from that is very real and palpable. I’m criticising Iran for a goal they openly state and which they actively try to achieve.

That’s exactly it - I don’t see them trying to achieve it. I could be wrong, but I don’t even remember them attacking Israel directly at all before a couple of years ago. You’re doing it again.

When it comes to Israel, these citizens don’t have the hypothetical but very real option to vote and change politics accordingly. Opposed to the Mullahs, Netanyahu actually has to fear public opinion and the political opposition, as there, it can actually put him out of office. The Mullahs will just shoot the people in the streets instead. But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?

They have the option, yet the action is still hypothetical. You’re doing it again.

I don’t. I told you before: I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly.

And who makes the right decides what counts as exigent circumstances? That’s right. The mighty.

No. I said that the examples you provided all already operate under the principle “might makes right”. What you’re trying to sell here to me and yourself as a reaction to the - of course! - initial source of injustice that is the “eternal enemy USA”, has in fact always been the case. Have a skim through the linked list of issued vetoes. You’ll be surprised how blatantly calculating and motivated by their own goods these votes were right from the start. And which side especially used the veto in that first period.

…Wait, you think there’s such a thing as an initial source of injustice? And you think I’m arguing it’s America? Christ on a stick, every fucking thing is a team sport to you people. Though I shouldn’t be surprised, you are after all arguing that breaking the laws is good when the good guys do it. What I’m trying to sell - of course! - here is that either there are laws, or there are no laws. If you believe it’s acceptable to discard law where it hobbles you, then you’re arguing that it’s acceptable for anyone to discard law where it hobbles them. And when told this is what “might makes right” is, your reaction - of course! - is “We don’t do that, also, everyone does that!”. Which is why you’re blaming Iran for things Israel does, because “everyone does that” so they must do it too, and then absolving Israel for things they are doing, because “we don’t do that”, so it’s clearly a fluke.

Frankly, the second one is the bigger deal.

You mean fatwa?

I’ve always been talking about recently,

No you haven’t. You’ve been talking in hypotheticals. If you have a non-imaginary example, I’d love to hear it.

Why? Please elaborate.

Because normal countries don’t see the veto as a first line of defense. In fact, normal countries don’t see the veto at all. SC vetos are not, as you present it, normal procedure for normal countries. Hell, even permanent SC members don’t just plop vetos willy-nilly. Seeing the veto as the first, last, and only option requires a very specific mindset, that is simply not how countries operate. Well, except for…

They have at a time when Iran was internationally isolated and Russia was in (superficially) good terms with the “West”. Now, Russia is also isolated, in bad terms with the “West” and dependent on Iran’s support for maintaining their war machine. Russia has too little allies left to be able to afford losing another, if they can help with as little effort as using their veto power. That’s the arguments I can provide for my opinion that they wouldn’t let Iran be punished by the UN. What are yours for your point of view?

This isn’t an argument, it’s an opinion. It’s not unreasonable, but it goes against both prior and current behavior of the parties involved.

True as of today. But in Israel, the people can vote for another direction entirely and have the possibility to rid themselves of unpopular Netanyahu. In Iran, the political cornerstones are set since 1979 and the will of the people for change was just brutally slaughtered. The question remains: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?

Once again, you’re criticizing Iran for announcing destruction they haven’t actually done, but credit Israel for hypothetically being capable of deciding not to do the destruction they currently literally are doing. You’re doing the thing again.

No. Because I don’t advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases.

Yes you do, you just don’t realize it, because you think right isn’t made by might if it’s made by might you agree with.

Let’s not pretend they care at all, even today. Russia invaded Ukraine although everyone knew there was not justification behind it whatsoever, besides the wish of a small, ageing man to be the one in the history books that restored the “lost empire”. Similarly, China doesn’t care at all if the world thinks there’s any justification to them trying to annex Taiwan, when the sole reason they’ll try it is petty-minded revenge and the inability to accept a “Chinese” country outside their oppressive control. All these examples of yours are already operating under the principle “might makes right”.

Exactly! Let’s not pretend they care at all, even today. US invaded Iraq although everyone knew… And since you agree that laws are stupid and working through the system to get what you want is a waste of time, then clearly you’re fine with them following the precedent.

Where? Did the UN recently decided something grave against Iran?

recently

The fact that you’re trying to weasel out of the obvious answer tells me you know you’re wrong. So in lieu of falling for it, Did Russia recently veto something grave against Iran?

failed to gain the favour of a veto power.

This is an argument that only makes sense if rely on a veto to cover your ass. Which, as we have seen, only works if you’re a permanent member. Or Israel, apparently.

Are you seriously believing that Russia today would again allow the UN to sanction Iran and would not exert its veto? Honestly?

Yes I am. They have before, and will again. If anything, I would expect it to let the sanctions happen, then break them, then veto being punished for breaking them. Fits the MO much better.

I’d love to see “the news” that call for a map without Iran as a country.

Oh, we’ll get there, don’t you worry…

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?

As long as the country isn’t Palestine.

We can’t talk about anything without immediately focussing on US and Israel.

We can, but your core argument hangs on a great power covering an ally with a veto no matter what, and we currently only have one actual example of it happening.

The veto would not necessarily block the intervention. It would only block the legitimisation by the UN of said intervention.

This is an excellent point! A country can, absolutely, act without UN legitimacy, and “get things done”. But it doesn’t just strip legitimacy from itself, it also strips it from the UN. Which then leads to geopolicy understanders online to call the UN useless, despite all the useful stuff it does.

You can choose yours, I’ve chosen mine.

I know. And what you have chosen is “Might makes right”. I can understand why, it’s an appealing fantasy, it’s why Dirty Harry is popular, but the flip side is that if you declare the rules don’t apply to you, you can’t object to everyone else doing it, whether it’s Russia invading Ukraine, or China invading Taiwan. Or, in fact, any of the Arab states attacking Israel.

(under the protection of)

Which, as we can plainly see, they are not.

failing to secure a veto power

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”.

punish the trespassing

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.

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.

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.

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.

S/RES/1199 doesn’t authorize any kind of enforcement. It makes demands of a ceasefire, endorses observers, and threatens to “consider further action”, but doesn’t actually give any mandate for anything.

Your mistake is disagreeing with a comment that said “NATO good”. The nature of the disagreement is irrelevant. It’s the centrist form of the tankie purity test.

That was four years before 1999.

So, when Israel…

No, it was not.

NATO definition of peace.

Don’t be moving the goal posts now.

lol.

What UN mandate? They explicitly didn’t have one, because China and Russia would block it.

win11 is a shitshow coming from win10

Calling it: win12 will have a thin client cloud hosted SaaS edition, for those who can’t afford new ai-priced hardware.