> power and money are the only things that work in global relations Power is the only thing that works anywhere (money being a source of power) at a certain le

> power and money are the only things that work in global relations Power is the only thing that works anywhere (money being a source of power) at a certain level, but that's kind of like saying all science is physics - it'd doesn't really have explanatory use. The question is how and why it's exercised. Domestically in advanced countries, it's controlled to a significant extent by government, which is controlled by citizens and people with power, who all can be manipulated by mass media, who are subject to Facebook and Twitter's power, which is influenced by public opinion and stockholders and the news the CEO reads, etc. etc. etc. It's a complicated web. > Countries are forced to develop nuclear weapons because treaties are not honored owing to special interests But even nuclear weapons treaties are influenced by public opinion. After (and before) the treaty with Iran was signed, there was a intense campaign on the U.S. right to discredit it, along with their attempts to discredit everything Obama did, giving Trump sufficient political support to break the treaty. If the public has been strongly in favor of it, it would have been a different story. So what power led the U.S. to break the treaty? Public opinion? Whoever was trying to influence public opinion in that direction? Large donors to the Trump or the GOP? There is a web of influence. But I will say this for the the theory of "power and money" - the best way IMHO to find the power behind something is to follow the money: Who benefits? Who is benefited from the murder of Khashoggi? Who benefited from the portrayal of the Saudi dictator as a good person? Who benefits from the response?