8 ms·

The U.S.‑Israel war with Iran could shatter the United Nations‑led global order

45 points by hkhn 7mo ago

djohnston 7mo ago
The UN is an absolute farce.
- hyperman1 7mo ago
  I see a group of countries trying to work together. As this is a massive coordination effort and the participants all want different things, it can only go slow. As with every governmental entity, there probably is some waste. But the alternative is each country for himself, so I rather have the UN.
  - falcor84 7mo ago
    > But the alternative is each country for himself, so I rather have the UN. That's a false dichotomy. The alternatives includes giving each country an equal standing without a veto, votes proportional to the population, or even fully direct democracy by every person in the world, and a million other alternatives I could think of if given an afternoon. It's absolutely logically valid to think that international coordination is valuable but that the UN is a poor solution for this, and is blocking off a better solution. Recall also that before the UN we had the League of Nations, which had a similar mission but an even worse implementation, and there's a wide consensus that it's good that it was replaced.
    - SllX 7mo ago
      > That's a false dichotomy. The alternatives includes giving each country an equal standing without a veto, votes proportional to the population, or even fully direct democracy by every person in the world, and a million other alternatives I could think of if given an afternoon. These are certainly alternatives but they would take what’s basically an acceptable-ish arrangement and turn it into what’s effectively a world government, and that’s completely untenable. If liberal secular democracies that respected free speech and private property rights were the order of the day, we might be able to set something like that up, but not in today’s world with today’s leaders, and the UN has to account for all of those differences. That’s why the UN feels unsatisfying and why it will never “lead” the world.
      - falcor84 7mo ago
        But that's the thing - the UN just accepts its strongest members doing things that go against its founding charter and can do nothing about it. At some point the the center just cannot hold.
        carefree-bob 7mo ago
        Why do you think the charter of the UN says that all the power is invested in the security council and each of the great powers have a veto there? It's almost as if the UN is the creation of the Great Powers, as a meeting ground where they can coordinate their actions, and is not intended to be some authority that tells the great powers what to do. I don't know where these people learned alternate histories of the UN as being some kind of force that can keep nations in check. It was never intended to play that role, and the UN Charter forbids it explicitly. The real problem with the UN is that it is obsolete even for the role it was empowered to play, because with the advent of videoconferencing and abundant communication, it simply has no meaningful role to play. What it has become now is a jobs program where well connected people can obtain diplomatic posts and party in New York while not paying any parking tickets. That's literally all the UN is right now.
        SllX 7mo ago
        If the UN actually had any teeth, then it’s the UN that would be targeted and destroyed by its strongest members. The UN only survives because it is toothless, and the permanent seats of the UNSC are essential to guaranteeing buy-in from members that otherwise wouldn’t allow it to exist.
    - gus_massa 7mo ago
      Each person is a point, each nuke is 1000000 points, I'm too lazy to add points for batlecruisers, tanks and drones. The vote is proportional to log(points). Does this change the composition of the Security Council too much?
  - mhb 7mo ago
    What kind of fantasy UN are you imagining? You understand that there are countries in the UN that are explicitly dedicated to the annihilation of other countries, right? How do you envision these countries all working together and WTF would that look like?
- NomDePlum 7mo ago
  [dead]
empressplay 7mo ago
'Could shatter'? The Russians already shattered that 4 years ago.
- avmich 7mo ago
  Did USSR shatter that with Afghanistan, or USA with Vietnam?..
bhouston 7mo ago
Trump does seem to resent the UN in part because of both the influence of Israel/AIPAC in the human rights realm, Russia in the war of aggression realm, COVID reactionaries/MAHA in the health realm and Elon Musk/Christian White superiority interests in the humanitarian realm - no more aid to non white Christians in developing world. It is the perfect storm for the UN. US is done with the UN under Trump. Will we see a rethink if/when Democrats come back and then whipsaw back when Republicans gain power again?
tradertef 7mo ago
It already shattered in Gaza genocide. UN is useless.
wr639 7mo ago
It is truly sad how ineffective the U.N. is
mugivarra69 7mo ago
[dead]
juliusceasar 7mo ago
The West said it is ok for Israil to commit genocide and steal land for decades. East said, OK now it is our turn. Both use their veto power to continue their crimes/genocide.
- assaddayinh 7mo ago
  [dead]
devwastaken 7mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- dang 7mo ago
  Could you please stop posting comments that are fulminating and/or flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
cultofmetatron 7mo ago
could? sir, its already in pieces a this point.
weregiraffe 7mo ago
UN-led is an oxymoron. UN is a place for enemies to talk, not a government.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
thisislife2 7mo ago
I read an interesting piece on this war somewhere that claimed that the Iran war is the first war that the US is waging without first politically appealing to its public. Historically, US administrations used to present some justification for a war and politically mobilise its citizens to support a war. And only then used to go to war (even if it wasn't usually called "war" - https://9gag.com/gag/amowD7v#comment https://9gag.com/gag/amowD7v#comment ). This is genuinely worrying. It shows contempt towards (American) democracy. Worse still is what it means - is this because of the changing nature of warfare? AI, drones, missiles, missile-shields etc. means that unless you want to occupy a territory, you don't really need to send your army / troops to a country any more to "punish" them. If you aren't going to put boots on the ground, you don't have to worry about body bags returning home and generating (unmanageable) political anger. Thus, politicians (from superpowers) who hold a contempt for the general public may feel that there is no need any more to get the public's approval for a war as these "ungrateful" citizens aren't anyway going to volunteer for a war without a reasonable justification. The Gaza genocide has already shown that unless the victims are "white, blue-eyed blonde Christians like us" ( https://www.newslaundry.com/2022/02/28/europeans-with-blue-eyes-blonde-hair-being-killed-media-coverage-of-ukraine-criticised-for-racism https://www.newslaundry.com/2022/02/28/europeans-with-blue-e... ) western politicians are genuinely not going to care about such kind of war crimes. Combine that with extremist right-wing views of a new wave of imperialism (that is all about "regime" changes and killing leaders to install puppets) all stemming from the right- in the US, a multi-polar world order doesn't just seem like a "nice idea" but a political necessity.
- atoav 7mo ago
  This also made me wonder, is it: 1. That those in power believe they are so beyond consequences that literally nothing will happen to them, ever or 2. That the time wasn't there to build the narrative since someone else forced their hand (e.g. Israel going in solo and either relying on the allies or having some Kompromat on specific actors)
  - netsharc 7mo ago
    If I had to put money on it, I'd bet on this regime continuing to ignore the rule of law and illegally remaining in power, until some insurrection... Yes I'm talking about the MAGA regime. They're already ignoring so many laws and court orders... https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2026/mar/08/trump-democracy-oligarchy-policy https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2026/mar/08...
thisisnotauser 7mo ago
This is written with the genuinely unreasonable treatment of American claims as legitimate and actions as legal, with no consideration offered to the very real likelihood that the American government is simply lying and committing a war of aggression. Frankly, this piece is emblematic of the failure of the news media to hold fascism to account.
- ajewhere 7mo ago
  It is funny how you feel obliged to qualify that what is obvious as "a very real likelihood". 1984 was about you after all more than about anyone else. What a disgust
jjtwixman 7mo ago
Countries like Israel welcome this because it means they will have free rein to do as they please. And countries like the USA, who built the entire fucking system and benefit from it the most, are now happily dismantling it. It's madness.

45 points by hkhn 7mo ago

djohnston 7mo ago

The UN is an absolute farce.

hyperman1 7mo ago
I see a group of countries trying to work together. As this is a massive coordination effort and the participants all want different things, it can only go slow. As with every governmental entity, there probably is some waste. But the alternative is each country for himself, so I rather have the UN.
- falcor84 7mo ago
  > But the alternative is each country for himself, so I rather have the UN. That's a false dichotomy. The alternatives includes giving each country an equal standing without a veto, votes proportional to the population, or even fully direct democracy by every person in the world, and a million other alternatives I could think of if given an afternoon. It's absolutely logically valid to think that international coordination is valuable but that the UN is a poor solution for this, and is blocking off a better solution. Recall also that before the UN we had the League of Nations, which had a similar mission but an even worse implementation, and there's a wide consensus that it's good that it was replaced.
  - SllX 7mo ago
    > That's a false dichotomy. The alternatives includes giving each country an equal standing without a veto, votes proportional to the population, or even fully direct democracy by every person in the world, and a million other alternatives I could think of if given an afternoon. These are certainly alternatives but they would take what’s basically an acceptable-ish arrangement and turn it into what’s effectively a world government, and that’s completely untenable. If liberal secular democracies that respected free speech and private property rights were the order of the day, we might be able to set something like that up, but not in today’s world with today’s leaders, and the UN has to account for all of those differences. That’s why the UN feels unsatisfying and why it will never “lead” the world.
    - falcor84 7mo ago
      But that's the thing - the UN just accepts its strongest members doing things that go against its founding charter and can do nothing about it. At some point the the center just cannot hold.
      - carefree-bob 7mo ago
        Why do you think the charter of the UN says that all the power is invested in the security council and each of the great powers have a veto there? It's almost as if the UN is the creation of the Great Powers, as a meeting ground where they can coordinate their actions, and is not intended to be some authority that tells the great powers what to do. I don't know where these people learned alternate histories of the UN as being some kind of force that can keep nations in check. It was never intended to play that role, and the UN Charter forbids it explicitly. The real problem with the UN is that it is obsolete even for the role it was empowered to play, because with the advent of videoconferencing and abundant communication, it simply has no meaningful role to play. What it has become now is a jobs program where well connected people can obtain diplomatic posts and party in New York while not paying any parking tickets. That's literally all the UN is right now.
      - SllX 7mo ago
        If the UN actually had any teeth, then it’s the UN that would be targeted and destroyed by its strongest members. The UN only survives because it is toothless, and the permanent seats of the UNSC are essential to guaranteeing buy-in from members that otherwise wouldn’t allow it to exist.
  - gus_massa 7mo ago
    Each person is a point, each nuke is 1000000 points, I'm too lazy to add points for batlecruisers, tanks and drones. The vote is proportional to log(points). Does this change the composition of the Security Council too much?
- mhb 7mo ago
  What kind of fantasy UN are you imagining? You understand that there are countries in the UN that are explicitly dedicated to the annihilation of other countries, right? How do you envision these countries all working together and WTF would that look like?
NomDePlum 7mo ago
[dead]

empressplay 7mo ago

'Could shatter'? The Russians already shattered that 4 years ago.

avmich 7mo ago
Did USSR shatter that with Afghanistan, or USA with Vietnam?..

bhouston 7mo ago

Trump does seem to resent the UN in part because of both the influence of Israel/AIPAC in the human rights realm, Russia in the war of aggression realm, COVID reactionaries/MAHA in the health realm and Elon Musk/Christian White superiority interests in the humanitarian realm - no more aid to non white Christians in developing world. It is the perfect storm for the UN. US is done with the UN under Trump. Will we see a rethink if/when Democrats come back and then whipsaw back when Republicans gain power again?

tradertef 7mo ago

It already shattered in Gaza genocide. UN is useless.

wr639 7mo ago

It is truly sad how ineffective the U.N. is

mugivarra69 7mo ago

[dead]

juliusceasar 7mo ago

The West said it is ok for Israil to commit genocide and steal land for decades. East said, OK now it is our turn. Both use their veto power to continue their crimes/genocide.

assaddayinh 7mo ago
[dead]

devwastaken 7mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
dang 7mo ago
Could you please stop posting comments that are fulminating and/or flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

cultofmetatron 7mo ago

could? sir, its already in pieces a this point.

weregiraffe 7mo ago

UN-led is an oxymoron. UN is a place for enemies to talk, not a government.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

thisislife2 7mo ago

I read an interesting piece on this war somewhere that claimed that the Iran war is the first war that the US is waging without first politically appealing to its public. Historically, US administrations used to present some justification for a war and politically mobilise its citizens to support a war. And only then used to go to war (even if it wasn't usually called "war" - https://9gag.com/gag/amowD7v#comment https://9gag.com/gag/amowD7v#comment ). This is genuinely worrying. It shows contempt towards (American) democracy. Worse still is what it means - is this because of the changing nature of warfare? AI, drones, missiles, missile-shields etc. means that unless you want to occupy a territory, you don't really need to send your army / troops to a country any more to "punish" them. If you aren't going to put boots on the ground, you don't have to worry about body bags returning home and generating (unmanageable) political anger. Thus, politicians (from superpowers) who hold a contempt for the general public may feel that there is no need any more to get the public's approval for a war as these "ungrateful" citizens aren't anyway going to volunteer for a war without a reasonable justification. The Gaza genocide has already shown that unless the victims are "white, blue-eyed blonde Christians like us" ( https://www.newslaundry.com/2022/02/28/europeans-with-blue-eyes-blonde-hair-being-killed-media-coverage-of-ukraine-criticised-for-racism https://www.newslaundry.com/2022/02/28/europeans-with-blue-e... ) western politicians are genuinely not going to care about such kind of war crimes. Combine that with extremist right-wing views of a new wave of imperialism (that is all about "regime" changes and killing leaders to install puppets) all stemming from the right- in the US, a multi-polar world order doesn't just seem like a "nice idea" but a political necessity.

atoav 7mo ago
This also made me wonder, is it: 1. That those in power believe they are so beyond consequences that literally nothing will happen to them, ever or 2. That the time wasn't there to build the narrative since someone else forced their hand (e.g. Israel going in solo and either relying on the allies or having some Kompromat on specific actors)
- netsharc 7mo ago
  If I had to put money on it, I'd bet on this regime continuing to ignore the rule of law and illegally remaining in power, until some insurrection... Yes I'm talking about the MAGA regime. They're already ignoring so many laws and court orders... https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2026/mar/08/trump-democracy-oligarchy-policy https://www.theguardian.com/global/commentisfree/2026/mar/08...

thisisnotauser 7mo ago

This is written with the genuinely unreasonable treatment of American claims as legitimate and actions as legal, with no consideration offered to the very real likelihood that the American government is simply lying and committing a war of aggression. Frankly, this piece is emblematic of the failure of the news media to hold fascism to account.

ajewhere 7mo ago
It is funny how you feel obliged to qualify that what is obvious as "a very real likelihood". 1984 was about you after all more than about anyone else. What a disgust

jjtwixman 7mo ago

Countries like Israel welcome this because it means they will have free rein to do as they please. And countries like the USA, who built the entire fucking system and benefit from it the most, are now happily dismantling it. It's madness.