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

Posted by hkhn 11 hours ago

Comments

Comment by thisislife2 7 hours 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 ).

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-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.

Comment by rayiner 7 hours ago

> claimed that the Iran war is the first war that the US is waging without first politically appealing to its public

This is only true if you define this to be a “war” and don’t define other similar actions to be a “war.” Obama announced the air strikes on Libya in 2011 after they had already begun: https://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/19/libya.us.missile...

> U.S. President Barack Obama confirmed that he had authorized "limited military action in Libya" and that "that action has now begun." He is planning for the U.S. portion of the military action in Libya to last just a few days, according to a senior administration official.

You’re correct that U.S. Presidents haven’t sought to persuade the public when the engagement involves air strikes instead of boots on the ground. But that’s been true for a long time.

Comment by atoav 7 hours 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

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)

Comment by netsharc 7 minutes 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...

Comment by estimator7292 6 hours ago

It's just the fascism. Fascist governments don't need or want the approval of their populace so long as they have a way to keep the people in line, like keeping the mass of your population uneducated, underemployed, and on the verge of poverty.

Or, if your fascist government is so incompetent that it thinks it has this kind of control.

I really, really don't think there's anything deeper here than just the fascism.

Comment by aeonik 2 hours ago

I thought fascist was the literal opposite of this. Where the population is indoctrinated and is more embedded into war machine. They kinda become one.

Vanilla authoritarianism, or other forms of government don't need approval from citizens. Oligarchy, monarch, etc... but at the end of the day, even a dictator needs to keep some critical level of people happy.

Classic CGPGray series on this:

https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?si=3LmAGcWjeVWumxsz

Comment by assaddayinh 4 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by cultofmetatron 8 hours ago

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

Comment by wr639 9 hours ago

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

Comment by juliusceasar 8 hours 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.

Comment by assaddayinh 3 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by weregiraffe 7 hours ago

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

Comment by 5 hours ago

Comment by jjtwixman 5 hours 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.

Comment by bhouston 10 hours 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?

Comment by empressplay 10 hours ago

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

Comment by avmich 10 hours ago

Did USSR shatter that with Afghanistan, or USA with Vietnam?..

Comment by tradertef 9 hours ago

It already shattered in Gaza genocide. UN is useless.

Comment by thisisnotauser 6 hours 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.

Comment by mugivarra69 8 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by devwastaken 8 hours ago

[flagged]

Comment by 7 hours ago

Comment by djohnston 9 hours ago

The UN is an absolute farce.

Comment by hyperman1 9 hours 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.

Comment by falcor84 8 hours 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.

Comment by SllX 6 hours 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.

Comment by falcor84 3 hours 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.

Comment by SllX 1 hour 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.

Comment by carefree-bob 3 hours 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.