I was simply pointing out how the UN Security Council worked, since I am a political scientist--among other things. I was not chiming in on this particular issue. The negotiation I was speaking of was among the Super 6 of the UN Security Council only.
I guess the real question with the security council is "How big will our bribe to China and Russia have to be to get them to do their very little part in saving the world?"
US can easily force these two countries to obey. America has many cards here, on card is that US has already put a sanction on Iran for more than 20 years, America wouldn't lose anything if they destroy all mullahs economy except a temporary increase on oil price which is far more harmful for China than USA. It is them that should try hard to persuade Iran. US should pretend that they are trying to find an excuse for air strike - if not wipping mullahs out -. They must receive a clear message: If you don't want Iran to lose all the money they offer to you, try harder or get ready for losing this red apple. .
While I appreciate the fact that you think our country (USA) is very powerful, that statement is not correct. Over the past twenty years economic integration between states, MNCs and so forth has exploded. There's a lot more to it than drawing overly simplistic conclusions. You have to look at all the actors in the game as well as all the connections between those actors. Importing oil is not the only economic tie the state of China or any of its actors has with Iran. War costs money and states (first world ones at least) tend to base decisions after a cost/benefit analysis. Finally, if China suffers, so can others in the pipeline. So other states could potentially have a vested interest in China's decision.
Many UN departments are proven useless, especially the security council, so that it becomes even more dangerous for the world and degraded itself to a moloch sucking money only. Countries arguments behind their veto rights are something else then theme related.
Firstly it is very good that we don't overestimate our power - in this case US power - and underestimate the enemies. A patriot must always be worried. This is one of the mistakes that Bush did, he quickly claimed a victory over war on Iraq and pulled out the troops, leaving Iraqies in chaos and letting Al qaeda to grow there - actually he had to or others would critise him of .... long story-. I make it brief, these are the question that we must think about it: 1. Do we see atomic mullahs a threat to USA? 1.1. If the above question is "Yes", do we think that negotiation would help? 1.2. If the answer to 1.1 is "No", what other options do we have? If your answer to the first question is "No" then you don't know mullahs, you think this is another North Korea, I guess you wouldn't imagine the possible senarios that would happen after mullahs gain what they want - no, they are not going to use it , they would do worse. - Now about the second question, If your answer is "Yes", then again you don't know mullahs. Mullahs need atomic bomb, it gurantees their excistance. How about question 1.2? lets talk about it after we know the answer to previous questions. I am ready to bet my life on dreadful senarios that I suggest would happen uppon an atomic Islamic Republic of Iran. Unfortunately I wouldn't be happy when I win. By the way, by using the word "You", I just want to help myself conveing my idea, I don't neccessarily mean "you". I believe US shouldn't offer any reward for countries to support them over Iran, I can suggest much better ways such as asking compensation for "just" bombarding mullahs atomic facilities and leaving them free to keep laying eggs for China/Russia/Europe. .
Some would argue that if Iran was to obtain nuclear power, it would not amount to the Armageddon that others believe, because two other unstable states have this power already--Pakistan and India. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) would probably factor into decision making as it did during the cold war by preventing a nuclear strike. At any rate, my posts were simply to inform how certain things work. BTW, if the UN Security Council passes a resolution under chapter 6 or 7, it becomes International Law.
I would not place India in the same "unstable" category as Iran. Pakistan, although unstable as can be, does not qualify for the status of "pariah nation."
Can I add this: If we could we should have stopped India as well. If we had the power we should disarm China today, unfortunately we can't. But Iran is certainly different. We can and we must stop them, even if it turns out that we can't, we must do our best. Some may think that I am very negative, let me tell you just one of the things that probably is hard to believe for you guys. If a newspaper in Iran mentions the name "Isreal" would be closed and the editor would get into trouble. They have to call it "Occupied Phalestain". Lets just think about this, why mullahs don't sent troops to fight Isreal? They did at the begining of their revolution - or infact betraying the revolution - but soon realized that it would be problematic for them, at that time they had the shield of USSR. They still have a small number to train Hizbollah and other groups but not officialy and they never accept it. They are the god father of international terrorism in term of financialy backing them. As soon as they manage to obtain atomic bomb they would sent troops to fight Isreal. They wouldn't use atomic bomb and they know Isreal wouldn't too. Imaging the huge support they would get among ordinary arabs. Who can stop them then? The same negotiator that now bring excuses for their defeat - and rediculecly put the blame on US - would have to negotiate about the future of Isreal. .
Actually Iran is more stable that India. People have a tendency to view a state as "unstable", just because there are hostile relations. The fact is, it's the relations that are unstable. I would take a peak at history a little more. Iran, and others, know that Israel would use any and all items in its arsenal if attacked.
Which country is more likely to have a complete change of government in the next decade, Iran or India? I'm betting on Iran, and that makes it "less stable" in my book.
I am guessing you are giving us a make believe scenerio here, because bush never claimed victory over war on Iraq or pulled out the troops. Just trying to clarify. Also, the pres of Iran has made it clear he wants to wipe out Israel. He isn't making idle threats here. He has been trying to get all muslim countries to be support in THEIR cause of destroying Israel. (Boy, all these BIG countries with millions of people are scared of the little piece of land called Israel, hmm why is that - OH ya, they are chosen by the One True God - sorry mohammad was wrong (and dead too.))
Would it stop mullahs from attacking Isreal? There are two possible answers - except "I don't know" of course -. 1. "Yes it would stop mullahs". This supports my idea that Mullahs would retract only when they see a big fist. They wouldn't withdraw just because of a few carrots as Kufi Anan or Albradei says. -This also supports the need of Isreal to have atomic bomb which is not the concern of this discussion.- 2. "No it wouldn't stop mullahs". Well, I don't think I need anymore reasoning here. If it doesn't stop them then negotiation certainly wouldn't. Thanks to Ahmadi Nejad I don't need to prove that they have the intention to wipeout Isreal as debunked mentioned, if it was Khatami I would have a hard time to prove it at all. Is that so? I remember just after troops entered Baghdad, Bush claimed a victory over Saddam, they dismissed the Iraqi police and started reducing the number of troops immidiately - I don't say to zero -. First crime started to grow and nobody cared, then Shiatt millishia in south Iraq forced women to wear "hijab" before UK troops eyes but nobody cared, later Shiaat started to get revenge and killed one sonny after another, nobody cared, .... until sonnys in faluja killed 4 US solders, then US woke up, too late ... This is how I saw the event. .
Interesting way to look at the events. I am not quite sure about Bush claiming victory over Saddam, maybe he did, I think Saddam is captured and in court, but maybe that is a cover?? (If you are refering to the scene on the aircraft carrier "mission complete" was totally correct for that carrier and that mission) I don't think Bush meant that the war was over by any means. I didn't see anything that made it sound that way, in the beginning or now. Now there were plenty of talking heads who thought we would pull out in one month or some stupid thing, but this is reality, not a video game. Be careful here, I didn't know we were there to control their religion or their culture. Should the UK troops have intervened in someone making a woman were their garb? I thought this was a religion of peace? shoot, we have white ex-hippy female muslims in ashland oregon who think that islam is good for womans rights.
Is that based on the fact that 97% of eligible voters supported the change to an Islamic Republic--its current state? The state is undergoing a transition that incorporates more democracy into the current theocracy. The state is more secure than say India, because of the setup of the theocracy. The neo-cons are now in control of the Majles and the presidency. The clerics have the final say in the government (see political system operation for more info) and the population follows the Shari'a (divine law). 89% of Iranians are Shi'a. I would like to hear your views on why Iran is likely to have a "complete" change of government within 10 years though. Economically, Iran is on more fertile and stable ground than India.
This is what makes them so scary and unstable in my book - stableness in what they will do, not so much who is governing at the time. Pakistan and India may have its battle ground, but I don't see India trying to pick fights with anyone else on a personal level. But even if they are in a defending position with pakistan they will be looked at as an aggressor by the muslim world. (I don't know enough about their battles to know who I would side with, I am just making a statement on the other known facts)
Because Iran is working as hard as it possibly can to start a war that it cannot possibly win. When that war is lost, what is left of Iran will be organized under a new government.