Other than military force and economic sanctions/embargos the UN really doesn’t have anyother options. This goes back to the same question I posed in an earlier thread, namely does our dependence on foreign oil cripple our ability to influence foreign policy. I don’t see how one can refute such logic. Our oil dependence is too great. I would be hesitant to say that we are severely crippled by it, but certainly we are unable to weild as great an influence as we could.
Thus one could pose the question, would a reduction in foreign oil dependence allow the U.S. and U.N. to be more effective in influencing foreign policy through peaceful means? I’d say absolutely. I perceive that there are many who would say the only way for such governments to influence foreign policy is through military force, or threat of such force, period.
What military force is the UN going to use against Iran, seriously? Economic sanctions and embargos would only work if all countries jumped on board, so what if the US won’t ship electronics to them. Im sure North Korea is not going to stop missile shipments. And what about Russian arms sales to Iran? In 2002 the Russians were accused of exporting arms to Iran which could have exceeded 400 million dollars. To already economically depressed countries, like Russia, stopping trade to a country with good cash flow, like Iran, will seem ludicrous.
I have a hard time believing that the UN with all its omni-potent powers would have any success enforcing trade embargos against Iran, and military action lies in the realm of the impossible.
Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.