Time to stop the US – and protect the UN against it

The economic and political “war” of the USA against Iran is getting sharper. If the United States empire, whose political importance diminishes, continues his current policy of economic and military escalation, as you have clearly recognized, his inevitable fall will take some other states with it. The other possibility would be: After some election periods another US government adheres to international treaties and also respects the sovereignty of other states. But that seems to be a utopia. One can also see Trump’s statements to the UN on 25 September the other way round: Iran has the right to defend itself against any external aggression or threat of violence. “Around the world, responsible nations must defend against threats to sovereignty not just from global governance, but also from other, new forms of coercion and domination,” Trump said. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a responsible nation that, unlike the United States, did not start any wars. It also respects the territorial integrity of its neighboring states more than the nuclear weapons state Israel, which attacks states in the region with impunity and at will. If Iran continues to adhere to the agreements of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and if the remaining signature states do the same, the “build-up to even more warfare against Iran” would collapse like a house of cards. This, however, requires a lot of diplomatic skill, reason and cool blood. It is questionable whether the remaining signature states will comply with their obligations. Some companies have already been blackmailed. For them, the US market is many times larger and more important than economic relations with Iran. As you rightly said, President Trump cannot be trusted if he makes contradictory statements at short intervals. He has, however, kept some of his promises, or at least pushed them vigorously. I am thinking, for example, of the tax reform or the transfer of the American embassy to Jerusalem. Trump shows an astonishing consistency in some things, even if his opponents do not like these things. So he thinks little of the UN and of multilateral agreements. If one considers his speeches to the UN to be at face value, one could deduce that the world is facing further catastrophic wars. The UN may reflect the spirit of Gandhi. But it is a rather fragile entity in which the stronger states selectively assert their interests. Would it not be high time for a reform of the UN?