Quote Originally Posted by lancelot
I would suggest that the equation of power projection and compliance to UN 'laws' is not warrented. Recent events have shown that Iraq was willing to ignore UN mandate in the face of the most powerful states.

Plus SC members should not really have to use soverign forces to enforce compliance, it somewhat defeats the point of an agnecy that is supposed to act in the collective security interests of the whole body.

Similarly it seems that Iran is in breach of its commitment to the NPT.
maybe that is an aberration of history given that iraq misjudged the US/UK in its willingness to go to war without a second resolution? iraq regarded russian and french vetoes as a get out of jail free card. in fact, given that there was no consensus among the SC members, it inevitably reduced the apparent threat perceived by iraq for non-compliance, and directly impacted on their decision to gamble on continued non-compliance.

what non-sovereign forces would the SC have used to threaten iraq, and others in similar circumstances?
there is no UN-Armed-Forces.
if there were, and it operated under similar auspices to current UN military operations it would be a shambles.

i think that iran will be weighing up the cost borne by iraq for their poorly judged gamble against the collective international ill-will towards military intervention resulting from the iraq debacle (i.e. another gamble).
but again, this is a fault of the security councils inability to come to a consensus, not any reflection on the importance of power projection.