So what is the alternative to what Trump has done in Iran? 

The answer was discussed at a meeting over the weekend. 

The British appeared to host it. 40 countries took part, including ours, and they were talking about what you might remember is the “global rules-based approach”. 

That broadly was the way things were done pre-Trump. 

We would have a meeting, agree roughly on a course of action and then head off to the global body that deals with such weighty matters – the United Nations. 

The resolution post the meeting was a vote would be held to all chip in and get the Strait of Hormuz open. 

The vote was due Saturday. It didn’t happen. It got delayed. 

Why? Because people started objecting to it, and that is the rules-based order for you. 

The United Nations, at moments like this, is bordering on pointless. 

The Security Council has permanent members, and the permanent members have veto votes. If one person doesn’t like the idea, it's off. 

So the model, such as it is, requires everyone to agree on an idea and when on one side of the table you have the US and on the other you have Russia or China, what do you reckon the chances of that happening are? 

So, nothing gets done. Which is why Iran has been able to get away with what they have for 50 years. 

Every time it gets to the edge, or a point where people start to panic a bit, off to the UN we go, have a debate, maybe a vote, wag a finger or two, maybe agree to a nuclear inspection or two – but then ultimately nothing happens. 

And so it carries on around, and around, and around. 

Which doesn’t make Trump right or unilateral moves on war particularly acceptable. But it does highlight the futility of a system that has failed on the Iran issue for five decades and puts it up against a unilateral decision that, at the very least, has set back Iran for years. 

Most of the world argues for rules-based decision making. 

Most of the world argues what Trump has done is illegal. 

One of the questions though: which one is more effective and actually gets things done? 

So what is the alternative to what Trump has done in Iran?&nbsp;
The answer was discussed at a meeting over the weekend.&nbsp;
The British appeared to host it. 40 countries took part, including ours, and they were talking about what you might remember is the “global rules-based approach”.&nbsp;
That broadly was the way things were done pre-Trump.&nbsp;
We would have a meeting, agree roughly on a course of action and then head off to the global body that deals with such weighty matters – the United Nations.&nbsp;
The resolution post the meeting was a vote would be held to all chip in and get the Strait of Hormuz open.&nbsp;
The vote was due Saturday. It didn’t happen. It got delayed.&nbsp;
Why? Because people started objecting to it, and that is the rules-based order for you.&nbsp;
The United Nations, at moments like this, is bordering on pointless.&nbsp;
The Security Council has permanent members, and the permanent members have veto votes. If one person doesn’t like the idea, it's off.&nbsp;
So the model, such as it is, requires everyone to agree on an idea and when on one side of the table you have the US and on the other you have Russia or China, what do you reckon the chances of that happening are?&nbsp;
So, nothing gets done. Which is why Iran has been able to get away with what they have for 50 years.&nbsp;
Every time it gets to the edge, or a point where people start to panic a bit, off to the UN we go, have a debate, maybe a vote, wag a finger or two, maybe agree to a nuclear inspection or two – but then ultimately nothing happens.&nbsp;
And so it carries on around, and around, and around.&nbsp;
Which doesn’t make Trump right or unilateral moves on war particularly acceptable. But it does highlight the futility of a system that has failed on the Iran issue for five decades and puts it up against a unilateral decision that, at the very least, has set back Iran for years.&nbsp;
Most of the world argues for rules-based decision making.&nbsp;
Most of the world argues what Trump has done is illegal.&nbsp;
One of the questions though: which one is more effective and actually gets things done?&nbsp;

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.

Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.

The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more.

The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show. Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda. The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion, delivers the best talent, and always leaves you wanting more. The Mike Hosking Breakfast always cuts through and delivers the best daily on Newstalk ZB.

Open your mind to the world with New Zealand’s number one breakfast radio show.Without question, as New Zealand’s number one talk host, Mike Hosking sets the day’s agenda.The sharpest voice and mind in the business, Mike drives strong opinion,...

The Mike Hosking Breakfast

Mike's Minute: Trump's way or the UN way

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/716b11ed-113b-4055-8fd9-b42401671827/transcript