The Iran War Proves It’s Time to Revoke the UK and France’s UN Veto Power - Once and for All
A nation that willingly relinquishes its identity and resolve cannot reasonably claim the authority to shape the future of others.
France and the United Kingdom still hold permanent seats on the UN Security Council, with veto power granted to them after World War II as part of a postwar arrangement designed to balance the influence of the USSR and China.
The place they hold was essentially granted to them artificially, following a war they survived in name only, while their once-mighty empires were swiftly crushed by Hitler in a matter of years.
Today, however, it would make far more sense to transfer that privilege to an emerging power like India, or to a prosperous, stable, and responsible nation such as Japan. The problem is that countries like France and the United Kingdom, aside from breaking global records for Muslim immigration and hosting endless “Free Palestine” marches, have effectively lost their monopoly on the legitimate use of force within their own territory. As a result, they now have even less justification for their privileged status than they did in the aftermath of détente.
Beginning in 1947, as crushed and bankrupted nations emerging from the devastation of World War II, both the United Kingdom and France made repeated, often desperate attempts to restore their global stature, most notably during the 1956 Suez Crisis. That effort ended in humiliation, as both were forced to retreat under pressure from both the United States and the Soviet Union, exposing to the world just how diminished their real power had become.
Things have only deteriorated since.
With economies smaller than India’s, militaries weaker than Israel’s, and increasingly irrelevant intercontinental logistics capabilities, all under the constraints of EU-style regulations (which the UK continues to follow in many areas), the only real asset France and the UK still bring to the global table is their nuclear arsenal. Globally, these are lightweights.
France and Britain have devolved into mere caricatures of their former selves, led by feminized leaders whose only consistent actions seem to be
1. Moralizing toward Israel, while
2. Absorbing endless waves of migrants from the muslim world.
These are militaries whose future commanders will not be English or French. These are nihilistic societies that no longer know what they believe in, or what they are willing to fight for.
Like Israel, they are not yet Muslim-majority countries, but they are willing to sacrifice that for political appeasement - trading national identity for marginal electoral gains. Add the dominance of Arab interests in London, the Gulf influence over Paris, and what remains is a diplomatic force with about as much credibility as the royal pageantry cherished by kindly British grandmothers.
What most underscores the need to remove these increasingly out-of-place entities from the UN Security Council, and strip them of their veto power, is the deeply schizophrenic nature of their foreign policy: contradictory, reactive, and disconnected from their own stated principles.
Both Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron publicly oppose Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, yet they call for a retreat or hesitate precisely at the moment when that threat is being neutralized.
Whether one supports or opposes Iran’s nuclear ambitions is not the issue here.
The real issue is: why act in a way that openly contradicts your own stated interests?
The French and British position on the Middle-East highlights just how strategically freakish these occupied lands have become.
Is it merely to appear "different" from the United States?
Are these leaders in the grip of some adolescent impulse to rebel for the sake of rebellion?
Do they suffer from strategic confusion, or worse, from a form of ideological self-sabotage?
Not to overly pathologize, but these are the actions of nations exhibiting symptoms of a kind of post-traumatic state, managed through what resembles a multi-persona coping mechanism or disorder.
This fragmented, contradictory behavior only further reveals the depth of Europe’s collapse, one that, in many ways, is even more profound than what was exposed during the Suez Crisis of 1956.
By contrast, the honest stance of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who acknowledged that Israel is "doing the world’s dirty work", offers a glimmer of hope.
But let it be known: if hope in Europe now comes only from east of the Rhine, it is a clear sign that Europe’s glory days are over. In fact, it has already collapsed - entirely.
It should be said with due respect: We have all long admired the foundations of Whig political philosophy, the achievements of French literary modernism, the elegance of 17th-century English architecture, and the intellectual depth of French cultural critique. These represent profound contributions to civilization.
However, it appears that the societies which once nurtured these values have, in recent decades, chosen a different path, one marked by moral retreat and strategic hesitation. A nation that willingly relinquishes its identity and resolve cannot reasonably claim the authority to shape the future of others.
In a simple twist of fate, it is once again the Jews who, perhaps unintentionally, are exposing Europe’s bluff, just as they have throughout human history.