Iran Military Forum

No, it's not about the Eurotrash hating to see their Spring parties spoiled
http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/military-discussions-and-news/uk-gears-up-for-iran-face-off/msg105280/?topicseen;PHPSESSID=9ad0466e0cbb62fae8e852ae1ff4ab57#msg105280

...but about the Saudis going to the UNGA (UN General Assembly) to "test the waters".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16996987

...Meanwhile, the United Nations General Assembly is becoming the focus of attempts to apply pressure on the Syrian authorities. Saudi Arabia is circulating a draft resolution among its members, similar to the one vetoed in the Security Council by China and Russia...

If they manage to get a 2/3 majority, the next step will be a "Uniting for Peace"(U4P) resolution to bypass the UNSC vetoes (see below). In that case it's "game over" for Syria.
http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/military-discussions-and-news/our-enemies-military-strategy/msg105719/?topicseen;PHPSESSID=9ad0466e0cbb62fae8e852ae1ff4ab57#msg105719

However, not only are UN members fully aware that there would be yet another precedent to enable other members to "gang up on them" at any time in the future should they support this U4P, but it's also a very sensitive issue for the West because this same U4P mechanism could be used against... yep, ISRAEL (see below: "The US used its veto power more than any other permanent member since 1972..."). That's why I believe there could be a backchannel deal between Obama, PGCC and Israel: if the PGCC manages to "get" Syria with a U4P, they promise Obama not to target Israel with another U4P as long as Israel promises Obama not to attack Iran without his consent.
http://www.iranmilitaryforum.net/think-tank/iran-should-attack-israel-by-2014/msg107220/?PHPSESSID=9ad0466e0cbb62fae8e852ae1ff4ab57#msg107220

If he's not reelected, the deal is over. A GOP successor other than Ron Paul will likely want his cake (Israel) and eat it too (war with Iran).

Afterwards Iran could always be targeted with a U4P as well (instead of war with a GOP idiocrat), however...

1) the PGCC knows full well that the Yanks can't be trusted. So if the PGCC "gives" them Iran as its last "ace" in the U4P game, chances are it won't "get" Israel back in exchange even if it wanted to (which most of us here doubt). So the PGCC would prefer a U4P against Israel as its last "ace" to prevent or at least postpone a war (see below under 2).

2) contrary to Syria, Iran is too important to Russia and no UN "legalese" (either from the UNSC or UNGA) will prevent it to block Iran becoming a Western client again. "Crippling" extraterritorial sanctions may degrade it over time to a "N-Korea" (which would also suit the PGCC just fine; no weaponization though, Russia and China won't accept that either) with not a single proxy left (Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah etc.), but for now Russia won't tolerate either another war (also OK with the PGCC because they would hate to see their "trillion" dollars of realty destroyed... sorry, GOP idiocrat!) nor a second, way more powerful, "Georgia" at its borders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power#Veto_power_reform

...The United States has used its veto power more than any other permanent member since 1972, particularly on what it sees as unbalanced draft resolutions condemning the actions or policies of the State of Israel....

...Nonetheless, it has been argued that with the adoption of the "Uniting for Peace" resolution by the General Assembly, and given the interpretations of the Assembly's powers that became customary international law as a result, that the Security Council "power of veto" was rendered, fundamentally, irrelevant.[21] By adopting A/RES/377 A, on 3 November 1950, over two-thirds of UN Member states declared that, according to the UN Charter, the permanent members of the UNSC cannot and should not prevent the UNGA from taking any and all action necessary to restore international peace and security, in cases where the UNSC has failed to exercise its "primary responsibility" for maintaining peace. Such an interpretation sees the UNGA as being awarded "final responsibility"—rather than "secondary responsibility"—for matters of international peace and security, by the UN Charter.<note the emphasis on "responsibility", remember Lybia's R2P: "Responsibility to"... no, not Plunder but "Protect"> Various official and semi-official UN reports make explicit reference to the Uniting for Peace resolution as providing a mechanism for the UNGA to overrule any UNSC vetoes;[22][23][24][25] thus rendering them little more than delays in UN action, should two-thirds of the Assembly subsequently agree that action is necessary...