Iranians are very proud and don’t want to become a pariah state like North Korea.

The idea of having a real transition period makes eminent sense, and most member states would tend to agree in theory. The problem is, can they settle on a candidate by the middle of the year? It would be a major triumph, but I'm not betting the farm on it.

Instead of the bull in the china shop, Bolton's more like the little boy who is audacious enough to say the U.N. has no clothes.

These people should have been put under a watch list; to let them creep back into procurement is the height of irresponsibility. Reform, in the end, is really a question of people and you can put in all the rules and regulations you want, but clever determined people who know the system well will find a way of getting around the rules.

It looks like it could be a real train wreck. It's a basic clash over who's in charge: Is it the General Assembly or is it the secretary general?

One gets the impression that other countries are suspicious that the secretary general and his aides are really puppets being manipulated by Washington.

I think there is a real worry in Washington that if one of the criteria (for membership on the human rights council) becomes the ratification of human rights treaties, that the U.S. will have a hard time getting on.

I think it is a rather awkward situation and these things are usually worked out quietly. The more we play up this privilege, the more other members are going to dig in. You don't necessarily do yourself a favor by trumpeting the issue.

If you are going to have a Security Council with more members, are you going to reserve 10 seats automatically on all these bodies? That would mean all these bodies would have to be pretty big to accomplish that.

I've been involved in and out of the U.N. for many years - in fact my first internship was in 1971, so it goes back a couple of years!