An attack on Iran is an economic attack on China

RedMercury said:

How do you attack infrastructure and leave the supply of oil unchanged? I do not think that is likely. Nor would Iran leave the flow of oil unchanged should it be attacked in any way.

Click to expand...

Target major highways, bridges, rail infrastructure, airports, and the power grid. There are ways of taking down the power grid without having to bomb it and destroy it (packets of metal strips dropped on transmission lines, electrical substations can short out the power grid until they are cleared).

The main targets for a US attack would be the air defence grid, command and control, and the nuclear facilities. That would be the most logical way of attacking.

Finn McCool said:

This invasion is militarily impossible. It will fail. Which is why it won't happen. So as you said, the point is moot, but for different reasons.

Click to expand...

So thank you for pointing out that China can potentially bring ground forces to Iran, through Central Asia, to counter a U.S. invading ground force that will never be formed in the first place. Glad to have my time wasted reading moot points brought up by folks who knew they were moot to begin with.

Chinese troops to Iran ? That means China and US are already in war, in that case there are enough US targets in the neighbourhood that China can strike, starting with wiping out all US/western bases in afghanistan ...don't think this will happen though, unless US joined the war of Taiwan.

China can still provide Iran with missels and other weapons, and help them to attack US carrier groups and warships etc, it will be a good way for PLA to build up battle experences.

Pointblank said:

Target major highways, bridges, rail infrastructure, airports, and the power grid. There are ways of taking down the power grid without having to bomb it and destroy it (packets of metal strips dropped on transmission lines, electrical substations can short out the power grid until they are cleared).

Click to expand...

Destroying any infrastructure will have a direct or indirect affect on oil production. If you hit ports, oil can't be loaded on tankers. If you hit bridges, workers can't get to their jobs, spare parts can't get to where they are needed. If you hit power stations, loss of electricity will affect oil production. If you drop bombs, people die, work is disrupted, the economy is put on pause.

Thats's correct Red Mercury many people would die throughout the middle east making Iraq and Afghanistan look like a cakewalk in hindsight.

The escalating effects of a war of aggression against Iran would indeed precipitate a dramatic energy crisis with around 110-120 $ per barrel crude initially and may be up to 200 $ after ´unexpected´asymmetric strikes against the vulnerable oil infrastructure of pivotal mideast oil suppliers.

Nonetheless the Bush administration appears to be rather prone to making blunders but risking to collapse an already tottering US economy (subprime crisis, faltering dollar) is a ´no go´even for them. Though, as we all know they are good for any surprise...

I think that it is far more likely that if China did indeed wish to support Iran in the event of a US attack/invasion, rather than seeing a full Chinese intervention we would see China provide support in the form of secret arms shipments on the eve of war, providing Iran access to intelligence, satillite photos and decrypted communications and by setting up listening posts in Iran. If the Chinese could somehow get a large amount of electronic listening and monitoring devices into Iran before or during a US invasion they would be provided with a goldmine of data on the US military. The problem would be survivability. If they were not outright bombed there would be a high chance that they would be overrun in the event of a US invasion, blowing the operation.

It is far more likely that the Chinese would not risk that and would instead peer into the battlespace from the neighboring countries. Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are both SCO members. I would expect them and possibly Pakistan to play secret host to Chinese listening posts in the event of a US war with Iran, giving China excellent access to American communications out of Afghanistan.

Combine this with the fact that the Russians would turn ALL their intelligence assets southwards and you can begin to foresee a situation in which the Iranians could have access to a large amount of data provided to them by foreign intelligence services. Also the US would unwittingly be allowing their biggest rivals to snatch a look at their playbook.

The easiest and most damaging way I think China could retaliate against a US attack on Iran is to simply cut the US off.
It is China who is lending the Bush administration billions of dollars each year to keep the government afloat and able to fight in Iraq. It is China who makes most of the things we need and use today, not to mention military and aircraft components that are made there. The US has no way to produce these items in any time that would prevent total collapse of our economy, leaving us as we left Russia. Then again, who is to say that this isnt what China is building up for?? After all, they havent survived for thousands of years by not learning from history.
Just my thought on this.

Just over a month ago, Ahmadinejad was a Guest/Observer at both the SCO conference in Bishkek and the military exercises in Russia.

Iran is a candidate member and an important potential cog in the wheel of ther SCO's drive for energy security around the Caspian region. The importance of Iran is different to different members, but factors as an Oil & Gas producer, vital East/West trade crossroads and permenant Warm water access for trade and military should not be underestimated.

In my view the SCO countries would do whatever they must to prevent the loss of Iran and its resources and a failure to recognise this would be a disasterous miscalculation.

I think we may have seen a demonstration of this commitment in Syria a few weeks ago: I have little doubt that the Israeli aircraft were looking for a passage throught to Iraq/Iran that did not compromise the Wests regional allies and that these planes had to abondon their mission in haste when challanged by unexpectedly sophisticated Air Defences. Whether these were simply equipment or "advisors" despatched by Russia to clog this gap, or (as I suspect) part of an initial deployment around the reopening Russian Naval base on the Northern Syrian Coast, is anyones guess.

If Air Defences have been moved into Syria, then for sure SCO AD Units will be in Iran too. Maybe other types of unit as well!

SampanViking said:

I think we may have seen a demonstration of this commitment in Syria a few weeks ago: I have little doubt that the Israeli aircraft were looking for a passage throught to Iraq/Iran that did not compromise the Wests regional allies and that these planes had to abondon their mission in haste when challanged by unexpectedly sophisticated Air Defences. Whether these were simply equipment or "advisors" despatched by Russia to clog this gap, or (as I suspect) part of an initial deployment around the reopening Russian Naval base on the Northern Syrian Coast, is anyones guess.

If Air Defences have been moved into Syria, then for sure SCO AD Units will be in Iran too. Maybe other types of unit as well!

Click to expand...

Well I disagree somewhat with you about this partrticular issue (the Israeli incursion into Syrian airspace) but I saw the hand of Russia in it too. If I'm wrong, and this incident was more than the Israelis sending a message to the Syrian regeime, then it had to involve some foreign presence in Syria.

Its only a matter of time before we see quite an infulx of Russian personnel into Syria. It will be quiet though. Russia will adivse and augement Syria's AD capability, both because it strategically/geopolitically makes sense and because they will need to protect their own planned installations.

Finn McCool said:

Well I disagree somewhat with you about this partrticular issue (the Israeli incursion into Syrian airspace) but I saw the hand of Russia in it too. If I'm wrong, and this incident was more than the Israelis sending a message to the Syrian regeime, then it had to involve some foreign presence in Syria.

Its only a matter of time before we see quite an infulx of Russian personnel into Syria. It will be quiet though. Russia will adivse and augement Syria's AD capability, both because it strategically/geopolitically makes sense and because they will need to protect their own planned installations.

Click to expand...

Are you saying Russia will actually send trrops and advisors in to Syria along the lines of a mutual defense treaty/agreement?

I would have believed the IAF strike hit a chemical weapons related facility with North Koreans in it, correct me if I am wrong.