How important is Iran to China?

Any secure source of Oil is important to China and as with any other major country, any action which removes access or availability of a stategic resource could very easily be considered tantamount to an act of war, albeit hot or cold.

Iran is also being planned as a major land rail link for the movement of Chinese finished goods to market, which would be another major communications link China would not wish to see denied to it.

In terms of China's response, I think it is a mistake to view this as an isolated Chinese matter. If observing China's recent diplomacy with regards to its local security, it has developed an increasingly multilateral approach and response. There are many players in the region who would find an Invasion of Iran disquiteing for a variety of reasons. Any response therefore would be within a SCO or even wider context.

For those who wonder why, just ask yourselves how the USA, for instance, would rect to Sino-Russian invasion of Nicuagua, El-Salvador and Panama.

Finally two points about Nucleur weapons. I cannot think of any other example of countries being paranoid about other countries acquiring 60 year old technology. I also beleive the attempt is futile, could you stop abyone building ships tanks or planes or equally old technology? No the information is too freely available.

Which leads to point two - a personal perspective. It must be the Scandinavian blood I suppose, but this panic about people being able, or wanting to be able to do this or that, so they must be stopped pre-emptively is all so very --- COWARDLY!!!! . Sorry. I cannot express it any other way. You cannot stop anyine from doing anything, if they are really intent on doing it, you can only make them wish they had not. A foreign policy which promotes Fear of Consequences is a far better way for a major power to conduct itself than any potentially mistaken Pre-Emptive policy. It is wholly demeaning and unmanly and if I were to adopt it I would earn only the contempt of my ancestors in Valhalla:nono: .

Just an add on.

I just found this on Xinhua. A timely and relevant article do you not think?

Iran, China pledge to enhance cooperation

TEHERAN, Feb. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- Iran and China pledged on Saturday to promote the development of bilateral relations in all fields.

During his talks with visiting Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Lu Guozeng, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad commended China's achievements in its social construction and said that bilateral relations have undergone smooth development in recent years.

Iran views China as a friend and cooperation partner and hopes to strengthen its cooperation with China in all fields, Ahmadinejad said.

For his part, Lu said China attaches importance to developing relations with Iran and appreciates Iran's adherence to the "one China" policy.
"China is willing to work with Iran to further enhance bilateral exchanges and cooperation in such fields as politics, economy, trade and culture, " said Lu, who also discussed Iran's nuclear issue with the Iranian president.

Lu also met with Iran's Supreme Security Council secretary Ali Larijani and Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari on Saturday and had an in-depth and candid exchange of views on bilateral ties, international and regional issues of mutual concern as well as the Iranian nuclear issue.

Lu arrived here Friday for a working visit at the invitation of the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

Baibar of Jalat said:

there is one fundemental weakness in ur arguement that i can largely exploit.

firstly, the reason why a large percentage of iranians voted in the iranian president was because he promised them a better life in his campaign. Not to destroy israel that came publicly later.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but the current President of Iran is just the first to publicly say what has for decades been a part of Iranian national consciousness--Israel has no right to exist. I realise the Iranians didn't vote for him for this reason.

Theres ur problem u do not differenciate the difference between the islamist groups, (i am assuming u believe all islamist groups are militant if wrong i am sorry).

look at the eygptian muslim brotherhood is not the same as al qeada, even hamas disagrees largely with al qeada. Al qeada linked groups will never get into power in countries such as pakistan, the masses will not tolerat it, even in other countries in mid east. Usually as history shows when extremist groups get into power internal and external factors force them to moderate their behavior.

Click to expand...

Admittedly, I should have simply made my remarks in reference to al Qaeda, and not all militant Islamic groups. And I hope you are right that a group such as al Qaeda doesn't get into power in any country, but that is not necessary for them or like-minded groups to get possesion of a nuclear warhead. This is what worries me--a group, not representative of a state, gets possession of some sort of WMD and uses it because they have nothing to lose. That is worrisome, and I worry because they have proven themselves willing to make any sacrifices necessary to attain their goals.

p.s i am not espousing nucs but the reality we live in forces u too, pakistan, china and even india did not want nucs but bigger countries around them forced their hand.

maybe simiply whats good for u is not good for someone else. if iran was sanctioned china would lose out if israel was sanctioned US would lose out.

Click to expand...

You make a valid point, and I don't expect to change any opinions here, but I still believe the fewer countries on Earth with nukes, the better off everybody on Earth is. I don't believe only the US, its western allies or any other countries currently in possesion are the only ones with a "right" to have them, I am simply looking at it from a non nationalistic standpoint. Fewer nukes = better. Fewer nuclear armed countries = better.

Finally two points about Nucleur weapons. I cannot think of any other example of countries being paranoid about other countries acquiring 60 year old technology. I also beleive the attempt is futile, could you stop abyone building ships tanks or planes or equally old technology? No the information is too freely available.

Click to expand...

Hi Sampan,

maybe you are right, the attempt could be futile. Maybe right now, as the attention is on Iran and NK, some nation elsewhere is quietly going about its nuclear weapons business, all under the radar screen. But I still think attempts must be made to disuade all countries from either aquiring nukes or expanding their stockpiles. That means I am not only for as much international pressure on Iran for its nuclear program (I know, it is supposedly for civilian use) but am dead set against the US initiating new programs such as the nuclear bunker buster. Futile or not (I hope not), it is an endeavor well worth the effort.

I also have to take issue with your '60 year old tech' arguement. It must be perfectly clear why the world doesn't make a fuss about conventional weapons being aquired vs. WMDs. It is the nature of the weapon that matters and not how long ago the underlying physics were first understood or the first example of such a weapon was made.

Since China is one of the World's fastest growing economies, it needs alot of energy to maintain it. As China becomes richer and more powerful, it will find that its local oil reserves are not enough sustain it. Therefore foreign oil reserves will become vital to it just as they are vital to the United States. Who knows? Maybe 20 or 30 years time, China will replace America as being the dominant superpower in the Middle-east. America is already becomin unpopular there after the Iraq war. Maybe China will take advantage of this. And it does have a clear route to the middleeast, as it has some considerable influencein Pakistan, and now Iran. My point is if China loses its mainoil source to the U.S., it will be a danger to its economy, so it might try to protectit.

Well, if the USA or Israel attack Iran, the biggest loser will be China. In other words, can China sustain oil prices of 150 US dollars per barrel if the whole Mideast along with the Persian Gulf becomes a warzone? If Iran closes oil shipping, the WHOLE WORLD will suffer!

Su-34 said:

If Iran closes oil shipping, the WHOLE WORLD will suffer!

Click to expand...

That's true. Iranian warships did that during the Iran-Iraq war. Now that Iran has three Kilo submarines from Russia, the effect on tanker traffic in the gulf could be even worse ths time.

DPRKPTboat said:

That's true. Iranian warships did that during the Iran-Iraq war. Now that Iran has three Kilo submarines from Russia, the effect on tanker traffic in the gulf could be even worse ths time.

Click to expand...

DPRK, not only Iranian Navy warships and subs carry anti-ship missiles, the Iranian Air Force also has aircraft armed with anti-ship missile. Add to that, the Straits of Hormuz, which at its narrowest point is 22km near the Iranian island of Qeshm, is very vulnerable to Iranian anti-ship missiles based on Qeshm and the coastal areas along the Persian Gulf and the Hormuz Strait. Plus, the Iranians have hundreds of anti-ship mines and its short-range missiles, rockets, and artillery will be able to saturate shipping lanes with massive firepower.

And Iranian Shahab missiles can strike at US bases in the Middle East, increasing Iran's deterrence power.

An interesting twist, just lifted this from the BBC Website. It certainly adds a bit of spice to the pot doesn't it.



"Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has arrived in Tokyo for talks about Iran's nuclear programme.

Japan, which imports much of its oil from Iran, is hoping to persuade the Iranian government to abandon its nuclear enrichment programme.

Tokyo wants Tehran to accept the offer to have its nuclear fuel reprocessed by Russia.

Mr Mottaki is due to meet his Japanese counterpart Taro Aso and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi during his visit.

Chinese rivals

Two years ago Japan did something it rarely does - it defied pressure from its closest ally, the United States, and signed a deal with the Iranian national oil company under which they would jointly develop the massive Azadegan oil field.

Iran needs more foreign investment and Japan needs oil. Iran currently provides one-sixth of Japan's oil imports.

So the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme has put Japan in an awkward position, made worse by intense competition with China for access to energy reserves.

China is in the process of finalising its own agreement with Iran to develop another large oil field.

If Iran refuses to abandon its nuclear fuel enrichment programme, and is punished by the UN Security Council, Japan may find it impossible to resist US demands that it pull out of the Azadegan project.

Foreign Minister Taro Aso has said he hopes to persuade his Iranian counterpart to be more receptive to the concerns of the international community.

And he may be helped a little, not just by Japan's traditionally good relations with the government in Tehran, but also by the fact that Manouchehr Mottaki once served as Iran's ambassador to Tokyo in the 1990s."

End

Well it's like this.

1. Iran is invaded.

After a while the occupation forces will be kicked out. China
will not do anything overt to oppose the invading force. Will
say it opposes invasion.

Result

When new iranian government in power it will support China
and oppose occupiers. Status quo back to pre-invasion

2. Iran is bombed

Result

After a while status quo is back to pre-bombing


Question

Why would China need to intervene militarily ?

The ONLY thing that could affect Iran long-term is independence
movements by Sunni's. I don't think America is very popular with
Sunni's at the moment

Hi FreeAsia

"There is many a slip twixt cup and lip" or so the old saying goes. I would not wish to over or under estimate the danger of such a situation, but the players are still sorting out their hands before beginning to play the first cards.

HI Walter

I also have to take issue with your '60 year old tech' arguement. It must be perfectly clear why the world doesn't make a fuss about conventional weapons being aquired vs. WMDs. It is the nature of the weapon that matters and not how long ago the underlying physics were first understood or the first example of such a weapon was made.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I will really exetending the futility aspect of the arguement. It is no longer high technology, so if you have all the necesary bits, you will succesfully put them all together.

I personally dont think the US will invade Iran or even attempt to bomb Iran, looking at the mess they made in Iraq. Also to put it simply they dont have the balls to invade Iran, which is VERY different from Iraq btw. There was a saying, anyone can invade Baghdad, but real men to go Tehran. Plus Iran has a lot of options if it is attacked:

-Order hizbollah to step up rockek and commando attacks on Israel
-Withdraw billions of dollars in investments from middle eastern countries providing US their airbases (eg UAE, where Iran has invested over $200 billion)
-Cause chaos in Iraq for the occupying forces, turning it into a bloodbath, since Iraqi and Iranian Shiahs have alot in common and are very close.
-Disrupt world oil supplies, causing massive oil prices in Europe, USA etc
-Attack US bases in the region with sabotage/rocket attacks.

And that doesnt take into account the 40,000 Iranians who have already signed up for 'Martyrdom' operations. GL to USA! Long live the USA!