Should China respect sanctions on Iran?

Finn McCool · Apr 21, 2010

LostWraith said:
My bad let me qualify it. If Iran doesn't get its nuclear weapons, then the West will force a regime change. If it does, then it might turn into a NK type stalemate.

Without nuclear deterrent Iran has not nearly enough military power or land mass to deter an invasion. The US military is light years beyond anything the Iran has in possession, both equipment wise and philosophy wise. Iran has a significantly more complicated geography than Iraq, but I'm confident that if military action does take place, the US will triumph. It might not as easy as taking Iraq, but it won't be much harder. The 2003 Iraq War is a bad example, but remember the first Gulf War where Iraq was still a mighty regional power with years of combat experience and high morale. There were many doubts as to the losses that NATO forces may have suffered before the action started, but the war concluded with minimal casualties and cemented the military dominance of the coalition forces.

The more difficult part would be to manufacture a reason to attack Iran, but I am also confident in the abilities of the US and its allies to pull that one off.

I don't agree with you. The US public has no stomach for an invasion of Iran. We don't want that. Iraq soured the West on grand foreign adventures and even if the US wanted to invade Iran it would never be able to get other nations to go along with it. Invading Iran would be the last problem on top of a stack of problems that broke the back of American world power, and that is understood in Washington. I'm sure there are people that would like to invade Iran but all except for the most foolish and unrealistic realize that even if it is technically possible it's not advisable.

bladerunner · Apr 21, 2010

solarz said:
I would say as long as the US and Nato have their hands full with Iraq and Afghanistan, they're in no position to mount another invasion.

Further, the international community have now witnessed first hand the human suffering caused by the invasion of Iraq. Would they, which includes Western voters, be willing to go ahead with an Iran invasion?

Click to expand...

@Finn McCool

I don't agree with you. The US public has no stomach for an invasion of Iran. We don't want that. Iraq soured the West on grand foreign adventures and even if the US wanted to invade Iran it would never be able to get other nations to go along with it. Invading Iran would be the last problem on top of a stack of problems that broke the back of American world power, and that is understood in Washington. I'm sure there are people that would like to invade Iran but all except for the most foolish and unrealistic realize that even if it is technically possible it's not advisable.

Click to expand...

HUmane selective bombing if there is such a thing wont do the job.

Forum rules forbid me from linking you to another forum, but if you find the time visit a certain right wing orientated USA forum.What they suggest there would make your stomach churn.
They dont advocate a invasion, in short they advocate gloves off unrestricted bombing for about 4months will have Iran beaten.
Imagine being bombed back to the stone age, and when theyve finished the survivors will have trouble understanding the concept of the wheel. The bombing could take out most of the power grid, so that even the most esential serviceswill have trouble to function.

Red Moon · Apr 21, 2010

Finn McCool said:
The US public has no stomach for an invasion of Iran. We don't want that. Iraq soured the West on grand foreign adventures and even if the US wanted to invade Iran it would never be able to get other nations to go along with it. Invading Iran would be the last problem on top of a stack of problems that broke the back of American world power, and that is understood in Washington.

It's also a matter of finances, of fatigued armed forces, and the need to keep some forces free for ordinary "gunboat diplomacy".

plawolf · Apr 21, 2010

LostWraith said:
Well don't thank me yet. I think most of the your point is pretty good until you get to that part where Israel will consider mutual disarmament with Iran.

For Iran the game is simple. Get nukes = crippling sanctions. Give up nukes = crippling sanctions followed by invasion. Israel will never be treated the same way as Iran because the interests that they have in the West. It's "double standards" or whatever else you want to call it, but that's the way it is.

The west will be discredited and shamed if they don't cooperate? I don't think credit is worth anything on a national scale. There's only interest. The west has done way worse things than to cripple one country on unfair terms.

The West will have the regime change it wants in Iran. China has no power to stop it, but China can make it a lot easier for the US, and that is a useful token for China to trade for something more useful.

And i thought I was the cynic...

I think you are way way over estimating the power of the west and more critically, its willpower.

The west hasn't got the pull it once did, and so long as China does not sign off on any sanctions, the west will never have its way with regime change. China is not content to bend over backwards for some fleeting and insincere gratitude from the west. China will do what is best for China and helping the west achieve regime change in Iran is not in the best interest of China.

The west hasn't got the muscle to force China's hand, and it is slowly learning that trying publicly will only make China dig its heels in all the harder. If America wants regime change, it needs to offer up something valuable enough for China to make it worth our while, and you haven't got anything remotely valuable enough to make China interested. Not anything you can give away anyways.

Israel hasn't really been endearing itself with anyone with its long string of belligerent and illegal acts and I think you might be shocked at how little appetite the west's general public would have at the idea of spending tens or hundreds of billions of their hard earned tax dollars and hundreds if not more American lives to help Israel preserve weapons they should never have in the first place.

If the American government (as no other western government would even dream of going as far as you suggest) reject a total disarmament offer from Iran out of hand and looks like its preparing a military option, you'd have uproar internationally and nationally. It would be political suicide. Not even the British would be able to stand with you on this and America will be well and truly on its own if it does this.

China and Russia will rightfully brand America as the aggressor and all your coalition partners in Iraq and Afghanistan will almost certainly walk away and leave you at deal with the mess. And it will be a big bowl of mess as you can rest assured Iran won't go down quietly, and they will cause American forces an awful lot of casualties if they start operating openly and without restraint in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You may get your way and destroy Iran, but in doing so you will also destroy forever in the eyes of the world the idea that America stands for anything other then its own self interest.

It would be exactly like the British Suez misadventure that turned into a fiasco and humiliation for them.

plawolf · Apr 21, 2010

bladerunner said:
HUmane selective bombing if there is such a thing wont do the job.

Forum rules forbid me from linking you to another forum, but if you find the time visit a certain right wing orientated USA forum.What they suggest there would make your stomach churn.
They dont advocate a invasion, in short they advocate gloves off unrestricted bombing for about 4months will have Iran beaten.
Imagine being bombed back to the stone age, and when theyve finished the survivors will have trouble understanding the concept of the wheel. The bombing could take out most of the power grid, so that even the most esential serviceswill have trouble to function.

It might interest you to note that the American military is firmly against a military option in Iran and have been all but publicly stating that the military option is ineffective unless America goes as far as to launch a full scale invasion of Iran. Which is as explicit as they can of saying, 'we don't want a fight with Iran'.

With the American military already stretched thin fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, America can ill afford to start another war in the region. And the Iranians won't be the pushovers that Iraq was as their military actually has some gear that is not hopelessly outdated and would also have had a wealth of knowledge about how to counter western armies from Hezballah.

If you start bombing Iran, the Iranians will not just sit and let you fight the war your way, they will be coming to get you in your bases in Iraq and Afghanistan if not further afield.

Don't, for a second, think that attacking Iran will be as much of a cakewalk as your redneck 'friends' might imagine. If you attack them, they will make you hurt as well.

That is why the White House has all but banned Israel from taking any military action and also why your own generals are telling your politicians in as a clear and direct way as they can get away with without loosing face that the military option is a really bad idea.

solarz · Apr 21, 2010

bladerunner said:
HUmane selective bombing if there is such a thing wont do the job.

Forum rules forbid me from linking you to another forum, but if you find the time visit a certain right wing orientated USA forum.What they suggest there would make your stomach churn.
They dont advocate a invasion, in short they advocate gloves off unrestricted bombing for about 4months will have Iran beaten.
Imagine being bombed back to the stone age, and when theyve finished the survivors will have trouble understanding the concept of the wheel. The bombing could take out most of the power grid, so that even the most esential serviceswill have trouble to function.

ROFL, the typical response of the ignorant American: bomb it to hell!

xywdx · Apr 21, 2010

jantxv said:
If these Silver Tongues who have the ear of the Chinese leadership allow "special" nations their own nuclear inventories, how long will it be before South Korea, Japan, the province of Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, etc.... to develop their own nuclear stockpiles? When the US and European guarantees of non-proliferation has been thrown out the window, why should these nations expect guarantees of Western military protection? They won't, that's the answer.

Taiwan has built their own research reactor, Japan has several, SK has already started to build reactors for other countries.
So......since the countries you mentioned already have the reactors, then Iran should be allowed to have it long ago?

Personally I think as long as Iran does not advocate for nukes then they should be allowed to build their own reactor.

bladerunner said:
HUmane selective bombing if there is such a thing wont do the job.

Forum rules forbid me from linking you to another forum, but if you find the time visit a certain right wing orientated USA forum.What they suggest there would make your stomach churn.
They dont advocate a invasion, in short they advocate gloves off unrestricted bombing for about 4months will have Iran beaten.
Imagine being bombed back to the stone age, and when theyve finished the survivors will have trouble understanding the concept of the wheel. The bombing could take out most of the power grid, so that even the most esential serviceswill have trouble to function.

And what would be the purpose? To ruin the lives of 70 million people just so the Americans can do some chest thumping?

LostWraith · Apr 22, 2010

plawolf said:
And i thought I was the cynic...

I think you are way way over estimating the power of the west and more critically, its willpower.

The west hasn't got the pull it once did, and so long as China does not sign off on any sanctions, the west will never have its way with regime change. China is not content to bend over backwards for some fleeting and insincere gratitude from the west. China will do what is best for China and helping the west achieve regime change in Iran is not in the best interest of China.

The west hasn't got the muscle to force China's hand, and it is slowly learning that trying publicly will only make China dig its heels in all the harder. If America wants regime change, it needs to offer up something valuable enough for China to make it worth our while, and you haven't got anything remotely valuable enough to make China interested. Not anything you can give away anyways.

Israel hasn't really been endearing itself with anyone with its long string of belligerent and illegal acts and I think you might be shocked at how little appetite the west's general public would have at the idea of spending tens or hundreds of billions of their hard earned tax dollars and hundreds if not more American lives to help Israel preserve weapons they should never have in the first place.

If the American government (as no other western government would even dream of going as far as you suggest) reject a total disarmament offer from Iran out of hand and looks like its preparing a military option, you'd have uproar internationally and nationally. It would be political suicide. Not even the British would be able to stand with you on this and America will be well and truly on its own if it does this.

China and Russia will rightfully brand America as the aggressor and all your coalition partners in Iraq and Afghanistan will almost certainly walk away and leave you at deal with the mess. And it will be a big bowl of mess as you can rest assured Iran won't go down quietly, and they will cause American forces an awful lot of casualties if they start operating openly and without restraint in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You may get your way and destroy Iran, but in doing so you will also destroy forever in the eyes of the world the idea that America stands for anything other then its own self interest.

It would be exactly like the British Suez misadventure that turned into a fiasco and humiliation for them.

Why would China and Russia side against the US in the event of unilateral action against Iran? Did China and Russia side against the US in 2003?

Public uproar? Political suicide? Maybe after the act is done and another "bad intelligence" is discovered, but I reckon the US will be smarter this time and use a more verifiable excuse instead. I might take a long time, after all there was 12 years between the two gulf wars. Even if the lie is discovered and the government gets a wrist slap, just get a different party elected and everything's back to normal again in a few years time with another country in the gun sights.

I think you are way overestimating the international muscle China has. China will bargain for chips from the US in return for cooperation, but unless we are talking about issues close to Chinese soil, don't expect China to go out arm and leg in somebody else's favor. China has interests in Iran, but it's not worth antagonizing the US over. There are plenty of interests that China would like that could be traded over from the US, such as nonintervention in Sudan and other African areas, or Taiwan arms sales. China could get a win win situation with the US by cooperation on Iranian sanctions and getting some favor in return.

If I was the Iranian government, I would pray for the bomb. It's the only thing that will save it from the same fate that Iraq suffered.

bladerunner · Apr 22, 2010

xywdx said:
Personally I think as long as Iran does not advocate for nukes then they should be allowed to build their own reactor.

Click to expand...

The Americans dont have a problem with Iran having a nuclear reactor. Its what they are using it for thats causing the problem.

Maybe theyll get smart and just have the componentries already constructed, dispersing them, and left with only a couple of spanners and a screwdrivers away. THat way they can avoid the claim of having a nuclear weapon

plawolf · Apr 22, 2010

LostWraith said:
Why would China and Russia side against the US in the event of unilateral action against Iran? Did China and Russia side against the US in 2003?

Thats a very arrogant and simplistic way of looking at things. This is not a 'you are either with us or against us' issue. the issue is that the US would need Chinese and Russian cooperation to make any sanctions regime feasible and the US has nothing it can offer up to make it worth while for the Chinese and Russians. They don't need to actively work against you to completely derail your plans. Merely withholding their help would be sufficient.

Public uproar? Political suicide? Maybe after the act is done and another "bad intelligence" is discovered, but I reckon the US will be smarter this time and use a more verifiable excuse instead. I might take a long time, after all there was 12 years between the two gulf wars. Even if the lie is discovered and the government gets a wrist slap, just get a different party elected and everything's back to normal again in a few years time with another country in the gun sights.

How stupid do you think the rest of the world is to fall for the same trick twice?

The US will need solid evidence for which it has none, and any UN resolution would be worded so as not to leave any wiggle rooms as to whether it allows military force to be used.

If the US wants to attack Iran, it will have to do so bare faced without any cover or pretext, and in doing so, it will be paying a very heavy price in terms of trust and goodwill.

I think you are way overestimating the international muscle China has. China will bargain for chips from the US in return for cooperation, but unless we are talking about issues close to Chinese soil, don't expect China to go out arm and leg in somebody else's favor. China has interests in Iran, but it's not worth antagonizing the US over. There are plenty of interests that China would like that could be traded over from the US, such as nonintervention in Sudan and other African areas, or Taiwan arms sales. China could get a win win situation with the US by cooperation on Iranian sanctions and getting some favor in return.

And that is plain wishful thinking. Securing the energy needs for Chinese economy is one of China's core interests and Iran is one of China's top energy sources. You are also way over estimating the value anyone places on American promises.

China is not stupid enough to offer up one of its main oil suppliers in exchange for some unenforceable and fleeting commitments from Washington. Not supplying Taiwan arms today and doing it tomorrow is no prize as far as China is concerned. As for nonintervention in Africa. Well how will China ever hold you to your word? Does the US even have the ability and stomach for another war in Africa if it is already engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan AND Iran?

America has plenty it can try to barter, but they are all pathetically worthless chips that would not interest China in the slightest.

Its true that if America is fully determined to attack Iran, there isn't much China can do to stop you. But what China can and will do is make such a move as costly for America as possible. Not to the extent of supplying the Iranians arms, but certainly as far as to veto any UN resolution that will allow the use of force.

However, that seems to be a non-issue considering the tone the US military is taking on possible military action against Iran. The American military does not want to fight Iran even now, when they don't have a bomb. That's a fact you can't get away with and which renders all your arguments moot.

If I was the Iranian government, I would pray for the bomb. It's the only thing that will save it from the same fate that Iraq suffered.

Only the American military disagrees with your assessment and doesn't want anything to do with an attack on Iran.

It seems everyone has seen the limits of American power except for you my friend.

Should China respect sanctions on Iran?

Finn McCool

Captain

bladerunner

Banned Idiot

Red Moon

Junior Member

plawolf

Lieutenant General

plawolf

Lieutenant General

solarz

Brigadier

xywdx

Junior Member

LostWraith

New Member

bladerunner

Banned Idiot

plawolf

Lieutenant General