Should China respect sanctions on Iran?
- Thread starter samba
- Start date
The resolution space for the Iran issue may be smaller than many other questions. Israel has expressed zero tolerance for operational Iranian nuclear capability. Given past Israeli actions of destroying both Iraq's and Syria's nuclear capabilities, destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities in the near future is perhaps more than guaranteed.
Although many nations have trade and investments in Iran, it is likely the vast bulk of those interests will survive an Iranian transition period. Given Iran's highly unpredictable political status in the very near future, it may not be wise to form strong expectations from the contemporary status quo.
Although many nations have trade and investments in Iran, it is likely the vast bulk of those interests will survive an Iranian transition period. Given Iran's highly unpredictable political status in the very near future, it may not be wise to form strong expectations from the contemporary status quo.
Iran is now a fully integrated part of the Russian and Chinese Asian Energy Nexus as well as still a candidate member for the SCO.
The fact that China has come out so strongly against further UN sanctions is telling. It is also the case that China and Russia are very carefully harmonising their foreign policies on such matters these days and so talk of differences between them is really wishful thinking from certain Governments.
The bare fact is that China and Russia are not prepared to tolerate any measure that threatens a change of regime in Iran to one less favourable to them. This means that they will not recognise the legality of any non UN approved sanctions or military action and that any such which are applied unilaterally can expect to generate an extremely harsh and punitive response.
The fact that China has come out so strongly against further UN sanctions is telling. It is also the case that China and Russia are very carefully harmonising their foreign policies on such matters these days and so talk of differences between them is really wishful thinking from certain Governments.
The bare fact is that China and Russia are not prepared to tolerate any measure that threatens a change of regime in Iran to one less favourable to them. This means that they will not recognise the legality of any non UN approved sanctions or military action and that any such which are applied unilaterally can expect to generate an extremely harsh and punitive response.
It is usually in no nation's national interests to enter into open military conflict. Some may argue sanctions against Iran are a last ditch effort to prevent open warfare between Iran and Israel. If that premise is accepted, then opposing the sanctions may hasten military hostilities.
Perhaps open warfare is in the national interests of some nations in order to avoid a long drawn out sanctioning period. Israeli offensive actions are usually very short and focus on targeted destruction without the encumbrance of employing any effort towards regime change. Given past actions, the Israelis are credible as opposed to the rhetoric of other world powers, no matter what side of the issue they may fall upon.
Perhaps open warfare is in the national interests of some nations in order to avoid a long drawn out sanctioning period. Israeli offensive actions are usually very short and focus on targeted destruction without the encumbrance of employing any effort towards regime change. Given past actions, the Israelis are credible as opposed to the rhetoric of other world powers, no matter what side of the issue they may fall upon.
you shouldnt count on some sort of regime change as a way out of the nuclear question. because the only faction that is capable of replacing the current one is just as hardline if not more. regime change leading to peace is just an American fantasy that has failed again and again and again.
israeli air strike is theoretically possible but you have to first figure out where to hit, iran is pretty darn big. and i somehow doubt israel would want to risk another drawn out conflict with hezbollah over a program that hasnt really become a substantial threat to its national security at the moment.
Is there anything NEW in this Israeli position? Israel has been talking this way for many years. Around 2005 or 2006, the US was ALSO talking this way, but nothing has happened. In any case, Israel needs permission from the US, since the US controls Iraqi air space, which would need to be crossed for any Israeli action.
I think all the major players, even the most rabidly anti-Iranian Israeli, realize that a military strike would have the effect of strengthening the regime, and this is the opposite of what the West wants. Sanctions, if effective, will weaken it, precisely by making life difficult for the ordinary population.
Infra_Man99
Banned Idiot
Adding on to Lunar Crimson's (aka Red Moon) post:
Israel is also critically dependent on US aid and European aid. Right now the US is stockpiling more weapons in Israel. Anything Israel does is really backed by the US government and European government. Russia knows this. China knows this, which is why China buys weapons from Israel to get US and European weapons.
If Iran is attacked, worldwide justice and moral issues will need to be dealt with. The international community is NOT for another Middle Eastern war. China's dependence on Iranian oil will be a major issue. Russia's energy partnership with Iran will be a major issue. Military positioning between the US, Europe, Russia, China, and other nations will be a major issue.
Iran is a complex issue WAAAY beyond Israel's capabilities and interests, despite the propaganda you get from China's news, Russia's news, US news, and European news.
Governments can be as fickle as the people that make them up. Over the past 100 years practically all the major powers have fought with and against each other in almost every imaginable way. What seems to have changed national behavior is the development of nuclear weapons. It seems nuclear weapon states are extremely reluctant to allow military skirmishes to escalate with other nuclear states.
Research into Israeli nuclear capabilities reveals sporadic statistics, some sources reveal around 80 warheads, others as much as 400, no one is sure. Additionally the Israeli Jericho III ICBM that was fielded in 2008 has a range of around 11,500km putting most of the planet's population in range.
Given that Israel is a very geographically small nation, it would seem less than 5 nuclear detonations could render the nation effectively destroyed. Iran has expressed that Israel will soon be wiped off the map. Israel may feel that they would have to launch a first strike given the consequences of waiting until it was too late.
It is extremely doubtful any world power would risk the potential destruction of their major population centers by supporting third party nations. If the vast majority of Israeli citizens die in a nuclear holocaust, it is possible 100s of ICBMs would soon be streaking to the population centers of the peoples responsible for Israel's destruction. The policy of M.A.D. is an effective one. The sanctions issue for Iran gives a lot of food for thought.
Research into Israeli nuclear capabilities reveals sporadic statistics, some sources reveal around 80 warheads, others as much as 400, no one is sure. Additionally the Israeli Jericho III ICBM that was fielded in 2008 has a range of around 11,500km putting most of the planet's population in range.
Given that Israel is a very geographically small nation, it would seem less than 5 nuclear detonations could render the nation effectively destroyed. Iran has expressed that Israel will soon be wiped off the map. Israel may feel that they would have to launch a first strike given the consequences of waiting until it was too late.
It is extremely doubtful any world power would risk the potential destruction of their major population centers by supporting third party nations. If the vast majority of Israeli citizens die in a nuclear holocaust, it is possible 100s of ICBMs would soon be streaking to the population centers of the peoples responsible for Israel's destruction. The policy of M.A.D. is an effective one. The sanctions issue for Iran gives a lot of food for thought.
Infra_Man99
Banned Idiot
That's just Admiral Mullen. Various Congressman and other government officials want to invade Iran and rebuild Iran into a nation that will sell lots of affordable gas and oil to the US. They are so determined to invade Iran that they made up lies about Iran's danger. Iran's president once said (by quoting another Iranian leader) the Israeli government invading Palestine must vanish from the pages of time and it must replaced with a democratic government that represents all people. Then the US government officials and the US corporate media lied about what Iran's president said, and claimed the Iranian president said he wanted to violently destroy Israel.
I recall Obama lying by telling the Chinese and Russian presidents or high ranking officials that the Obama Administration couldn't stop Israel from attacking Iran, but this didn't work. The Chinese and Russians knew Israel's wellbeing and capabilities were completely dependent on aid from the US and Europe. The Chinese and Russians probably told Obama that if Israel was going to do something, then Israel depended on US and European economic aid, political aid, military aid, and legal aid. Thus, the Chinese and Russians would hold the US and Europe responsible for Israel's reckless actions.
Anyhow, I don't think war with Iran is going to happen as long as Russia and China are strongly against it. US and Europe would not risk war, possibly world war with various Middle Eastern nations, Russia, and China. Iran is following most international nuclear laws while Israel has violated most international nuclear laws. This hypocritical standard exists because Israel is being pampered by the US and Europe, but the international community seems to be growing tired of this double standard.