Should China respect sanctions on Iran?

i think you should review the US strategy in the middle east. its not to conquer every single state that are not willing to suck its you know what, but to achieve a balance of power and regional stability so that oil can be drilled and enter the market without restraint. what is invading iran gonna do? holmutz strait will be sealed, oil price is gonna sky rocket, how does that benefit the US?

by any measure israel in a hostile stance is NOT in line with US interest. they have been getting away with this thusfar is largely because of the israel lobby, such as AIPAC. washington hates it when israel cross the line, it puts them in a really awkward spot, and most of all it undermines regional stability.

pla101prc said:

i think you should review the US strategy in the middle east. its not to conquer every single state that are not willing to suck its you know what, but to achieve a balance of power and regional stability so that oil can be drilled and enter the market without restraint. what is invading iran gonna do? holmutz strait will be sealed, oil price is gonna sky rocket, how does that benefit the US?

by any measure israel in a hostile stance is NOT in line with US interest. they have been getting away with this thusfar is largely because of the israel lobby, such as AIPAC. washington hates it when israel cross the line, it puts them in a really awkward spot, and most of all it undermines regional stability.

Click to expand...

US policy on the Middle East is not as clean cut as you believe. There are competing factions consisting of people and ideas in the US. Key words for you to learn: war hawks, chicken hawks, and doves. Read about the US support of the Shah of Iran, who temporarily overthrew a democratically elected government. Then the US pro-peace faction won the debate and the US backed out of installing a puppet government in Iran.

Then there was President Bush, who wanted at least 3 aircraft carriers near Iran, and various reports from the government and corporate media recommended an invasion of Iran. Thankfully, the US pro-peace faction won, so the Iranian invasion was called off. This cost the job of Admiral Fallon (that's my take), because he publicly rejected the Bush Administration's crazy invasion plans of Iran (then he publicly claimed this never happened).

President Bush sent Israel lots of weapons before or during the horrific war crimes against Gaza. I believe Italy, Greece, or some European nation refused to help the US transport these weapons. Many US congressman (FYI, a part of Washington) and their allies were against the additional weapons aid for Israel. Nonetheless, the Bush Administration (FYI, a part of Washington) and its allies thoroughly supported Israel's infamous attacks.

If not for China, Russia, the minority European doves, and the minority US doves, the US and European governments would have sanctioned Iran (which primarily trades with China and Germany). FYI, sanctions are euphemisms for economic warfare. Once Iran fights against the sanctions, the US chicken hawks and war hawks will claim the US needs to invade Iran to enforce the sanctions or to rebuild Iran.

This is only basic information. It's not hard to learn more.

The world (including US politics) isn't always black and white. Many times, it's some shade of gray.

i dont need to have you teach me anything, in fact you are the one that needs to do your homework on US foreign policy. there can be many factions, but there is only one set of US national interests.

fallon was not dismissed due to his stance on iran, he was dismissed because he refused to cooperate with the surge. he was first circumvented by patreus (patrues did not have to report through him but went directly to the whitehouse and the pentagon), and was later replaced by patreus, patreus was replaced by his aid odierno. the facts are all there. the "pro-peace" faction you talked about have already won when rumsfeld had left, its difficult by then to imagine that the US would invade and occupy a much larger country.

as for the US support of israel, like i said there is a factor of israel lobby. but more importantly there is a consideration that bush is already nearing the end of his term, all he wants to do is to just follow the traditional path and not come up with anything that would become controversial, let obama clean up the mess. the bombing was partly a warning to obama anyways as he was then perceived to be an apologist.

here is an overview of the power dynamic: clinton, who is nominally one of the most powerful bureaucrat, is largely useless when it comes to iraq and afghanistan because of the heavy involvement of the military. she is a bit more useful in Iran but the CIA has a heavy hand regarding the intel on iran nuclear project. her role in the israel-palestine conflict is kept in check by george mitchel, guess where does george mitchel stand? critical of israel policies. in comparison hillary is a lot more supportive of israel.

Calm down you two.

Of course every government has factions and even within factions, different departments can have differing policy priorities.

Politicians tend towards opportunism. This means that where a weakness or lack of resolve is detected, the faction that supports exploiting it will find that their arguments carry most weight.

If China and Russia appear less than resolute in their opposition to sanctions or actions, then such measures will become more likely. Currently I would say that the degree of ambiguity in both countries positions is zero and as a consequence, little more than token measures will be forthcoming or permitted from Washington.

yes diff departments do have different policy inclinations, pentagon obviously have different agendas than the state department. but where the president stands is determined by the political atmosphere and the conditions on the ground, not what faction he belongs to. there is a good reason why bush chose gates, gates worked for his father during the first gulf war, he knows this stuff, it just shows that by then bush is already determined to fix the iraq issue and is not gonna touch iran. gates recommended to him patreus, and later mullen, mullen openly stated that they will not invade iran. the reasoning is obvious, neither domestic nor international political atmosphere allow such move. certainly the "peace faction" had won out, but i would rather call them "focus on iraq faction". they didnt win over the neocons because they were lucky, there was no way that the "invade iran faction" would have won, if they even have any influence in the government at the time. and i dont see how fallon's dismissal is somehow connected with his successful thwarting of washington's plan to take on iran, so i hope inframan should at least familiarize with these facts before trying to determine what their implications are on the US foreign policy.

I said this earlier, but I think it bears repeating. China and Russia are being quite shortsighted in their desire to protect Iran's nuclear program. What do they have to gain long-term from a nuclear armed Iran? It doesn't further their goals at all. They should realize that the introduction of nuclear weapons into another country, particularly one as unstable as Iran, is not good for anyone. The potential for blowback is very strong. We can't see very far into the future, and there's a definite possibility that China and Russia will end up kicking themselves for taking this position.

I think the only way that the US can successfully create a consensus that will result in the elimination of Iranian nukes is to call on Israel to disarm as well. No Iranian government will give up nukes while Israel has the bomb, and a nuclear-free Middle East will be good for everyone. The Arab nations would love it. Israel wouldn't be happy, but perhaps they could be brought around with a generous aid package and assurances that they would now fall under the US nuclear umbrella. To reciprocate China or Russia could put Iran under their nuclear umbrella if they were so inclined. Status quo is largely maintained, but with the tension and danger of nuclear war significantly decreased.

i highly doubt that the Chinese and Russian leadership are stupid enough to not see the downside of a nuclear iran. and they are not trying to arm iran with nuclear weapons, frankly, had that been even one of these two countries' intentions iran would be nuclear capable by now.

i agree with your assessment that the best possible outcome is for israel to disarm, though i think its highly unlikely, it'd entail israel to first admit that they had nuclear weapons lol, then of course you get into the debate over how they got those weapons.

pla101prc said:

i highly doubt that the Chinese and Russian leadership are stupid enough to not see the downside of a nuclear iran. and they are not trying to arm iran with nuclear weapons, frankly, had that been even one of these two countries' intentions iran would be nuclear capable by now.

i agree with your assessment that the best possible outcome is for israel to disarm, though i think its highly unlikely, it'd entail israel to first admit that they had nuclear weapons lol, then of course you get into the debate over how they got those weapons.

Click to expand...

By acting to protect Iran and its nuclear program they are allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons. Furthermore, some Chinese nuclear technology, specifically warhead designs IIRC have, one way or another, fallen into Iranian hands. I think Russia and China are playing a dangerous game, thinking that they can use Iran to annoy the United States and strengthen their own positions on other issues. I don't think that they realize that they can't control Iran. Once a nation makes significant steps towards nuclear weapons technology, they almost never turn back, unless a truly catastrophic event happens.

For example, for Iraq the Osirak strike and then the Gulf War were enough for Saddam to decide that spending resources on nukes was not efficient. In South Africa, the end of apartheid changed the strategic rationale that made nukes necessary and indeed made them a threat to the ruling white minority, so they got rid of the program. However most countries that have made the decision to get nuclear technology didn't stop until they succeeded, unless decisive action was taken early on.

The point is that Iran is long past the stage when they would voluntarily give up their nuclear program. The only thing that can stop them now is a massive change in the strategic situation. By preserving the status quo China and Russia are allowing the march to the bomb to continue.

In the end though it probably doesn't matter. Even very strict sanctions would be highly unlikely to stop Iran. And for China and Russia, an Iran with the bomb is probably preferable to an overthrow or seizure of the current government by the Green movement, so they'll most likely stay the course.

Lastly, Israel actually got a lot of its nuclear technology from the French. I'm sure that the US helped at some point, but it's not like we handed them over.

lol you'll have to back up your claims with credible sources. its hard for me to believe that either China and Russia have exported nuclear technology to iran, if you say pakistan, maybe, China and Russia...you are really pushing it.

again i dont know why you are underestimating the farsightedness of the Chinese and Russian government. if its obvious to you and i that a nuclear iran is not consistent with their national interest then you better expect them to know a helluva lot more. aside from destabilizing the region, for Russia, a nuclear iran would invite the US NMD back to Europe, and for China it'd encourage DPRK to continue their strive for nukes and thus other countries with potential capability. however, the point of the talks over iran's nuclear project is not simply to disarm the country, but to do so in a way that preserves the balance of power. in some ways the western allies are calling for sanctions expecting the Russians and Chinese to block them, and the Russians and the Chinese are blocking the sanctions expecting more to come. because if you make iran feeling isolated, its just gonna make them feel insecure and drive them even further in their nuclear ambitions. i would focus on analyzing why China and Russia are doing what they are doing rather than questioning their ability to make the right decisions, afterall they have access to way more information than we do.