How important is Iran to China? [Archive] - China Defence Today Forum

KYli

02-25-2006, 05:24 PM

were you supposed to say respective;) ;)
Whatever Goll, I really am tired of explaning that I never intent to say anything bad about SDF in other forum. If you choose to believe otherwise, it is find by me. I honest wish the best for SDF, but I guess I sometime do make some joke that could be intercept in other way. That is all I am going to say, if things do not work out I will leave. I have been in so many forums for years and still is, but never were an active member anyway.

Since 1994 China began to import oil from other country, and the sum has been increasing ever since. In last few years, Chinese government reliazed the important of oil security, but since most of world oil fields are control by the western nations. China do not have much choice, but choose to become heavyly rely on some of nations that do not have good reputation with the west. Mainly Africans, middles east and south American nations but these have increase the risk of confrontation between the west and china, such as sudan and Iran are the prime example. China could not let the west have their way, but are also reluctant to do anything. Because it could be back fire, could also cause major damage to china reputation.

Since then China began to lower their risk of oil import.

1.China began to buy more oil company in the world, but there are limited available. And many nations will not sell to china, this make china pay heavy price to buy oil fields that are risky.
2.China began to built oil pipeline from central asia and Russia. The Central asia pipeline was done nicely, but the russia pipeline have encounter bidding war with Japan.
3.China are also builting its' own oild deposite, but since oil has skyrocket lately. It will take time.
4.China continued to sign big contracts with Iran, sudan and Vene and pick up the speed to import more from them.
5.China began their own explorer in their oil fields in east, south china sea and increase production in the western province.

In conclusion, China will do its' share to lower the tension between Iran and the west. China and Russia will find a way to solve the nuclear crisis by suggesting ideas to break any diplomat lock. If all these fail to work, I think China might veto a sanction against the west. But the true is I do not think China is willing to draw into conflict between US and Iran. I also think US will encounter major opposition from world if US try to start a war. US may also need to consider their situation in Iraq and their troops were over extended. Do they really need another war?

Gollevainen

02-25-2006, 05:32 PM

Whatever Goll, I really am tired of explaning that I never intent to say anything bad about SDF in other forum. If you choose to believe otherwise, it is find by me. I honest wish the best for SDF, but I guess I sometime do make some joke that could be intercept in other way. That is all I am going to say, if things do not work out I will leave. I have been in so many forums for years and still is, but never were an active member anyway.

And as i have said over and over again, its not an issue of any matter...maybe i missinterdupted you, maybe i didnt, but seriously, drop the subject...there isent no proplems what so ever, thougth continuing this migth get some. So as no harm is yet done I suggest you to leave the subject once and all, as well as all attempt to find everysingle loop hole to critizise our policyes. You have made good posting sofar so no need to ruin it by making up proplems out of nothing...

So back to the topic!!!

KYli

02-25-2006, 06:19 PM

And as i have said over and over again, its not an issue of any matter...maybe i missinterdupted you, maybe i didnt, but seriously, drop the subject...there isent no proplems what so ever, thougth continuing this migth get some. So as no harm is yet done I suggest you to leave the subject once and all, as well as all attempt to find everysingle loop hole to critizise our policyes. You have made good posting sofar so no need to ruin it by making up proplems out of nothing...

So back to the topic!!!

Understood, but don't make it sound like I am on some sort agendas.

Back to topic.

I think that Iran is extremely important to China, and China do have oil security issue to consider. But risking a confrontation with US, may not be wise decision. Because china do have other mean to fill the oil need, why risk a war.

Beside all these, I think it is more important for China reputation in the Third world. If China let the west have free hand whatsoever, it will not look good for China rising status. That will create dilemma for China. So whatever Chinese do, china will be in hotseat. The best hope is China somehow come up with diplomat solution with Russia.

FuManChu

02-25-2006, 06:27 PM

The West(meaning the EU and US) do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon and thats the facts.

Indeed. China has to ask itself (as I have said many a time) what it prefers to have - oil to sate its thirst in the short-term or less chance of world-wide proliferation of nuclear weapons in the long-term. If Iran gets nukes it'll be a step on a slippery slope - it'll also increase the chances of whack-jobs getting their mits on one. Does China really think angry Muslims won't turn on it one day?

crazyinsane105

02-25-2006, 06:41 PM

Indeed. China has to ask itself (as I have said many a time) what it prefers to have - oil to sate its thirst in the short-term or less chance of world-wide proliferation of nuclear weapons in the long-term. If Iran gets nukes it'll be a step on a slippery slope - it'll also increase the chances of whack-jobs getting their mits on one. Does China really think angry Muslims won't turn on it one day?

This whole "Islamic militants will get their hands on a nuke" is complete rubbish. It was the case for trying to disarm Pakistan back when Pakistan started its nuke program. Guess what happened? There has yet to be an incident where a terrorist has gotten hold of a nuclear device. Furthermore, if Iran hasn't given Hezbollah any Shahab missiles or Kilo submarines, what makes people think that Iran will simply hand over a nuke to a bunch of crazy radicals? Has it ever happened before? No, it hasn't and it probably won't. There is more of a chance that Kim iL Jong will sell his nukes before Iran hands them over to Islamic militants.

Getting back to the topic, Iran is quite important to China. It is the only country left in the region that has massive amounts of oil natural gas and has no influence from American foreign policy. China has signed nearly $100 billion USD worth of contracts with the Iranians alone. If an American friendly government comes in, what exactly do you think can happen to those contracts?

Baibar of Jalat

02-25-2006, 07:03 PM

Indeed. China has to ask itself (as I have said many a time) what it prefers to have - oil to sate its thirst in the short-term or less chance of world-wide proliferation of nuclear weapons in the long-term. If Iran gets nukes it'll be a step on a slippery slope - it'll also increase the chances of whack-jobs getting their mits on one. Does China really think angry Muslims won't turn on it one day?

Sorry FuMuncCu i had to respond to this;)

Simply what was the reaction of the west when China tested its first bomb???
My research seems to lead me to believe the west esp USA shit themselves.

Why because Mao Zhe Dong espoused rhetoric about burning the whole of civilisation in a nuclear fire storm (paraphrased). there was more thraets they were even worse then irans threats.
Another question what is the western prospective of chairman mao? my research concludes he was simpily a maniac from the east who did not share western even soviet morals (also paraphased).

The chinese and other none white races have been labelled negatively
HERES a qoute by a prominanent Anti aprtied leader called BIKO

He once said "the whites kick are asses then complain about how we react to be kicked in the ass"

similiar story today Iran was invaded by Iraq who was backed by the two superpowers of the USA and USSR, i think like china who was semi colonised have a right to feel a bit pissed off.

However nucs are a dangerous game but Isreal has got them why not iran an old arguement.

Just an observation i am open to a constructive debate on the issues i have raised. No BS please if you think i am BS please say it diplomaticly

FuManChu

02-25-2006, 07:18 PM

Just an observation i am open to a constructive debate on the issues i have raised. No BS please if you think i am BS please say it diplomaticly

China is a large country that was always going to seek nuclear weapons. But Iran is a relatively minor country. I doubt very much that if Iran does get nukes it will just end there - then many, many more countries will have them. And don't tell me that will be good for world security.

FYI Israel has never threatened to wipe its neighbours out.

crazyinsane105

02-25-2006, 07:26 PM

China is a large country that was always going to seek nuclear weapons. But Iran is a relatively minor country. I doubt very much that if Iran does get nukes it will just end there - then many, many more countries will have them. And don't tell me that will be good for world security.

FYI Israel has never threatened to wipe its neighbours out.

No, but the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons is a great enough concern. Why? There is a massive imabalance in the region that must be restored. Also, America supported Iraq's invasion of Iran and now it is America that borders Iran. How do you think the Iranian government feels about that? Not very good. They want nukes for protection. And if other countries in the Middle East get nukes, well, what can you do? Instead of pushing Iran to disarm, why not push Israel and Iran? I would support that.

Baibar of Jalat

02-25-2006, 07:31 PM

China is a large country that was always going to seek nuclear weapons. But Iran is a relatively minor country. I doubt very much that if Iran does get nukes it will just end there - then many, many more countries will have them. And don't tell me that will be good for world security.

U neglected the larger part of my response however

FuManChu my argument is that all countries like china and iran use rhetoric to help to achieve their aims. For example Mao's rhetoric has subsquetly been described as FIGHTING TALK. Mao threated and raved thus any potentional enemy would be more affraid. simply bluffing his way through the situation we all know now Chinas military was no match for any of the superpowers of the day. On Iran it is harder to know if the are bluffing or not we thus have to see.

P.s Iran like china has had a real significant impact on world events that cannot be relistically estimated thus Iran could resonably ask for a nuclear defence. in response to ur assertion

walter

02-25-2006, 08:33 PM

Simply what was the reaction of the west when China tested its first bomb???
My research seems to lead me to believe the west esp USA shit themselves.

Why because Mao Zhe Dong espoused rhetoric about burning the whole of civilisation in a nuclear fire storm (paraphrased). there was more thraets they were even worse then irans threats.

I see the point you are making--namely that the West was overly concerned when China aquired nukes and you are drawing this parallel to today's situation with Iran. I really think this is flawed. I have to agree with FuManChu, Iran getting nukes will just encourage many more middle eastern coutries to start (if they already haven't) their own nuclear weapons programs. And herein lies the problem.

Many of these states have very strong Islamic militant movements within them, and even if up to this point Musharaf has kept tight control over his weapons, it isn't hard to imagine that if in the future about a half dozen middle eastern countries aquired nukes that the chances of one eventually getting into the hands of someone perfectly willing to use it rise dramatically. In some of these countries, like Saudia Arabia, the governments are precariously positioned and could easily be toppled, especially when their oil runs out.

So while Mao was full of Fighting Talk, Islamic militants have proven they are willing to kill 1000's of innocents. I believe they would love nothing more than to kill millions in one blow. This appears to me to be the main problem--if the world were to sit idly by and watch first Iran and then numerous other countries around the world aquire nuclear weapons.

Of course, Iran as a state is troublesome enough--all patriotic Iranians firmly believe in the destruction of Israel. You cannot argue with this, they are taught it from their parents, the education system, and of course from religious institutions. An the West shouldn't be concerned? That just baffles me, doesn't it concern the Chinese, even if they do get oil an NG from Iran?

By the way, I would also very much be for Israel giving up its nukes if it would guarentee Iran or other countries would not pursue them, but this hypothetical situation unfortunately has no place in reality. The world as it now is has to deal with Iran now and continue to vehemently disuade any other countries from developing nuclear weapons. It is very simple really--the more countries in the world with nukes, the higher the chance (or the sooner) one will be used, and this will more than likely trigger a response with more nukes.

Baibar of Jalat

02-25-2006, 09:10 PM

Hi Walter

largely true

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.

FuManChu my argument is that all countries like china and iran use rhetoric to help to achieve their aims. For example Mao's rhetoric has subsquetly been described as FIGHTING TALK. Mao threated and raved thus any potentional enemy would be more affraid. simply bluffing his way through the situation we all know now Chinas military was no match for any of the superpowers of the day. On Iran it is harder to know if the are bluffing or not we thus have to see.

as my quote says the west did not know if Mao was bluffing we to an extent know he was bluffing because we got the benefit of hindsight. makes everything clearer

even then i believe he would have, if there was no sino- soviet split that forced him into a weak position wheras there was a posibilities of the two nations being very powerful. But that is a theory.

Many of these states have very strong Islamic militant movements within them, and even if up to this point Musharaf has kept tight control over his weapons, it isn't hard to imagine that if in the future about a half dozen middle eastern countries aquired nukes that the chances of one eventually getting into the hands of someone perfectly willing to use it rise dramatically. In some of these countries, like Saudia Arabia, the governments are precariously positioned and could easily be toppled, especially when their oil runs out.

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.

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.

AssassinsMace

02-25-2006, 09:59 PM

You guys talk as if Sino-Iranian relations are rock solid and long. It's a recent event. The Indians have a more solid relation to Iran especially because the Iranians are not at all friendly towards their neighbor Pakistan. The only reason why China and Iran are mentioned together is because it feeds the scare-mongers of the West agenda. Russia has a lot more to do with Iranian nuclear reactors than China does but all you hear in the Western media is China.

As for how important the relation is... yes, it is important. As excuse after excuse that has been used for invading Iraq is being knocked down, more and more the document by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), written and sponsored by many high-level cabinet members in the Bush Administration, reveals it as the true map of an active direct agenda to reshape the world towards the US's self-interests. That includes securing the world's oil supply under US control. If a similar document was written by Chinese officials, it would be looked upon as a plot to take over the world. If you've read the document, it basically has China as the last domino to fall under this plan. So any step to stop the dominoes from falling and thwart this plot is to world's best interest.

Cygnus X-1

02-25-2006, 10:25 PM

the reason why a large percentage of iranians voted in the iranian president was because he promised them a better life in his campaign.

You could also argue that it could've been an adverse reaction by the population to some idiot labelling their country part of the 'axis of evil'.

I previously thought that Iran, as a sovereign state, should have the right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful, civilian purposes, but having read this article about the current president, I am now not so sure...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html

DPRKPTboat

02-26-2006, 03:47 AM

OK, I was out of line with the whole anti - U.S propaganda thing. But I definetly think that if the Americans invade Iran, oer that matter North Korea, China will intervene in some way or another. And that doesn't have to be miltiarily - China has the option to VETO any U.S. invasion, as itis a major memeber of the security council. If that odesn't work, then China may put troops into Iran to defend against U.S. invasion. If the American's invade, some Chinese troops will be killed, and that will meen war, so if that is the case, they may think twice about invading Iran.

I also strongly doubt that Tehran is planning tobuild nuclear weapons. Iran's enrichment programme only meansthatit is enriching processed uranium - this is required for use in a nuclear pwer plant, It doesn't mean that Iran is on the verge of building a bomb. And if China does interfere, I strongly doubt that it will do a cuba move with Iran, as I have heard some others (though noton this forum) suggest - it isnot worth the risk, as there would be instant U.S. reprisal.

Sczepan

02-26-2006, 04:46 AM

We all know China has client states, such as North Korea or Pakistan. China gets most of its oil from Iran. .... So if the U.S.A. invades Iran for its oil (using WMD as an excuse), htne China are going to lose their source of oil and they aren't going to be to pleased......:nono:
...
:china:thats why China is not interested in a hot conflict about Irans atomar program. China - and Russia - ar on the way to mediate. Irans right to use zivilian atomar programms have to made compatible to the worry about military nuke programs. And the circumstances of Iran program indeed ar alarming.

Now back to an real conflict - if it happend:
....But I definetly think that if the Americans invade Iran, oer that matter North Korea, China will intervene in some way or another. And that doesn't have to be miltiarily - China has the option to VETO any U.S. invasion, as itis a major memeber of the security council. If that odesn't work, then China may put troops into Iran to defend against U.S. invasion. If the American's invade, some Chinese troops will be killed, and that will meen war, so if that is the case, they may think twice about invading Iran.=> Vetoing of US invasion - could not stop the USA, if they ar willing to invade ....

=> how could China help by military actions?

Military aid has to be transported - by passing Pakistan, Afghanistan, one of the SCO-states, or the sea - and I think, there is no way in a war against the US. Political opportunitys would not allow to transport military aid by air or landway, and China have not enough power to use transport capacity by sea against US-Navy.

At the other side: "imperial overstretching" - after Afghanistan and Iraq, the US forces now ar at the end of capacity. The shiitish parts of Iraq woud become terrible to US and Britain, if they invade Iran. The invading of Iran is impossibility as reasult of the invading of Iraq.
Today I see nobody capable to invade Iran.

So the only military option is a surpising attack to destroy iranians nuke facilitiys.
Military aid would be to late in a surprise attack.
But Iran leaders prepare the forces and arm them ....

SampanViking

02-26-2006, 07:06 AM

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!!!!:mad: . 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.

walter

02-26-2006, 10:03 AM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

DPRKPTboat

02-26-2006, 11:19 AM

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.

Su-34

02-26-2006, 11:46 AM

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!

DPRKPTboat

02-26-2006, 12:04 PM

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

Su-34

02-27-2006, 02:53 AM

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.

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.;)

SampanViking

02-27-2006, 08:39 AM

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

FreeAsia2000

02-27-2006, 09:16 AM

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

SampanViking

02-27-2006, 02:26 PM

Yousuf

02-28-2006, 02:52 AM

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!

FreeAsia2000

02-28-2006, 04:28 AM

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

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.

SampanViking ...i agree but to quote Burns

Wee, sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous beastie,
O, what a panic's in thy breastie!
Thou need na start awa sae hasty,
Wi' bickering brattle!
I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee,
Wi' murd'ring pattle!

I'm truly sorry man's dominion,
Has broken nature's social union,
An' justifies that ill opinion,
Which makes thee startle
At me, thy poor, earth-born companion,
An' fellow-mortal!

I doubt na, whiles, but thou may thieve;
What then? poor beastie, thou maun live!
A daimen icker in a thrave
'S a sma' request;
I'll get a blessin wi' the lave,
An' never miss't!

Thy wee bit housie, too, in ruin!
It's silly wa's the win's are strewin!
An' naething, now, to big a new ane,
O' foggage green!
An' bleak December's winds ensuin,
Baith snell an' keen!

Thou saw the fields laid bare an' waste,
An' weary winter comin fast,
An' cozie here, beneath the blast,
Thou thought to dwell-
Till crash! the cruel coulter past
Out thro' thy cell.

That wee bit heap o' leaves an' stibble,
Has cost thee mony a weary nibble!
Now thou's turn'd out, for a' thy trouble,
But house or hald,
To thole the winter's sleety dribble,
An' cranreuch cauld!

But, Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain;
The best-laid schemes o' mice an 'men
Gang aft agley,
An'lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

Still thou art blest, compar'd wi' me
The present only toucheth thee:
But, Och! I backward cast my e'e.
On prospects drear!
An' forward, tho' I canna see,
I guess an' fear!

:) just love that poem

realistically the only things that can happen to a country are

1. Victory in present borders with present government

2. Victory in present borders with another government

3. Victory with altered border and present government

4. Victory with altered borders and different government

5. Defeat with numbers 2 & 3 of the above

6. Occupation

7. Civil war

8. Destruction of entire population

Which do you think is most likely in the case of Iran ? I think it's bombing combined number 3 and long term attempt to overthrow the current government.

MrClean

02-28-2006, 04:39 AM

First I would like to say that at the time the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a MUCH MORE complex issue than just oil and WMD's. And when you say "if the U.S.A invades Iran for it's oil, using WMD's as an excuse." I see it as a reference to the invasion of Iraq, of which WMD's WERE NOT an excuse, they were fact. Saddam had biological/chemical weapons and used them on his own people, fact. I mean no disrespect, but I see that as a kind of uneducated statement.

Anyway, back on topic...

I seriously doubt the possibility of any U.S. led invasion/military action in Iran. This is because of many reasons but mainly because the U.S. knows that we'd just be sticking our finger in a Hornet's nest. If anyone thinks Iraq is bad, well... let's just say that American groundpounders are safer where they're at.

But maybe an Israeli led, U.S "backed" super secretive mission into the belly of the beast to destroy these strategically placed nuclear reactor/refining sites... who knows?

Gollevainen

02-28-2006, 05:08 AM

There have been some interesting discussions about chinese relations wiht Iran, but too much USA vs. Iran talk which isen't the issue of this thread. So gut it out!! When will you learn? When will you understand that you must not go offtopic, exspecially on area which is highly flamable? We had some good periods, i didn't need to close threads and give warnings for nearly month...where has it gone? That slight blossoming professionalism? That slight indication that we are finaly heading towards our destination? That slight promising future that i could be moderator instead of freaking kindergarden teacher?

SampanViking

02-28-2006, 09:00 AM

Hi Free Asia

Just goes to show, if you play with Nukes you run the risk of serious Burns!!

It is agreat poem, but it does need the right accent (Pte Frasier from Dads Army was just plum!!!).

But back on Topic. I think the possibility of Interplay between China and Japan for Oil Field Development Rights in Iran is a very interesting area for further examination.

This is especially true if these same Oil concessions start to strain US Japanese relations as the crisis unfolds. This could add very significantly to the future direction of Sino-Japanese relations.

I think we should also be following Chinese support for the Russian offer of enrichment processing in Russia.

Hi Gollevainen

This is my attempt to point the boat in the right direction, let me know if you think the tiller needs a further twilt.

DPRKPTboat

02-28-2006, 04:12 PM

I see it as a reference to the invasion of Iraq, of which WMD's WERE NOT an excuse, they were fact. Saddam had biological/chemical weapons and used them on his own people, fact. I mean no disrespect, but I see that as a kind of uneducated statement.

True, Saddam did have chem + bio weapons - in 1991! The last time he used these weapons was in the kUrdish rebellion. By the 21st century, the Iraqi special weapons programme was in much disrepair, as was the missile programme. If you look at all the wrecked iraqi missiles and bombers they found after the invasion, you'll see my point. Saddam only hada couple dozen missiles at the time of the iraq war. They were of poor quality anyway and did not pose much of a threat. Ifhe did have WMD, why didn't he use them coalition troops? It is likely the same issue in Iran - the iraninas don't posess modern nuclear technology. And the Shahab 3 missile programme, for all the mullah's tough talk (i'll agrue with anyone on this) is plauged by thechincal problems. The Iranians had to modify it twice just to get it working. And from what my sources tell me, over 50% of their missile tests failed. So I doubt that either countries ever posed much of a threat strategically. How's that for uneducated?!

adeptitus

02-28-2006, 05:01 PM

Some numbers:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0411-21.htm
According to the Department of Energy (DoE), Iran supplied 14% of China's oil imports in 2003, and is expected to provide an even larger share in the future. China is also expected to rely on Iran for a large share of its liquid natural gas (LNG) imports. In October 2004, Iran signed a $100 billion, 25-year contract with Sinopec, a major Chinese energy firm, for joint development of one of its major gas fields and the subsequent delivery of LNG to China.

ndia is also keen to obtain oil and gas from Iran. In January, the Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) signed a 30-year deal with the National Iranian Gas Export Corp. for the transfer of as much as 7.5 million tons of LNG to India per year. The deal, worth an estimated $50 billion, will also entail Indian involvement in the development of Iranian gas fields. Even more noteworthy, Indian and Pakistani officials are discussing the construction of a $3 billion natural gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan ¬ an extraordinary step for two long-term adversaries. If completed, the pipeline would provide both countries with a substantial supply of gas and allow Pakistan to reap $200-$500 million per year in transit fees. "The gas pipeline is a win-win proposition for Iran, India, and Pakistan," Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz declared in January.

IMO for the PRC, continued reliance on petro is suicidal in the long term. The government is trying to invest in nuclear and alternative energy, but it's moving slowly.

China has many geographical locations that are suitable for solar and wind farms. The solar panels today are better built and can last up to 40 years. It's been estimated that one of the best locations, the Sahara desert, can generate 50MW per sq km per day in solar energy @ 12% efficency. The Sahara desert is 9 million sq km in size. China's desert regions are not as "perfect" as the Sahara's for solar energy, but should generate at least half as much per sq km.

The downside to wind/solar energy is geographic limitions, higher cost, and longer break-even point. A nuclear or coal power plant can generate enough energy to reach break-even point at less than 1 month, versus solar power needs 5-7 years, plus the real estate. But our sun will prolly last 5 billion years, versus our petro reserves ??

coolieno99

03-01-2006, 12:21 AM

The economic ties between and China and Iran is extensive, as can be seen by the following article:

China's energy insecurity and Iran's crisis
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has gone on record stating that the fear of soaring energy prices should not deter the international community from imposing comprehensive sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. That is easier said than done, especially when looking at the dire economic and non-economic consequences of the current Iranian crisis for China, Iran's energy partner. In fact, the China-Iran connection transcends energy and covers a whole spectrum of economic activities - dam-building, steel mills, ship-building, transport and dozens of other projects. At present, more than 100 Chinese firms are involved in Iran, also cooperating to develop ports, jetties, airports in six cities, mine-development projects and, of course, oil and gas. Trade between the two countries in 2005 hit a new record of US$9.5 billion, compared with $7.5 billion in 2004. The world's media are nowadays awash with news of China's energy dependency on Iran weighing heavy on its policy considerations in light of the possible showdown at the United Nations Security Council next month over Iran's nuclear program and suspicions that it might want to develop a nuclear weapon - something Tehran vigorously denies. China currently gets 13.6% of its oil imports from Iran. Beijing is also in the process of importing Iranian natural gas. China's plan is to become a comprehensive participant in exploration, drilling, petrochemicals, pipelines and other upstream and downstream services related to Iran's oil and gas industries (see China rocks the geopolitical boat, November 6, 2004).
As the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' second-largest oil supplier, with a unique location straddling two main energy hubs, the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf, invoking the notion of an "energy Silk Road" to China, Iran is a natural partner for China and its booming economy's increasing appetite for foreign oil. China's total energy consumption in 2004 was about 2.3 times that in 1980. China's plans with Iran are both short-term and long-term; the latter includes a plan to secure a 386-kilometer pipeline connecting Iranian oil with another pipeline from Kazakhstan to China. China's demand for a stable Iranian - and Persian Gulf - supply of oil and gas is critical for its rapidly growing economy. As the world's second-largest oil consumer in the world after the United States, China has been a net oil importer since 2003; its dependence on foreign oil reached 40% in 2004. According to the Energy Information Agency, China alone accounted for one-third of global oil-demand growth during the period 2001-04. Still, its total oil imports accounted only for 6.6% of the total global oil trade in 2004.
According to experts, China's growing hunger for oil has been driven mainly by three factors: the increasing demand for personal mobility and good transport; a growing chemical industry that relies on petroleum products as feedstock; and using diesel-fired power generators as short-term solutions to provide needed electricity on-site when there is a national or regional electricity shortage. In the United States, there is considerable concern over a future US-China collision over energy. Last December, Joseph Lieberman, a high-ranking Democratic senator, raised the specter of military conflict between the two countries by stating: "We are heading towards two-thirds [reliance of] each country on ... foreign oil. Let's recognize this problem before it becomes an intense competition which can actually lead to military conflict." Last year, because of strong objections by the US Congress, China's $18 billion bid for a share of the US energy pie, that is, its quest to procure Unocal, the ninth-largest US oil company, was frustrated. That episode has brought into sharp focus the potential zero-sum energy game between the US and China. What worries China in this game is its heavy reliance on foreign intermediaries to transport most of its oil from the Middle East (where China obtained 45% of its imported oil in 2004) and Africa (which contributed to 29% of China's oil imports) to its ports, and its lack of navy capacity to protect oil cargoes on the high sea and patrol the Malacca Strait, through which four-fifths of its oil imports pass. To compensate for its sources of energy security, China has engaged in a spirited energy diversification, production-sharing and other creative oil contracts around the world, as well as beefing up its military power projections by, among other things, developing Gwadar Port in Pakistan's Balochistan province at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, some 400km from the Strait of Hormuz, at the estimated cost of $1.16 billion. Moreover, recently China consented to Iran's accession to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an observer, thus adding to the geostrategic dimension of its energy-led cooperation with Iran. Simultaneously, China's cooperation with other Persian Gulf countries - Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia - has increased dramatically recently. According to one China watcher penning in a recent issue of the Washington Quarterly, increased China-Saudi cooperation could translate into a weakening of the oil kingdom's US dependency. Conspicuously absent in the various commentaries on China and the Middle East is any serious consideration of what is actually loudly talked about in Tehran these days, that is, China's potential to contribute to regional security arrangements. :coffee:

For more see related link: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB10Ak01.html

Fairthought

03-03-2006, 01:22 PM

There are some facts that people need to keep in mind in this discussion:

1. Nuclear weapons technology is going to proliferate no matter what we do. You can't stop the march of technology. It is just a matter of time before every country has nuclear weapon technology.

2. No country can be trusted with nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are meant to threaten political opponents. It is coercive by its very nature. No country is a peaceful and responsible user of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons in any country's hands only increase the level of threat to world security. Paradoxically, the only way to counter that threat is to deter it with even more nuclear weapons.

3. Nuclear weapons are the best defense against aggression by a more powerful military force.

4. Nuclear weapons has altered the paradigm of warfare. It is a deterrence that works. Nuclear armed countries don't go to war with each other. They can only invade non-nuclear countries.

5. China has already tolerated nuclear weapons in far less stable hands than Iran: the North Korea Dictator. China is not likely to oppose a nuclear armed Iran, though publicly China will shun the prospect.

6. China has already penned a $100 billion gas development deal with Iran, potentially worth up to $200 billion in total trade. source (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK06Ak01.html)

7. China has one of the world's largest shipping fleets and is projected to overtake Japan and South Korea to become THE largest shipping country. This includes both container ships transporting manufactured goods to the west as well as enormous supertankers to insure oil deliveries to China. China's economy is projected to increasingly depend on oil and gas imports.

8. Iran is accused of threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the map. If threatening to annhilate another nation is grounds for denying them the right to nuclear weapons than consider this:

Israel has ALREADY wiped Palestine off the face of the map.

DPRKPTboat

03-30-2006, 02:47 PM

I take it everyone's heard the recent news that the United states will give Iran 30 days to comply. The question is - what if it doesn't? I reckon that it will be the Osarak raid all over again. This time it will be by U.S. warplanes against the reactor at Bushehr or the enrichment facility at Natanz. How will China and Russia react to this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4860492.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4859540.stm

The second article briefly mentions Russian and Chinese opposition. I've also had a thought. China could interfere in a less direct approach to help Iran defend itself against air attacks. The Iranian air defence syatem is dated. But China can help there.
If I was Hu Jintao, and my intelligence services were telling me the U.S. and Israel were planning air strikes against Bushehr and Natanz, then I would use this action. Put it this way:

THE IRANIAN GROUND DEFENCES WOULD BE BRISTLING THE NEXT MORNING WITH HQ-9S AND HQ-7S:china:

IDonT

03-30-2006, 03:26 PM

coolieno99

03-30-2006, 03:44 PM

Correction: UN security council gives Iran 30 days to comply. There is a difference. Yes, China vote for the resolution. The real contention is how to make Iran stop having nukes. ... etc ...

It will be very difficult to stop Iran from developing her own nuclear resources. Uranium occurs naturally inside Iran. At one time, China sent about 50 geologists to help Iran locate those resources within her border.
If Iran cannot attained nuclear technology "legally", then it would just follow India's, Pakistan's and Israel's footsteps and do it "illegally" ...:coffee:

MIGleader

03-30-2006, 04:32 PM

IDonT

03-30-2006, 04:42 PM

If Iran has any nukes, the first to go would be israel. however, if Iran ever got the idea of developing IRBMs, im not so certain China would risk her own safety and help out.

Iran stands as china's second outpost in the middle east. China shall utilize Iran to build relations with other OPEC nations. Put it this way: If China sells iran military equipment which is good, other middle eastern nations might take a good hard look at the prospect of buying cheap chinese weapons.

Why would they buy Chinese weapons when US or European ones are better. As long as they are not subject to embargo (Iran or Syria), they buy top of the line hardware. Just look at UAE and their AESA F-16s.

Also, I though China has a better relationship with Israel than with the Arab countries. Afterall, Israel did give them the Lavi design to base the J-10, etc.

walter

03-30-2006, 05:04 PM

If Iran has any nukes, the first to go would be israel. however, if Iran ever got the idea of developing IRBMs, im not so certain China would risk her own safety and help out.

Iran stands as china's second outpost in the middle east. China shall utilize Iran to build relations with other OPEC nations. Put it this way: If China sells iran military equipment which is good, other middle eastern nations might take a good hard look at the prospect of buying cheap chinese weapons.

Iran's Shahab 3 is said to be in limited service with the Iranian military and has the range to reach Israel--so if Iran truely wanted to go after Israel (biological or chemical weapons, assuming they do not yet have nukes or if they do have not been able to integrate one on a BM) they could. However, despite the rhetoric, I doubt Iran would ever do such a dumb thing as the consequences would simply be too grave. By the way, Iran's missle tech comes mostly from North Korea, Russia and China--so no surprises there.

KYli

03-30-2006, 05:28 PM

Why would they buy Chinese weapons when US or European ones are better. As long as they are not subject to embargo (Iran or Syria), they buy top of the line hardware. Just look at UAE and their AESA F-16s.

Also, I though China has a better relationship with Israel than with the Arab countries. Afterall, Israel did give them the Lavi design to base the J-10, etc.
China has a better relationship with Arab countries than with Israel. China didn't recognize Israel until many years ago. I don't know about the Lavi design, lot of people agree and disagree with it associate with J10. But the Israel did help China in military modernization in many ways, Israel is a few countries willling to deal with China after the arm embargo. But it is strictly business and money, Israel didn't develop a close relationship with China. Even if it did, by cancel the phalcon AWAC from pressure by US. Israel has lost the friedship from China.

MIGleader

03-30-2006, 06:17 PM

Why would they buy Chinese weapons when US or European ones are better. As long as they are not subject to embargo (Iran or Syria), they buy top of the line hardware. Just look at UAE and their AESA F-16s.

Also, I though China has a better relationship with Israel than with the Arab countries. Afterall, Israel did give them the Lavi design to base the J-10, etc.

Because the technology gap will not remain. By 2008-2010, the j-10 might begin to rival the performance of the eurofighter of 2006. The hq-9 may be as good or better than the s-300pmu-2. China also produces a line of advanced radars and sensors. PLus, china can offer weapons with 80-90% the performance of Western weapons for only 50% of the cost.

I dont know if isreal lost the friendship of China. Post 2000, israel still offered many systems up until the u.s made them stop in 2004. But they just started again. But I have not seen Beijing buy many israeli subsystems lately, signifying a shift to domestic products instead.

coolieno99

03-30-2006, 07:22 PM

Why would they buy Chinese weapons when US or European ones are better. ... etc

As a national policy, the U.S. do not sell any kind of weapons to Iran. European military sales to Iran are somewhat monitor by U.S./Israel. It's very restrictive. On the otherhand, China goes beyond selling finished weapons to Iran. It actually sell production line as well. For example, China help Iran to start a production line for anti-ship missiles(Exocet type). This way Iran can produce as much anti-ship missiles as needed.

FriedRiceNSpice

03-30-2006, 07:26 PM

PLus, china can offer weapons with 80-90% the performance of Western weapons for only 50% of the cost.

Where do you get those figures? Do you have hard data proving the performance of Chinese and Western weapons? And do you have any facts showing the latest Chinese weapons are only 50% as expensive as their Western equivalents? Don't throw out random numbers and statistics if you cant back it up with sources and facts.

Finn McCool

03-30-2006, 07:43 PM

Iran's, and indeed the whole Middle East's importance to China or anyone is going to end. Its only a matter of time. Thus, nations that have lost the strategic race in the region or wish to wash their hands of it (US) should find a replacement of oil. The Middle East will always be volatile, but it is only valueable because of oil.

Kind of random.

coolieno99

03-30-2006, 08:26 PM

Where do you get those figures? Do you have hard data proving the performance of Chinese and Western weapons? And do you have any facts showing the latest Chinese weapons are only 50% as expensive as their Western equivalents? Don't throw out random numbers and statistics if you cant back it up with sources and facts.

Assuming Russian and Chinese cost are about the same, his speculation may have some truth to it. Here's an excerpt taken from Globalsecurity.org:

The S-300V (SA-12) low-to-high Altitude, tactical surface to air missile system also has anti-ballistic missile capabilities. The HQ-18 is reportedly the designation of a Chinese copy of the Russian S300V, though the details of this program remain rather conjectural. In early 1996 Russia astounded the United States Army by marketing the Russian SA-12 surface-to-air missile system in the UAE in direct competition with the United States Army's Patriot system. Rosvooruzheniye offered the UAE the highest-quality Russian strategic air defense system, the SA-12 Gladiator, as an alternative to the Patriot at half the cost. The offer also included forgiveness of some of Russia's debt to the UAE.

SteelBird

03-30-2006, 10:45 PM

:off I think you all have gone off topic! No one seems talk about is Iran important to China or how import it is to China. :)

But let me ask one more off topic question: Nowaday, the world all fighting for oil, do you how long does it take for oil to run out? And what will happen then?

FriedRiceNSpice

03-31-2006, 01:43 AM

Assuming Russian and Chinese cost are about the same, his speculation may have some truth to it. Here's an excerpt taken from Globalsecurity.org:

The S-300V (SA-12) low-to-high Altitude, tactical surface to air missile system also has anti-ballistic missile capabilities. The HQ-18 is reportedly the designation of a Chinese copy of the Russian S300V, though the details of this program remain rather conjectural. In early 1996 Russia astounded the United States Army by marketing the Russian SA-12 surface-to-air missile system in the UAE in direct competition with the United States Army's Patriot system. Rosvooruzheniye offered the UAE the highest-quality Russian strategic air defense system, the SA-12 Gladiator, as an alternative to the Patriot at half the cost. The offer also included forgiveness of some of Russia's debt to the UAE.

Yes, there may be examples of certain Chinese/Russian weapons systems that are half the cost of American equivalents, but there are many other cases where they are not. Mig 29s are not half as costly as F-16s. Su-27s are not half as costly as F-15s. Also, you cannot say one weapons system is x% as capable as another. Capability cannot be measured in numerical, quantitive terms.

Nethappy

03-31-2006, 04:28 AM

Well really doesn't matter, Iran is improtant to China. As China is improtant to Iran.

Why Iran is important to China
1) Iran should be one of China way into Middle east affair.
2) Iran is one of the few option china has into middle east supply of oil. As most the other place is alrady dominated by the USA.
3) Iran is China political tool, with the extensive economic ties between and China and Iran (the large amount of money China has invested in Iran), China has some kinda political Influence over Iran. It like a bargaining chip as North Korea is.

Why China important to Iran
1) China will buy there oil, no matter what people said.
2) Chinese dollar, they need to investment.
3) They know they have something China need, so China is kinda Iran political too, e.g. U.N national Security counil, China said it would veto any hard-line santions.
4) China is a county which would almost sell Iran any weapon it need, expect the nuke.

Well in the end of the day, if Iran want to get a nuke, there is nothing anyone can do about it, it just a whole political show of words!

1) Israel Airstike not going to do much, maybe hold i back for a few year and if the Israel do attack in anyway would turn thew Palestinian/Israel border into a bloodbath.
IMO I think the Iranian should buy more Air defence stuff of China.

2) US airstrike maybe, invasion is impossible the US military is overstretched, and attacking Iran isn't the same as Iraq or Afhgan, Iran going to be 100 time harder to deal with then Iraq will ever be. Most important any kinda attack would most likely turn Iraq in a bloodbath and maybe even the Afhgan.

3) Most European country are to afraid of terrorist attack or sometime like 911 happening in it country to ever consider Military action is an option.

4) UN SC, any heavy santion that would affect the Chinese and Russian would Veto it cos it who hurt there economic intrest and even if the west manage to get some kinda santion though the UN SC, Iran still got it Oil money.

5) Every nation know if anything happen it going affect the oil price, and it going to hurt every economically.

It really doesn't matter if the Iran has the bomb, cos it would never use it, I dun think any country with the bomb nowday would use it. The Iranian leader a not stupid, they know if they ever use one they a going be bombed off the map of the world or at lease bak to stone age and I can insure by then not even the Chinese or Russian will side with them. They would also do everything within there power to stop these nuke from reaching these terrorist, cos they know if any thing happen with nuke involvement they are going to take a very large part of the blame. You gotta understand, supply AK, RPG, and C4 to them is different then supplying a nuke. Anyway it all just for a political show, a sign of national pride and most important nation security.

No matter how crazy there President may seem, I still dun blame them for trying so damn hard to get the bomb. Having their country labelling as part of the 'axis of evil', and seeing the same nation who creating the so call 'axis of evil' invade Iraq (ex member of 'axis of evil') and having load of troop rite in there backyards, they have every reason to be worry.

If the west is really dat concern about so call Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the map, and denying them the right to nuclear weapons. They
should really look into the Israel problem frist, they have the nuke although they didn't use it, Israel has almost already wiped Palestine off the face of the map. If the Israel/Palestine broader isn't a messes, I dun thinke the Iranian would ever make such threat. "WHAT IF" India was about to wipe Pak of the face of the world and China treat to wipe India of the face of the world, would dat deny China right to nuclear weapons, who the West make such a big fuss about China as they a make about Iran. I know it never going happen so remenber I said WHAT IF. But it the same thing just happening in different place.

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

This I agree with ya, and some time Fear of Pre-Emptive may push leader into doing something stupid they wouldn't off normally.

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!

Well for your info the biggest loser will not be China, but the USA. If the Middleeast and persian Gulf becomes a warzone because of a USA or Israel attack, USA going be rite in the middle of if. The rise of oil prices and the stopping of shipping though the persian gulf may cause a economic problem for the Chinese, but like-wisethe rest of the world, it going hurt everyone one. But on one in Asian or Western world will feel it bad at the USA think of the cost of the war, cost of life, the chance of another 911 happening and the economic problem (The shape of the USA economcally isn't the of all, for your info it actuality in some kinda crise at the moment). It could be worse then the great depression for the world and to USA also worse then vietnam war will ever be.

DPRKPTboat

03-31-2006, 11:24 AM

OK, so we've got some idea about the relations between Iran and China - now anwnser my question. Is it possible that China may help in Modernising Iran's air defence so it can protect its nuclear facilities from attacking U.S. aircraft? There were some rumours that China and North Korea helped to partially rebuild the Iraqi air defence system - their new fibre-optic cables may have come from either country. China may try a similar thing with Iran - that would make an air strike risky.
I think a repeat of the Osirak incident is possible and may happen - its the only option left If Bush really wants to prevent Iran from having a nuclear programme. But I think it could result in the downing of a plane and the possible capture of a pilot, if China helps modernise Iran's air defences - and if you see all those flak cannons stationed around Bushehr and Natanz, its clear that the Iranians expect an attack, and so would want better SAMs and AAA.

Su-34

03-31-2006, 11:40 AM

If Iran has many S-300 batteries and Tor M-1s, Iran no need fear air attack. So, this means Iran has adequate air defence. If not, they wouldn't have resumed nuclear activities.

DPRKPTboat

03-31-2006, 11:53 AM

If Iran has many S-300 batteries and Tor M-1s, Iran no need fear air attack. So, this means Iran has adequate air defence. If not, they wouldn't have resumed nuclear activities.

Do they posess either of these missiles? Russia sure has been handing out its weapons to a lot of people. I'm not so sure how many they would have though. Those AA guns outside Natanz look very old...
But what about communication and tracking in their system? I hear that Iranian strategic radar is mostly old Chinese Miao-9. Their radar is only about as good as Iraqi radar in both Gulf wars. And that sucked. It didn't detect aircraft flying low-level strike missions, which I think will be the tactic used in an airstrike on Natanz or Bushehr. And how modern is their communication system? Is it fibre optic cables or just guys using telephones? China could help there to, given their growing electronics industry.

DPRKPTboat

03-31-2006, 12:05 PM

Here's an article on the Iraqi air defence system. There is a brief mention of how China may have helped to rebuild it. I see every possibility that it will also attempt to enhance the Iranian system. Look under residential sites at the 6th paragraph:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2829901.stm

Iraq's repairs to its overall control system are said to have included the installation of fibre optic communication cables.

These were allegedly of Chinese origin - though both China and Iraq denied press reports to that effect.

British defence sources have also said that Serbia, under the former President Milosevic, helped to rebuild underground air defence facilities in Iraq.

Nethappy

03-31-2006, 12:13 PM

1) U.S. Airstike is no an option, unless a reallly risking a bloodbath in Iraq.

To your question!
IMO, yes China mostly likely help in modernising Iran's air defence so it can protect its nuclear facilities from attacking U.S. aircraft.

1) Instability, in term of a major war or bloodbath in the middle-east is the last thing China would want or need cos it need to oil feed it oil hungry.

2) It could use it capablities too enchance Iranian Air defence as a bagraining chip when they signing the oil contract.

3) It would give China a chance to sell it weapon aboad and possible have they weapon tested in real combat.

4) If the a Chinese upgraded Iranian Air defence manage to down a US plane, it would add great creditability to the chinese technogly, and in a China way, it we gain a lot of face. But if it dun, they can just shoulder all the blame on the Iranian with stuff like, they had not had enough training, or it was a Iranian technical mistake dat cause the system to fail, etc.

If Iran has many S-300 batteries and Tor M-1s, Iran no need fear air attack. So, this means Iran has adequate air defence. If not, they wouldn't have resumed nuclear activities.
Well IMO it more like HQ-9 (FT-2000), fully integrated with FM-80/FM-90, I reckon it may not be the brightest thing out there but.. it still be read effective.

DPRKPTboat

03-31-2006, 01:37 PM

To your question!
IMO, yes China mostly likely help in modernising Iran's air defence so it can protect its nuclear facilities from attacking U.S. aircraft.

1) Instability, in term of a major war or bloodbath in the middle-east is the last thing China would want or need cos it need to oil feed it oil hungry.

2) It could use it capablities too enchance Iranian Air defence as a bagraining chip when they signing the oil contract.

3) It would give China a chance to sell it weapon aboad and possible have they weapon tested in real combat.

4) If the a Chinese upgraded Iranian Air defence manage to down a US plane, it would add great creditability to the chinese technogly, and in a China way, it we gain a lot of face. But if it dun, they can just shoulder all the blame on the Iranian with stuff like, they had not had enough training, or it was a Iranian technical mistake dat cause the system to fail, etc.

Well IMO it more like HQ-9 (FT-2000), fully integrated with FM-80/FM-90, I reckon it may not be the brightest thing out there but.. it still be read effective.

Indeed. Not only would China gain a propaganda victory from the fact that its missiles are able to shoot down U.S. aircraft, but it would also be useful to Iran - not only would it also be a propaganda sucess for them to shoot down a U.S. aggressor, but the capture of a pilot could be just as useful to them as a bargaining chip as Gary Powers was to the Soviet Union.
You're right about Iran using Chinese idigenous missiles. I don't think China would give up its S-300s. If Iran wnated those, it would have to look to Russia.

MIGleader

03-31-2006, 04:02 PM

Yes, there may be examples of certain Chinese/Russian weapons systems that are half the cost of American equivalents, but there are many other cases where they are not. Mig 29s are not half as costly as F-16s. Su-27s are not half as costly as F-15s. Also, you cannot say one weapons system is x% as capable as another. Capability cannot be measured in numerical, quantitive terms.

Earlier (70's models) of the f-15 was a little over $25 million a piece(In 1976, isreal bought some in 1976 for 16$ million a piece). The modern jf-17, which is almost definitly superior to the 70's f-15s(Radar, missles, safety), only costs 15 million dollars.

Totoro

03-31-2006, 05:58 PM

Well, we don't know if fc17 is really gonna be 15 million, or 20 or bit more. But that's still one hell of a cheap fighter for what it offers. It can not possibly be over 40 mill with all the support equipment, armament, etc. Closest thing in its class, gripen, is some 90 million with all the support/equipment/weapons, 73 mil being fly away price. Or f16 that poland got, 55 million fly away price, final price per plane 83 million.

su30mk2 that china got in....i believe it was 2002? , those costed 40 million a piece. I believe that's fly away price but it's still hell of a lot cheaper than f15, still cheaper than f18. Of course, capabilities are diffrent...and are hard to assess.

As for iran... fortifying its comm network, making it redundant, getting new sam systems (haven't heard they have s300 but i do believe there were some articles they got some tor batteries. can anyone confirm?) - thats all nice and dandy but it takes time to implement. At least months to probably a year. More for really good training. I guess Iran just doesn't see itself being attacked anytime soon. Which may be true... it does seem like there's more to be lost than gained in the long run by postponing iran's nuclear program with an airstrike due to the unrest in world's oil economy.

MIGleader

03-31-2006, 07:02 PM

Just a correction, the mkk2s were recieved in 2004.:)
The fact that the jf-17 can attain a 15 million $ dollar pirce is incredible seeing how the plane's only production is for export. There are no military orders to drive the price down, an advantage which the f-16 and gripen both have.

FriedRiceNSpice

03-31-2006, 07:42 PM

The FC-1 and the F-15 are not equivalent...
They were created during different eras. When I say equivalent, I mean same purpose, same role, same technology, same time period. And it is arguable whether FC-1 is superior to the first models of F-15s anyways.

darth sidious

03-31-2006, 08:33 PM

Nethappy

03-31-2006, 08:43 PM

DPRKPTboat

04-01-2006, 04:33 AM

Nethappy

04-01-2006, 06:31 AM

Realistically!!!
Is bombing Iran Americans only option if all diplomatic option fail to force Iran to stop there enrichment operation?
No. they can always learn to live with it cos most likely one of the main reason the Iran want the bomb is cos the Americans.

There was never any chance negotiate would of success while the US is,
1) Pushing for a regime change
2) Doesn't accept the existence of an Iranian Islamic Republic
3) Being labelling as part of the 'axis of evil'
4) Having troop in there backyards after the invasion of Ex member of 'axis of evil' Iraq.
The answer is NO

Iran has a low history of invasions and is always wary of it neighbors, and now encirled by countries that possess the atom bombs: Russian, Pakistan, India, Israel and the USA. It just see the nuclear card as a way to buy security guarantees for the counrty. So as long as they feel threated nothing going stop them from getting the bomb.

How long would an airstike slow the Iran nuke program, at best 3-4 years. You can bomb the nuclear sites, air defence and retaliation machinery at much as you want, but you can't bomb know-how.

The cost of a miliary would well outweight the benefits, I repeat many time the kinda reaction Iran most likey give dun wanna repeat again.

The PLA wouldn't set up their own SAM bases in Iran to protect it, for example. As I have said, the most likely option would be to supply Iran with modern SAMs, AAA, Radar, communications and control systems so that it is capable of shooting down an attacking American aircraft. And there definetly would be PLA technicians and advisors in Iran to provide assistance. China could always deny that it ever did this, like it did with Iraq.

True PLa wouldn't set up their own SAM bases in Iran to protect it, but it would supply Iran with modern SAMs, AAA, Radar and C3I. But I dun find any need for the Chinese to deny anything. If China supply C-802 to Iran, nothing will stop them from supply AD equipment to Iran. What can the Europeans or Americans saction and already sactioned miltiary tech trade. Saction Chinese economy and slow down and damage thier own economy while they at it.

Americans dun really have any option, unless they are willing to negotiate, without all these criticize, threat and all the other stuff.

FreeAsia2000

04-03-2006, 06:12 AM

Has anybody READ Emanual Todd's book "End of Empire" ?

He has a fascinating perspective on future international relations

adeptitus

04-04-2006, 08:32 PM

It really doesn't matter in current situation, the West will never sell it weapon to Iran. Iran can only get any thing decent of China and Russia.
Mind we go bak to topic
Here is a some question?
How far do u think the US will go to stop Iran?
more important
How far do u think China will go to help protect Iran?
Cos it really hard for us to said how important is Iran to the Chinese leader!
But by seeing the reaction they give we can have a wild guess.

1) The US is willing to drop precision/stand-off munitions on critical Iranian nuclear facilities.
2) The PRC may complain loudly, but take no action.

The UN Security Council, which includes the PRC, voted unanimously last week to give Iran 30 days to suspend its uranium enrichment. IAEA inspectors are arriving in Iran this month to confirm Iran's compliance.

If Iran comply with the order and place its nuclear facilities under IAEA monitoring, then the US will have no justification for attacking Iran over the nuclear issue. To quote US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

"I think this does send a very strong signal to Iran that the international community is united and expects Iran to adhere to the just demands... that its nuclear activities be demonstrably for civilian purposes and that there are ways that Iran can have a civil nuclear programme, that's not an issue."

I think we all know that Iran has plenty of hydrocarbon reserves and does not need nuclear power for its energy needs. While the US is not opposed to Iran having a civlian nuclear program, it's not willing to accept a nuclear-armed Iran because that would hamper, or even eliminate conventional military option against Iran (possibly) sometime in the future. The Iranians, on the other hand, sees a nuclear stockpile as insurance against US invasion, of which the Iranians cannot possibly defeat with conventional weapons.

From China's self-interest point of view, as long as the US does not blocade, invade, or occupy Iran, having the USAF drop a couple bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities will have little or no long-term impact on PRC's ability to import oil and gas from Iran. Also, by dropping bombs on Iran, it may push the Iranians closer toward China & Russia, and put more effort on land-based pipes for hydrocarbon exports to the PRC.

It's not to the PRC's advantage of have a nuclear-armed Iran... the kind of fallout that may occur from an Israeli-Iranian nuclear exchange would cause serious harm to the world economy.

Nethappy

04-05-2006, 12:44 PM

The UN Security Council, which includes the PRC, voted unanimously last week to give Iran 30 days to suspend its uranium enrichment. IAEA inspectors are arriving in Iran this month to confirm Iran's compliance.

Yes, the UN Security COuncil did unanimously or generally voted last week to give Iran 30 days to suspend its uranium enrichment. BUT Russia and China has stated it will be against any hard sanction or military action to be taken aganist Iran. Both countries has VETO power within the Security Council. Pls dun take pieces out of news that could help your arguement, use the whole piece.

I think we all know that Iran has plenty of hydrocarbon reserves and does not need nuclear power for its energy needs. While the US is not opposed to Iran having a civlian nuclear program, it's not willing to accept a nuclear-armed Iran because that would hamper, or even eliminate conventional military option against Iran (possibly) sometime in the future. The Iranians, on the other hand, sees a nuclear stockpile as insurance against US invasion, of which the Iranians cannot possibly defeat with conventional weapons.

As I said once again, why would Iran need a Nuclear weapon so that it has an insurance against US invasion if it don't feel threated in the frist place. The US are not willing to accept another nuclear-armed country just because it would eliminate the prossibly of an US invasion of that country (possibly) sometime in the future. What kinda reasoning is that?

Well IMO many European country and the US is trying to use this so-call crisis to take attention of domestic problem.

From China's self-interest point of view, as long as the US does not blocade, invade, or occupy Iran, having the USAF drop a couple bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities will have little or no long-term impact on PRC's ability to import oil and gas from Iran. Also, by dropping bombs on Iran, it may push the Iranians closer toward China & Russia, and put more effort on land-based pipes for hydrocarbon exports to the PRC.

China's self interest is to keep it growing economic growing. A few bombs dropped on Iran will have a greater impact on not just the China but the world economic then u think. The rise of oil price in recent year already created a great problem for Business, especially in the transportation sector. This include the USA.

China import 14% of it gas from Iran anything which could effect this supply or push oil world oil price up will create a major problem for it oil hunger economic.

Insurgent in Iraq's, turmoil in Nigeria, Hurricane KATRINA and continous possibility of OPEC production cut has already toll on oil price. So it in the world interest to keep oil price down.

Even without the bomb dropped this whole crisis would already push the Iranians closer toward China & Russia.

It's not to the PRC's advantage of have a nuclear-armed Iran... the kind of fallout that may occur from an Israeli-Iranian nuclear exchange would cause serious harm to the world economy.

A nuclear exchange between Israeli-Iranian, is never going happen and we all know it. A fear of Nuclear exchange may force the two country on the table.
There really NO possibly of any Nuclear exchange between any Nuclear armed country in the world, cos everyone know what the outcome would be. The Bomb is seen more as a bargaining tool nowaday, everyone who is armed with the bomb have a bigger voice.