How important is Iran to China?

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?

Click to expand...

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

Baibar of Jalat said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

FuManChu said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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...

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.

DPRKPTboat said:

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:

Click to expand...

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:

DPRKPTboat said:

....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.

Click to expand...

=> 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 ....