Don't Misread Iran and China

Actually, Iran's rise is really bad news for China. China's economy can't grow without oil. And most of China's oil is imported. Its top oil source is Saudi Arabia. Its second is Iran. The only way the oil can get to China by sea is through the Persian Gulf into the narrow Strait of Hormuz. Iran sits on the Strait's northern shore. Any armed conflict with Iran would effectively shut down the shipping lanes and put a serious crimp on China's oil supply. Very bad for Chinese national security.

China is taking a very risky gamble on Iran. It has bet the economic farm on a stable Middle East, yet its second largest oil supplier is the region's most de-stabilizing force. China doesn't hold all the cards in this game. In fact, they're all in, and very exposed.

China desperately needs the rise of a peaceful Iran -- not an adventurist, militaristic Iran. Here, the US and China's national interests strongly align. We must work together with the Chinese at the coming G-5 plus 1 talks to corral Iran's weak regime into becoming the kind of regional actor that is safe for China's energy security, and therefore safe for the world.

Remember, sanctions that bite Iran will bite China, too. To work at odds with China, which still holds a lot more leverage over Iran than we do, would be a near guarantee of failure.

 

 

Comments

[sc300nc]

Don't forget that China owns a huge portion of our debt and we want them to continue buying more of it. Our failed economic policies will end up biting us in the butt.

[wwoody]

For whatever the reason, oil and blood don't mix. China is not going to go along with sanction, neither is Russia, just look at their track record, when it come to their interest in the Middle East, they may not necessary agree with Iran nuclear program, but they will accept it protect their own national security and that the bottom line.

[Wisdo]

"The regions most destabilising force" is Israel.

How many countries has Iran invaded?

How many nukes does Israel have?

[duxguts]

I'm sure the Chinese will be greatly impressed if Israel attacks Iran and cuts off a major source of their oil.

[alysheba 3]

".........­yet its second largest oil supplier is the region's most de-stabilizing force."

That's funny I thought you said China's second largest oil supplier was Iran, not Israel.

[fusionfan]

What evidence to you have that Iran is becoming "adventurist or militaristic"? The only adventurist and militaristic country in that part of the world seems to be the U.S.

[mommadona]

One look at "Ferengi" ish ImADinnerJacket's eyes will bring that reality to fruition.

This man believes an invisible imam floating out there somewhere is gonna come down and grab all those Muslims up inna rapture...­..

Sound familiar?

"You Betcha!"

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111484

[piul05]

A little correction: China's biggest oil supplier is Angola.

http://www.oilvoice.com/n/Angola_Becomes_Largest_Oil_Supplier_to_China_Saudi_Arabia_in_second_place/2c705b7c.aspx

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=aqJ3Wjxs.OWs&refer=africa

[diggg]

There is also now a major pipeline running into China from Siberia, which is completely ignored in this article.

I enjoy and subscribe to Mr. Haft's articles..­. this one could have used a bit more work however.

[WorkingClass]

Who will go to war with Iran? It wont be the United States because China won't loan us the money. It wont be Israel or Saudi Arabia because without the Americans they would be crushed. It wont be Iraq for obvious reasons. Iran is the new hegemon in the region and China the new Superpower.

[OzzieTonto]

I can't follow your thinking: surely Israel is the local hegemon, and the US is still the dominant superpower, anywhere: don't think that because of financial difficulties, the Pentagon isn't capable of launching a war. Look at the track record: for aggression and invasion, possession of weapons of mass destruction, Israel and America leave everyone else for dead. Write to your congressman, Americans: get ready to campaign against the war that Obama, Sarkozy and Gordon Brown are already beating the drum for.

[altohone]

An armed conflict MUST be justified.
So far, it hasn't been.

Claims that "Iran is the most destabilizing force in the region" should be justified too.

Saudi Arabia recognized the Taliban, and still is a source for their funding.
9/11 was mostly Saudis.
Most attackers caught attacking Americans in Iraq were Saudi, not Iranian.
The price of oil is manipulated by Saudi Arabia.
A monarchy that coddles radical theocrats is not stabilizing.


BTW, I'm against another conflict based on cooked intelligence and an orchestrated media campaign, but who really will cry for the communists in China if they lose their oil?
Not Chevron.

[alysheba 3]

I'm sure America and Israel will "justify" a war on Iran. It may take 5 or 6 tries (like it did to justify the war with Iraq), but eventually they will probably get it.

[stpmdn]

You miss a big point. China doesn't want the US to control middle east oil. They rather have a militristic iran that is against the US interest than a iran that is controlled by the US. Because if US controls Iran the control they control all of middle east oil.