Chas Freeman has a piece on “The China Factor on Iran’s Nuclear Strategy” as part of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ (CSIS) Critical Questions series.
Freeman argues that China’s reluctance to impose further sanctions on Iran is a result both of its growing economic relationship with the Islamic Republic as well as its reluctance to interfere in the sovereign decisions of other states.
Furthermore, China does not perceive Iran’s nuclear program as a direct threat to its security and does not feel the same obligation to maintain global stability that the United States does.
For more on this topic, I highly recommend reading Moving (Slightly) Closer to Iran: China’s Shifting Calculus for Managing Its Persian Gulf Dilemma, a monograph co-authored by John Garver, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett published this past Fall.
The authors argue in part that China is slowly moving toward Iran as it balances its interest in friendly relations with the United States with its interest in securing a steady flow of Iran’s energy resources.
– Ben Katcher
Wigwag, perhaps you should read Katcher’s piece about Iranian energy. You seem to have this obsessive fascination with the Iranian nuclear bogeyman. However, much of the world–China and Russia–don’t particularly see that as the major issue. You need to consider that maybe the US “attack Iran” proponents are merely creating a made for TV drama, like the Iraqi WMD saga, to justify belligerency, when the real crux of the issue is totally removed from the often alleged, but totally unproven nuclear weapons program.
“We are witnessing a new pattern of energy cooperation at the regional level that dispenses with Big Oil. Russia traditionally takes the lead. China and Iran follow the example. Russia, Iran and Turkmenistan hold respectively the world’s largest, second-largest and fourth-largest gas reserves. And China will be consumer par excellence in this century. The matter is of profound consequence to the US global strategy.”
http://qwstnevrythg.com/2010/01/russia-china-iran-redraw-energy-map/
Don’t you find it strange that the US is not in the least concerned about Asia divvying up its energy resources without even consulting the US? The US is acting publicly like, “What, me worry?”
You don’t suppose that all the bloviating about the alleged Iranian weapons program is largely a psyops campaign by those who want to take military control of major energy assets not currently under US control, kind of like what happened in Iraq? Or in the worst case, to stoke tensions enough to justify ever more massive increases in “defense” spending and contractor profits?
“Wigwag says, “so Freeman thinks that IF Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will inevitably be interested in doing the same.” But the latest NIE states clearly that Iran does NOT have a nuke program” (JohnH)
Don’t tell it to me, JohnH, go tell it to Chas Freeman. He obviously thinks that the Iranians are seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. So do Freeman’s patrons, the Saudis. It looks like the Chinese think so too; after all they did vote with Russia, the US and the European nations to censure Iran for failing to declare a second secret enrichment facility. As you know, the vote against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency was pretty overwhelming. It looks like most of the nations in the world disagree with you about Iranian intentions when it comes to nuclear weapons.
It’s not personal, Iranian, it’s business. Anyway, all I said was that Goodwin had said nothing new. I wasn’t taking offense at that. I’m perfectly willing to read him, but I’d like to get something I haven’t read or heard before. There’s only so much time . . . .
Wigwasg says, “so Freeman thinks that IF Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will inevitably be interested in doing the same.” But the latest NIE states clearly that Iran does NOT have a nuke program. Yet people like Wigwag carp incessantly about the need for sanctions.
Certainly, the Iranian regime, rational actors according to the NIE, takes into account the sensitivities of the Chinese as well as domino effects of their actions. This line of thinking bolsters the case of those who do not believe that sanctions are necessary to stop Iran from developing a nuke.
So let’s get this straight: the administration is pursuing sanctions to stop a nuclear program it knows to be non-existent? Yeah, right! Just like the rationale for the Iraq War, where neither the IAEA nor anyone else could find WMDs.
Time for a little honesty in foreign policy…
jon Harrison: You take everything so personal. I agree he is a neocon but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t read what other think..
Goodwin’s piece for Fox is likewise nothing new. The Fox News line has never deviated one iota from that of the neocons.
IIC CALL FOR ACTION against sale of anti-riot trucks by the Chinese government to IRI
http://iranian.com/main/blog/mm/iic-call-action-sale-anti-riot-trucks-chinese-government-iri
MICHAEL GOODWIN: On a Glide Path to Accepting a Nuclear-Armed Iran
By Michael Goodwin
– FOXNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/11/michael-goodwin-obama-iran-blow-nukes/
This has been true for the past ten years. Nothing new…
There isn’t anything new in Freeman’s piece. Everything he has to say has been obvious for some time.
Saudi Arabia would undoubtedly go nuclear if Iran did. The question of al-Qaeda obtaining a nuclear bomb as a result is highly speculative. The real nuclear danger from terrorists is the possibilty that they will one day set off a “dirty bomb,” i.e., a conventional explosive laced with radioactive material. This danger exists whether other Islamic countries (besides Pakistan) go nuclear or not. Al-Qaeda does not possess the capability to set off a nuclear weapon, assuming it got its hands on one. The danger of al-Qaeda getting the bomb (again, excluding a so-called dirty weapon) is about as great as an asteroid hitting the earth in our lifetime. It’s not something one need stay up nights worrying about.
Thanks to Ben Katcher for linking to the Chas Freeman essay on how the Chinese view Iran; I never thought I would agree almost entirely with an opinion expressed by Chas Freeman, but I think that in this essay he is largely on target. When Chas Freeman speaks about China he is entitled to be taken seriously; he knows China; he accompanied Richard Nixon to China and like Flynt Leverett himself he’s expressed indifference if not disdain for what happened to the student demonstrators in Tiananmen Square.
Freeman provides a compelling argument (similar to the arguments made by Katcher and the Leveretts at the “Race for Iran”) that China has its own interests in Iran and will thus never acquiesce to a robust sanctions regime. But of course, this is only relevant if the sanctions are expected to motivate Iran to change its behavior. If sanctions are merely viewed as a politically necessary prerequisite to a subsequent military attack than Chinese (or Russian) support for sanctions is beside the point. Obama can implement any sanctions he can get; wait a decent interval and then launch the military attacks that seem inevitable. By the way, there has been some discussion at the “Race for Iran” about whether Obama is being backed into a corner where he is trapped into launching attacks whether he wants to or not. I think the commentators who make this argument are right; but they are in no position to complain; that’s what happens when you vote for an inexperienced neophyte.
Of course, Katcher passed right over one of the most interesting comments Freeman made in his essay. He said,
“Many in Beijing are aware of the potential domino effect of Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons on (a) Israeli efforts to eliminate the threat of those weapons and (b) Saudi Arabia’s inevitable interest in acquiring nuclear weapons in response to Iran’s acquisition of same. On the latter point, Saudi energy exports to China are greater than those from Iran, and Saudi concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a factor in China’s thinking as well.”
So Freeman thinks that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will inevitably be interested in doing the same. This is a very interesting observation coming from someone who knows the Saudis inside and out (he’s shilled for them for years).
It’s interesting that Israel has had nuclear weapons for 40 years and the Saudis never felt motivated to acquire their own but Iran contemplates a nuclear arsenal and the Saudis move into action. Given that the animosity between Shia and Sunni has historically been even more vitriolic than the animosity between Israel and its Sunni Arab adversaries it would be very interesting and scary to watch a nuclear arms race between Iran and the Sunni World. If nuclear arms from Saudi Arabia or any of the other Sunni Arab states were to fall into the hands of Al Qaeda or another Salafist group does anyone doubt that those Shia apostates in Iran would be their target of choice?