Skip to main content

Commentary on U.S. - Chinese Relations and Iran, Evans Liberal Politics, April 20, 2010, by Paul Evans (seawolf1957):

First, some background.

Watch, Google turns to NSA after China Cyber Attack, for Russia Today's hostile view of the coming cyber war between the United States and China. More hostile Russia Today video at Tarpley: US gov uses Google proxy to attack China, Is China about to give in to the US?, which is more about the new proposed fourth round of sanctions against Iran, and for a general idea of what's going on in cyberspace, see The Great Cyber Wall of China, about Google's move from mainland China to Hong Kong.

Analysis and commentary below:

Recently there has been a distinct thaw in U.S. - Chinese relations. In the context of the censorship battle and Chinese web filtering, and ongoing simmering cyberwarfare between the United States and China, as well as disputes about currency rates (the "dirty float" by China in currency exchange rates), and also disputes over tariffs, what we are seeing is an ongoing internal dispute within China between two factions.

There is a group of "globalists" who want to more realistically fix the out-of-balance currency rates and to at least some extent reduce Chinese filtering of the internet, and are more realistic about foreign exchange and the problem of the U.S. trade deficit, versus the new guard or "youth league", who want to continue to keep China's currency low, yet fight tariffs and also have a strong "sovereignty", and strong filtering of the internet. The globalists are at least somewhat supportive of the proposed fourth round of sanctions against Iran coming up at the U.N. security council, while the more nationalistic "youth league" is pro-Iranian and is pushing for China to veto these sanctions.

In UPI's article Israel calls for sanctions against Iran, (UPI.com, April 19, 2010), it is claimed that "China has agreed in principle to join the four other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to support the sanctions." This, if true, represents a strong diplomatic victory for the United States, and is hopeful in terms of lessening the growing sense that military action against Iran might be necessary. The theory is that strong enough sanctions would force Iran to de-militarize their nuclear program, which all the evidence we have points towards.

The best U.S. intelligence places a pressing time limitation on how long diplomacy and sanctions have to work out some agreement with Iran. Our intelligence believes Iran will possess a nuclear warhead capable of being fitted on one of their intermediate range missiles, which could for example strike Tel Aviv, in about five months. The United States very likely, and Israel with strong certainty, would never allow this to happen before taking offensive military action. Thus, sanctions remain the best hope of maintaining peace in the region, and there is a very definite time limitation involved.

The next leader of China will in all likelihood determine which faction wins in China. Meanwhile, despite a recent thaw between the U.S. and China, the extent to which China will support strong sanctions against Iran in the U.N. Security Council remains a mystery until the Security Council meets. China could for example insist on watering down the sanctions until they don't have the necessary force to challenge Iran sufficiently so that they de-militarize their nuclear program. Enrichment hit 20 percent over a month ago, while only some three percent enrichment is necessary for nuclear energy purposes. . The U.S. "reasonableness" towards China on trade and tariff issues and our not pushing the internet filtering issue strongly at this point has everything to do with our need for China to be supportive of strong sanctions (which will include bans on foreign banking in Iran and Iranian banking outside of Iran) when they come up at an upcoming U.N. Security Council meeting. The underlying issues between our governments have not been solved, nor are they likely to be solved before the next leader of China emerges and either the globalists or the youth league emerges as the dominant faction there.

The U.S. government and western news sources have largely put out tentative reassurances that all will be well with regard to China being supportive of strong sanctions against Iran, but we have nothing official yet from the Chinese. There is a strong possibility that if China will not go along with these sanctions and vetoes the measure at the Security Council, we will be a lot further down the road to more probable military action against Iran. This is geopolitical gamesmanship of the highest order, with consequences of the strongest nature for world peace and stability.

Watch, Nuclear Next Step, on Evans Liberal Politics "News About Iran" page, wherein it is claimed that Iran had as of April 10th publicly announced that it had developed new nuclear fuel centrifuges which are five times as fast as previous centrifuges Iran possessed.

See, Iranian missile may be able to hit U.S. by 2015, Reuters, April 19, 2010, by Phil Stewart and Adam Entous.

See, Cyberattack on Google Said to Hit Passworld System, The New York Times on Evans Liberal Politics, April 20, 2010, by John Markoff.

See, Agencies Suspect Iran Is Planning New Atomic Sites, The New York Times, March 27, 2010, by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad.

See, G8 ministers call for strong measures against Iran, Evans Liberal Politics, March 30, 2010, by Reuters.

Listen to the best in streaming electronic rock and pop on Paul's Playlist. 66 smokin' tracks to get you going, rated #1 on Google for "streaming electronic rock" and "electronic rock playlist".

Originally posted to seawolf1957 on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:42 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (0+ / 0-)

    Paul Evans (seawolf1957)

    by seawolf1957 on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:42:20 AM PDT

  •  See Evans Liberal Politics Guide to Politics (0+ / 0-)

    The best Guide to Liberal News and Politics is on Evans Liberal Politics. Published on both Daily Kos and OpEdNews and improved constantly.

    Paul Evans (seawolf1957)

    by seawolf1957 on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 07:01:54 AM PDT

  •  Gobbletygook (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sky Net

    There is a lot of gibberish in this diary.  There isn't a war (cyber, trade, or any other type) between the US and China.  

    There is not some internal dispute in China between pro-Iran and anti-Iran factions; all factions are pro-China, and particularly pro-growth of the Chinese economy and influence.

    Serious new Iran sanctions are highly unlikely.  All serious observers realize they will hit a BRIC wall before too long.

    And this:

    Our intelligence believes Iran will possess a nuclear warhead capable of being fitted on one of their intermediate range missiles, which could for example strike Tel Aviv, in about five months.

    Is just an out-and-out lie.  The latest intelligence releases (as of this weekend), say that Iran is 2-5 years from constructing a working weapon, or exactly the same thing as they have been saying for the last two decades.

    This diary needs to lot more thought to fix it.  I suggest starting over.

    •  Not to mention that... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      QuestionAuthority

      ...actually having a nuclear weapon would put a big nuclear bullseye on Iran.  I'm pretty sure that if Iran gets a nuke, and someone sets off a nuke in Tel Aviv (i.e. as opposed to sending it via missile), Iran's getting nuked no matter who actually did it, and they know it.  I don't think more people or nations than already do should get nuclear weapons, but it's not the end of the world that it gets made out to be.

      •  The point is prevailing neocon responses to this (0+ / 0-)

        Israel in under the control of a neocon government and will not allow Iran to have a nuclear warhead without attacking. They have dry runned the bombing mission twice, the second time accompanied by fighters with capacity to go the distance to Iran and back. Saudi Arabia has cleared the use of Saudi air space by the Israeli air force. These are facts. Would the U.S. allow Israel to "go it alone"? In Final Destination Iran from the herald, I place the matter in perspective. We have moved all our "blu" bunker buster bombs (195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs)to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. That ain't just for show but is a negotiating tool to use with Iran, and, in the final analysis is evidence we may well join in in any Israeli response to Iranian warhead capability.

        From that last mentioned article: "'They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,' said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. 'US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.'"

        Paul Evans (seawolf1957)

        by seawolf1957 on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:38:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Ironically, the push for China to accede to (0+ / 0-)

      strong sanctions against Iran may increase the objections to Israel's own policy of nuclear ambiguity. Relying on IBA News, it appears that while Israel will continue to push for strong sanctions against Iran, there is also a growing concern among the leadership that Israel's own policies may be called into question during the discussion between the US and China.

    •  What is your source on warhead intel? (0+ / 0-)

      I can't remember where I got my intel on the warhead completion timetable. It may have been BBC or the Guardian, but nonetheless, two or three months ago I read in a credible source like one of those that there was good western intelligence to the effect that we felt there was about seven months until Iran had warhead capablity. Saudi Arabia, about then, cleared the use of Saudi air space by the Israeli air force. Would they have need to do such an embarrassing thing if something were not pressing, time wise? Wouldn't they have avoided doing that until rather late in the game? This is not mere speculation but information I picked up from credible sources. The Israeli air force had "dry run"ned the bombing mission twice now, the second time with fighters fitted with tanks designed to go the distance to Iran and back. This is a very serious situation and I stand by my facts.

      Paul Evans (seawolf1957)

      by seawolf1957 on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:11:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

        •  Update article to include your source (0+ / 0-)

          Hi weasel,

          I have updated the article on Evans Liberal Politics to include your New York Times source, and listed your blogroll here as my source. Let me just comment from my article that:

          Two things are noteworthy here. The article is questionable in at least these two regards: First, the intelligence establishment has a long history of "snowing" the Senate Armed Services committee. Secondly, there is very direct evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons capability in the fact of its achievement of 20 percent enrichment (3 percent being the level necessary for peaceful purposes. There is however the fact that higher enrichment is necessary for certain medical purposes.)

          Paul Evans (seawolf1957)

          by seawolf1957 on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:18:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I don't suppose you watched the videos? (0+ / 0-)

      I don't suppose you watched the Russia Today videos I referenced?

      Paul Evans (seawolf1957)

      by seawolf1957 on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:16:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sanctions on Iran won't work. (0+ / 0-)

    And there will be no military action because this is the same "mushroom cloud" rhetoric used regarding Iraq.
    The best policy would be to fix the United Sates and leave Iran alone.
    China has many economic ties to Iran, so we're blowing smoke if we think China is on our side in this matter.

    St. Ronnie was an asshole.

    by manwithnoname on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 07:04:29 AM PDT

    •  Dead right. Sanctions never work, and we have (0+ / 0-)

      damned few good cards to play.

    •  Eh (0+ / 0-)

      The Chinese government resisted all American entreaties about sanctions on Iran until the Saudi Arabian oil minister went to visit them in March.  Overnight Beijing is willing to talk about sanctions on Iran and even North Korea.

      The U.S. has quietly erected a 'missile shield' of sorts pretty much the length of the south shore of Persian Gulf in the last few months with Patriot-3s.

      The fundamental analysis in Washington is, I believe, that the Middle East has simplified to a kind of Cold War situation of nuclear threats, efforts at mutual containment, and proxy war(let)s with its 'superpowers' the current hardline right governments in Teheran and Jerusalem.  The two are in a sense propping each other up now- their reasons for existence in the militarist forms they've adopted is that their utility to their peoples has narrowed and continues to narrow to merely opposing each other.

      We do know how this sort of game ends.  It's a long drawn out stalemate until one or the other collapses from within because its people wants/needs to live in the Modern world.  And without an opponent to sustain its belligerence and justify its war economy and internal injustices, the other soon crumbles as well.

      Iran is involved in stoking every Middle Eastern conflict from Gaza to Yemen, Lebanon and Kurdistan.  The U.S. and/or Israel generally prop the opposite side.  Should Teheran and Jerusalem stop propping each side, a lot of these lesser Middle Eastern conflicts would soon end in negotiated settlements.  In most of them the populations and organizations are exhausted and impoverished and bled out, and they know quite well what they'll settle for and is proper.

      But like the Cold War it all drags on decades longer than any commoner would like.  The will to truly carry on to total victory disperses in the population- it just becomes self asserting cant for instrumental political purposes- and concentrates ever higher in the political hierarchy as it diminishes in total quantity.  Until only shadowy cliques and gray eminences in high places remain the True Believers.  

  •  Further source below: (0+ / 0-)

    See, Final Destination Iran, The Herald on Evans Liberal Politics, March 15, 2010, by Rob Edwards, with commentary by Evans liberal politics owner Paul Evans, excerpt quoted verbatim

    Paul Evans (seawolf1957)

    by seawolf1957 on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:29:33 AM PDT

  •  Very insightful. Excellent links, thanks (0+ / 0-)
  •  Even if Iran has a missile in 2012 (0+ / 0-)

    That can hit the US (which I doubt), they'd have to be suicidal to launch it.

    "Ridicule may lawfully be employed where reason has no hope of success." -7.75/-6.05

    by QuestionAuthority on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:13:06 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site