China's strategic alliance with Iran is off most radar screens

[vector7]

Iran, China playing key role in establishing new world order

March 4, 2011



Iran and China could as two ancient civilizations play an effective role in establishing a new justice-based world order, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday.

He made the remarks in a meeting with the new ambassador of China who was meeting with the Iranian President to submit his credentials to him.

“The current system of the world is old and rotten and its unjust nature has now become clear to everyone,” President Ahmadinejad said stressing that under the present circumstances, the world needed a “new, humanitarian and fair order which could be defined and established with the help of Iran and China.”

Referring to the common economic and political points between Iran and China, President Ahmadinejad said promotion of Tehran-Beijing bilateral ties was one of Iran’s top priorities.

Meanwhile, the Chinese diplomat referred to Iran as a great and ancient civilization which enjoyed a high position among the Middle Eastern states.

He added that Iran has also been playing a great role at the regional and international arenas.

The Chinese ambassador stressed the need to further activating existing potentials to upgrade bilateral cooperation between the two capitals.

[wallis]

I fail to see the urgency for reaction to China and Iran playing any kind of game of footsies.

The latest post is reminiscent of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin praising a new world order and prematurely calling the old order dead. True, a new world order emerged, but nothing like what these two dictators imagined. And then, they went head-to-head with each other to disastrous results, only to be replaced by a kind of prosperity that could not have been imagined by either tyrant.

The PRC is playing a political game that merely mirrors similar games played by the U.S., U.K., and the U.S.S.R. And now we would have people who would blame them for playing the same games and attaching unreasonable, perhaps, evil natures or agendas to them.

1) humans are inherently evil and do use power do foment evil, even in the supposed name of "good."

2) it is the inherited nature of the state to create necessary boogey men in order to instill fear in its respective populace even when the need for this fear is not warranted.

3) it is the nature of the state and its supporting constituents to seek hegemony, whether political or economic or even religious.

Rather than creating two more super enemies with seemingly growing super powers that need to be eliminated before they destroy the world, we should look at them for what they are and deal with them in the appropriate arena.

That tin god Mahmoud derives his power from the barrel of a gun. He whips up a great fervor through religious channels and promises / threats of driving Israel and other infidels "into the sea." His power is less the existence of nuclear weaponry but the wealth and support of fomenting unrest to lesser thugs trying to carve out a world of their own.

[At this point, I am reminded of the many Roman emperors who fought over the dying embers of the Western empire. There was no love for the empire: just a love for personal aggrandizement, to be gods in their own right.]

The PRC is acting, en total, no differently than any other nation in the world has acted or is acting. Would it be right to state that the Chinese have to remain within their borders just because of 1) their form of government, 2) their form of philosophy, or 3) because they are late bloomers on the world's so-called super stage?

Would it be equally right that the world should turn to the U.S. and tell it to stay within its borders? Unlikely so, since the U.S. has more than once been willing to shed blood to prevent parts of the world from destroying themselves.

It was not all that long ago that the U.K. was the world's super power. The enemy of the British was not a godless ideology that would enslave the world's population to a handful of Nietzche's supermen. It was, however, the desire to be "free" from the perceived notion of British imperialism and dominance to seek out their own forms of government, even when many of those became despotic.

The PRC is a world within a world within a world. How many worlds exist within in the defined borders of this state is probably anyone's guess. Far from being monolithic, like most people would want it to be, the PRC is a highly enigmatic puzzle. It's left hand often does not know what the right hand is doing any more than the American left hand knows what the American right hand is doing.

Business firms in the PRC are not the same as in the West, in which you can have powerful independent mini-states formed by international corporations, wherein the relationships between them and government often become foggy and ill-defined. Everything within the PRC is governemnt controlled.

It is a known fact that the Japanese government subsidizes many private corporations in order that they will be more competitive in the global market. But no one raises an objection--that is, until a particular Japanese market begins to out-pace an American competitor.

In many arenas, the U.S. capitulated its inventions and discoveries to the Japanese and others, surrendering production to these countries in the name of building a more solid economic front against the enemies of Western culture and government philosophy.

The PRC sees the Middle East in many different ways. There is an economic opportunity there. The West has on the surface turned its back on Iran, leaving a huge "hole" that the PRC can take advantage of. Should the PRC be smacked up side the head or castigated because of an ideological difference in the West? Can we really jump to the conclusion that because the PRC can make money that it is in league with world domination or destruction?

I do not feel that I would be hard-pressed to illustrate how the U.S. has in its own past made deals with the devil in order to press home its political and economic agendas. These illustrations are not to castigate the U.S. but merely show that what is good for the gander is good for the goose.

It would be nice if the world was so simple as to personalize the U.S. as the Superman (truth, liberty, and the American way), to demonize Iran as Dr. Octopus or Dr. Doom, and the PRC as another favorite comic-book villain. Unfortunately, we all are just human, acting like humans, feeding off each other with animal verocity and just as much feeling. Yes, we need to keep out doors locked and our peepers open. But to call one evil and the other lily white is as much as a delusion as believing the world is such a nice place to live and people can just get along.

[American Patriot]

So Wallis you think everyone should sit this out and play the wait-and-see game then, right?

[Ryan Ruck]

wallis,
Are you attempting to draw some type of moral equivalency between the US and China or even the US and Iran? Because I can guarantee no such equivalency exists.

There are good people who though generally good may be imperfect and, there are bad people who should have every action heavily scrutinized and, if needed, counteracted. True that there are areas of grey but the times when one should tread in that area should be far and few between lest good be contaminated by bad.

The truth of the matter is that the US almost always fights for the side of good. Are we perfect? No. We've had our black eyes in our past such as slavery and how we treated the Native American Indians but, one would be pretty hard pressed to find a modern example (excluding most leftist imagined canards) of other such large scale failings.

The other fact is that Leftists and authoritarian dictatorships very, very rarely fight on the side of good. They are, by definition, antithetical to freedom and natural law and should be opposed at every opportunity.

I understand nations will form alliances in their interests and that just because 2 of our enemies become buddy-buddy we shouldn't declare open war on them but, there is no reason we have to "sit back and take it". There can and should be economic or diplomatic repercussions for such actions. Tariffs and sanctions are perfectly acceptable alternatives.

Just because we would oppose China and Iran doesn't mean we are creating any "super enemies". They've done that on their own with their words and actions. Your line of thought is strangely akin to blaming the victim for the actions of the attacker.

[American Patriot]

Wallis would have a perfect world, in which everyone is left to their own means, of course in their own lives and countries.

And truthfully, I'd love for that to be the way of things.

But number one, people aren't evil by nature. People are greedy (and I point to the leftists in this country that can't understand the need to stop taking money from people like me who by NO MEANS are rich and yet pay an exorbitant amount in taxes).

People are in it for themselves. You can't change human nature that way, but on the other hand is it any reason for us to FORCE people to do things they way others THINK it ought to be?

Governments are for themselves. Every single government on this planet, including our own is trying to grow itself to be the most powerful, most all-seeing, mostest and bestest ever.

Capitalism, and freedom in our country goes hand-in-hand. Not SOCIALISM and every person with a lick of sense KNOWS this.

This country is America, it is Capitalism, it is freedom. Anyone who tries to change this is UNAMERICAN and should be run out of this country on a rail. They should be DESTROYED. That includes the fucking socialists who live here, the Liberals who can't see facts for wanting to "change the world".

They need to get out of my life and the lives others.

And countries like China and Iran should be stopped from working together to destroy my country. In any way, shape or form we can do it. Shut them down, and if they act to do anything to damage our economy, then we attack them. Plain and simple.

[wallis]

Governments are in it for themselves. Correct.

States and individuals that threaten our government and our way of life should be prevented from being able to change our government and way of life "in their own image." Correct.

Destroy them? I strongly disagree. When any State or individual declares an ideology as superior to another, then that State or individual has stepped over the moral grounds in respecting the rights of other States or individuals.

Sorry, but I do not see an overt intervention either by the PRC or Iran as to change or subvert the U.S. Covert? Of course!

Yet, striking at the heart of one's adversary just because they are thinking of ruining my day is not the medium of influencing change in the hearts and minds of the adversary.

Now, as to the U.S. mostly siding on the "good," I believe that you are wearing rose-colored glasses. Whose "good"? It has almost always been in the "good" for the U.S., not necessarily for the good of the people of another nation.

Vietnam was a necessary war, but it was not necessarily fought for anyone's good. The U.S. entered Vietnam in order to create a unification of the three Allied divisions of Germany. Then power-hungry brokers saw a chance to enhance their pockets both financially and politically by exploiting the situation, dragging our government deeper into the quagmire. While we demonized Ho Chi Minh (remember the prevalent thinking and biased opinions of this period) we propped up a corrupt South Vietnamese government that had no chance of remaining in power or garnering support of the people. In retrospect, Ho Chi Minh had no hard-on for the U.S. or the West and would have most likely been willing to engage in dialogue. But, no, we backed him into a corner, and in a very Vietnamese style slapped us around silly for some 10 years: to what end?

Vietnam's good was this: it stopped the slide of third world countries gravitating towards the Soviet Union. Finally, the U.S. was backing up its words with action. Third world nations took note and started cheering a little more for the U.S.

Iraq-Iran. What good came out of the U.S.'s support for Iraq's side of this age-long conflict? Iran was the bad guy simply because they had taken our embassy hostage for more than a year and had decided to set up a theocracy. While we supported a maniaical dictator. Who was making "good"? It certainly wasn't the Iraqi or the Iranian people; but the arms-dealers were sure making good.

Kuwait. Yep. There we did good.

Saudi Arabia. The Saudis played us real good.

Iran today? Mahmoud is a nut job, and the sooner he is taken to Allah's heaven, the better (IMO). But all this talk about taking him out is counter-productive to the end goal. Sure. It alleviates some tension by eliminating one devil; but then we now have an entire nation of hostile natives incensed at us (or the West collectively) when it was supposed to be their hand that removed the nut. They haven't eliminated him soon enough? Again, where is it written that the U.S. owns the time-table? What makes us or even our government so omniscient that it should know when is a good time to eliminate a leader or a government as well as understand all the ramifications in doing so?

Iran is definitely a boil in the world's backside. I would question why Iran should take a place further downstage than, say, North Korea? Is Iran more dangerous than North Korea? No. They have a nuclear weapon? BFD! I cannot believe that the whole world will suddenly shrivel like a shrinking violet because one more nuke is detonated over some sovereign state.

Likewise with the PRC. It makes a move economically, and people cry out to slap its hand. What? Only the West and Japan are allowed to make economic moves? Suddenly, the move is seen as a kind of prosyletizing move on the PRC's part to spread its godless news of its form of communism, an enemy that has to be killed before it breeds.

Problem: Al Quaida is a disease, but in the attempt to erradicate it, it breeds even greater in number. Why? You kill one member, and now you have the whole family up in arms against you. They take "eye-for-eye" quite seriously. We have backed ourselves into a corner where we are going to have to kill entire generations.

And it isn't just Al Quaida. It is any idea. Communism takes root in fertile ground where poverty is rife and injustice is norm. Religious extremism is just as likely to find fertile root. Capitalism comes along and offers the chance of bettering an individual. Forget freedom and equality and all that jazz, because that is not capitalism's parlayance. Capitalism is "every man for himself" and "the won who dies with the most toys wins!"

As a person who is destitute and oppresed, which system looks rosier? Capitalism, where you struggle against the many? or Communism, where the many struggle against the few?

Sun Zhong Shan (Sun Yat-sen) defined the process of reaching a "perfect" state of capitalism. One must undergo a benevolent dictatorship to set things right. Interestingly, Pak Jun Hee or South Korea was able to luse his authoritarian power to launch South Korea into its world position today. Similarly, we have seen a transition of fundamentalistic communism in the PRC into a mixture of capitalism tempered by overarching communistic principles, the result of a grand experiment allowed by Deng Xiao Ping.

And while the PRC made hesitant forays into Capitalism, no one was cheering them. They were criticized for not making the changes fast enough. They were castigated for not opening up as "transparent" (laugh) as Western nations were. The West harangued the Chinese, where half a century ago were fair game for exploitation and domination by the West, for not going far enough and fast enough.

And the "good"? We merely solidified the Chinese people behind this new Chinese Great Wall of ideology. Look how long it has been to normalize relations and realize how many years have been wasted in clubbing each other over who's government is right.

Sit and wait? No. Using Sun Tzu's philosophy, one does not rush into battle simply because the bloodlust is present. One chooses the battleground; nay, one prepares the battleground.

Some here like to quote that Soviet line where they will lull the West into a defenseless sleep. If one can look deeply into such a public statement that was designed to raise the hackles of the West, and if one can discern the clever use of Sun Tzu's philosophy in doing so, then I have one additional question:

Why is it that with all the good intentions of the U.S., with the emphasis we place on learning Sun Tzu at our military academies, that the U.S. is consistently being wagged as the tail on the body of the dog? All the while, we think that we are wagging the tail, and with the use of certain trigger words (such as New World Order, Communism, even Iran and China), we come out of the trees, foaming at the mouth like so many Pavlov's dogs ready to kick and bury ass and take names later.

[American Patriot]

Governments are in it for themselves. Correct.

The difference in OUR government and Iran and China is that OUR government IS here to protect our way of life, NOT to give in to someone else's idealism.

States and individuals that threaten our government and our way of life should be prevented from being able to change our government and way of life "in their own image." Correct.

Foreign governments who attempt to subvert our way of life should be destroyed.

Destroy them? I strongly disagree. When any State or individual declares an ideology as superior to another, then that State or individual has stepped over the moral grounds in respecting the rights of other States or individuals.

And that's why you live in a foreign country. I have a close friend who was about as gung-ho military as they come. Then he moved to and lived in Germany for about 10 years. Last time I saw him he was touting the benefits of Marxism and how Obama (whom he voted for for this very reason) was the best thing to ever happen to America, because he could turn it into another Europe, which is GOOD for Americans..... This is a guy also with a clearance. He needs to have his security clearance YANKED and he needs to be fired.

Sorry, but I do not see an overt intervention either by the PRC or Iran as to change or subvert the U.S. Covert? Of course!

There you go. Overt? Not at the moment. Will there be a "Red Dawn" scenario? Not NOW, no, but as soon as America is weakened to the point that such an event could be successful, you bet your American ass it will happen. Overtly.

Yet, striking at the heart of one's adversary just because they are thinking of ruining my day is not the medium of influencing change in the hearts and minds of the adversary.

In the other thread you mentioned your studies, and I'm here to tell you if they were effective (your studies) then you would understand that certainly there is an adversarial relationship here and no overt military actions will occur unless and until a real threat has taken place.

China has been very careful not to "cash in" because if they DO then that is a direct and dangerous threat to the US economy and can be considered an act of war. Of course China knows we can vaporize them and they won't get in as many hits as we will thus they keep up the subtle spycraft, just as the Russians have NEVER STOPPED.

Now, as to the U.S. mostly siding on the "good," I believe that you are wearing rose-colored glasses. Whose "good"? It has almost always been in the "good" for the U.S., not necessarily for the good of the people of another nation.

It's called the good of the people of the world, for freedom and the ability to elect governments, rather than be forced into a way of life as those people in Iran and the Middle East are.

That you have this idea we do NOT stand for Good is precisely why you are wrong all the time in your remarks. You are wrong to be an American living in a foreign country - YOU are the one who is wearing the rose-colored glasses for your own society, and you are the one who shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Vietnam was a necessary war, but it was not necessarily fought for anyone's good. The U.S. entered Vietnam in order to create a unification of the three Allied divisions of Germany. Then power-hungry brokers saw a chance to enhance their pockets both financially and politically by exploiting the situation, dragging our government deeper into the quagmire.

Vietnam was an UNNECESSARY war - and in fact it was exactly the same situation we're in right now with the middle east that led up to that war. We've not put military advisors on the ground yet, but when we do Libya will turn into something similar.

Now... "power hungry brokers" would be.. who again? The French were in that war first. Not the US. The DEMOCRATS in our government fouled that up because they were trying to run the war in Congress. Instead of letting the military leaders do their job, with a CLEAR MISSION they let us lose.

While we demonized Ho Chi Minh (remember the prevalent thinking and biased opinions of this period) we propped up a corrupt South Vietnamese government that had no chance of remaining in power or garnering support of the people. In retrospect, Ho Chi Minh had no hard-on for the U.S. or the West and would have most likely been willing to engage in dialogue. But, no, we backed him into a corner, and in a very Vietnamese style slapped us around silly for some 10 years: to what end?

Corrupt in your opinion... then again, every government appears corrupt to you, including our own. At least here in the US I don't have to BRIBE anyone to get my bloody pay check, or to travel from state to state, or even to fly out of the states.

Every country I've visited in the past 10 years has REQUIRED I leave a... "departure fee". There's nothing written, and Jamaica changes it depending on who is sitting at the glass booth when you leave, but you can't leave if you don't give them their little bribe.

All the countries I'm planning to visit in the next five years have a "cruising fee". If I stop, and drop my anchor there I have to check into customs (ok) and then immigration (not ok) because Immigration wants their money. And to get passed through in a "timely manner" (read Island time, so in 3 hours to a week) then I will have to "grease the palms" of perhaps as many as three or four officials).

Do I still want to visit? Yeah. But when I come back to the US, I don't have to PAY anyone to come into or leave the country, and neither do any of the other immigrants passing through. And they don't pay to leave.

Vietnam's good was this: it stopped the slide of third world countries gravitating towards the Soviet Union. Finally, the U.S. was backing up its words with action. Third world nations took note and started cheering a little more for the U.S.

Maybe, but we didn't really "back up" much. We let a lot of good men die when it was unnecessary. Placing people into a situation and taking away their bullets is akin to murder. The Johnson administration was worse for it, and Congressmen and women that allowed it to continue under Nixon should still be tried for treason.

Iraq-Iran. What good came out of the U.S.'s support for Iraq's side of this age-long conflict? Iran was the bad guy simply because they had taken our embassy hostage for more than a year and had decided to set up a theocracy. While we supported a maniaical dictator. Who was making "good"? It certainly wasn't the Iraqi or the Iranian people; but the arms-dealers were sure making good.

Good question that. I don't know. I don't know why we supported Saddam. To this day I think we should go in and kill every last person involved in the hostage taking in Iran. I want to see Nutjob dead myself. I spent a lot of time sitting in a fucking desert because of that guy (he was one of the hostage takers) and I think the Muslims deserve a good pounding over it as well. All of them. But that's me.

Kuwait. Yep. There we did good.

Saudi Arabia. The Saudis played us real good.

And still are.

Iran today? Mahmoud is a nut job, and the sooner he is taken to Allah's heaven, the better (IMO). But all this talk about taking him out is counter-productive to the end goal. Sure. It alleviates some tension by eliminating one devil; but then we now have an entire nation of hostile natives incensed at us (or the West collectively) when it was supposed to be their hand that removed the nut. They haven't eliminated him soon enough? Again, where is it written that the U.S. owns the time-table? What makes us or even our government so omniscient that it should know when is a good time to eliminate a leader or a government as well as understand all the ramifications in doing so?

Good questions. I'd prefer to kill him myself though. On my time line.

Iran is definitely a boil in the world's backside. I would question why Iran should take a place further downstage than, say, North Korea? Is Iran more dangerous than North Korea? No. They have a nuclear weapon? BFD! I cannot believe that the whole world will suddenly shrivel like a shrinking violet because one more nuke is detonated over some sovereign state.

Between the two of them... the more dangerous is North Korea. They can get and use weapons, missiles better than Iran. However, they are supplying Iran with a good portion of it's missile systems and those systems are viable weapons. I know, I work for the Missile Defense Agency, I've seen the briefings. I know who our adversaries are and why we do what we do. I don't expect you, living in the Phillipines to have much of a true clue.

Likewise with the PRC. It makes a move economically, and people cry out to slap its hand. What? Only the West and Japan are allowed to make economic moves? Suddenly, the move is seen as a kind of prosyletizing move on the PRC's part to spread its godless news of its form of communism, an enemy that has to be killed before it breeds.

The economic moves being made by China hurt the economics of the world... there's a difference.

Problem: Al Quaida is a disease, but in the attempt to erradicate it, it breeds even greater in number. Why? You kill one member, and now you have the whole family up in arms against you. They take "eye-for-eye" quite seriously. We have backed ourselves into a corner where we are going to have to kill entire generations.

Then we need to take 10 eyes for one. Or one hundred. This Wallis is where the bullshit of Rules of Engagement come in. If attacked the military should obliterate a region. Everything that moves. Not be nice. Either the civilians learn to fucking leave, or die with the scum. Yes, I advocate killing them all.

When one American is killed by a terrorist or "combatant" then everything in the area better die. Everything. People, chickens, cows, dogs, fish. Kill it. Then salt the fucking earth so it don't grow back and then pass the word along that it will 100 times worse the next time, and 1000 times the area.

The killing WILL stop. After the first such attack.

And it isn't just Al Quaida. It is any idea. Communism takes root in fertile ground where poverty is rife and injustice is norm. Religious extremism is just as likely to find fertile root. Capitalism comes along and offers the chance of bettering an individual. Forget freedom and equality and all that jazz, because that is not capitalism's parlayance. Capitalism is "every man for himself" and "the won who dies with the most toys wins!"

Which is why Americans need to STOP allowing Socialism to take root in the states.

As a person who is destitute and oppresed, which system looks rosier? Capitalism, where you struggle against the many? or Communism, where the many struggle against the few?

lol. So feed the evil intent people have, take what they can, huh? LOL

Sun Zhong Shan (Sun Yat-sen) defined the process of reaching a "perfect" state of capitalism. One must undergo a benevolent dictatorship to set things right. Interestingly, Pak Jun Hee or South Korea was able to luse his authoritarian power to launch South Korea into its world position today. Similarly, we have seen a transition of fundamentalistic communism in the PRC into a mixture of capitalism tempered by overarching communistic principles, the result of a grand experiment allowed by Deng Xiao Ping.

And while the PRC made hesitant forays into Capitalism, no one was cheering them. They were criticized for not making the changes fast enough. They were castigated for not opening up as "transparent" (laugh) as Western nations were. The West harangued the Chinese, where half a century ago were fair game for exploitation and domination by the West, for not going far enough and fast enough.

And the "good"? We merely solidified the Chinese people behind this new Chinese Great Wall of ideology. Look how long it has been to normalize relations and realize how many years have been wasted in clubbing each other over who's government is right.

Sit and wait? No. Using Sun Tzu's philosophy, one does not rush into battle simply because the bloodlust is present. One chooses the battleground; nay, one prepares the battleground.

Some here like to quote that Soviet line where they will lull the West into a defenseless sleep. If one can look deeply into such a public statement that was designed to raise the hackles of the West, and if one can discern the clever use of Sun Tzu's philosophy in doing so, then I have one additional question:

Why is it that with all the good intentions of the U.S., with the emphasis we place on learning Sun Tzu at our military academies, that the U.S. is consistently being wagged as the tail on the body of the dog? All the while, we think that we are wagging the tail, and with the use of certain trigger words (such as New World Order, Communism, even Iran and China), we come out of the trees, foaming at the mouth like so many Pavlov's dogs ready to kick and bury ass and take names later.

blah blah blah you're getting monotonous.

[vector7]

Iran proposes setting up joint bank with China

Tehran Times Economic Desk
May 14, 2011

TEHRAN -– The director of the Trade Promotion Organization of Iran in a meeting with the Chinese ambassador in Tehran said that Iran and China can boost mutual trade by establishing a joint bank and using national currencies for their transactions.

IRNA news agency quoted the TPOI director, Hamid Safdel, as saying that the two sides could create a joint trade committee at the ministerial level, and pointed out that the countries would be better off if they signed an MOU on trade and customs cooperation.

He added that the two countries’ joint economic committee would help expand bank relations and ease opening letters of credit as well as establishing commercial firms.

The Chinese ambassador, Yuhong Yang, said for his part that soon an economic delegation from his country would come to Iran.

He said the delegation’s first priority is to review ways of expanding economic relations and resolve current problems in their trade ties. The president of Iran-China Joint Chamber of Commerce has predicted that the annual trade between the two countries will reach $50 billion in the next 5 years.

Asadollah Asgaroladi added that Iran-China trade value was $3.5 billion ten years ago and has currently reached $30 billion through the ardent endeavors of the Iran-China Joint Chamber of Commerce.

[vector7]

Iran keen on more ties with China

Mon May 23, 2011 1:55AM


Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi (r)

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has called for more interactions between Tehran and Beijing, saying Iran and China can support each other in economic and political spheres.

Salehi made the remarks on Sunday upon his arrival in Beijing International Airport, where he was welcomed by Iranian Ambassador to China Mehdi Safari and a number of Chinese officials, IRNA reported.

The Iranian foreign minister is scheduled to hold meetings with his Chinese counterpart, Yang Jiechi, and other Chinese officials to discuss the latest regional and international developments.

Salehi lauded the important role of Iran and China in the Middle East and East Asia, and said that China is an emerging economic power.

The Iranian official also put the volume of bilateral trade transactions at $30 billion a year, and called on both countries to increase the level of interactions.

In his way to Beijing, Salehi paid a brief visit to Xinjiang province, and met with Chairman of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Nur Bekri.

During the meeting in Urumqi on Sunday, the two called for bolstering ties between the Islamic Republic and Xinjiang province, particularly in agriculture and industry sectors.

[vector7]

Iran, China call for extra boost in ties

Tue May 24, 2011 3:20AM


Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi delivers a speech at the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) in the capital Beijing on May 23, 2011.

Iran and China have called for a comprehensive expansion of relations between Tehran and Beijing on the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between the two Asian countries.

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi and his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi stressed the importance of relations between the two states and called for a promotion of ties between the two allies, IRNA reported on Monday.

During a Monday meeting with Yang Jiechi in the Chinese capital, Beijing, Salehi also praised China as a great and influential country in eastern Asia.

The top Iranian official referred to the 30-billion-dollar bilateral trade volume and noted that great potential exists to boost cooperation in political, economic and cultural spheres.

The Chinese foreign minister, for his part, praised the smooth progress in bilateral relations over the past years, placing special importance on Iran in China's foreign policy.

He went on to say that Beijing was ready to work with Tehran to push forward the expansion of ties.

[vector7]

Iran Opens Oil Bourse - Harbinger Of Trouble For New York And London?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/19/2011 18:17 -0400

Submitted by John Daly of Oilprice.com

Iran Opens Oil Bourse - Harbinger of Trouble for New York and London?

The last three years of global recession have dealt a major blow to American capitalist ideas trumpeted throughout the world on the value of “free markets.” Wall St has been revealed as a form of casino economy, with the bankster insiders gambling with other people’s, and eventually, the government’s money in the form of bailouts. As the Republicans in Congress, scenting victory in the 2012 presidential elections, hold a gun to the Obama administration’s head and rating agencies consider downgrading U.S. government bonds in light of Washington’s possible defaulting, many ideas around the world that previously seemed implausible because of the dominance of the U.S. economy are garnering renewed interest.

Not surprisingly, many of these concepts originate in countries not enamored with Washington’s influence, perhaps none so more than “Axis of Evil” charter member Iran, which has seen its economy hammered by more than three decades of U.S.-led sanctions. Now Iran is working a program, that, if it succeeds, could help undermine the dollar’s preeminence as the world’s reserve currency more effectively than a Republican filibuster.

Iran’s sly weapon against the Great Satan’s currency? An oil bourse on Kish Island in the Persian Gulf, which has now begun selling high-grade Iranian crude oil.

Mohsen Qamsari, deputy director for international affairs of the Iranian National Oil Company was modest about the exchange’s initial capabilities, saying, "The commodity stock exchange has been pursuing a mechanism for offering crude oil on the stock exchange for a long time, and it has taken the preliminary steps, to the extent possible. Considering the existing banking problems, foreign customers are not expected to be taking part in the first phase of offering crude oil on the stock exchange, and this will be done on a trial basis. Today Bahregan heavy, high quality, low sulfur crude oil with less sourness will be offered on the stock exchange for the first time. In the first phase, a 600,000 barrel shipment will be offered."

Given that the world currently consumes roughly 83 million barrels of crude oil each day, the initial oil offerings at the Iranian stock exchange are hardly going to make or break the market, but they do represent an attempt by a significant oil producer to divert revenue streams from New York Mercantile Exchange, the world's largest physical commodity futures exchange, which handles West Texas Intermediate benchmark futures, and London's Intercontinental Exchange, which deals in North Sea Brent. All trades are in dollars, effectively giving the U.S. currency a monopoly.

The Kish Exchange dates back to February 2008, when instead of Tehran, Kish was chosen because it had designated as a free trade zone. The Exchange was set up to trade contracts in euros, Iranian rials and a basket of other currencies other than dollars. The previous year, Iran had requested that its petroleum customers pay in non-dollar currencies. But the Exchange initially traded contracts only for oil-derived products, such as those used as feedstocks for plastics and pharmaceuticals. Now the institution has taken the next step.

Even as Congress remains tone-deaf to the recession’s effect on American jobs and the economy, others have taken careful note. On 17 June 2008, addressing the 29th meeting of the Council of Ministers of the OPEC Fund for International Development in the Iranian city of Isfahan, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told those in attendance, "The fall in the value of the dollar is one of the biggest problems facing the world today. The damage caused by this has already affected the global economy, particularly those of the energy-exporting countries. ... Therefore, I repeat my earlier suggestion, that a combination of the world's valid currencies should become a basis for oil transactions, or (OPEC) member countries should determine a new currency for oil transactions."

What it would take for Iran’s new exchange to survive and flourish are some heavy-duty customers that Washington would be wary of picking a fight with, and Tehran already has one – China.

China, the world's largest buyer of Iranian crude oil, has renewed its annual import pacts for 2011. In 2010 Iran supplied about 12 percent of China's total crude imports. According to the latest report of the China Customs Organization, Iran's total oil exports to China stood at 8.549 million tons between January and April 2011, up 32 percent compared with the same period last year. Iran is currently China's third largest supplier of crude oil, providing China with nearly one million barrels per day.

China simply ignores Washington’s squeals about sanctions, but it is concerned about the bottom line, and unless Iran makes its oil prices more attractive versus competing supplies from the rest of the Middle East or South American exporters, it may be hard for the OPEC member to boost its share in the rapidly expanding Chinese market.

Enter the Kish Exchange.

China's Ambassador to Tehran Yu Hung Yang, addressing the Iran-China trade conference in Tehran on Monday, said that the value of the two countries' trade exchanges surged 55 percent during the first four months of 2011 over the same period a year ago to $13.28 billion and further predicted that the figure would surpass $40 billion by the end of the year.

So much for sanctions, eh?

So, while Washington prepares to commit political hara-kiri, Iran is preparing to take away a little of the capitalist glow from New York and London. If the Chinese decide to start paying for their Iranian purchases strictly in yuan, expect the trickle away from the dollar in energy pricing to become a stampede.

That ought to give Washington politicos an issue to think about besides gay marriage.

[vector7]

China And Iran To Bypass Dollar, Plan Oil Barter System, And A Deeper Dive Into The Iranian Oil Bourse

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/24/2011 14:57 -0400

• China
• Crude
• Crude Oil
• India
• Iran
• Reserve Currency
• Reuters
• Yuan

One of the more notable events in the past week was the previously discussed reopening of the Iranian Oil Bourse, an attempt by Iran to launch a venue that bypasses US sanctions against Iran which has prevented payment in the world's reserve currency for Iranian goods. "Big deal", some will say, this is not the first time Iran has attempt to upstage the Great Satan.

Well, true, although as OilPrice said last week, "what it would take for Iran’s new exchange to survive and flourish are some heavy-duty customers that Washington would be wary of picking a fight with, and Tehran already has one – China... China, the world's largest buyer of Iranian crude oil, has renewed its annual import pacts for 2011. In 2010 Iran supplied about 12 percent of China's total crude imports. According to the latest report of the China Customs Organization, Iran's total oil exports to China stood at 8.549 million tons between January and April 2011, up 32 percent compared with the same period last year.

Iran is currently China's third largest supplier of crude oil, providing China with nearly one million barrels per day." Still, the perceived provocation to Uncle Sam should China go ahead and slap America in the face by accepting the existence of the Kish exchange, would echo around the world. Which is why many don't think much if anything will happen. Until today, that is: according to the FT, China has decided to commence an barter system in which Iranian oil is exchanged directly for Chinese exports.

The net result: not only a slap for the US Dollar, but implicitly for all fiat intermediaries, as Iran and China are about to prove that when it comes to exchanging hard resources for critical Chinese goods and services, the world's so called reserve currency is completely irrelevant. The implications of this are momentous, especially for US debt, whose indomitability is only predicated upon the continued acceptance of the currency it backs as a global reserve. If China is now openly admitting to the world that it does not need US monetary intermediation, and by implication, the "debt" backing said intermediation, what then? And who will follow China next?

From the FT:

Tehran and Beijing are in talks about using a barter system to exchange Iranian oil for Chinese goods and services, as US financial sanctions have blocked China from paying at least $20bn for oil imports.

The US sanctions against Iran, which make it extremely difficult to conduct dollar-denominated business, mean that China could owe the oil-rich nation as much as $30bn, according to people familiar with the problem.

They said the unpaid oil bills had built up over the past two years and the governments, which are in early-stage talks, were looking at how to “offset” the debt.

Some Iranian officials are growing increasingly angry about the inability of the country’s largest oil customers to pay cash, a problem that has contributed to a shortage of hard currency and has hindered the central bank from defending the Iranian rial, which has been sharply devalued over the past month.

China and India together buy about one-third of Iran’s oil, the country’s economic lifeblood. China’s oil imports from Iran have risen 49 per cent this year, according to Reuters.

While Iran can do without India, it needs China:

Iran last week threatened to cut off oil exports to India, which owes $5bn for oil but has not been able to move the money out of an escrow account to Tehran.

Unlike India, which exports almost nothing to Iran, China is dominant in Iranian business and could use a barter system to balance trade between the two countries. Beijing is involved in everything from building tunnels to exporting toys and has been expanding into Iran’s oil sector, where European companies such as Shell and Total have been deterred by the difficulties of operating without contravening sanctions.

China and Iran’s bilateral trade totaled $29.3bn last year, up almost 40 per cent from 2009. The two countries this month signed several infrastructure and trade collaboration agreements that would see Chinese companies invest in big infrastructure projects in Iran, while Iran would export large quantities of chrome ore to China, according to local reports.

“Both China and India are happy to keep Iran’s money in their banks and try to get Iran involved in barter deals to sell their junk, or give yuan and rupees instead of hard currencies,” said one Iranian former official, on condition of anonymity. Iran had not yet accepted the alternatives, he added.

While Iran would have very little use for a non-convertible Yuan (for now), direct barter is something that will be far more useful to the resource-rich country. Yet, as Isaac Newton once cautioned, "in order to measure, you must define your unit." What will China and Iran agree on as the unit of exchange, if not monetary intermediate, especially in those cases when there is no preset barter agreement?

If said neutral monetary "hard asset" ends up being a precious metal, look out US Dollar.

And for those curious to learn some more about the Iranian Oil Bourse, here is Grant Williams with his latest "Things that make you go hmmm."

Hmmm Jul 23 2011

[vector7]

CHINA-IRAN MISSILE SALES

CHINA-IRAN MISSILE SALES

China is continuing to provide advanced missiles and other conventional arms to Iran and may be doing so in violation of U.N. sanctions against the Tehran regime, according to a draft report by the congressional U.S.-China Commission.

“China continues to provide Iran with what could be considered advanced conventional weapons,” the report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission says.

According to the report, which will be made public Nov. 16, China sold $312 million worth of arms to Iran, second only to Russia, after Congress passed the Iran Freedom Support Act in 2006 that allows the U.S. government to sanction foreign companies that provide advanced arms to Iran.

The report also noted that, after Russia began cutting back arms transfers to Iran in 2008, China became the largest arms supplier to the Iranian military.

Most of the weapons transfers involved sales of Chinese anti-ship cruise missiles, including C-802 missiles that China promised the United States in 1997 would not be exported to Iran.

China also built an entire missile plant in Iran last year to produce the Nasr-1 anti-ship cruise missile.

“Because of the relatively short range of these missiles, China’s provision of them to Iran does not violate the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act of 2006, which seeks to prevent the transfer of only those missiles that can carry a 500-kilogram warhead more than 300 kilometers,” the report says.

“It is possible, however, that these transactions violate the Iran Freedom Support Act, or the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010, which both use the ambiguous term ‘advanced conventional weapons.’ “

Regarding China’s professed claims to have ended all backing for Iran’s nuclear- and ballistic-missile programs, the report says “there has been speculation that China, or Chinese entities, have quietly continued to provide some support for Iran’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile capabilities.”

The report says China also is supporting North Korea's military and providing economic and technical assistance to Pyongyang.
The report concludes: “Despite Beijing’s stated claim to be acting as a responsible major power, China continues to place its national interests ahead of regional stability by providing economic and diplomatic support to countries that undermine international security.”
Chinese Embassy spokesman Wang Baodong denied China violated U.N. sanctions.

“When it comes to the issue of nonproliferation, China has been strictly adhering to the relevant U.N. resolutions and faithfully carries out its international obligations while strictly implementing its relevant domestic policies and regulations in the field.”

He said the commission “should cast off its Cold War mentality, respect the facts and stop making unwarranted allegations against China.”

MISSILE DEFENSE LIMITS

The Obama administration, despite public claims to the contrary, appears ready to try and limit U.S. missile defenses in agreements, according to a key House Republican leader.

Rep. Michael R. Turner, Ohio Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, said during a hearing Wednesday that he is concerned the administration is working to amend the NATO-Russia Council charter “to create guarantees regarding missile defense.”

“That has no support here and should be a nonstarter,” Mr. Turner said in a prepared statement for the hearing.

The charter outlines relations between Russia's government and NATO members for the council, which was created in 2002 as part of the alliance.
Moscow, for the past several years, has been demanding legal guarantees that U.S. missile defenses in Europe will not be used to target Russian missiles — guarantees that missile defense advocates say would limit U.S. defenses.

CHINA LINKED TO RSA ATTACK

Computer hackers in China likely carried out the sophisticated cyber-attack against the security company RSA in March, according to the draft annual report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

RSA announced in March that its security product was compromised through a cyber-intrusion. The company provides encryption services that allow government and contractor users to log on remotely to secure computer networks.

“Although the company did not name China specifically, subsequent research demonstrated that components of the attack utilized a tool called ‘HTran,’ developed by a well-known member of the hacking group ‘Honker Union of China,’ ” the report says.

Analysis of the hacking tool revealed that the attackers tried to mask their location by routing command instructions from mainland China through computer servers in Japan, Taiwan, Europe and the United States, the report says.

“The perpetrators then used information about the compromised RSA security product in order to target a number of the firm’s customers, including at least three prominent entities within the U.S. defense industrial base,” the report adds, noting that those intrusions and intrusion attempts “also originated in China and appeared to be state-sponsored.”

Because the attack involved stealing technology that involved encryption and coding technologies, computer experts have said the sophistication was beyond the abilities of most nonstate hackers.

NORTH KOREA TWEETS

The communist government in North Korea has taken to Twitter. According to U.S. officials, a North Korean government-linked Twitter account has been operating daily since August 2010.

The Pyongyang account, @uriminzok puts out a steady stream of messages on Twitter, mainly to highlight content from a North Korean propaganda website aimed at overseas Koreans.

The website is run out of Shenyang, China, and operated by North Korea’s United Front Department of the Workers’ Party of Korea, a quasi-intelligence and influence organization. The department appears to be connected to North Korean efforts directed against rival South Korea.

According to U.S. officials, the North Koreans appear to regard Twitter and other social media as an additional channel to spread propaganda extolling dictator Kim Jong-il and other aspects of the communist regime.

U.S. intelligence agencies have been monitoring activity on the account and uncovered some interesting patterns.

For example, the account went silent after South Korean hackers broke into it and were able to shut it down for two months. The account resumed its tweets March 5.

Activity has ranged from as few as three tweets a day to as many as 30.

Most of the Korean-language tweets link to North Korean propaganda articles, many of which extol the “Dear Leader” Kim, and other propaganda.

GAME ON

The Army will not be run over by those in Congress and in the Pentagon who want to cancel its next-generation all-purpose vehicle.

At a cost of $54 billion, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) is a ripe target for budget-cutters in this age of finding ways to reduce the ballooning federal deficit.

A Senate subcommittee already has voted to defund. There are also Pentagon political appointees who would knock it out of the next five-year budget, says Washington Times reporter Rowan Scarborough.

But the Army is standing firm, saying it must have a solider-protected armored vehicle to ferry ground forces amid the dangers of improvised explosive devices and rocket-propelled grenades.

It would replace the venerable, but more vulnerable, Humvee, a jeeplike vehicle not originally designed to survive the types of roadside bombs exploding in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the Army’s vice chief of staff, told the House Armed Services subcommittee on readiness that the service needs time to develop the JLTV and see if it makes better sense than continuing to buy refortified Humvees.

“I just think it’s absolutely essential that we be allowed to continue that critical work, or we will end up with a force that is not modernized,” he said. “And a force that is not modernized is an unbalanced force, and in the end it will cost us lives.”

The Army is not just talking. Weeks before Gen. Chiarelli testified, it issued a draft request for proposal to industry to show what they would produce if they won the JLTV production contract.

Loren B. Thompson, who heads the Lexington Institute, said the Army already has canceled new missile and communications systems, and may now be forced to give up the 70-mph, all-terrain JLTV.

“Does anybody in the Obama Administration understand that killing such programs nearly guarantees soldiers will die unnecessarily in future wars?” Mr. Thompson wrote in a column, “The Cloud Hanging Over America’s Army.”

“Since coming into office, it has presided over the cancellation of nearly two dozen next-generation vehicles, munitions, communications links and other combat systems that would have helped America’s soldiers to survive and win in future wars.

“To make matters worse, it has tightened up on contracting terms to such a degree that defense companies aren’t even sure they want to participate in the programs that remain. The arsenal of the future is disappearing with each passing month, and today’s savings are being bought at the expense of tomorrow’s soldiers.”

[vector7]

China continues to sell advanced anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran


Firing a Chinese-manufactured C-802 anti-ship cruise missile

The Washington Times reports.
Excerpt:

China is continuing to provide advanced missiles and other conventional arms to Iran and may be doing so in violation of U.N. sanctions against the Tehran regime, according to a draft report by the congressional U.S.-China Commission. “China continues to provide Iran with what could be considered advanced conventional weapons,” the report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission says. According to the report, which will be made public Nov. 16, China sold $312 million worth of arms to Iran, second only to Russia, after Congress passed the Iran Freedom Support Act in 2006 that allows the U.S. government to sanction foreign companies that provide advanced arms to Iran. The report also noted that, after Russia began cutting back arms transfers to Iran in 2008, China became the largest arms supplier to the Iranian military.

Most of the weapons transfers involved sales of Chinese anti-ship cruise missiles, including C-802 missiles that China promised the United States in 1997 would not be exported to Iran. China also built an entire missile plant in Iran last year to produce the Nasr-1 anti-ship cruise missile.

The Nasr-1 has a range of 19 miles. The C-802 has a range of 75 miles. That means that the C-802 has about the same range as a Harpoon SSM. Not good. I am not worried about the Nasr-1, but the C-802 is a problem. These weapons could be used by terrorists to attack allied naval vessels. In fact, the New York Times reported that Hezbollah, a terrorist group linked to Iran, used the C-802 missile to sink an Israeli Saar 5 corvette back in 2006.

Excerpt:

The power and sophistication of the missile and rocket arsenal that Hezbollah has used in recent days has caught the United States and Israel off guard, and officials in both countries are just now learning the extent to which the militant group has succeeded in getting weapons from Iran and Syria.

While the Bush administration has stated that cracking down on weapons proliferation is one of its top priorities, the arming of Hezbollah shows the blind spots of American and other Western intelligence services in assessing the threat, officials from across those governments said.

American and Israeli officials said the successful attack last Friday on an Israeli naval vessel was the strongest evidence to date of direct support by Iran to Hezbollah. The attack was carried out with a sophisticated antiship cruise missile, the C-802, an Iranian-made variant of the Chinese Silkworm, an American intelligence official said.

At the same time, American and Israeli officials cautioned that they had found no evidence that Iranian operatives working in Lebanon launched the antiship missile themselves.

But neither Jerusalem nor Washington had any idea that Hezbollah had such a missile in its arsenal, the officials said, adding that the Israeli ship had not even activated its missile defense system because intelligence assessments had not identified a threat from such a radar-guided cruise missile.

[...]Officials said it was likely that Iran trained Hezbollah fighters on how to successfully fire and guide the missiles, and that members of Iran’s Al Quds force — the faction of the Revolutionary Guards that trains foreign forces — would not necessarily have to be on the scene to launch the C-802.
At the same time, some experts said Iran was not likely to deploy such a sophisticated weapon without also sending Revolutionary Guard crews with the expertise to fire the missile.

Note that this is the same Quds force that likely trained Iraqi terrorists in the use of IEDs and is suspected of being involved with the recent attack on the Saudi ambassador on American soil. I have no idea why we were dicking around in Libya and Egypt when we have major problems with Iran, and, by extension, Syria and Lebanon.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration sends $47 million a year to China for foreign aid.

[American Patriot]

So.... the Chinese are providing missiles. Russia is providing them with plenty of anti-radar and radar detection systems. North Korea has worked directly with Iran on nuclear material production (as has Russia)....

And some Americans think we should "leave them alone"?

Pretty soon, we won't have a choice. Not one we can do much about without losing a lot of young men in real war.....

Better to go in with Israel, drop some shit on their nuclear facilities and sit back a few more years listening to the rest of the world WHINE about how we're bullies.

No... stop them from making a nuke. Iran gets a nuke and even Russia won't be safe from them. The Russians and Chinese are assholes.

[vector7]

China tells IAEA: Be impartial on Iran

04 November 2011 16:23 China says the IAEA should take an “impartial” stance toward Iran’s nuclear issue and also urges Iran to show “flexibility” in its cooperation with the UN body. "The International Atomic Energy Agency should adopt an impartial and objective stance and seek positive cooperation with Iran to clarify certain questions," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei Hong told a press briefing. "Iran should also show flexibility and sincerity and have earnest cooperation with the IAEA," Reuters quoted Hong as saying. The remarks by the Chinese Foreign Ministry official comes as IAEA director general Yukiya Amano, under pressure by the U.S. and its European allies, plans to greatly highlight the alleged weapons studies in his new report on Iran’s nuclear program. Russia and China have urged the IAEA chief to give Iran time to study and respond to allegations of military-linked atomic activities before he publishes the report. The United States and Israel have repeatedly hinted at the possible use of force against Iranian nuclear sites. Hong said that would be a very bad idea. "China opposes the use of force or the threat of the use of force in international affairs. At present, avoiding any new upheaval in the Middle East is extremely important." Hong added China would play a "constructive role" in pushing for the peaceful resolution of the Iran nuclear issue by diplomatic means. The main bone of contention between Iran and the West is over Tehran’s nuclear enrichment program. Iran, as a signatory to the NPT, has legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

[American Patriot]

I think the main "bone of contention" is a bunch of Commies helping a bunch of Muslim Fascists....

There's NOTHING good in that scenario when nukes are involved.

[vector7]

In confronting Iran, experts say all roads go through China

By OREN KESSLER
11/10/2011 03:35



As Islamic Republic’s No. 1 trading partner, Beijing is seen as cool to tougher Security Council sanctions.

Wednesday’s damning IAEA report on the Iranian-nuclear program has turned the spotlight on Tehran’s largest trading partner: the People’s Republic of China.

Immediately after the report’s release Beijing warned that the report – which confirms Iran’s efforts to harness nuclear energy for weapons manufacture – could spawn “turmoil” in a turbulent Middle East.

RELATED:
PM: Iranian nukes endanger Mideast, world peace
US on IAEA report: 'We won't rule anything in, or out'

Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said China was “studying” the report, and repeated a call to resolve the issue peacefully through talks.

“I wish to point out that China opposes the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and disapproves of any Middle Eastern country developing nuclear weapons. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran bears the responsibilities of nuclear non-proliferation,” he said Wednesday.

“The Iranian side should also demonstrate flexibility and sincerity, and engage in serious cooperation with the [IAEA]... I want to stress that avoiding fresh turmoil in the Middle Eastern security environment is important for both the region and for the international community.”

For years the Chinese government has walked a fine line on Iran’s atom program, maintaining extensive trade ties with Tehran, while doing its best to avoid antagonizing the West.

China, which as a permanent member of the UN Security Council wields veto power, has backed previous council resolutions condemning Tehran’s nuclear work and supported limited sanctions against it. Harder-hitting sanctions, however, have yet to receive Beijing’s backing.

A US official told Reuters that because of the opposition of both China and Russia – Ira’s seventh-largest trading partner, which helped it build the Bushehr nuclear facility – chances for tougher Security Council sanctions are slim. On Wednesday Russian officials said new sanctions are “unacceptable” to Moscow, and called for continued talks with the Iranian regime.

Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and head of its Iran Energy Project, said Chinese companies have continued supplying significant quantities of Iran’s refined petroleum in violation of US sanctions laws.

“The Obama administration has assured Congress that Beijing has agreed to do no new deals, and to slow-walk its existing deals,” he told The Jerusalem Post by e-mail from Washington. “Given that Chinese companies signed over $40 billion in new energy deals in recent years, it’s unclear whether this commitment to do no new deals covers these billions of deals already in the pipeline, and how quickly China is moving ahead in implementing what it considers to be existing deals.”

China’s People's Daily newspaper said the nuclear standoff between Iran and the West could erupt into military conflict.

“It is clear that contention between the various sides over the Iranian nuclear issue has reached white hot levels and could even be on the precipice of a showdown,” the newspaper – a Communist Party organ that generally presents the government’s official line – said in a front-page commentary.

China’s official Xinhua news agency also suggested Beijing would respond warily to the report. The UN watchdog still “lacks a smoking gun,” the agency said in a commentary.

“There are no witnesses or physical evidence to prove that Iran is making nuclear weapons... In dealing with the Iran nuclear issue, it is extremely dangerous to rely on suspicions, and the destructive consequences of any armed action would endure for a long time.”

Iran shipped over 20 million tons of oil to China over the first nine months of this year, an increase of almost a third since the same period last year. Overall trade between the two countries rose 58 percent over that period, to almost $33 billion.

“The onus [in the international community] will really be on China, as the only country whose economic relations with Iran have grown,” Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, told Reuters.

Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council, wrote in an op-ed in Wednesday’s New York Times that China must be made to feel that its business with Iran is no longer worthwhile.


“In recent years, China’s economic dynamism has brought with it a voracious appetite for energy. This has made energy-rich Iran a natural strategic partner. In 2009, Iran ranked as China’s second largest oil provider, accounting for some 15% of Beijing’s annual imports,” Berman wrote. (The European Union is the leading consumer of Iranian oil.) “In exchange, China has aided and abetted Iran’s quest for nuclear capacity.

Diplomatically, it has done so by complicating oversight of Iran’s nuclear program, and by resisting the application of serious sanctions against Tehran,” Berman continued.

“Chinese leaders have become convinced that Washington prioritizes bilateral trade with Beijing over security concerns about Iran, and that it therefore won’t enact serious penalties for China’s dealings with Iran.

The last, best hope of peacefully derailing Iran’s nuclear drive lies in convincing Beijing that ‘business as usual’ with Tehran is simply no longer possible.”

[American Patriot]

Except the roads to Russia (like anti-radar radar systems, etc)

[vector7]

China arms Hezbollah

Beijing weapons proliferation benefits Iran and Islamic terrorist groups

By Brett M. Decker and William C. Triplett II
The Washington Times
Thursday, November 17, 2011

The following is an excerpt from “Bowing to Beijing” (Regnery Publishing, Nov. 14, 2011):

It doesn’t take a lot to exacerbate the broiling political crisis in the Middle East, and Beijing’s international arm sales pour fuel on the Muslim-Jewish fire. During the Second Lebanon War, a Chinese C-802 anti-ship missile struck Israel’s INS Hanit off the Lebanon coast. Four Israeli sailors were killed in the incident - Yoni Hershkovitz from Haifa, Shai Atias from Rishon Letzion, Tal Amgar from Ashdod and Dov Shtienshos from Carmiel. The oldest was 37, the youngest just 19. All of them had families.

The casualties could have been much worse. The majority of the Hanit’s 80 crew members were sitting down to a “Sabbath eve dinner, an error of complacency that ironically in retrospect ended up saving lives.” Most of the crew was in the ship’s mess, a central location away from the spot where the missile struck.

There could have been a more direct hit on the vessel. The Hanit is a corvette (called a Saar 5 class ship by the Israeli navy), which is substantially smaller than an American frigate or destroyer. It’s about 1,200 tons loaded, built at the Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi. The Chinese C-802 anti-ship missile is a sea-skimmer, an advanced conventional weapon - not a ballistic missile - and carried a 400-pound time-delayed semi-armor-piercing high-explosive warhead that blew up near the fan tail of the ship.

As it was, the explosion caused substantial damage, engulfing the aft section in flames and caving in the ship’s helicopter pad. But the Hanit didn’t sink. If the Chinese missile had struck amidships where most of the ship’s company was eating, or had impacted at the water line, many more crewmembers would have been killed or permanently injured, and it’s unlikely the ship would have survived.

Fortuitously for the Hanit, a second C-802 fired at the same time flew over the ship, zeroed in on a small freighter 40 miles away, and sank it. A ship the size of the Hanit could never have taken two missile hits.

There was never any doubt about who fired the missiles. The chief of the terrorist organization Hezbollah announced the attack first, declaring, “You wanted all-out war - and that is what you will get! You have no idea who you are dealing with!” Israeli officials believe Hezbollah may have had its hand on the lanyard, but Iranian specialists manned the firing batteries, and Lebanon’s military radars provided the guidance for the missile.

The Israeli Board of Inquiry determined that the Hanit suffered no technical malfunctions prior to the attack. Rather, it attributed the ship’s vulnerability to negligence by the commander and other crewmembers. Apparently, the sailors had such little apprehension of danger that a junior officer turned off the ship’s defensive systems, rendering the Hanit effectively blind to the threat. The ship’s captain lost his command and other officers were disciplined.

The Chinese missile attack on the Hanit came about primarily due to intelligence failures, but it highlighted a tragic blindness in the Israeli military: It simply refused to believe that Chinese authorities would put a dangerous missile system of this magnitude in the hands of a nonstate actor. At the Board of Inquiry, the Israeli navy commander explained that the prospect of Chinese advanced conventional missiles in the hands of Hezbollah seemed “unrealistic and imaginary.”

No one doubts that the Chinese have been and still are deeply engaged in illicit nuclear-weapons assistance to numerous countries. The bomb designs for the nuclear-weapon programs of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Moammar Gadhafi’s Libya and Pakistan were all Chinese. The People's Republic of China (PRC) is trading nuclear-weapons designs to Iran for oil and, through front companies, has funneled dual-use nuclear goods bought by North Korea to Syria. Specialists in the field widely agree that China also secretly trades in other types of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), ballistic missiles and advanced conventional weapons.

Israeli military officials knew it as well. But they didn’t understand what - advanced conventional weapons - China would sell to whom - nonstate actors. They knew the Chinese sell WMDs to rogue states like Iran or North Korea, but the Israelis, like national-security policymakers in most of the free world, assumed the PRC was just nasty, not crazy. Top Israeli security officials evidently thought, “Even the Chinese would not go so far as to arm terrorist groups with advanced conventional weapons.” They were wrong. To be fair to the Israelis, surprise attacks against America, like Pearl Harbor or Sept. 11, are reminders that the Jewish state is not the first to tragically underestimate its bloodthirsty opponents.

The C-802s fired by Hezbollah at the Israeli navy originated in China either as fully manufactured missiles or as kits assembled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. At any time, the PRC could have told the Iranians not to deliver them to any terrorist organization, but Beijing obviously issued no such instructions. The Chinese Communist Party simply thought the West and certainly the United Nations would never call out China - a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council - on its skullduggery.

The arming of Hezbollah, like most of the PRC’s illicit weapons trade, all boils down to money. Arms smuggling is highly profitable, and the Chinese Communist families that control Beijing’s end of the various arms-smuggling operations with the North Koreans, Iranians or the Syrians would have gotten their cut of whatever went down.

As one expert recently noted, “Most remaining proliferation disputes don’t pertain to the actions of the government in Beijing, but to the practices of China’s state-owned defense industries. The country’s large state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are some of the world’s most prolific exporters of weapons and dual-use technologies.” These SOEs are dominated by the so-called Princelings, sons, daughters and grandchildren of high-ranking officials who founded and ran the Chinese Communist Party with Mao.

In a private briefing in Hong Kong, a Chinese arms dealer described the relationship between the Chinese Communist elite and Beijing’s arms-smuggling trade. According to him, this lucrative business was carefully divided so that each family received a share of the profits depending on where they are in the Communist Party pecking order.

His account immediately brought to mind the mafia families in “The Godfather” movie dividing up the New York crime scene. In discussing the most important arms exporting firm in Beijing, “Polytechnologies Inc.,” the gunrunner noted that the company’s officers were in the same hierarchical relationship with one another as their sponsors (fathers, fathers-in-law, and the like) were within the Communist Party.

He explained that this implied a deliberate division of the arms-smuggling pie based on Party rank order. At the time of the briefing, Polytechnologies was headed up by none other than the son-in-law of Deng Xiaoping, the former leader of China.