Future of Iran-China relations

[Keel]

Looking forward to closer ties with the intelligent and indomintable Iranians - from the birth place of the great Persian civilization

 

[Lux de Veritas]

LOL then no more cow this time dude la! Just share your prophecy on Eurasian (or world if you like) geopolitics, let us know what it's like say in a year from now la, how about that?

@powastick @Nan Yang

Not much of a prophecy but rather a retold of history I'll say. The lost of Persia ally to the Arab Muslim had let to the attack on China itself, without which there would not be an Uyghur issue in Xinjiang today. Syria however is Russia's concern, not China's.

My take is Iran would probably make better ally for China and the relationship will deepen as there are a lot more strategic alignment between the 2 countries and Iranian are far more good, compared to all other Islam countries such as Pakistan.

Pakistan is kinda baggage not unlike N Korea.

The problem of Pakistan is she rely on Islamofascism to project herself. While Pakistan did not allowed her Mullah to preach bad about China, her alliance with Saudi means Saudi mad cleric and alien fighter (as well as Pakistani own mad cleric who dont curse China locally) infiltrate Afghan, and in turn, stir shit on Uighur.

Also I am not too sure Pakistan is ally of who? China, Saudi or USA? All three of Pakistan ally is on each others back.

Meanwhile, with Iran, both countries could have a dignified relationship. Iran hate Sunni Islamofascism. Also Iran hate Pan Turkism. With Iran there XInjiang be there. With Iran gone, the Pan Turkic fighters will flood Xinjiang.

 

[Raphael]

Good to hear.

There was a time when I wanted China to have a more equivocal position in the Middle East, balancing between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. The regional politics just seemed too messy and showing preference would risk getting us entangled. But I no longer think that these countries can have equal importance to us. Now its clear that Iran would be our best (but not only) choice of partner.

I just don't understand Saudi policy anymore. Obsessed with deposing Assad and willing to employ any extremist proxies to do so. Even though ideologically expansionist groups like ISIS and other Islamists are more dangerous to the Saudi state than an authoritarian government like Assad's who just wants to retain power within his borders. And the vast Saudi collaboration with Turkey is disturbing as well.

Also, Russia and Iran remain close, while the seeds of US-Iran normalization are now sprouting. Given that two of the world's three most important powers have made their peace with Iran, I don't think Israel will really care how close we get.

But I'm interested to hear what @Chinese-Dragon thinks, as I recall he has always felt relatively favorable towards the Saudis/Gulf Arabs.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

But I'm interested to hear what @Chinese-Dragon thinks, as I recall he has always felt relatively favorable towards the Saudis/Gulf Arabs.

I'm favorable to both Saudi and Iran.

I'm not interested in this sectarian conflict, of having to choose a side between both. I'm an Atheist, religious conflicts in the Middle East are entirely irrelevant to me, which I think is the case for most Chinese.

So I echo the position of the Chinese Government. We are currently and will continue to be the biggest buyer of oil from both Saudi and Iran.

If you want us to pick a side and antagonise the other side (locking ourselves off from huge reserves of hydrocarbons and political influence), then write up a case and take it to Zhongnanhai. Until then, our policy remains the same.

In the not too distant future, I can see many of the major actors in the Middle East being closer to China than they are to America. It's already starting to happen.

 

[Nan Yang]

From the West, Russia and Iran stops NATO at Crimea and Sunni Islamist at Syria. From the East China can push the new silk road and unite all Central Asia under the SCO.

Sounds like a plan.

 

[Economic superpower]

Iran should sell its oil to China in Renminbi.

US exports account for 10% of global exports but 80% of global exports are sold in US dollars.

That means 10% are direct US exports while the other 70% are counted as indirect US exports.

Essentially 80% of global exports are counted as US exports both directly and indirectly.

This creates artificial demand for the dollar.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Good to hear.

There was a time when I wanted China to have a more equivocal position in the Middle East, balancing between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. The regional politics just seemed too messy and showing preference would risk getting us entangled. But I no longer think that these countries can have equal importance to us. Now its clear that Iran would be our best (but not only) choice of partner.

I just don't understand Saudi policy anymore. Obsessed with deposing Assad and willing to employ any extremist proxies to do so. Even though ideologically expansionist groups like ISIS and other Islamists are more dangerous to the Saudi state than an authoritarian government like Assad's who just wants to retain power within his borders. And the vast Saudi collaboration with Turkey is disturbing as well.

Also, Russia and Iran remain close, while the seeds of US-Iran normalization are now sprouting. Given that two of the world's three most important powers have made their peace with Iran, I don't think Israel will really care how close we get.

To further expand on this point, there is only one question you need to ask.

"Is it good for China's interests?"

I don't care about the sectarian divide in the Middle East, I don't know why Sunnis hate Assad, or why ISIL hates Shia, or why they all hate Israel. None of that matters to me, the only thing that matters is the national interests of China.

The only thing I can say is that ISIL is actually a threat to China's security, whereas Assad is not.

As for taking sides in the Saudi/Gulf Arabs vs Iran sectarian divide, that's not an option. We import a LOT of oil from all sides, it would only hurt China's interests to choose one of these, and end our relations with the other.

Because we would be locking ourselves off from one of the largest hydrocarbon reserves on Earth, losing massive political influence, and pushing them into the arms of America.

That would hurt China's interests, and serve America's interests. So it is 100% unacceptable.

 

[Shotgunner51]

To further expand on this point, there is only one question you need to ask.

"Is it good for China's interests?"

I don't care about the sectarian divide in the Middle East, I don't know why Sunnis hate Assad, or why ISIL hates Shia, or why they all hate Israel. None of that matters to me, the only thing that matters is the national interests of China.

The only thing I can say is that ISIL is actually a threat to China's security, whereas Assad is not.

As for taking sides in the Saudi/Gulf Arabs vs Iran sectarian divide, that's not an option. We import a LOT of oil from all sides, it would only hurt China's interests to choose one of these, and end our relations with the other.

Because we would be locking ourselves off from one of the largest hydrocarbon reserves on Earth, losing massive political influence, and pushing them into the arms of America.

That would hurt China's interests, and serve America's interests. So it is 100% unacceptable.

+1

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

China should focus on nuclear power.

In the west, oil lobbies, and liberal idiot lobbies have both blocked much progress on this front.

Nuclear Power is the way to go. It is actually pretty cheap. And you would be surprised to know this, but Nuclear Power doesn't depend much on the price of Uranium!

The major cost in nuclear power is the initial building and operation of the plant, the enrichment of Uranium etc. And these things have not been researched commercially much into. The prices of these could come down dramatically.

Not only this, with fusion and with other kind of reactors, like Travelling wave reactor, a lot of radioactivity issues and saftey issues can be solved.

To further expand on this point, there is only one question you need to ask.

"Is it good for China's interests?"

I don't care about the sectarian divide in the Middle East, I don't know why Sunnis hate Assad, or why ISIL hates Shia, or why they all hate Israel. None of that matters to me, the only thing that matters is the national interests of China.

The only thing I can say is that ISIL is actually a threat to China's security, whereas Assad is not.

As for taking sides in the Saudi/Gulf Arabs vs Iran sectarian divide, that's not an option. We import a LOT of oil from all sides, it would only hurt China's interests to choose one of these, and end our relations with the other.

Because we would be locking ourselves off from one of the largest hydrocarbon reserves on Earth, losing massive political influence, and pushing them into the arms of America.

That would hurt China's interests, and serve America's interests. So it is 100% unacceptable.

Ya. I think broadly China's strategy is right. Trade with all, sell to all, invest in all, have good relations with all, play everyone against each other, sell weapons to all.

Saudi Arabia is a major importer of Chinese weapons, and will actually increasingly become so.

For the Saudis, the most important thing is maintaining the house of Saud rule.

Saudi Arabia and gulf countries sit on HUGE resources, and pile of cash, with little population, which isn't capable to do much. They have a defense budget crossing 100 billion dollars, and are attractive markets to sell weapons to.

To further expand on this point, there is only one question you need to ask.

"Is it good for China's interests?"

I don't care about the sectarian divide in the Middle East, I don't know why Sunnis hate Assad, or why ISIL hates Shia, or why they all hate Israel. None of that matters to me, the only thing that matters is the national interests of China.

The only thing I can say is that ISIL is actually a threat to China's security, whereas Assad is not.

As for taking sides in the Saudi/Gulf Arabs vs Iran sectarian divide, that's not an option. We import a LOT of oil from all sides, it would only hurt China's interests to choose one of these, and end our relations with the other.

Because we would be locking ourselves off from one of the largest hydrocarbon reserves on Earth, losing massive political influence, and pushing them into the arms of America.

That would hurt China's interests, and serve America's interests. So it is 100% unacceptable.

The Saudis literally buy their survival with their oil money. They have been generously paying America in all fields as protection money.

Just today I read news that Saudis bought 4 LCS, for 12 fucking billion dollars.

And the best thing about selling weapons to Saudis and Gulf in general is that they don't ask for local production, or tot (transfer of technology) or other terms like almost all countries do. This is pure hard, solid cash.

 

[TaiShang]

To further expand on this point, there is only one question you need to ask.

"Is it good for China's interests?"

I don't care about the sectarian divide in the Middle East, I don't know why Sunnis hate Assad, or why ISIL hates Shia, or why they all hate Israel. None of that matters to me, the only thing that matters is the national interests of China.

The only thing I can say is that ISIL is actually a threat to China's security, whereas Assad is not.

As for taking sides in the Saudi/Gulf Arabs vs Iran sectarian divide, that's not an option. We import a LOT of oil from all sides, it would only hurt China's interests to choose one of these, and end our relations with the other.

Because we would be locking ourselves off from one of the largest hydrocarbon reserves on Earth, losing massive political influence, and pushing them into the arms of America.

That would hurt China's interests, and serve America's interests. So it is 100% unacceptable.

While doing pragmatist deals with the Saudis/Gulf, China needs to take extra mesuares to guard against the spread of extremism. In this respect, any Saudi soft investment (culture centers/mosques/publication houses etc) should not be allowed.

Saudis/Qataris/Turks are better kept in check in terms of their ability to spread sectarianism and racism.

The Saudis harbors one of the darkest ideologies of the time and on that I agree with @Lux de Veritas.

Iran has a deep history and secular culture although their governance at the moment, due to historical reasons, might appear deeply religious. And Iran is a pragmatist country in foreign policy and China can make partnership with Iran more comfortably than Saudis or Turks.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

While doing pragmatist deals with the Saudis/Gulf, China needs to take extra mesuares to guard against the spread of extremism. In this respect, any Saudi soft investment (culture centers/mosques/publication houses etc) should not be allowed.

Saudis/Qataris/Turks are better kept in check in terms of their ability to spread sectarianism and racism.

Iran has a deep history and secular culture although their governance at the moment, due to historical reasons, might appear deeply religious. And Iran is a pragmatist country in foreign policy and China can make partnership with Iran more comfortably than Saudis or Turks.

I respect your point of view brother.

The thing is, that Gulf Arabs do control one of the largest hydrocarbon reserves on the planet, and they are the de facto spiritual leaders of the vast majority of Muslims worldwide (Sunni).

Now imagine if they were on China's side, instead of America's? That would be a huge swing moment for us. Their populations are extremely anti-America, and their leadership clashes often with America (especially over Israel and the Iran nuclear deal), it is not far fetched to consider this possibility at all.

I'm sure our Government is thinking about this, which is why we've sold Dongfeng series ballistic missiles to the Saudi government, and why we continue to be the biggest buyers of Gulf oil. They are very important in a geopolitical sense. Whereas Turkey is mostly irrelevant.

 

[Lux de Veritas]

I respect your point of view brother.

The thing is, that Gulf Arabs do control one of the largest hydrocarbon reserves on the planet, and they are the de facto spiritual leaders of the vast majority of Muslims worldwide (Sunni).

Now imagine if they were on China's side, instead of America's? That would be a huge swing moment for us. Their populations are extremely anti-America, and their leadership clashes often with America (especially over Israel and the Iran nuclear deal), it is not far fetched to consider this possibility at all.

I'm sure our Government is thinking about this, which is why we've sold Dongfeng series ballistic missiles to the Saudi government, and why we continue to be the biggest buyers of Gulf oil. They are very important in a geopolitical sense. Whereas Turkey is mostly irrelevant.

Actually the a lot of Muslims want modernize. They are just being hijack by medieval sheikh who ally themselves with USA. China need to engage with their progressive force, and once Muslims get rid of reactionary elements, they will thank China.

 

[TopWater]

China should focus on nuclear power.

In the west, oil lobbies, and liberal idiot lobbies have both blocked much progress on this front.

Nuclear Power is the way to go. It is actually pretty cheap. And you would be surprised to know this, but Nuclear Power doesn't depend much on the price of Uranium!

The major cost in nuclear power is the initial building and operation of the plant, the enrichment of Uranium etc. And these things have not been researched commercially much into. The prices of these could come down dramatically.

Not only this, with fusion and with other kind of reactors, like Travelling wave reactor, a lot of radioactivity issues and saftey issues can be solved.



Ya. I think broadly China's strategy is right. Trade with all, sell to all, invest in all, have good relations with all, play everyone against each other, sell weapons to all.

Saudi Arabia is a major importer of Chinese weapons, and will actually increasingly become so.

For the Saudis, the most important thing is maintaining the house of Saud rule.

Saudi Arabia and gulf countries sit on HUGE resources, and pile of cash, with little population, which isn't capable to do much. They have a defense budget crossing 100 billion dollars, and are attractive markets to sell weapons to.



The Saudis literally buy their survival with their oil money. They have been generously paying America in all fields as protection money.

Just today I read news that Saudis bought 4 LCS, for 12 fucking billion dollars.

And the best thing about selling weapons to Saudis and Gulf in general is that they don't ask for local production, or tot (transfer of technology) or other terms like almost all countries do. This is pure hard, solid cash.

The game changer is the liquid salt thorium reactor.

 

[LowPost]

I really hope that will be the case , not just wishful thinking .

China has shown its good will as they provided Iran with Its sat. tech "baidau" .

i hope these co-operations expand into sth meaningful and strategic

I'm sure Tehran is wise and pragmatic enough to embrace China as a strategic partner. Since the lifting of the sanctions the road to China-Iran cooperation is a fully asphalted motorway without potholes. Brushing possible Israeli/American objections aside China will use it.

PressTV-Iran wants China in Chabahar port project
Xi says China-Iran cooperation faces new opportunities - Xinhua | English.news.cn

I'm favorable to both Saudi and Iran.

I'm not interested in this sectarian conflict, of having to choose a side between both. I'm an Atheist, religious conflicts in the Middle East are entirely irrelevant to me, which I think is the case for most Chinese.

So I echo the position of the Chinese Government. We are currently and will continue to be the biggest buyer of oil from both Saudi and Iran.

If you want us to pick a side and antagonise the other side (locking ourselves off from huge reserves of hydrocarbons and political influence), then write up a case and take it to Zhongnanhai. Until then, our policy remains the same.

In the not too distant future, I can see many of the major actors in the Middle East being closer to China than they are to America. It's already starting to happen.

The never-ending wave of sectarian violence ought not be a reason to let China's ties cool down with either sides and I strongly welcome strenghened China-GCC, China-Israel and even China-Turkey cooperation (as for the latter I know that both Erdogan and Davutoglu grasp the importance of China-Turkey relations but we shall see how the "Game of Xinjiang" will run its course in the future; also Turkey should not blind itself by pan-Turkism in its foreign policy @Lure).

I agree with you that China would have more to lose than to win if it were to intervene in the Middle Eastern conflicts but geopolitics-wise I'm *slightly* more pro-Iran.

 

[TaiShang]

Iran, China to Jointly Build Kazakhstan's Refinery: Report

October, 18, 2015 - 11:27


TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Iran and China plan to jointly construct the fourth oil refinery of Kazakhstan, a report said.

The refinery will be built in Mangistau Oblast - the country's west - in cooperation with Iran and China, Kazakhstan's Tengrinews reported on Saturday.

Vice-Governor of Mangistau Oblast Rakymbek Amirzhanov confirmed that representatives of Iran and China had proposed to take part in the construction.

"In Iran, all the oil refineries are located in the north of the country. All the oil fields are located in the south. Iran spends about $35 per ton of oil to transport crude from the south to the north of the country," Amirzhanov said.

He said, therefore, Kazakhstan which is situated close to Iran’s north is a good candidate for a new partnership in oil swaps.

The new refinery will be able to produce high-octane gasoline and jet fuel that Kazakhstan currently imports from Russia, and thus close the existing deficit in the country, he said.

“Iran is ready to take the remaining volumes through the ports of Aktau and Kuryk, and give its crude oil in the (Persian) Gulf region to Chinese companies. This is China's interest in the project of construction of the fourth Kazakhstani oil refinery," Amirzhanov explained.

Currently, Kazakhstan has three oil refineries, in Pavlodar, Atyrau and South Kazakhstan Oblasts. However, according to Amirzhanov, they do not fulfil Kazakhstan’s needs for petroleum products - the country’s deficit is about 1,5 million tons of oil, which constitutes 30 percent of the total market.

Source: Error