A brief reminder of what Iran endured in recent history, while having undertaken no aggressive war in several centuries:

- Invasion by Russia and Britain in 1914-1918 ostensibly to secure Iran's oil fields

- Invasion again by Russia and Britain in 1941 to take over Iranian oil fields

- Democratic Government overthrown by US in CIA Operation Ajax, 1953: US puts hated Shah back on the throne from his then current exile:

-France reneges on nuclear power contracts despite NPT obligations 1979

- Invasion by Iraq – up to 500,000s killed by Iraq, West helps Iraq, 1980: Rumsfield goes to Iraq to shake Saddam’s hand in well-known picture

-Chemical weapons attack by Iraq and the west remains silent, 1980 onwards

- US kills 290 Iranian civilians when a US naval ship, in Iranian waters, shoots down an Iranian passenger plane. The US awards medals to those who killed the Iranian civilians. 1988

-US shelters thousands of Iranian MEK terrorists in Iraq and allows them to operate against Iran, 2003 onwards

-Nuclear weapon neighbors tolerated or abetted: Russia, and non-NPT states Israel, India, Pakistan

-Major US armies and air forces currently based on their east and west frontiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and powerful US naval forces in the Persian Gulf (Bahrain)

-Threat of direct nuclear attack by Israel:

And for clarity sake, and for the umpteenth time, Ahmadinejad is entirely and purposefully misquoted in that Israel should be wiped off the map.

What he said in accurate translation was this: ""The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time". The point being that it is an unjust and Apartheid régime. Like Apartheid South Africa or the communist Soviet Union.

...as to why China must change its Middle East policy if "its current approach... has done much to increase China's access to energy supplies, boost its influence in a strategic region, and frustrate American ambitions in the Middle East."

MICHAEL SINGH & JACQUELINE NEWMYER DEAL focus primarily on a military solution. The premise is that if we demonstrate convincingly our readiness and commitment to attacking Iran militarily, Iran might back down and China would think twice before continuing t support Iran.

If I were a Chinese long-term planner, I would let the US attack Iran. After the attack, Iran would be more likely to re-arm and offer better terms to form a strategic partner. In spite of some short-term setbacks, China would gain more influence and better terms from Iran.

Unless the US decide occupy Iran and rebuid the nation.

If the US were not to occupy Iran, the adverse risk would be a temporary disruption f oil supply from Iran.

At this moment, China will not challenge the US for many years to come. The US is less likely to isolate China or attack China. I would be more than happy to see Americans start another war with one more Islamic country.

....from China on HOW TO MAKE FRIENDS

Israel/US only know HOW TO MAKE ENEMIES AND PRETEND TO BE INNOCENT VICTIMS.

One is that China has, and always will, act in its own self interest as far as acquiring the raw materials necessary to its economy. When the United States fails to realize this, particularly in context with globalization and free trade, its response has always been to resort to military analysis and options. Maybe this is bred into the US bone by our heroin-like dependence on defense contracts.

Thus, both the author and the US are guilty of putting forward faulty analyses of what the most appropriate response we should take towards the tacit Chinese support for the proliferation of nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran.

China believes strongly in the balance of power concept of international relations. As such, it's encouraging spheres of influence, mostly economically to every country and region that surrounds it.

In the age of declining empire, it would behoove the United States very well to openly recognize the respect it has for the balance of power philosophy in this context. And we would recognize of peacefully cultivating our circles of positive development to our internal, rather than military needs.

Predictable stuff. The '50s and '60s are over; WINEP and other fronts for Israeli propaganda have been outed.

The Newmyer-Singh prescription in the current American military-industrial dark hour is for a larger investment in weapons and military readiness rather than a smaller one. Phew, that was a close one. Given the terrific news that America no longer needs to operate an expensive force in Iraq and that America is being forced to recognize that it's not doing all that well in Afghhanistan, these two writers step forward to present a new target -- in fact, two new targets, China and Iran -- and with them the new need to spend up big on preparing to intimidate both by, among other things, spending staggering sums of cash while frightening the citizens of those two foreign nations.

The authors support their master plan by the currently fashionable ancillary of pointing to a situation the authors don't like and say it's created or worsened by Obama, rather than one that any American president under present or near-future circumstances must face -- and not necessarily by juicing the military budget. This name-calling is akin to describing World War II as Roosevelt's rather than America's; it seems senseless.

What Singh-Newmayr seem to want is someone new to hate. We have current evidence that this is a great way to create a foreign monster. The current mills of hatred grind on about Gaddafi as though he came to power 42 years ago as a murderous monster and stayed one for the rest of his rule. This clearly is not true. he came to power in a bloodless coup and was a ruler beneficent to his people although not to foreign (ie, European and American) oil companies in his early years. He moved to tyranny after years of direct threat to his government and himself personally from shareholder nations of those oil companies. Plans for these threats were afoot within a few weeks of his coup.

It's not yet clear how Newmayr-Singh believe all this extra money they want spent on preparing attack or insult to a Tom Clancy-style Chinese-Iranian semi-alliance without raising any American taxes. I'm pretty confident the authors could explain that miracle if pressed.

According to these guys China is the biggest threat to a stable Mideast, and the best way to stabilize the region is to invade Iran. So if the US is going to attack Iran as the author suggests, will we be financing this war with additional taxation (unlikely), or with more money borrowed from China?

Riyadh this year offered to supply China with substantial amounts of oil at lower prices than Iran. Not sure what happened to that and why it wasn't mentioned in this article. Would be much better to have China relying on Saudi oil than Iranian.

Can't believe such dribble is allowed to be printed here. Even more incredible is that someone with an Indian last name (Singh) could make such a clumsy case for us to attack Iran. Wouldn't be surprised if this crude exercise on his part is to curry favor with the NeoCons and/or the power elite.

All the proponents of this belligerence should answer the following questions for us before getting our backing (and tax dollars) to wage another self-destruction war:

Question 1: What has Iran done to us that warrants us to attack it?

Question 2: Even if we assume Iran is a screw-driver's turn away from making a nuclear bomb, what would motivate it to commit suicide?

Question 3: To further belabor this point, let's take a leap of faith and believe the likes of Fox News that Iran has a 'death-wish'. Does Iran have the means to deliver their nuclear device to our shores?

Question 4: Given all that, why should we play a game of "chess" with China to get Iran in line? Do we want to try to bully a nation of 1.3 Billion people (and an emerging Super Power) on behalf of Israel -- a squatter country of a few million that is also a pariah in the World? If yes, what do we get in return from Israel? A bunch of Banksters and crooks who, when (and if) finally caught would seek sanctuary there without fear of extradition?

Shame on Singh et al. If he truly is an Indian (and not masquerading as one) -- he should go back and re-acquaint himself with the traditions of that country before embarrassing himself like this again. What a fool.....

He worked for the NSC.

And perhaps the Iranians would be kind enough to return the Peacock Throne? They don't really need it, do they?

This article inverts the truth in several ways.

(1) It's the PERSIAN Gulf. Get it right, or you won't be taken seriously.

(2) Iran is fully compliant with the NPT and JUST TODAY passed a UN resolution endorsed by it that demanded Israel and the US follow the demands at the last 3 NPT conferences: (a) Israel must come clean about its nukes; (b) sign the NPT treaty; (c) and America must seriously adhere to the disarmament pillar of the law.

(3) Israel's rogue nuclear arsenal is safe whereas Iran's nonexistent one is a danger. An apartheid state that is constantly dropping bombs on a civilian Palestinian population, that was complicit in 9/11 and framed Arabs, is exceptional in this regard.

Shills.

It is highly unlikely that U. S. can neutralize Iran’s nuclear program as recommended by Singh and Deal.

It is even less likely that U. S. can force China to stop helping Iran. ‘Establishing a credible threat to Iran’ recommended by Singh/Deal will not stop China-Iran alliance until U. S. literally carries out the threat by overthrowing Iranian regime.

Does U. S. have courage to do so? Not under Obama presidency who loathes starting a new war when debt-ridden U. S. is barely getting out Iraq and still very much mired in Afghanistan.

The development of China’s economy is dependent on energy imports. The import of the required energy requires either movement by sea or over land. The two obvious sources of oil/gas are Russia or the Middle East. Movement of significant oil/gas supply overland via pipeline is more economical than movement by sea.

Russia would be their logical supplier via pipeline - however Russia has proved to be unreliable due to using their supply to other countries as a strategic tool. China would need a way to offset this risk.

Import from the Middle East currently depends on sea access - the US domination of the sea routes to China’s coast means that this supply is conditional. Import from Iran, the nearest Middle East country with large supplies for sale, via pipeline requires access to Afghanistan - currently the US in the guise of ‘ISAF/NATO’ controls Afghanistan.

The ideal situation for China would to have supplies both from Iran and Russia via pipeline (A pipeline from Russia would also offer possibilities for supply to South Korea). Any motivation that China would have to facilitate nuclear weapon development in Iran (and North Korea) would, more likely than not, be decreased by this. The risk of conflict in the China Sea would also be significantly decreased if this came about.

However, where would the US be in all this ... feeling left powerless to do other than trade on a much more equal basis.

I think the US gambles dangerously.
Considering its wake economy and ongoing wars nobody can really trust its government.

For Iran it seems like as it was for Irak: finding out and be sure that no real threat is on its soil (what most Europeans always suspected and menawhile is well known!) and then starting a war.

As long as the US government isn't sure whether or not Iran has a real nuclear bomb or another threat to Israel as long it will wait and not start a new war again.

I think US citizen should wake up for their own sake !
To support Israel because of their lobby in USA is a dangerous undertaking.
It could cost USA more economic desaster as they even can think of.

China is aware of the flaws in US foreign politics.
And USA is so much indebted that they are - so it seems to me - thankfully being blinded by their neocons and the arrogance of its politicans.

Starting another war and feeding the necons (there are a very few who make more money if wars are going on) will not give enough jobs for the US citizen.

And concerning to Ahmadenejads speeches: it is so easy to blind people with false translation claiming this or that had been said.
There are - thankfully - other websites with independend and reliable translations.

Nowadays I think the majority of US citizen are blinded. Other countries have maybe much more exchange of informations in different languages. This counts for the Middle East and Asia.
Those parts of a continent are eager to know what is going on in other countries.
Whereas USA still supports an arrogance feeling that US citizen are on top of the world.

We shall see the outcome.
Gambling: the winnig factor could proof to be dangerous - its targeted outcome could fall back to the initiatior of the gamble itself.

miramare

The United States is becoming frustrated at the amount of effort to remain king of the hill and instead is trying to cajole its competitors into playing the crab-pot game (pulling each other back down as they attempt to rise) instead. In either case the result will be the same, erosion of the hill that is being defended as we ignore the need to tend to the high ground on which our nation was built.

In order for China to move its economy further, it has to secure oil and gas. Partnering with Iran? I think it's OK. I came to this site when I was looking for portable printers review. Iran's position is indeed strategic.

For clarity sake, and for the umpteenth time, Ahmadinejad is entirely and purposefully misquoted in that Israel should be wiped off the map.

It's tragic that we are headed for war with Iran. I think we should let the country be. Althoug I don't support their leadership, of course. They're all perverts, and they're into animal porn. I still believe that it would be better to leave the country alone, like Ron Paul says. An interventionist foreign policy is not only destructive for the middle east, but for us in the west as well. We can't afford any more wars.

Talk about a crazy world that we live in, when we have to worry about 2 irrational countries like this...this is extremely unsettling and hopefully Iran will mess things up like they did with the Saudi assassination attempt, which shows their ineptitude. Time to get these people taken care....I have a friend who is an Austin wedding officiant and he lived next to the guy who was plotting to kill the Saudi Ambassador...crazy world we live in these days...to put it mildly.

Obviously, this only works so long as the US puts important on the UN. Once that disappears, China wouldn't cash to offer.

I think China's game-playing on Iran has more related to keeping the U.S. occupied/off balance than being concerned about their domestic situation. Actually, I think the content itself details perfectly why china aren't concerned about maintaining things as they are at home.

Moreover, keeping the Iranian nuclear issue in play provided possible allows China to help keep marketing towards the US like a key player, who (if sufficiently placated) might accompany US demands. It appears pretty easy: create a problem after which highlight yourself because the one who might make the problem disappear if you get something worthwhile.