Beijing may be reluctant to intervene in the Iran crisis. But if an Israeli strike seems imminent, there are several things it can do to pressure Tehran.
This coming week, U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will hold a crucial meeting on how to confront the Iranian nuclear problem. It’s doubtful that the United States and Israel will see eye-to-eye on the potential use of force, but any friction between the two could have an upside: fearing an Israeli airstrike, China may be more willing to use its own influence to pressure Tehran.
The argument Netanyahu is likely to make is that, as Iran draws closer to a nuclear weapons capability, Israel’s window of opportunity to conduct a successful strike is closing. As a result, Israel will agree not to attack only if it obtains a firm guarantee that Washington will act militarily down the road, assuming that sanctions continue to prove ineffective. If the U.S. can’t supply such a pledge, “Israeli leaders may well choose to act while they still can.”
With little appetite to become enmeshed in another Middle East conflict, the Obama administration is unlikely to do more than reiterate existing statements that, while force technically remains on the table as a last resort, it will continue to use a mix of diplomacy and sanctions to prod Tehran. Netanyahu may well leave more inclined to attack while time remains.
Yet this situation offers a potential diplomatic advantage. The reason is that China, wary of the chance of a hot conflict in the region, may consider using more of its clout vis-à-vis Tehran. China is the last remaining major power with significant interests in Iran’s oil sector, as well as a key supplier of gasoline to that country. Moreover, China, like the United States, is concerned about rising oil prices at home and thus has much to lose from any spike in gas costs that would result from a conflagration in the Middle East. Thus, China may do more on the diplomatic front simply to avoid its worst-case scenario: an Israeli attack.
This possibility depends on how likely the Chinese leadership views an Israeli strike in the absence of tougher international diplomacy. It’s difficult to know what China’s top leaders believe at the moment, but attitudes among key Chinese strategists appear to be mixed. On one hand, strategists are aware of the difficulties of a successful Israeli strike, including the problem of hardened, diffuse targets, as well as the likelihood of Iranian retaliation. There’s also a conviction among many strategists that Washington will be able and willing to restrain its ally.
Nevertheless, some analysts aren’t so sure. Tang Zhichao, a scholar at the influential Chinese Institute for Contemporary International Relations, writes that, “Israel, facing a grace threat and leery about the chances of negotiations as well as sanctions, could be tempted to use unilateral force to resolve the issue.” Hua Liming, a retired Chinese envoy to Tehran, argues that Israel’s “military strike preparations,” including talks with Riyadh about the use of Saudi airspace, seem to be “realistic.” Another scholar who I talked with in Beijing last month said that Israel was “very, very serious,” even if the U.S. might be able to prevent the former from acting.
Some doubts about Israel’s intentions will of course remain. The point, though, is that a heightened risk, in and of itself, may be sufficient to persuade China’s leaders to think twice. President Hu Jintao, and his top foreign affairs deputy, Dai Bingguo, don’t have to be convinced that Israel will attack; rather, they only have to have serious doubts that it will back down. Given the stakes, avoiding even a modest risk of instability may be worth the costs Beijing would have to pay to do so.
Indeed, there’s evidence that Israeli interventions, in concert with diplomatic efforts by the United States and others, were effective in convincing Beijing to support the most recent round of U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran, in June 2010. For months, China resisted international efforts to push through a new resolution, but yielded after a series of Israeli officials, including then-chief of military intelligence Amos Yadlin, provided details on Israel’s war plans and perceptions of the situation.
Thus, if Netanyahu makes the case that guarantees from the U.S. are insufficient, and that as a result, Israel has found itself even closer to an actual decision to strike, Beijing will likely pay attention.
What might China be asked to do? During Vice President Xi Jinping’s visit to the U.S. in February, a bipartisan group of retired senior U.S. officials wrote an open letter to Xi calling on China to consider several options. These include reducing purchases of Iranian crude, increasing bilateral diplomatic pressure, and more actively enforcing the four current U.N. Security Council resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue. Beijing might also “make its investments contingent on Tehran’s willingness to cooperate with the international community on its nuclear program.”
Of course, it’s uncertain that any steps China takes to convince Iran to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and with the international community at large, will be sufficient to dissuade Tel Aviv from taking action. But it’s a safe bet that if Beijing does nothing, the chances of a strike – and all the strife that would entail – may well be much worse.
Joel Wuthnow is a fellow at the China and the World Program at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. He is completing a book manuscript on China's diplomacy in the U.N. Security Council.
Photo Credit: Chinese Foreign Ministry
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Fu Man-chu
There is much to be said for intervention sometimes. If your neighbour’s kids are being physically abused, do you stand idly by and not interfere? If you value help as a victim, as a citizen, do you insist the Police stand passively and idly by and do nothing , saying that that is a domestic issue? No, in terms of civilization, we should have the innate courage to confront the abuser and murderer if we have the means and capability.
Only problem is Washington is a shameless opportunist and abuser of humanitarian crisis to profit itself and impoverish other good samaritans it declares as enemies. Is it any wonder therefore, the world is as it is – polarized and divided? Washington cannot have it both ways. To do so, means it is a scoundrel, or, to use Tony Blair’s words, “a shameless political opportunist”.
Me? I would prefer the word “anti-Christ” – the troubles, tensions, crisis, conflicts, killings, murders (See Khandahar), etc, it is wreaking upon the world. Washington is no saint nor a good samaritan. Bottom line is, it’s evil.
Lung Sha Shou
China acts in pure self interest. This is the general approach of most nations, and is to an extent understandable, and may even be appropriate and morally & ethically correct, depamdin upon the issue.
China however, somewhat unlike other nations, has absolutley no concerns for the sanctity of human life, nor any regard for the pain and suffering of indivudals, let alone groups, or the masses.
It is not troubling that civilians are being bombe and shelled to oblivion, and that there is a systematic campaign of torture, slaughter and collective punishment, involving innocents. China is “above” paying heed to these things. The doctrine of non-interference is practically an absolute, or foundational idea – probably so as to underscore their beleif that national sovereignty is above any other concers.
China has no real principles other thatn self interest, the getting and keeping of power by whatver means are necessary.
China’s amoral stance on Syria in the security council should be seen for what it is
SCdad07
The author is delivering the message that China should, for her own safety, fall in line; otherwise, she is going to suffer ‘BADLY’ for being on the ‘Wrong Side’ of the ‘Power’ when Israel ‘STRIKES’.
Ditto, the ‘Godzilla’ message – the daily moody ‘Super Power Godzilla’, is the unpredictable hero or foe for your nation and people’s hope!
This creature from recent creation, will squash any challenger wherever there is sign of a new sprout (China and/or India) – an animal instinct of ‘Preventive War Doctrine’.
However, latest PIVOT – move your ass if you want me to move mine.
TKM
The Chinese have absolutely no real reason to help the U.S. “stop Iran.” The oil claim is shaky, because they have other sources of oil they can buy from, and as previous commentators noted, China’s real interest is in the SCS, not the ME. Anything that distracts the world longer serves China’s interest. It has begun a very large military build up, specifically in terms of new technologies and capabilities that are clearly not just defensive in nature.
kafantaris
Has Netanyahu talked with the fathers, mothers, wives, brothers and sisters of the soldiers who may die in the contest with Iran?
Has he visited their homes to see what emptiness will be there when they are gone? Has Netanyahu recently visited cities reduced to piles of rubble by sustained air strikes?
To be sure, Iran will sustain far worse devastation, not only from Israel, but also from the U.S. This does not change the likelihood, however, that both countries will also sustain damage in one form or another.
When Abe Lincoln advised his clients to settle whenever possible, he did so not only because it ends the dispute and uncertainty, but also because in a public trial a client often loses even when he wins the underlying case. BP understood this well last week, which is why it settled. It thus put the loss behind it and is now moving forward.
In the same way, Israel, as a modern nation should think of smart ways to deal with Iran. Indeed, keen understanding of human nature has been the great asset of the Jews, which has helped them finesse through predominately Christian or Muslim countries.
Why then has war now become the only option? Even when you become good at it, any battle entails losses.
And here is another point. Just as in time Iran might acquire nuclear weapons, it might also abandon them. Libya did, and so did South Africa. Perhaps North Korea would also, though no one is holding his breath.
Not these guys, you say. Perhaps.
But was it not in Iran where Arab Spring had its roots — in the protests that followed the 2009 disputed election. Yes, the hardliners have put out all those flames. The hot coals are still there, however, smoldering in the ashes. Such is the resiliency of the human spirit, and as we see it now in Syria.
Let’s assume, however, that Iran, as expected, becomes an insufferable bully. Surely, we have dealt with bullies before — and the Jews have dealt with them throughout the centuries. Recent history shows that bullies do not last forever, and have an unkind end lately. Thus if Iran was to become an insufferable bully with its nuclear knowledge, it will only be pushed further into isolation in an increasingly interconnected world.
If none of this convinces us to put aside our war drums, maybe we should recall the story of the captain and his mate who were about to be executed by the pirates.
“Let us live for six months,” the captain told them boldly,” and we will train your dog to talk.”
“How we’re gonna do that,” the mate whispered?
The captain replied:
“In six months we may die.
The pirates may die.
Or the dog may talk.”
Luxembourgish
Ironically you picked BP to illustrate the example of settling. If you read your history, its BP or what it was previously known as, Anglo-Persian/Iranian Oil, that caused this messy situation in Iran today.
I’m from TX
You say “Has Netanyahu talked with the fathers, mothers, wives, brothers and sisters of the soldiers who may die in the contest with Iran?”
My question to you: Have you talked to the fathers, mothers, wives, brothers, sisters, and children who may die in a nuclear attack upon Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem, or Haifa (or London, or New York, or Paris, or Washington DC, or…) if the leaders of Western Civilization sit on their hands for too long, and thereby allow the mad mullahs of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?
Guo Shuang-xi
Who is Joel Wuthnow trying to kid? Such wishful thinking and brainwashing will not work. If I were Beijing I would just ignore this article and consider carefully my options vis-a-vis America in Middle East and in East Asia.
As it is, Washington is threatening China if China were to take action to defend its territorial integrity in the South China Sea and in Southern Tibet. To imagine that it would go pussy-footing and bleeding-heart on the U.S. in the Middle East if the Israeli-Iran tension flares up into a conflict, must the biggest joke.
If I were Beijing, I would make use of that opportunity and evict the Filipinos and Vietnamese from the disputed islands.
And at the same time, see what other ways I can tighten the screw on Washington for all the ‘favors” and “kindness” they have displayed to China to date. I would hope also, Mr Putin and Moscow would similarly find opportunities to screw Washington as well.
But, the best “counter-attack” would be a concerted method or action to collapse America’s economy and financial system, including the value of its dollar overnight. let the U.S. collapse the way they caused the USSR to collapse.
ACT
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/why-john-j-mearsheimer-is-right-about-some-things/8839/3/
this article is relevant to this one. after reading this, i believe that, no, China will not stop Iran, but rather attempt to stop Israel; the author of that article makes a very good statement:
“…Mearsheimer’s admonition [is] that a struggle with China awaits us. “The Chinese are good offensive realists, so they will seek hegemony in Asia,” he tells me, paraphrasing the conclusion to Tragedy. China is not a status quo power. It will seek to dominate the South China Sea as the U.S. has dominated the Greater Caribbean Basin. He continues: “An increasingly powerful China is likely to try to push the U.S. out of Asia, much the way the U.S. pushed European powers out of the Western Hemisphere. Why should we expect China to act any differently than the United States did? Are they more principled than we are? More ethical? Less nationalistic?” On the penultimate page of Tragedy, he warns:
‘Neither Wilhelmine Germany, nor imperial Japan, nor Nazi Germany, nor the Soviet Union had nearly as much latent power as the United States had during their confrontations … But if China were to become a giant Hong Kong, it would probably have somewhere on the order of four times as much latent power as the United States does, allowing China to gain a decisive military advantage over the United States.’
Ten years after those lines were written, China’s economy has passed Japan’s as the world’s second-largest. Its total defense spending in 2009 was $150 billion, compared with only $17 billion in 2001. But even more revealing is the pattern of China’s military modernization. “Force planning—the product of long-term commitments and resource allocation decisions—is the heart of strategy,” the military expert Thomas Donnelly, of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote last year. And for more than a decade now, China’s military
‘has shifted its focus from repelling a Soviet invasion and controlling domestic unrest to the sole problem of defeating U.S. forces in East Asia. This has been a strategic surprise to which no American administration has appropriately responded.’
China is increasing its submarine fleet from 62 to 77 and has tested a stealth fighter jet as part of a buildup also featuring surface warships, missiles, and cyber warfare. Andrew F. Krepinevich, the president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, believes that nations of the Western Pacific are slowly being “Finlandized” by China: they will maintain nominal independence but in the end may abide by foreign-policy rules set by Beijing. And the more the United States is distracted by the Middle East, the more it hastens this impending reality in East Asia, which is the geographical heart of the global economy and of the world’s navies and air forces.”
The response of Chinese netziens and some party members to its backing down on the issue of the SCS only furthers this claim. As for why China wouldn’t stop Iran but move to stop Israel (at least clandestinely), two reasons: First, China needs Iran for oil until it can consolidate territorial claims on the SCS and its disputes with Japan over the Senkaku islands. Second, is that China needs a conflict between Iran and Israel (the more the US is involved, the better) to hide its continued military build-up; as the article notes, China’s military buildup was previously able to escape notice precisely because the US was so focused on Afghanistan and Iraq.
I’m not badmouthing China or anything, i’m just stating what seems to be the reality of the situation.
John Chan
Why should China get involved in an inconsolable dead lock between Iran and Israel? Particular the author wants China to side with the Israel and the USA, which is a nation that determines to destroy China itself. China will only get burnt by all sides if it tries to interfere.
If Israel is to strike, China will earn more brownie points by helping Iran to rebuild the nation and providing aids after the strike.
China has more USD than everybody else, it can get more oil than everybody else too, then pass the cost to those can’t get oil, I don’t see how can China is only one to suffer high oil price.
If China does what the article suggested, it proves China can be harassed into submission by the USA. Siding with the USA and Israel is nothing but selling out China’s soul and becomes a lackey of the USA.
Mark Thomason
Then again, if an Israeli attack seems imminent, China might take steps to stop Israel.
A more interesting article would be to explore China’s options to stop Israel.
Mike From Tampa
China will do nothing for noone except themselves. Nothing. They may imprison a few Tibetans or return a few North Koreans for starvation or even outlaw the Catholic Church but they will not stop a madman from getting a nuke.
John Chan
@Mike From Tampa,
China’s non-interference principle treats all nations large and small as equal, it respects all other nations’ integrity, it helps where help is constructive and meaningful. But meddling other nations’ affairs uninvited and destructively under the veil of democracy and human rights is USA and its lackeys’ default choice of action.
So far Iran has not invaded other nation, but USA and its lackeys have been bombing and killing non-stop since WWII. If you call Iran madman, then what to you call USA and its lackeys?
Mishmael
@ Mike from Tampa
As if America is such a saint doing everything for other countries. The more interesting question is how the USA, by subverting the democracy Iran enjoyed under Mossadegh, foisted a ruthless dictator upon the Iranian people (the Shah) who so aggrieved them that they rebelled leading to the current theocratic regime. In my view this makes the US acutely responsible for the Iran nuclear crisis, especially when one considers the amount of tacit support given by the US when the Shah was building his nuclear program.
Mike from Tampa espouses a typical American view characterized by the absolute dominance of short-term memory. I rather think John Chan sounds more reasonable since his argument does not rely on spurious claims about national character. In the future I hope the Diplomat would reject comments like Mike from Tampa’s since they are pointless and they undermine the seriousness of the subject matter
webster0105
That’s the point, really…
I think the biggest problem with nuclear non-proliferation is that it’s always going to be strategic to have it. I think it’s much more conducive to take a step back and realize that, as a sovereign nation,Iran has just as much a right to Nuclear Capability as Israel or the U.S. It would be acceptable to come to a consensus limiting the total number of weapons developed (i.e. you can build enough to deter, but not any more…or else your neighbor will build 7 more, then his neighbor, etc). Until we accept the fact that we can’t maintain the monopoly on coercion through nuclear threats, the better. To be honest, I find this rather a non-issue. I highly doubt Tehran would USE a weapon…it doesn’t serve a purpose that way. The purpose is the POSSIBILITY that it will be used. If you lash out in fear/anxiety, you’re playing into the strategy
There is no issue of “madmen” but of rationality; they KNOW the reaction such goals will cause and they WANT it. In short, Nuclear Arms are power, vis-a-vis those who don’t have it/don’t WANT you to have it.
Mark Thomason
There is no madman. There is no nuke program. China is getting involved to an increasing extent in many things.
As it does get involved, China has been demonstrating that it will think for itself and refuse orders from the US. See the veto of the attempt to do a Libya in Syria.
That is why it is more relevant and interesting to discuss China’s other options, rather than their ability help if they follow orders.
papa john
Red China was a unfinished work for Americans when they helped us to finish the Soviet Uniion in the 80s. We rewarded them with massive investments now it is a threat. I hope Obama administration should go further making a strategic alliance with the Russians given Putin in power now to eliminate this red monster once for all.
SCdad07
Your “We rewarded them with massive investments now it is a threat”:
Stop buying IPOD and may Apple build a plant in Russia.
John Chan
@papa john,
Putin hates USA, he hates USA destroyed his beloved and glorious USSR. His last terms he gave USA hell of time, he determined to square the score with USA. USA needs to beg China not to give Putin a hand; but with anti-China bloggers pushing China to join hands with Putin, it seems soon it will be USA’s term to enjoy the treatment that USSR got.
China supports American to have a lifestyle they cannot make it themselves, instead of show gratitude, American is bad mouthing China non-stop like you. With such unappreciative and unfair mentality, why didn’t China flood the market with USD to shake up USA a bit?
SCdad07
Mike – I do more to better myself. I do more to better my family. I do more to better my country. If the country demands, She has the priority.
Tell the board what you are doing?
SCdad07s
There are quite a few in hundreds by now that are among the ‘Reincarnation’ to be the next Lama.
Mike may claim that he is the next one if he lives long enough when the 14th Lama will disclose who, when, how and what at his 90th.
May he choose someone from Cheney’s family.
What? Why can’t She be the chosen one.