I only wish Peter Lee would refer to them as Iranian Regime, and not Iran. It is a lot clearer then when you read comments like this:
He declared: "Under no circumstances could China undertake to please Iran and at the same time hurt the feelings of the Arabs and other countries."www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LB25Ad02.html

It would be good to see the Chinese get involved with proper Iranians and not these madmen.

atimes.com: atimes.com/atimes/China/LB25Ad01.html --------------
atimes.net: www.atimes.net/China/china-fine-tunes-its-iran-strategy.html

DrCore wrote in this thread, China feels US-Iran fallout:

SIGH... talking to no one in particular...

After reading Peter Lee's incremental follow-up article
www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LB25Ad01.html

which closes with:
may - or may not - spare China the need to cast an embarrassing and dangerous vote in the UN Security Council.

I wonder if Russia really betray Iran, and it all comes down to China's veto, what's the real cost/benefit?

Peter Lee covered some facts that are pretty pertinent. But the intro and conclusion seem to ignore a lot of factors he himself brought up. A "for" or "abstain" vote will have serious economic consequences: 10-14% petrol import is some serious sh*t. Other countries had gone to war for far smaller stake. What's China getting in return? America's goodwill? How much is it worth? And how long will it lasts? From recent experience, America's goodwill last about 3 months to 2 years. A blink of an eye as far as Chinese leadership is concerned.

The economic cost is high enough to be consider a red line issue. We are not talking about cheap tires here. Peter Lee neglected to consider the embarrassment and danger of NOT using the veto on a red line issue. Considering everyone else had already exercised veto power multiple times, if China surrender on a red line issue, China will have no bargaining power left in every other red line issues. Tire duty, Dalai Lama, TW arms trade, that's 3 bloodied noses in a row. Next successful punch by USA will be a diplomatic KO.

True, I agree that being the one and only permanent member to never had used the veto is kind of nice, but it seems this time serious damage to China's credibility is at stake.

Another angle to consider: in just a few more months, mid-term election will make Obama a lame duck. China can probably play a few tricks to keep Obama's White House paralyzed. North Korea may test another missile, or there may be a "mysterious" push on t-bill yield. If the Reps get a landslide victory, there may even be an impeachment hearing by mid-2011. China won't be sorry to see a Republican White House again. Ok... how does impeachment works? The VP takes over right? So it's not exactly a complete regime change, but still it's good enough for now. And the cost won't be as high as 10% petrol import.

There is plenty of oil out there, so don't worry about the 14%. It is really down to what the giants like Wal-Mart want to do with China. If they threaten a pull-put then China is finished. Brazil would greet Wal-Mart even more, so would Turkey and all the other modernizing countries, which do not have China's human rights record. The mullahs thought they could play the China card at the UN with El-Baradei But now it is different. Time for change, on a much larger scale than you could possibly imagine. There is much more to this.

alimostofi wrote:
I only wish Peter Lee would refer to them as Iranian Regime, and not Iran.

alimostofi wrote:
China has no respect for the plight of the Iranians under the mullahs.
Roll eyes...

alimostofi

although I can understand your desire, I think you might be letting your heart rule your head.

Walmart needs China as much as China needs Walmart.

Don't know if anyone has added the recent arms sale to Taiwan to the mix yet, but really can't see China joining this party.

another thing to consider is that sanctions tend to hit the little guy harder than those on top, they ratchet up the animosity in the community that supports the mullahs increasing solidarity.

what I think you will get is a watered down something that China can agree to or more discussions.

aquicke wrote:
DrCore wrote in this thread, China feels US-Iran fallout:

"America's goodwill? How much is it worth? And how long will it lasts? From recent experience, America's goodwill last about 3 months to 2 years. A blink of an eye as far as Chinese leadership is concerned."

Late as usual. Well awhile back, an Australian politician who had been involved in negotiations with various countries including China, told me the Chinese response to the politician's impatience at "lack of progress". This indicates Chinese perception of time.

"Lack of progress" mused the Chinese delegate as he steepled both hands in deep thought. "I'll tell you what progress is, he continued after a long pause. Over thirty years ago I resolved to buy myself an automobile, last year I realised that dream. That is called progress".

Thanks for earlier good wishes on my first post.