Iran and Related Geopolitical Defense Issues

STURM

Well-Known Member
China currently lacks the ability to project military power beyond their local area.
And it is unlikely to ever develop the capability to project power globally because unlike the U.S., it doesn't need to do so. For this reason, many see the main purpose of China's first carrier with having to do with protecting its merchant and energy fleet, rather than projecting power far beyond its shores. To secure it's interests in areas far from its borders, China has resorted to building ports in laces like Sri Lanka and Pakistan, and by building alliances with a number of countries.
 
Last edited:

Beatmaster

New Member
And what about India? They use to be one of the major players in the middle east.
Also China might lack the options to do anything serious however they could support Iran if they wished to the same way as the US supports Israel.
If China does take a stance on the side of Iran then Russia might follow suit.
And having Pakistan as a ally to China they will have a direct connection to Iran.
So far its unknown what the major players are going to do, but its save to say that if they decide against the west then this will complicate things beyond imagine.

Some sources on the Internet even suggested that Iran might be the new cold war battle ground where major players can fight eachother without going into a all out war.
I know its alot of what ifs but there lies some truth.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
And it is unlikely to ever develop the capability to project power globally because unlike the U.S., it doesn't need to do so. For this reason, many see the main purpose of China's first carrier with having to do with protecting its merchant and energy fleet, rather than projecting power far beyond its shores. To secure it's interests in areas far from its borders, China has resorted to building pors in laces like Sri Lanka and Pakistan, and by building alliances with a number of countries.
I guess the definition of ‘power projection’ depends on how much ‘power’ you require before it becomes ‘projection’. Merchant fleet protection is most useful form of power projection, but using a carrier to do it would be taking things up several notches. Almost looks like they are assuming a need to fight off India or the US. Against Somali pirates and the like it would be such complete overkill as to be very difficult to use effectively.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
IAlmost looks like they are assuming a need to fight off India or the US.
The greatest worry for China is that in time of conflict, the U.S. and India will easily be able to interdict the Chinese merchant and energy fleet in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf. The Chinese ships will also have to pass through the Melaka Straits where they will be vulnerable to interdiction.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
Interesting that people here assume that India will automatically side with the US in any conflict over Iran.
The situation with India's oil supply contracts with Iran suggests otherwise.
 

LogisticsGuy

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #307
The Chinese ships will also have to pass through the Melaka Straits where they will be vulnerable to interdiction.
This is probably the reason China is constructing pipelines from the coast of Myanmar/Burma up the central Irrawaddy river valley to Kunming in southern China. They hope to bypass the importation of oil from Africa and the Persian Gulf through the easily blocked Strait of Malacca.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
Who 'assumed' that this would be the case?
Well your phrase in your last post:

The greatest worry for China is that in time of conflict, the U.S. and India will easily be able to interdict the Chinese merchant and energy fleet in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf.
is highly suggestive, especially in the context of this thread "Iran and related Geopolitical Defence Issues" and the the previous discussion of active Chinese Russian support for Iran in the event of conflict.

Otherwise the remark would be as pointless as me saying "The greatest worry for America is that in time of conflict that the UK and France will be able to interdict the US supply and energy fleets in the Mid Atlantic and Med."

Would'nt it?

If you meant something else, I would be delighted to learn.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Would'nt it?

If you meant something else, I would be delighted to learn.
No it wouldn't, and it would have been apparent if you had read the context behind the remark.

And I would be extremely delighted to explain.

What I meant when I said that India was able to interdict Chinese shipping, was in the context of a future war or conflict between India and China. Whilst I'm fully aware of what the title of this thread is, and my post may have been 'suggestive', as you mentioned, it was in response to a comment made by My 2 Cents regarding the use of a Chinese carrier and Chinese power projection - in which no mention whatsoever was made of Iran.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
Do you think that is a realistic scenario?

Bear in mind that to my knowledge, India has only applied/expressed interest in joining one Regional Security Organisation.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Do you think that is a realistic scenario?
Whether or not I think this is a realistic scenario is irrelevant as Chinese shipping from the Middle East to China, via the Indian Ocean, is vulnerable to interdiction, which the Chinese freely acknowledge. If a war or a limited clash were to break between China and India, it would be safe to assume that Chinese shipping in the Indian Ocean, which is in India's backyard, would be targets. The Chinese have also coined the term 'The Melaka Dilemma' to describe their reliance on the Melaka Straits and the possibility of access through it being denied.

Bear in mind that to my knowledge, India has only applied/expressed interest in joining one Regional Security Organisation.
I have no idea but as you know, like China, India has been building new alliances and is spreading its influence amongst countries in the Middle East and elsewhere to safeguard its interests and as part of its competition with China.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
And it is unlikely to ever develop the capability to project power globally because unlike the U.S., it doesn't need to do so. For this reason, many see the main purpose of China's first carrier with having to do with protecting its merchant and energy fleet, rather than projecting power far beyond its shores. To secure it's interests in areas far from its borders, China has resorted to building pors in laces like Sri Lanka and Pakistan, and by building alliances with a number of countries.
What I meant when I said that India was able to interdict Chinese shipping, was in the context of a future war or conflict between India and China. Whilst I'm fully aware of what the title of this thread is, and my post may have been 'suggestive', as you mentioned, it was in response to a comment made by My 2 Cents regarding the use of a Chinese carrier and Chinese power projection - in which no mention whatsoever was made of Iran.
My comment was about the apparent contradiction of claiming that a carrier will be used only for merchant protection and is therefore not capable of projecting power far away from the shores of China (3000+km to Strait of Malacca, 9000+km to Somalia or the Persian Gulf).

Then there is the fact that using a carrier to catch pirates is like using a sledgehammer to swat flies, doesn’t work very well and tends to leave a lot of unwanted dings in things. Fending off India or the US sure, but that requires power projection beyond it’s shores, which, it is claimed, China doesn't need to do.

Too much self contradiction.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
My comment was about the apparent contradiction of claiming that a carrier will be used only for merchant protection and is therefore not capable of projecting power far away from the shores of China (3000+km to Strait of Malacca, 9000+km to Somalia or the Persian Gulf).

Then there is the fact that using a carrier to catch pirates is like using a sledgehammer to swat flies, doesn’t work very well and tends to leave a lot of unwanted dings in things. Fending off India or the US sure, but that requires power projection beyond it’s shores, which, it is claimed, China doesn't need to do.

Too much self contradiction.
The carrier will indeed be able to project power but as only one carrier is currently operational it has been suggested that its main use in coming years will be to protect its shipping against the possibility of interdiction by a foreign power, in case of war. To protect its shipping against pirates, the PLAN does not need carriers, as destroyers, backed by replenishment ships will suffice, as has been the case. No one has ever suggested that the primary use of the carrier will be to protect shipping against pirates or that the carrier will not or can't be used to project power. The only person who has suggested that the carrier will be used against pirates is you..... China indeed needs to project power at sea to protect its interests but for the moment, does not need to project power globally, in the classic sense with land, air and sea power and it does not need multiple carrier groups roaming the worlds oceans, in the way the U.S. does, for a number of reasons. One of China's main over concerns now is its dependency on foreign countries to meet its energy needs and the vulnerability of its shipping, not its inability to project power globally.

Still contradictory?
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
Whether or not I think this is a realistic scenario is irrelevant as Chinese shipping from the Middle East to China, via the Indian Ocean, is vulnerable to interdiction, which the Chinese freely acknowledge. If a war or a limited clash were to break between China and India, it would be safe to assume that Chinese shipping in the Indian Ocean, which is in India's backyard, would be targets. The Chinese have also coined the term 'The Melaka Dilemma' to describe their reliance on the Melaka Straits and the possibility of access through it being denied.



I have no idea but as you know, like China, India has been building new alliances and is spreading its influence amongst countries in the Middle East and elsewhere to safeguard its interests and as part of its competition with China.
AFAIK the only regional security organisation to which India has applied for membership is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, where it currently enjoys an applicant status equivalent to that of Iran and Pakistan.

This in addition to the large quantities of Iranian Oil imported and Refined (note the significance of that please) should indicate where India's real attitude lies in these matters. It is part of Asia and realises it must do business with Asia first and foremost.

China's vulnerability to maritime disruption is not in doubt, but this applies to any nation other than the USA, who are the worlds only global maritime super power. China's answer of course is to revive its old Continental trade routes, which it has operated and controlled for most of its history. Iran of course is an important piece in those plans and so gives a little more geopolitical context to this thread.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
China's vulnerability to maritime disruption is not in doubt, but this applies to any nation other than the USA, who are the worlds only global maritime super power. China's answer of course is to revive its old Continental trade routes, which it has operated and controlled for most of its history.
I feel it can be argued that China is in an even more vulnerable position than most other countries, for a number of reasons. By virtue of the fact that is has to rely on energy supplies that have to be shipped all the way from the Middle East, across the length of the Indian Ocean [which is in India's backyard and is a country that China has unresolved territorial disputes and is in competition with], through several choke points further east [which are under the jurisdiction of American allies or 'friends'], it can be argued that China is in a much more vulnerable position than other countries.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
Yes, which is why China is (1) rather assertive in nearby seas where it thinks there may be oil & gas & (2) rapidly building pipelines to Central Asian countries which have oil & gas.
 

Live_Drop

Banned Member
Time For Iran To Join The Big Boys

This conflict is purely a political situation and in no way started by economics.I shall explain why below:

The History:
{refer to youtube video: "CONSEQUENCES OF ATTACKING IRAN"}
Iran was once the Persian empire. It is largely a Shia muslim population.Its people are largely independent minded hence it doesn't follow or incorporate the ideology of which western powers do as it persues its own indepent non-allied objectives regionally.Human development index an indicator of development is realtively high and has constantly increase from the 1980's onwards with health, education and levels of income inmporving but have taken a hit in recent years primarily due to economic sanctions and isolations.
Present
From a startegic point of view after its independence Iran's enemies were all of the middle east as it was a Shia country surrounded by Arab countries which of course were firendly to the United States who relations were severed. This resulted in the Iran Iraq war. Iran however tired to cool realtions with the US offering to fight the taliban in Afghanistan in the 90's and prior 2001, and even in Iraq offered which were rejected by the United States which labeled it part of the wider "axis of evil", even though its Shia population was strongly opposed to Al Queda the wahabbi terror network originating from the Arab regimes. Thus seeing the amassing of troops around its borders and the unfirendly rehetoric Iran in fear of further United States agression in the middle east indefinitely haulted its a Nuclear weapons program and started pursuing proxy groups for limited warfare . With the US attack on Iraq, Iran being the third largest crude supplier in the world influenced the once opressed shia population in Iraq and with the winning of proxy groups in Lebanon and a new found ally in Syria was now a regional power with influence across the entire middle east, which was seen as threat to the hegemonic influence of the following influencial parties as Isreal wasn't the only serious power in the middle east :
•The far-right Emergency Committee for Israel
•The House Majority Leader, Representative Eric Cantor (R-Virginia
•Senator John McCain (R-Arizona),
•The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC
•Richard N Perle
and the various elite in American and Israel.
Thus Iran's reigning power across the world's most important region of black gold was very alarming to the elite and it became a politcal debacle even though Iran showed no intentions of destabalizing pro western arab regimes or attacking its neighbours which it havent done for centuries.

Thus there was now a covert war to undermine Iran successes as the only Independent minded country in the region. As such warfare was waged against it economically which would afftect it politically and militarily ie the three trinities was being affected. Thus this lead to the protests since the country was now under constraints.

So how does this relate to the title?
1.Seeing Iran is independently minded and wants to pursue its own path of development for the benefit of its own people unlike the arabs it follows a similar path like Western Nations
2.Iran possess large energy reserves thus giving it resources to pursue its indepedent goals
3. Iran is an educated population especially in the field of science and technology. This area have seen siginificant development. Iran have demonstrated this in its ability to sustain its military with locally manufactured equipment and in civillian nuclear energy.
4. Iran is a non-aggressor and uses proxies like major powers do to get its job done
5. Iran have a system of government not a dictatorial regime. The population is allowed to vote and their views are represented. There are some differences to that of the western system , yes this is because its a different culture but it follows the same principle. In Iran lobbying comes from the guardian council , revolutionary guards etc, just like in America lobbying comes from corporate interest, notable zionist(don't take me as rasist....zionists are not Jews...Jews are good religious people).Its supreme leader is not different than the queen of england. So its a political system they follow.
6.Its a mature society. Iran is one of the oldest civillisations on earth. Therefore that said, its another reason, why Iran deserves to be treated with respect.

Thus from my point of view the only solution is a political solution where the global powers recognise the influence, maturity, and independece of Iran as it interest. Iran have no energy interest as western powers do, since it have provided it self with nuclear inaddtion to its oil and gas reverse so no western energy security is not challenged. However if Iran and the west have a mutual relationship, both would immensely benefit as there would be a renewed market for Iran and a more stable region for Iran .Israel and Iran is as a result of zionism vs islam. Iran and Israel have worked together for example on the Strikes against Iraqi nuclear facilities.Iran and Israel would have an immense amount of good to share from a relationship with each other due to mutual cooperation. But as mentioned, this is just hampered by world elitest influence in the politics of the region.

This is my first post on a discussion . I hope you folks like it.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Thus from my point of view the only solution is a political solution where the global powers recognise the influence, maturity, and independece of Iran as it interest.
According to the U.S. and Israel, if Iran were to have nuclear weapons, there would be danger of Iran using it to threaten Israel, it would destabilise the region and would lead to a regional nuclear arms race. If these are indeed the real reason why Israel would strike at Iran, shouldn't the U.S. and Israel seek a rapprochement with Iran rather than conflict? If diplomacy based on realpolitik were to prevail, all countries involved would benefit, as all these countries have common interests. Better relations with Iran would also bring the U.S. advantages in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both countries cooperated over the Taliban and during 9/11, so why shouldn't they now?

On the other hand, if the intention is to weaken Iran, to ensure Israel retains its nuclear monopoly and the U.S. retains regionally hegemony, then reasons will still be found to strike at Iran, a task made easier by Iranian refusal to accept the terms set upon it. A weaken Iran would also provide immense short term benefits to the U.S. and Israel, especially in places like Lebanon and Syria, but in the long term could cause more problems.
 
Last edited:

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Can anybody link me to a 'roster' (for the want of a better word) of US naval forces in the region?

I've been googling and all i can find are news reports of the US presence with a fleeting reference to CBGs being moved around
 

LogisticsGuy

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #320
Go back to page 1, post #4 on this thread of Dec 23, 2011. You will find a link there to the CVN locations. These are the locations of the major carrier groups.
 
Top