After reading the thread, I think I can respond to various points.
1) Iran is a Geopolitical boundary and it will not matter who fired first, the underlying imperatives will trump all other considerations.
I have to disagree with the comment of firing first. Yes Iran is of regional geopolitical importance, that importance does not trump all other considerations though. Especially if Iran were to initiate disruption of the SLOC for international petroleum exports, and/or fire upon naval vessels of foreign powers. Russia and China IMO will continue to back Iran as long as it remains in their national interests to do so. For China, a closure of the Straits of Hormuz and the resulting impact of fuel prices and availability would not be something in the interests of China. Similarly, if Iran began launching attacks against shipping and vessels in the Persian Gulf that would escalate the tensions beyond what they are now, potentially into an actual shooting war. Again, not something good for fuel prices and availability from the Gulf. Further, if Iran did start shooting, how long before Russia and China could become targets?
2) Russia and China will support Iran in the event of conflict. Both nations want a Central Asia free of a NATO presence and see Iran as the doorway of the continent and will not be prepared to see it kicked open.
3) The risk of conflict is increased as NATO influence in Central Asia diminishes. All major US strategies for the region are coming to Nothing with Pipeline and development initiatives such as Nabucco and the New Silk Road being trumped by better thought out Russian and Chinese projects. Manas is back on the closure list and the regional screw slowly being tightened. An Attack on Iran may well be the last throw of the dice to ensure any continued presence for the US in the region.
For #2, again I disagree. Russia and China MIGHT support Iran in a conflict, it depends on what is in their respective national interests. Even on the international stage, the Who, What, Why and How still matter. If Iran gets caught dropping sea mines in the shipping lanes of the Persian Gulf or Straits of Hormuz again, would the economic, military and diplomatic gains from backing Iran outweigh the losses? Such calculations are not simple.
As for a diminishing NATO presence in the Central Asia, I have been under the impression that was an outcome which NATO, including the US was seeking, hence the troop drawn downs. The arguments being presented seem to be arguing that the US/NATO is attempting to instigate something with Iran to justify a continued presence in the region. Given that these views are diametrically opposed, someone has the wrong idea of what is going on.
4) Iran is a source for Energy Pipeline projects and Transit route for new Transcontinental communications in which Russia and China have already made substantial investments, they will not be prepared to lose these current and future assets.
5) With the exception of Turkmenistan, all the regional nations are existing or aspirational members of the Russian/Chinese Security Organisations - inc India.
Ambiguity may be the name of the new great game, but if push does come to shove, all of them have demonstrated a deep underlying understanding of where there true interests lie.
6) 100, 000 Nato troops would suddenly be cut off and isolated in Afghanistan and find themselves the front line of the one thing they have been told never to fight - a land war in Asia.
7) I read a lot of people dismissing the capabilities of the Iranians, but I recall when Hezbollah stopped the IDF in its tracks, the reason being given was that Hezbollah had been supplied and trained by the Iranians. So which is it? as you cannot have it both ways.
With respect to the capabilities of the Iranians and referencing the conflict between the IDF and Hezbollah, the comparison is akin to comparing apples to walnuts unless there were to be a ground invasion of Iran by the US/NATO. Yes, Hezbollah was able to inflict significant damage on IDF ground elements which moved into Lebanon. This was partially due to the weaponry Hezbollah had available to them, but it was mostly due to the conditions that the IDF and Hezbollah were operating in. Namely a significant urbanized battlespace defended by a dedicated guerilla force which was able to blend in with the local civilian population.
What has been mentioned so far, is damaging or destroying the Iranian Navy and those ground forces which could launch attacks again shipping in the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz. This sort of scenario is vastly different from having troops attempting to occupy Iran proper, which AFAIK no reasonable person is considering.
In summary, there seems to be a consensus between Russia and China that China is able to tap into the energy resources of Central Asia to feed its demand while Russia is able to monopolise the supply of Asian energy to Europe.
The strategies of both countries require a stable central Asia, fully integrated into Sino-Russian economic and security organisations and sealed in a Geopolitical sense by Iran. Neither will be prepared to see those plans jeopardised, which means that ensuring the survival of the Iranian regime, is of critical importance to their; increasingly, highly coordinated defence and foreign policy strategies.
Again I have to disagree with the conclusions here too re: the survival of the Iranian regime and the 'consensus' between Russia and China. Both countries are going to do what is in their respective national interests, naturally. However, those respective national interests are not the same, with the price of oil being one of the easiest examples to illustrate the difference. Russia being an energy exporter wants the highest price, while China being an energy importer wants the lowest price. Regarding the Iranian regime's continued survival... I would expect that both Russia and China want a regime which is stable and cooperative with their respective governments. At present it seems hard to determine just how cooperative Iran is with both nations, but calling the regime stable would be IMO a gross distortion of the truth.
Within Iran, it remains questionable just how long the current regime can hold in the face of 16% inflation, the hikes in domestic fuel prices and the tight control of the population, especially the young. A further question regarding the stability of the regime is whether or not Russia and China can trust the current regime. At present, the regime seems to be acting in its own interests to remain in power, which is not necessarily the same as acting in the national interests of Iran. As part of the effort to remain in power, Iran has been developing long-ranged weaponry which could enable Iran to threaten European nations which act counter to the wishes or Iran. AFAIK at present Western European nations remain out of range, but Moscow is...