The Eastern Solution
Does the road to a nuclear-free Iran run through Beijing?
Starting from the premise that using means short of a military strike to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program is preferable, we could do worse than to consider how China could figure in. One of five veto-wielding members of the Security Council, owner of the second-largest economy in the world, and the globe’s top rising power, it maintains significant energy interests in Iran, as a consequence of which it (along with Russia) has done a great deal to protect the Islamic Republic from harsher international sanctions. Colum Lynch reports that if you are holding your breath for Russia and China to let sanctions go through in the wake of yesterday’s damning report, well, you should probably exhale. After the report was released, China publicly urged Iran to show “flexibility” and “sincerity,” whatever that means. That China seems unwilling to take a stronger stand is a real shame, because, as Ilan I. Berman writes on today’s Times op-ed page, “A concerted Chinese crackdown on firms involved in nuclear commerce with Iran would effectively cripple Tehran’s atomic program.”
Berman’s essay lays out how China and Iran benefit from their bilateral relationship—Iran gets technology, financing, and diplomatic protection; China gets the black stuff (and also liquefied natural gas and other energy sources). He proposes that the United States take a hard line on China and several of its companies that are absolutely crucial to Iran’s ability to operate its economy, much less its atomic program: targeted sanctions, asset freezes, and the like. He notes that a U.S. Treasury undersecretary was in Beijing in September to disclose precisely this threat, but that there so far has seemed little willpower to follow through.
It’s not bad thinking. And it puts one in mind of what Israel has been doing. Israel, which lacks the United States’ strategic leverage, has attempted to persuade China that it is really in its own interest—own economic interest (money still talks with the nominally Communist Chinese leadership)—to peacefully work to prevent Iran from getting a bomb. Nearly two years ago, a high-ranking Israeli delegation quietly visited and suggested that it could be destabilizing if Iran were to move close to achieving a nuclear bomb, because, y’know, a country in Israel’s position might feel an urge to do something about that, and the world energy markets are not liable to respond kindly to such an event, hypothetically speaking and all. Notably, the two leading delegates were Moshe Ya’alon, a Netanyahu loyalist in the Cabinet, and chief Israeli central banker Stanley Fischer, an economist who is perhaps the most revered Israeli figure in elite circles around the world.
Apparently it was not the evidence Israel presented then of Iran’s non-peaceful intentions that caught the Chinese leaders’ notice, but rather the threat of Israel’s own non-peaceful intentions. (Which explains how Israel could honestly claim the importance of the threat of military action while at the same time insisting that the Iranian regime is irrational: The mullahs aren’t Israel’s only audience.) There seems to be an opportunity for the United States and Israel to join forces here in persuading China to come over more fully to their side—which would be a gigantic coup. It’s just this sort of creative diplomacy that needs to be thought up and sincerely implemented before we move on to a less desirable option. When people say that a military strike should only be a “last resort,” that has to mean that it comes after things like this.
To Stop Iran, Lean On China [NYT]
Israel Make Case to China for Iran Sanctions [NYT]
Israel to Push China on Iran Sanctions [Haaretz]
Related: Don’t Bet on U.N. Sanctions Over the IAEA Report [FP Turtle Bay]
Earlier: With Iran, Uncertainty Is Only Certainty
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at email@example.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.