China And Iran: A Strategic Hunch

Four Faces Of The Avatar

AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA

Upon occasion, in human affairs, it becomes necessary to remind the functionaries that they are not proprietors.

This observation has reference to that Euro-American mélange of colossal dummies who self-identify as the foreign policy establishment and intelligence community.

The following is a hunch. I have no direct or circumstantial evidence to support a claim of verity for it. It is an informed hunch, and not delivered lightly, but a hunch nonetheless.

I think Iran and China jointly plan to split Russia into three pieces and simultaneously humiliate The United States into confused inaction.

Ideology provides the motivation. Geography provides the opportunity. A diplomatic, financial, and military squeeze provides the occasion.

One should expect an adversary to do what they should do by way of sending one out of existence.

Islam and Communism share an enemy: Christianity. Hinduism also is an enemy of Islam and Communism. But Christianity is the enemy in whose face Islam and Communism feel the most and most immediate dis-ease.

Therefore, campaigns by Islam and Communism against leading nations representing Christian Civilization should be expected.

There are indications that Qasem Soleimani is being prepared to succeed Ali Khamenei or Hassan Rouhani.

Were that to happen, Iran would be on war-footing. Even were it not to happen, factors ideological but also geographical and economic are driving Iran to patent war-footing and strike posture. Ditto China.

Iran and China, in train of Islam and Communism, do not conceive of situations in which they and another nation both benefit. To them, you win and I lose or I win and you lose. Both of us cannot win just like both of us cannot lose. One or the other makes it and the other one does not, and that is that.

Oft ideology shall phenomenology mar.

I think the plan is:

1- Iran opens two fronts:

a- strike north through and along the Caspian Sea to flank Russia at Aktau or Fort-Shevchenko or to penetrate her at Derbent, Makhachkala, or Astrakhan;

b- strike west through Iraq on Highway 1/11/10/11/2 (changing numbers as it crosses Iraq, Jordan, and Syria), the Baghdad-Damascus Highway, to Al-Tanf on the Jordan-Syria border.

2- China opens two fronts:

a- strike west to Ulan-Ude or Irkutsk at Lake Baikal;

b- strike east to annihilate a U.S. Navy Carrier Strike Group or two (compare the former U.S. Navy Carrier Battle Group) in The Sea of Japan or The Philippine Sea;

000618-N-0147W-002
Off Coast of Hawaii- The ABRAHAM LINCOLN Battle Group along with ships from Australia, Chile, Japan, Canada, and Korea steam alongside one another on 18 June 2000 for a Battle Group Photo during RIMPAC 2000.
Official U.S. Navy photo by: PH2 Gabriel Wilson

060429-N-9621S-014
Caribbean Sea (April 29, 2006) Ð Ships assigned to the George Washington Carrier Strike group sail in formation during a strike group photo exercise. The George Washington Carrier Strike group is currently participating in Partnership of the Americas, a maritime training and readiness deployment of the U.S. Naval Forces with Caribbean and Latin American countries in support of the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) objectives for enhanced security. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 3rd Class Christopher Stephens (RELEASED)

[c- China might open a third front by striking through Assam to split India, the Hindu enemy];

[d- were she really feeling her pig, China would open a fourth front by striking through Ladakh to Leh and beyond, as they assessed opportunities beckoning. Pakistan, a host and client of China, would second that move and gobble up detritus.]

These moves, by cornered ideologues, would accomplish, in their minds, and regarding their most-in-mind enemies, Christianity and Hinduism, division of one nation, Russia, and humiliation of another, The USA.

SCMP used to be anti-Communist, now it is ChiCom Lite at least.

A commenter signing as Raghn Crow responded to a comment of mine, which comprised the gist of the foregoing, on a post by Spengler at PJMedia: Trump’s Real Liability Isn’t Impeachment: It’s China and the Economy. I introduced my comment to Spengler [David P. Goldman] with this language:

With respect, David, this feels too economy-weighted for my feeble sensibilities. Yes, imprecise epistemological locution, but that is all I have.

I think ideology and geography impel decisions more than do economics. I refrain from entering upon a disquisition to explain that confession.

Without setting forth the reasons why, here is what I think, and I emphasize it is a hunch, not a certainty, much less a fact-laden assessment:

I think Iran and China plan as follows:

etc.

Raghn Crow responded to that of mine with this language:

Interesting indeed. But I wonder, how is China going to feed itself while its armies plunder through “the empty kingdoms of Pluto” to quote from the Aeneid? Any sort of Chinese-started war, and no more food imports to the Middle Kingdom. Maybe I hung out with Napoleon too long, but he did say, “An army marches on its stomach.” And of course the folks back home have to have something to eat.

Also, IIRC, Assam proved too difficult a terrain for the Japanese in WWII; perhaps the Chicoms would fare no better?

I responded to Raghn Crow with this language:

Sensible observation deserves sensible, I hope, response.

All true about the importance of logistics to the front and to the rear. My hunch rests on the phenomenon, rare but known, and, I believe, closely present today in the cases of Iran and China, that, pushed to it, persons and nations may act from motive other than economic or other merely rational interest. They may strike out for purely ideological reasons, even if that lands them in existential peril.

I cite Jews at Masada, Japanese at Okinawa, and Paulus’ orders received at Stalingrad.

I estimate that Iran and China have been roundly pushed to it, or feel that they have been, or soon will be. I estimate that both Iran and China, imbued and driven as they are by the zero-sum-game assumptions of Shiism and Communism as well as by, finally, serious economic sanctions, are repairing to ideological treasure for satisfying address to difficulties they experience.

These difficulties are by way of wanting to cut a way out of an encirclement.

Ideology instructs both Iran and [Communist] China that their primary enemy is nations produced by Christian Culture and their secondary enemy those produced by Vedic Culture. The strikes I sketched proceed from assumptions and observations I experience regarding Iran and [Communist] China today.

Because of zero-sum-game assumptions, Iranian and Chinese economies both are looting economies, inherently weak, dependent on compelled labor bereft of protected ownership of its product. No sua sponte loyalty to the actual proprietors — the ruling regime — or to social cohesion such as is approved by that regime.

IIRC, the Assam portal also proved too difficult for the PLA in the early 1960s. India’s famous Assam Regiment lives and works up there in shifts of a few months’ duration. Elements bound for that duty must train up for it, to include dietary restrictions. The elevations at which they canton and work are 18k and 22k. I am told they keep warm, in part, by drinking Three Monks Rum.

Raghn Crow responded with this language:

An excellent comment, sir. Much appreciated! Thanks for taking the time. (And now I wonder what this Three Monks Rum tastes like. 🙂

You’d be interested in this article [by David Archibald], though you’ve probably already seen it.

Fascinating, though of course chilling, reading!

Thanks again.

I answered:

Thanks so much, I had not seen the Archibald essay although I am familiar with his work, appreciatively so.

I confess to having considered Vietnam in a general contemplation of positions on China’s flanks but not nearly as compendiously as Archibald does. He convinces me. Thank you! I must and will fold Archibald’s information and insights into my own, futurely.

Taking it neat, I find the aroma of Three Monks rum off-putting, suspecting it comes from the old barrels in which it is deliberately aged. The taste I find acceptable. The finish I find delightful. YMMV. I have no financial interest in whatever company produces it.

Best wishes to you and yours!