“It's An Act Of WAR!” Professor Jiang vs Gordon Chang On China, Iran & Trump | Plus Robert Pape

Robert Pape asserts that the US-Iran conflict is not on a path to peace or victory but one of escalation. He identifies three thresholds being crossed: widening the war within the region (e.g., targeting Red Sea choke points via Houthis), crossing thresholds with China (blockading China-bound ships is an act of war), and moving towards a much longer war scenario with locked-in global economic effects.

Pape notes the US is moving more forces into the region, Iran is counter-threatening, and the blockade impacts 20% of global oil and 30% of fertilizer, potentially extending for weeks and months.

Robert Pape argues that Israel has consistently acted as a 'spoiler' in potential peace negotiations between the US and Iran. He cites instances where Israeli military actions have derailed diplomatic efforts, making a negotiation track increasingly unviable for Iran.

Pape mentions Israel bombing negotiators in May, starting the 12-day war, and continuing to bombard Lebanon despite ceasefire talks.

Professor Jang argues that China is not benefiting from the war, as its $200 billion infrastructure investments in the Middle East, particularly Iran's Belt and Road projects, are at risk. China relies on the Strait of Hormuz for 50-60% of its energy needs and has used strategic reserves, but a prolonged war would harm its economy. China's diplomatic efforts for a ceasefire in Islamabad underscore its vested interest in regional stability.

Jang highlights Chinese-financed railways being targeted and China's pressure on Iranians for a ceasefire in Islamabad.

Professor Jang suggests a larger US strategy might be to strangle the Chinese economy by restraining its access to key maritime choke points like the Strait of Malacca, mirroring Iran's ability to impose tolls in Hormuz. This would raise tremendous costs for China, which is an export-dependent economy.

Jang explains that if Iran can impose tolls in Hormuz, the US military could do the same in Malacca, impacting China's trade.

Gordon Chang believes the war was necessary but criticizes Trump for not effectively making the case to the American public. He points to Iran's potential possession of a Wasang 15 missile (range 8,100 miles, capable of hitting the US) via North Korea transfers, and its 60% enriched uranium, as clear and present dangers that Trump failed to articulate convincingly.

Chang cites US Treasury sanctions on North Korea and Iran since 2016 for missile component transfers and Iran's admitted 60% enriched uranium.

Gordon Chang argues that despite US military stock depletion due to the Iran war, China is currently unable to invade Taiwan. This is attributed to Xi Jinping's extensive purges decimating the top ranks of the Chinese military, leaving only two members on the Central Military Commission (Xi and a political commissar), thus lacking the coordination for a combined air-land-sea operation.

Chang states the Communist Party Central Military Commission, which controls the military, went from seven members to two, with no operational officers remaining.

Sarab Amari contends that the war has revealed Iran's ability to 'squeeze the global economy' through the Strait of Hormuz, effectively giving them a 'nuclear weapon' without needing an actual one. This newfound leverage strengthens the regime and allows it to demand 'tolls' for passage, restoring a status quo ante that wouldn't have been disrupted without the war.

Amari states, 'I have a nuclear weapon called the Strait of Hormuz' and mentions Iran's 10-point plan for negotiations included charging tolls.

Sarab Amari argues that the US and Israel miscalculated Iranian public sentiment by listening too much to the diaspora. While 10-20% of urban, educated Iranians oppose the regime, a core supports it, and the 'mushy middle' (40-50%) has likely been pushed towards regime support due to the bombing, as no one likes to be bombed by external forces.

Amari notes that women without hijabs appeared on state TV supporting the supreme leader, and that attacks like the one on the Minab school killed schoolgirls, fostering anti-foreign sentiment.

Baffl Talibani, President of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, refutes Trump's claim that Kurds stole weapons intended for Iranian protesters. He states that while he can't speak for all Kurdish regions, weapons were not stolen on the Sulaymaniyah side. He views Trump's accusation as 'shameful' and counterproductive to alliances.

Talibani directly responds to Piers Morgan's question, 'Did you steal them?' with 'No, I didn't actually' and 'I can guarantee you on the Sulmania side, not a people stolen.'