Iranian Parliamentary Speaker and Special Envoy for China Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who also digitally signed the memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the US for ending the Third Gulf War, declared that “the presence of both Iran and China in that bloc is certain in whatever (regional) bloc is formed.” This was interpreted by many in the Alt-Media Community (AMC) to imply the impending formation of an anti-American bloc by those two, but they’d do well not to read too deeply into his quip.
For starters, RT published an unprecedentedly critical article about China on the eve of Putin’s trip in mid-May proclaiming that “Beijing can no longer treat Moscow as a junior partner”, which was analyzed here as preceding Putin’s speculative proposal to Xi for a de facto alliance on equal terms. The new era of “constructive strategic stable relations” with the US that Xi announced during Trump’s visit right before Putin’s, however, presaged that Xi would reject Putin’s offer for teaming up against the US.
It’s thus unlikely that China would then enter into an anti-American bloc with Iran, which unlike Russia, has recently killed US servicemen and bombed many US bases. This insight segues into the second point about how China provided no direct support to Iran during the Third Gulf War, with the absolute most that it was credibly accused of doing is sharing targeting intel on US bases. Russia allegedly did the same, however, but the US didn’t punish either of them so the effect might have only been minimal.
After all, it could have least promulgated symbolic sanctions as a political statement if it concluded that Russian and/or Chinese targeting intel played a role in any of Iran’s strikes against US bases that killed some of its servicemen, but it didn’t and that says all that needs to be said. Moving along, Iran and China are already part of BRICS and the SCO, which Ghalibaf apparently forgot. Both of their associated financial institutions also comply with US sanctions against Russia as proven here and here.
The blocs that those two already participate in therefore cannot be described as anti-American. The fourth point to make is that Iran abandoned its petroyuan tollbooth system as part of the MoU with the US for opening the Strait of Hormuz. That was a significant concession that was only undertaken out of desperation for sanctions relief, which will return Iran to the petrodollar system and the wider Western financial one. Iran thus signaled that it won’t challenge this important pillar of American hegemony.
And finally, Iran’s political culture is characterized by gross exaggerations of its capabilities and plans as a means of “psyching out” its adversaries and maintaining morale at home, and the arguments that were shared thus far strongly suggest that Ghalibaf’s quip is yet another example of this. Iranian officials also tend to speak ambiguously when espousing such rhetoric so to avoid being discredited when whatever they were boasting about doesn’t happen. Ghalibaf’s words closely align with this documented pattern.
For these five reasons, the AMC shouldn’t get their hopes up about Iran and China forming a new anti-American bloc. They remain strategic partners, but the substance of their ties might actually weaken after the MoU if sanctions relief leads to Iran diversifying from its oil export dependence on China, not to mention if Western and Gulf investments elbow China out of reconstruction projects. All of that remains to be seen, but one thing is certain, and it’s that Iran and China won’t form a new anti-American bloc.
