If the US takes on Iran,the only effect it will have on China would be to embolden it,not make them think twice as the Iranians are likely to escalate any conflict(providing that you are talking bout the US taking out their reactor at Bushehir),which will obviously lead to the end of the Mullahs,but (crucially) leave the US taking care of another country in the ME ie US forces getting tied down.The Mullahs in Iran aren't averse to escalating a conflict & with the pretty large Shia populations in Bahrein,Lebanon,Pakistan,Saudi Arabia & Yemen,you can expect a lot of trouble.Any US action on Iran,esp if it's a longterm commitment,will give the PRC breathing space to act on Taiwan.Will the US public want to see US forces go to war with a nation with the world's largest armed forces(& 350 odd nukes) when they are taking casualities in Iraq & Iran(which contrary to what folks on FR expect will not be a cake walk)??
I certainly agree that the conflict won't be limited to simple strikes attempting the destruction of Iran's nuclear capacity; even if the U.S. were to try to wage such a limited campaign (and isn't my most likely scenario), I agree that it would escalate since that escalation plays to what one of the few strengths the Iranians have, the ability to put a relatively largish number of people in the field.
The Mullahs in Iran aren't averse to escalating a conflict & with the pretty large Shia populations in Bahrein,Lebanon,Pakistan,Saudi Arabia & Yemen,you can expect a lot of trouble.
My best guess is that a second demonstration of political will from the U.S. will have a salutary effect (as with Libya) on Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Any US action on Iran,esp if it's a longterm commitment,will give the PRC breathing space to act on Taiwan.
As I said earlier, I don't believe that the U.S. leadership has any plan to actively defend Taiwan at this point nor will China reckon on us having such a plan (not only do we owe them lots of money, they have lots and lots of our assets in the way of manufacturing capacity sitting conveniently at hand for quick nationalization), so that "breathing space" already exists as much as it ever will.
Will the US public want to see US forces go to war with a nation with the world's largest armed forces(& 350 odd nukes) when they are taking casualities in Iraq & Iran(which contrary to what folks on FR expect will not be a cake walk)??
I certainly don't believe that it would in any way be a cakewalk, and I don't believe that our government will attempt an active defense of Taiwan.
However, I believe that if we were to make such a defense, it would be extraordinarily popular with Americans. Most big wars start that way, and most of us want to defend a fellow democracy against China.
But just because we citizens want to do something, that doesn't mean that the U.S. government would do something -- believe me, if we had attacked Iran in 1979, it would have had universal popularity here, but a Carter government wouldn't defend itself against a bunny rabbit, much less mad mullahs.
This isn't so clear. The Axis of Evil's real strength was its ability to threaten western interests. With that threat diminished, the equation has to be recalculated. As with Libya's reported capitulation, Coalition wins can have interesting effects on the geopolitical chessboard.
The first lesson China learned was that we were willing to risk whole armies to WMD attacks to rebalance those tables.
China knows we're not spineless now. Taking out Iran's mullahs after three years of Democrat protest would prove that the Coalition had all the political backing it needed to make good its promises.
The rhetoric we've heard from China over the straights has had more to do with its sinister desire to use North Korea as a game piece.
I have yet to see proof that China doesn't derive strategic advantage from the Axis of Evil's own strength. Our commanders and our troops are seasoned combatants now. China understands that. Perhaps this is another reason why they resort to rhetoric.