Upon further reflection of the Chinese threat ...

... I realized I'm even more right then I first thought.

Why does the fact that Jambo feels China is a greater threat than Iran mean that China must "attack" the US to have that threat realized?

First off, he no longer believes that. Second, I didn't say the threat must be "realized" to be real, but in Iran's case it both realized and real. Iran's pursuit, the pursuit itself mind you, of nuclear weapons (let alone their acquirement) is a realized threat. I'll get to that more in a moment.

China supplies weapons and materials to such nations as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Myanmar, and gave $28 million in aid and material to Hamas in Gaza just last year (source HERE). China's "economic" goals come in direct conflict with those of the US on an almost daily basis, and their policies and agendas are as antithetical to our own as we could hope to see now that the USSR is no more.

This is all true. But the above also aptly describes, in part or in whole, many other nations: Russia, Saudi Arabia (& I dare say members of the Royal House of Saud have given far more than $28 million to Hamas), Pakistan and a litany of other countries. All of whom are not direct or declared "enemies" of the US, but whose national self interests conflict with our own. And each of them, Russia in particular, deserve their place on any "threat list." So don't mistake my placing Iran ahead of China to mean China need not be on the list. And I would hasten to add that unlike the Soviets (whom did until the day of their demise), China is not still extending a "Bamboo Curtain" over additional satellite Eastern European, or Pacific nations, one after another - they're building factories more than empire.

Just having China operate in a "busniess-as-usual" manner is a threat to US security and national interests... yet we should dismiss that threat as that much LESS than Iran's?

Yes, but not "dismiss", just basic, sound reasoning. China operates daily, on various levels, in a way that is in direct conflict to our national interests, this is true. They clearly want to supplant America as "the" superpower in the world. However, whereas China, in this endeavour, operates against US interests, Iran operates directly against US national security. Put plainly, is there any policy, agenda or course that China is currently plotting that could result in their raising the temperature of a US allies' capital city to about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit? Have they threatened to "deal us a crippling blow" in their pursuit of a nuclear weapon (I know they already have the bomb, I'm making a point)? Is their any possibility that Chinese government policy will include the possibility of smuggling a nuclear device into the hands of Islamic radicals, with the intent of destroying a major US city? Bare in mind this city is within the nation that is their largest consumer. Is the world scrambling to figure out how to prevent China from "having the bomb?" Has the Chinese premier, in any way, approached the level of insane rhetoric, ghastly promises of wiping another nation off the map, or behaved in a manner anything approaching the recklessness of the Iranian regime? If we are talking about the upcoming "big threat", say in the next 5 months to 5 years, Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon is clearly the largest threat out there, in my estimation. The strategic chess game we are now engaged in with China is just that. It is not, however, a race to prevent them from causing a second holocaust or igniting a US city via their terrorist proxies. Again, this is not to say Chinese interests do not represent any threat to US interests. Rather it is to say their threat assessment is certainly less than Iran's.

Now you might say that China is the patron of North Korea, and North Korea has threatened to wipe Seoul off the map - clearly a US ally. This is true. But the first nation to strike North Korea, were they on count down to launching that nuke, would be China in my analysis.Being the patron of North Korea means they have sway with them. They can yank the reigns on that Kim Jong's head hard enough to make his neck snap, and because China does not want a nuclear Japan, nor to see the US in a military build up in their neck of the woods (in addition to the 40k or so troops already along the parallel) it is likely they will act as the governor on the North Korean nuke throttle. Does Iran have such a patron that can pull the reigns back on Ahmedadenajad and the ruling council's nuclear ambitions, or anything lese? None that I know of. You can say Israel will hit Iran if it becomes necessary. Fine. But you must concede that such a strike could set the Middle East on fire - Jihad's everywhere will come even more unhinged, and those on the fence will almost certainly take up arms with the fanatics. Hezbollah will undoubtedly respond, reigniting the Golan heights region and renew the reason for Israel to reestablish a presence in areas it recently withdrew from. The whole thing is a tinderbox. On the other hand, were China to step on Kim Jong's face, no one would bat an eye.

(*and just a side bar, this does not mean I think Israel should not strike if it becomes necessary. "Upsetting" an enemy bent on your destruction doesn't, nor should it, factor into neutralizing them. I was simply illustrating that there are no good choices with the Iranian problem, only varying levels of bad ones)

Honestly, I see the threat you're describing in China, but to rank it even close to Iran's, I just don't get that. Ahmedadenajad has promised to eviscerate Israel. They have shown the ability to apply an iron hand against domestic subversives. They directly fund Hezbollah. They are proceeding with a ramped up nuclear weapons program and Russia is laying down cover for them in the UN Security council to make sure that the US and or Israel will have to act unilaterally in order to act militarily. The entire thing is a powder keg, and Iran continues to strike a match head against the wall ... it just hasn't lit yet. Are we anywhere approaching such a disastrous scenario with the Chinese? Clinton described China as "Strategic Partners." Bush altered that description by offering his own as president: "Strategic Competitors." Partner, competitor, tomato, tomOto, the point is the conflict with our national interests that China represents has almost no possibility of igniting a war with the US or her allies on the horizon - the same can not be said of Iran. Bottom line, China by and large represents a "potential" national security threat, "what if this happens" or "what if they do that" are the terms in which the bulk of the Chinese threat is discussed. Whereas Iran's threat exists not in what it "might" do, but what it is doing.

Now, all that being said what history shows us is that we are ALL probably wrong. And here's the reason. The "next big thing" usually is a surprise, an unexpected event. Arch Duke Ferdinand; Pearl Harbor; North Korea's invasion; North Vietnam's invasion; the Cuban problem (from the Bay of Pigs unexpected failure to the missile crisis); the Berlin wall falling - all USSR related, but under different scenarios; Saddam's invasion of Kuwait; Milosevic's sudden and brutal campaign of genocide; and of course, 9/11. Each were shocking events that galvanized this country into plotting a new national security course, and none were of the "expected" nature.

So my dark horse, my candidate for being the unexpected upper cut to our national security, is Pakistan. It is almost certain that Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are held up in the Punjab mountainous region on the Afghani border. It's a real Mad Max Thunderdome bad land. Pakistan has suffered 2 major terrorist attacks in just the last month, directed at holy sites. The Pakistani government is precariously holding on to peace. On the one hand there is a significant percentage of the population that is sensitive to the terrorist rationale and fundamentalism. On the other there is an equally large part (if not bigger, just unorganized) of the Pakistan population that sees good relations with the West as good business. They're more concerned with inflation blowing up, not IED's. The government is trying to be seen as not "too" Western friendly, but also tough on terrorism. It's a tough sell being made even tougher by these recent attacks. The latter portion of the population I described is calling for a serious government crack down on the Punjab region in the wake of these attacks. And it's not happening. This means a disenfranchisement, or flat loss of faith in their government's ability to protect them. It could lead to anything from a spilt electorate allowing a fundamentalist Party to squeak by, all the way to a civil war - the Pakistani government facing their own version of Iraq circa 2006. A fundamentalist coup or election could push India to war, for they would see a fundamentalist nuclear Pakistan as unacceptable. Or it could mean Iran would get their patron in terms of weaponry. In either event Pakistan could prove to be the real disaster if a way to sterilize that bad land region on the border with Afghanistan is not found.

At any rate, just my thoughts. I'm off to watch "The Tudors", then get some much needed sleep. It's not as compelling as Spartacus: Blood and Sand, not as good. But it is good enough to get you to the next episode and available for instant streaming on Netflix. And Catholics would find it particularly "interesting", I think. As I said in my texts the Cardinals ran Europe (that is, up until Luther's prose and Henry VIII's lust altered that). I'll tell you one line that made me laugh out loud. Henry VIII tells Thomas More (by the way, is everyone important during this era named "Thomas" or what?) that he is to be made a knight. More responds with genuine surprise saying, "I fear your majesty has more faith in my abilities than I deserve." To which Henry responds, "Don't be too modest Thomas, you're not a saint." Funny obviously because 400 years later, in 1935, More literally does become a Saint via Pope Pius - an act directly attributable to Henry's blade. They had to know that line would get a big grin out of Catholics and historians (even psudeo historian Mormons, hehe).