A Review of China's Growing Influence in the Persian Gulf 

I think in their assessment of China's economic role in the Gulf, your commentators ignore Iran (and even Iraq) while concentrating on minor Gulf countries along with Saudi Arabia. They assert that Western countries still remain influential (in the UAE), and I agree, but that's only because China is a new economic force to the minor Gulf states. These countries have traditionally depended on Western states for their security arrangements and have accordingly allied with the West through economic ties (bilateral investments, exports, and imports). Iran has a bigger resource economy than the UAE and is of strategic significance to China. The UAE is simply a commercial entrepot for Chinese companies. They see Dubai and Abu Dhabi as the Hong Kong of the Middle East. I think it's too early to make an assessment of the extent of China's influence in the Gulf (outside Iran) as it is a comparatively recent economic engagement. This is hardly surprising as until recently Chinese communism was off-putting to monarchical Gulf regimes. Meanwhile, the assertion that the US would always be the main economic force in the Middle East is not only wishful thinking - considering the global pattern of Chinese trade domination - but one I also find laughable. Beyond arms and software, what exactly does the US uniquely offer trade partners? It is also pertinent to note that Chinese trade volumes with the Middle East have grown from near-zero (1980s) to $500 billion (2023) almost as much as the $600 billion China-US trade volumes. This is both a testament to China's competitiveness in trade and a logical inference that suggests China's Middle East trade volumes are being deliberately discounted by your panel of think tankers by excluding certain countries from the aggregate figures. It is akin to stating that the US would always be Africa's main economic partner if you exclude all African countries but Eswatini. Analysis like this does not illuminate but propagandizes! Consequently, It appears to me that your panel (of Western-paid Think Tankers); confirming the adage that "he who pays the academic calls his tune", is attempting to tailor perceptions to assuage US concerns by drawing very quick conclusions on a rapidly evolving situation. In addition, trying to demean Chinese engagement in the Gulf by drawing attention to and exaggerating minor areas of perceived Chinese diplomatic failures.

I just amazed how people can study a subject but know so little about it. Eric Olander's statement about how China's relationship with Western Asia is so "new". I guess that Mr. Olander knows absolutely nothing about the Maritime Silk Road?!! You know that went down through China to the South China Sea, through the Malacca Straights into the Indian Ocean? US relationship with Western Asia dates about a century. China's relationship with Western Asia goes back thousands of years, because if you have not heard of the Maritime Silk Road, I'm sure that you know nothing about the Jade Maritime Trade! And you definitely know nothing about Zheng He? Or the fact that Yemen and Oman were trading with Southeast and East Asia and the African continent. And guess who were diffusing Islam in Southeast Asia? So we have extensive trade, and we have religious influences that infiltrated deeply into Asia (ever heard of Indonesia?) as well as in parts of China. Then you have extensive trade between East African and the Omanis going back before Islamic arrived. So it is clear that China and Western Asia and East African (especially the parts where Islam is still prevalent like Tanzania) have been trading and mixing for thousands of years (creating a wide variety of rich cultures and languages like Swahili). Now back to the present. Have you or the researchers ever bothered to research the communiques between China and Western Asian countries going back in time. You will discover the contacts have always been extensive. That now, China has grown into a position that they have more to offer to western Asian countries. This was also a purposeful choice to not raise its profile both politically and economically until it felt ready. What is going on is a transition away from the US and many western countries because they have very little to offer to Western Asia countries to help them achieve their goals. As for Western Europe, Eric is misinformed about the supposed energy transition away from oil and specifically Russian oil. They are still buying copious quantities of it. In fact, last month, they bought more Russian oil (via India with a significant markup) then US oil. Here is a salient fact for you to consider: Based on data reported in the 2023 edition of the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy: For everyone on earth to have access to half the energy per capita that Americans consume, global energy production will have to double. You are not going to achieve that without oil right now. The average American in 2022 consumed 288 gigajoules, this is more than four times as much energy as what people in the rest of the world consumed in 2022, 67 gigajoules. If the global population reaches 9 billion, for everyone on earth (including Americans) to use half as much energy as Americans did in 2022, global energy production would have to increase by 114 percent-more than doubling. At a global population of 10 billion, under these same constraints, energy production would have to increase by 138 percent over 2022 levels. The global majority understands this. Most of the collective west is caught up in its delusions around wind and solar. Nuclear will help. Finally as to US influence in Western Asia, it''s basically gone. It is delusion to imagine that Saudi's have a good relationship with the US. The US have been threatening to seize Saudi's assets to try and force them to continue with the petrodollar (failed), to estabilsh diplomatic relations with Israel (bigger failure), to provide the Saudis with nuclear weapons (based on the delusion that the Iranians and Saudis are not talking all the time with each other - similar to those other BRICS members India and China) and military hardware (not very useful based on the results in the Ukrainian conflict. If you understood anything about Arabic culture, you would know that Saudis are humouring the Americans while they are moving their assets out of western countries. It's the same with every non western country especially after the theft of Russian assets. The problem with the whole analysis is that the majority of analysis takes a western perspective where it is all assumed to be a zero sum game (i.e. either or) instead of realising that what we have is an example of digital Westphalia where each country is focused on their own self interests and balancing their relationships with other countries. China and Iran's relationship will grow over time. The financial architecture (i.e. BRICS meeting in Kazan for more information) is not in place yet to facilitate the growth of trade with Iran without serious impacts of China economically. The fact that the US is attacking Chinese banks via the latest sanctions against Russia will expedite this transformation.

China is relinking the peoples of the ancient silk road when traders/merchants travelled on camel back to and from China to trade their goods for silk, porcelain, tea, etc., etc. So China's connection to the Gulf states/Moslem world is not new. Hence, there are more mosques in China than anywhere in the world. Visitors to certain areas in China are puzzled as to why there is the presence of camels!

China's influence in the East Asia does not have limits, this so called limits is the imposed view of the panel based on their personal biases, the countries in the region want to diversify their interests this opens up opportunities to China and others countries. The US and the west are unreliable partners who favour Israel and are only interested in hegemony and control of the region. The focus on the security interests of the countries in the region is overstated, their real security risks comes from the US and Israel not Iran.

Only Eric is the only one who correctly says the Persian Gulf. But others refrain from telling its correct name.