2. You miss to address certain arguments made in favour of the thesis that Iran is attacked in the context of confronting China, probably because you're not aware of them. Here are a couple:
A. You rightly point out the nature and spirit of China's foreign policy: Iran is no "ally," at least not in the Western sense of the term. Westerners have trouble understanding China's modus operandi, for them it's an enigma. But, even so, even they can more or less understand that whatever China stands for, it is some kind of order rather than disorder and outright chaos. And thusly, we have to address the possibility that the Washington's course may be one of generating chaos around the world. Such a course may be a result of things like 1) panic, disorganisation and malice in Washington DC, 2) an instinct of a social predator, and a habit of an empire 3) a genuine strategy, made either in the state apparatus or by shadowy powers behind the curtains. And we can agree that (3) appears unlikely. Despite documents such as "Which path to Persia?" (2009). But to me, just as an amoeba can orient itself toward a food source, and as a wolf pack's movements can be predictable, so can Trump's team go and do something that's somewhat sensible for the empire's long term relations with China. Things have an organic logic to them.
B. "China needs energy from the entire Middle East, not just Iran, and even if Saudi Arabia and others have alternative routes for Chinese-bound energy exports it will still be far less than they've been receiving before the conflict. [.....] "
So much for now. Perhaps I'll think of something additional or better later. Cheers.