Iran deal: definitely a bad move
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept this challenge and look forward to an interesting debate.
Since it appears that round 1 is for opening statements I will provide mine here.
My opponent is arguing that the Iran Deal is definitely a bad move.
Iran Deal: Recent diplomatic treaty that restricts Iran's access to centrifuges and allows for international inspections of their civilian nuclear program.
Definitely: without any question
The Iran Deal provides a framework to limit the ability of their nuclear program to continue development of nuclear material. The only current alternative is to allow them to continue at their current capacity without oversight. Short of another long and costly war, there is no way to completely stop their actions. A diplomatic solution is the best option we have and diplomacy requires compromise.
zname forfeited this round.
As I am unsure if my opponent didn't know if he set the time limit low on these rules I will allow him to respond in the comments if he so wishes.
As for my argument it boils down to the following.
1. There is no proof that Iran is actively pursuing Nuclear Weapons
Iran is enriching Uranium, this much we know. But the fact is that we have no supporting evidence to suggest that they are weaponizing it. They are not developing a launch vehicle, although they do possess former Soviet Scud missiles.
"There is no agreement as to exactly how far Iran has come in weapons design, over the nature of its nuclear weapons program and “weaponization” if a dedicated program exists."
There is no reason to assume that they are actively pursuing these weapons. US Intelligence doesn't think Iran is actually building nuclear weapons. Furthermore, any punitive action we take against them gives them incentive to shift the priorities of their nuclear program.
1.2. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
As a signer of the NPT Iran has every right to pursue a peaceful civilian nuclear program. Japan is not allowed to have nuclear weapons, but they have nuclear power plants. Why should Iran be any different than Japan?
2. If Iran is developing Nuclear Weapons, then we need to slow their progress and work towards a political solution
If Iran is actually developing nuclear weapons then there is really little we can do to stop them. We can slow them down by limiting the number of centrifuges. The Iran Deal does this. We can show them that we are willing to move beyond the past and work with them directly and engage them diplomatically. The Iran Deal does this. If we make only demands and do not work with them then they will continue on in the way that they are currently. This leaves only the military option. The military has agreed that we do not possess the capability to destroy their nuclear program militarily. Furthermore if we were to respond militarily it would unite the Iranians against us and give them the political motivation needed to complete weaponization of nuclear weapons.
3. Why should ANYONE have nuclear weapons?
The argument against Iran having nuclear weapons is irrational because many states have them, even states that shouldn't. They have an incentive to get them because they provide security from enemies and they also provide a bargaining chip. Iran's enemies all have nuclear weapons. It is hypocritical to chastise them for "hypothetical" development of nuclear weapons that they may or may not use, when we have developed nuclear weapons and we are the only country in the world to have ever used them. If the United States was serious about ensuring the disarmament of Iran, then we would work to disarming every nation so that none possess such immoral weapons. As with the beginning of the nuclear arms race, America continues to miss opportunities to bring a peaceful end to proliferation.
We allow Pakistan and India to have nuclear weapons despite their willingness to rattle the sabre at each other. We sit idly by while North Korea has nuclear weapons. Furthermore we allow Israel to posses nuclear weapons, despite them. We allow every other nation that has them to keep them, and yet we argue that a nation that "might be developing them" shouldn't have them and impose sanctions and threaten war. This type of rhetoric led us to invade Iraq to stop them from developing WMD, which they never actually had. We need to be careful and use peaceful means to resolve this situation, not escalation and demands.
Iran has never attacked any of its neighbors. It has only ever fought defensive wars. We need to work to peacefully resolve issues like Nuclear Proliferation, and the only way to do that is by working with other nations. The Iran Deal is a great step in that direction and is a symbol of good faith that also provides us with the ability to monitor their actions while freeing them from our sanctions and providing them with enough fuel to run their civilian nuclear program. The Iran Deal is not the best deal in the world, but it is not a bad deal and is a great foundation upon which to build a peaceful solution.
zname forfeited this round.
Opponent forfeit twice. Vote Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.