The Instigator
Finalblink
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
DaveHarrDaGuitar
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Is The U.S. Justified in Pursuing Military Options Against Iran?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,080 times Debate No: 3172
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Finalblink

Pro

Is the United States justified in pursuing military options against Iran.

In his farewell speech, at the end of his presidency in 1961, General Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "America's leadership depends not merely upon our…military strength…but on how we use this power in the interests of world peace…" Iran is one of the most enigmatic countries in the Middle East. Although it has a history of anti-American sentiment dating back to the occupation of the American Embassy in Tehran, in 1979, Iran is also for all practical purposes a modern, democratic state. Because I agree with General Eisenhower, I agree that the United States is justified in pursuing military options against Iran. For the advancement of this debate I provide the following definitions as according to The New Oxford American Dictionary: Pursue: to investigate, explore, discuss. Option: A thing that may be chosen. Just: Appropriate in the circumstances. The United States would be acting appropriately in these present circumstances in exploring military choices against Iran. While the current National Intelligence Estimate claims that Iran has put a halt to its nuclear weapons program, it also stipulates that Iran can restart this nuclear program in short notice. In light of this, it is clear that diplomatic efforts are proving successful, however much of that success can also be attributed to the very real threat of military action on the part of the United States and NATO forces. Finding military options to combat this Iranian threat is the U.S.'s best choice.
My first contention is that pursuing military options against Iran is an option of security. If the need were to arise, and it were to happen that Iran's nuclear weapons program were to be exposed, we would then have a plan in place to address this very dangerous issue. Disallowing us to consider and explore these options is a national security risk. A plan contingent upon the success of Iran's nuclear program, or existence of their nuclear program, would allow for maximum safety and security of our country without necessarily inflicting damage and casualties on Iran.
My second contention deals with a carrot/stick approach to dealing with this possible threat. We offer the carrot (access to markets , potential for growth, etc.) and keep the stick (our military options) in the other hand and visible, just in case. Iran is known for its belligerence, and that is why we must force peace upon them with the threat of military attack, and that is why we must pursue these options. So that we may have the leverage in negotiations and make peace with Iran, before they have the chance to make any hostile action. A contingency plan would show Iran that we are serious about getting tough and serious about nuclear non-proliferation. Therefore exploring and pursuing this military option gives the United States advantage in negotiations.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency report on November 10, 2003 they said that "it is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored." Also, in the International Atomic Energy Agency's November 15, 2004 report that stated all the "breaches" Iran had in its Safeguards Agreement, along with a "pattern of concealment" in its program. With the new National Intelligence Estimate stating with high confidence that Iran will "at the very least, keep the option of a nuclear weapons program open," pursuing military options, just in case, is the right choice.
With an ever-growing concern on the home front, and abroad, about Iran's nuclear program, we can agree that we must at least weigh, pursue, and discuss our military options against Iran. Our mission as a world super power is to promote peace, but undoubtedly we cannot predict the actions of other nations, and we will always have enemies in an uncertain world. So for our security we must have a plan in place to combat this threat.
DaveHarrDaGuitar

Con

DaveHarrDaGuitar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
Finalblink

Pro

Taking into consideration that my opponent has failed to address any of the points I have brought up, it would be safe to assume that they agree with me on those points thus ending this debate.
DaveHarrDaGuitar

Con

DaveHarrDaGuitar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by JamesIsrael 8 years ago
JamesIsrael
I would like to express my strong disagreement, along with many other informed citizens of this country, to the affirmative side's argument. In fact, the evidence is already overwhelming that a military solution to the US-Iran relations would be completely contradictory to the national interests of America and the stability of the entire region.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
FinalblinkDaveHarrDaGuitarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JamesIsrael 8 years ago
JamesIsrael
FinalblinkDaveHarrDaGuitarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 8 years ago
liberalconservative
FinalblinkDaveHarrDaGuitarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
FinalblinkDaveHarrDaGuitarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30