Is or was Iran a threat?
Debate Rounds (5)
I will be arguing that Iran in fact is NOT a threat and that the view towards Iran has been contorted by countries with governments that are far worse than that of Iran. I will be going through news reports, history, etc and I recommend you do the same in order to prove your point.
Conducts: no swearing, no trolling, have fun :)
Good luck to my friend.
Pro has stated that he is not Pro-West or Pro- Zionist. Let's begin:
Iran has been history's true melting pot. The Mongols, the Macedonians, the British, the Arabs, the Portuguese, the Soviets, the Germans, the Turks and so on, have all had their chance to rule Iran but in reality, Iran has always ruled them. They have all invaded lands foreign to their own, with the goal of making the oppressed submit to their ways and culture. With Iran, this went backwards. At one point or another court and royalty languages became Farsi, dress code and way of life become modifications of Persian culture, and whether they want to admit it or not, the ruling leaders adopted Persian customs and traditions, modifying it to relate to their previous customs. This is why Iran has been history's true melting pot, because even the invaders fell in love with the Persian way of life.
The Iran everyone knew, was a liberator of oppression, a conqueror of the hearts, and a land of wisdom and prosperity. In 1979, it was all taken away when the new Islamic Republic of Iran was established and an authoritarian rule was imposed on the people, controlling everything from the people they talked to, all the way to the rights they are entitled to. But even though the Government is not all that "friendly", the world seems to label Iran as a threat to their security and a supporter of terrorism. The question is, what unbiased proof do they have that Iran is a threat to others?
As far as history is concerned, Iran's rapid success streak was the direct reason of it's current state of being. I'll explain why.
It all started in 1941, when Reza Shah Pahlavi, the King of Iran at the time, was developing a great friendship with Hitler. Their friendship was so good that Iran was on the verge of providing the Germans access to their oil-fields in return for military equipment. This was a definite threat to the Allies success plan, thus beginning the 1941 invasion of Iran that lasted 22 days with the aim of securing the oil fields. The invasion was a success and forced the King to abdicate the throne for his more western-friendly son, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.
The plan didn't go so well because the west became greedy with their new friend and partner in the Middle East, by taking too much and returning too little. This forced Mohammad Reza Shah to annouce his separation from the western "friends" and he doubled the oil price with the philosophy that, "why sell them our oil so they can make cars and we buy their cars? Why not keep the oil, make the cars, and sell the car and the oil to the others". Since they put the Shah in power, the west believed they were entitled to the oil, but the Shah felt that the western powers owed him big time so they removed the top opponent of the Shah's modernization program; the Prime Minister Mossadegh. With the old PM gone, the newly elected PM Zahedi, created an atmosphere that made the Shah to rule the country more firmly as a monarch, which was uncomfortable for the western powers.
With a solid reign, a nationalized Iranian oil industry and a firm control over the fearing west, the Shah was officially the most powerful human being since Genghis Khan. This can be clearly seen in the 1974 interview with British reporter Mike Wallace.
Wallace asks the Shah, "Many people in Britain who are cold and poor, will be asking themselves what you have against them? Does it serve your interests to make the British economy suffer?"
The Shah replies, "It's not British economy, it's the World economy. And we are not against them, we're just defending our chips. Because for such a long time we have been exploited and why don't you answer me something, when the price of wheat had gone up by 300%, did you have something against us? Because we had to buy it along with soy beans, petrochemical products. Even weapons; the price you were charging today isn't the price you were charging 2 months ago, so did you have something against us?"
Watch it yourself ----- https://www.youtube.com...
This is a clear statement of political dominance that the Shah makes because when Wallace says British economy, the Shah corrects him by saying world economy, meaning that he could damage the world economy if he really wanted to and Britain would be in the mix. As Iran rose in strength, the western countries began to dissolve, forcing most countries to side with Iran.
The British and the fellow western powers needed to do something. So they took the 1953 plan to take PM Mossadegh out of power and injected it with steroids to give birth to the 1979 Revolution that truly changed Iran's history. Among the Shia clergy against the Shah, Khomeini was picked to lead the opposition and take control of a nation in chaos while the West can sort out a plan to work behind the scenes and take what they came for.
While Khomeini worked his unqualified magic to lead a nation he had been away from is country for 14 years, the west did dealings with thug-run oil fields and redirected an ignorant public away from what was truly going on by keeping them occupied with slogans like "death to America and Israel".
Iran soon developed an unshakable policy that brought the West memories of the Shah they had disposed. The new Iran, more radical than the last one, was now in a position to call the shots again, but now things have changed. This was the 2nd time that the West hoped to take advantage of Iran (1953 and 1979) and both attempts failed, leaded the west to rely on their last option, war. America soon lead the Iraqi support in the Iran-Iraq war, which solidified the American hatred within Iranians. The Iranians, despite under sanctions by the West, won the war by successively driving the Iraqis out of Iran, and thus begins Iran's road to it's current state.
The sanctions lasted until 2015, when the Obama Administration reached a deal with Iran. In the time of the sanctions, Iran developed a state of the art drone, a series of fully functioning nuclear reactors, and an army capable of withstanding any ground, naval, or aerial assault, not to mention a successful cyber defense network that is currently functioning to it's fullest capacity.
In conclusion, it seems that Iran's progress cannot be stopped, despite a wave of sanctions, revolutions, and wars. But this reflects the title of the debate, "Is or was Iran a threat?" and the answer is yes and no. The answer is yes because the world's future functionality depends on the present choices Iran makes and that was the problem the west had when they took 2 Kings out of power just to get what they want, but still couldn't. The answer is no, because Iran has no intention or interest of attacking anyone, due to the advanced steps they have made in the fields of economy, military, and other industries. It is the other puppet countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Morocco and others, including the main western powers that are the antagonist of this crucial piece in history. Iran has grown and will continue to grow, no matter what they throw at it.
Your turn :)
PS: When I mention the names of countries, I don't accuse it's citizens but rather it's governments. I love and respect all peoples of the earth.
This anti-Sunni agenda has spread like a cancer to Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria. They hate the Sunnis so much they secretly and covertly created ISIS.
And the most ironic part about this is after making this statement he was assassinated.
But, let's begin:
The title is "Is or was Iran a threat?". This question is answered through the history of external involvement in Iran. Therefore, history must be talked about in order to see if the title of this debate is true or false. My opponent even says "it is not a history lesson" however he contradicts himself when he talks about events that happened in the past, meaning he even talks about history.
So now that I've proved history is a necessary subject, let's go ahead & talk about it.
(1) Since the revolution, Iran is a problem
Read my previous argument you will know the reason behind it. Again I say, it is not new that other countries have had a hand in Iran's situation, & the 1979 revolution is exactly that. I would even argue that the Revolution was designed by the West to do exactly as you suggested however, contrary to the plan of the West to overthrow the Shah, Iran had done way less than expected to damage anything on a global scale. In fact Iran, contrary to popular belief, is among the countries who has truly done less than perceived to damage anything, in spite of the things external countries have done to it. I challenge you to name an event where the Iranian government is directly responsible on a global scale.
(2)Persecution of Kurds to Sunnis & insisting violence
Define persecution. I think it's safe to say that all terrorists, foreign or domestic are dealt with accordingly, by any court system of any country. Iran is no different. If anyone disobeys the law then they are subject to Iranian courts' justice. If you claim that the Kurds are persecuted against then please tell me why Iran kept the name of the province as Kurdistan? If we look at Israel for example, they took over Palestine, changed the name of their country & truly oppressed the people. But that doesn't happen in Iran because the military doesn't do daily home raids or issue special identification cards for either Kurd or Sunni or anyone for that matter, where as Israel does that for the Palestinians. So the Kurds are in the situation they are in because of radical groups that slaughter Iranian police officers to simply make a statement. Now you tell me which country won't aggressively respond to that. So the Iranian government doesn't have a problem with the Kurds, they have a problem with terrorism; the thing is, those terrorists just happen to be Kurds with a radical idea to present a communist rule to Iran & an independent Kurdistan. I'm sure that if it was any other ethnicity doing the terrorism, the Iranian government would treat them the same way. The following other individual countries have listed or otherwise labelled the Kurdish terror groups as a terrorist organization: Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Canada, Germany, Iran, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Netherlands, NZ, & Spain.
The same thing goes for the Sunnis. The terrorists in Ahwaz give the government a hard time so the Iranian government in return punishes them for their disobedience of the law, but this has no thing to with Sunnis; it's just that the terrorists are Sunni. So there is no persecution when both parties are involved in armed combat.
(3) HezbulSHAYTAN, Bashir Al Assad, & The Houthis are all Iranian terrorists who threaten global security
There is no such thing as Hezbulshaytan so that argument you mention is invalid. But, for the sake of the debate, I will say that I know you mean Hezbollah. But I will break this down for you.
Hezbollah: They came into existence because of Israel"s actions in Lebanon. After the Black September attacks, the Palestinians involved & their affiliated groups fled to south Lebanon, from where they launched attacks on northern Israel, in hopes of provoking Israeli retaliatory attacks. Caught in the middle were the Shi'ite Muslims. After Israeli troops moved into the area full-time in 1978, & treated the Shia with much the same hatred as they showed towards the Palestinians, the Shia became fearsome foes of both Israel & the United States. So the Iran ambassador to Lebanon, Mr. Mohtashemi, helped the Lebanese with the creation of a paramilitary defense force called Hezbollah. It was Hezbollah fighters who harassed Israeli troops as they finally withdrew from Lebanon in humiliation in 2000. Bound with Iran by their common sharing of Shi"ite Islam, Hezbollah was directly aided by Iran"s Revolutionary Guards, who began operating in Lebanon following Israel"s invasion. The Iranians received logistical help from Syria, thereby drawing Damascus & Tehran closer into a common strategy in the Middle East, which leads to our next section. http://www.wrmea.org...
Bashar al-Assad: In a 2 page letter, a Virginia state senator praised Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for taking on America"s enemy, Al Qaeda. So technically, American government members are thanking Bashar's & his army for doing America's work. The alleged deaths of the civilians are collateral damage much like the civilian deaths the US has caused in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, South Korea, Philippines & so on. The funny thing is that it appears the same governments that once insisted Bashar must leave office are now beginning to think it might be better if he stuck around, simply because they don't want another Iraq on their hands. But too late for that! Because now, the Syrian people are demanding change but at an overwhelming rate to a point that the only way to get the attention of the masses was by armed resistance. His actions were unorthodox, but in an unorthodox environment his initial attempt to settle things down aren't that bad. The American Government blew it out of proportion & gave the world an excuse to hate the Syrian government for what they did & Iran backed up Syria, their ally in the region. Nothing wrong with backing up an ally that is under attack. http://www.macleans.ca...
The Houthis: They are oppressed Shia that want change. The Americans were called terrorist but they gained their independence from the British, the Turkish were the same when they gained their status separate from the Ottomans, & all of South America were technically "terrorist" to the Spanish, all because they wanted the oppressors to leave. That's it. in addition to that, the Iranian involvement in Yemen is zero to none. There is a disagreement with the Houthis that cannot be overcome, which makes it hard for them to be allies. Even the Houthi way of managing the conflict differs from the Iranian style. But cooperation, communication & drawing common goals are ongoing between Iran & the Houthis. Iran is not happy with the Houthis" military obsession but the group did override the Islamic Republic"s decision, arguing that they know better how things are done in Yemen. Iran knows that total exclusion is a risk, but it's risk that the Yemeni Shi'ites are willing to make. Therefore, Iran has no connection with the Houthis as much as the West believes. http://english.al-akhbar.com...
(4) Iran persecutes non-Persians & Non-Shias
False, because Iran is overflowing with diversity. As I mentioned before, Iran is the world's first melting pot, because it consists of people from different backgrounds: Afghani, Armenian, Arab, Turks, Kurds, & many more. Since there are so many cultures & people from different backgrounds, how can Iran persecute non-Persians & non-Shias? Iran has a strong connection with the Armenians. The Muslim community in the south of Iran consists of Shias & Sunnis. I have played soccer with my friends in Iran who are both Shi'ite & Sunni, & they go to the same Masjid, & are like brothers. True unity of Muslims is in south Iran. Don't refer to cheap youtube videos with no reference.
(5) They hate the Sunni so much they secretly created ISIS.
False. Because it is common knowledge that the origins of ISIS date back to the Mujaheddin's war with USSR. The funding of bin Laden, became so out of hand that he had the capability of taking over Afghanistan under the name Al-Qaeda. ISIS is a more radical off-shoot of Al-Qaeda therefore the American government is directly responsible for the creation of ISIS & they're fighting in that war to clan up the mess they made. Fortunately for the world, Iran is spearheading the training of the Iraqi forces responsible for the defense of Iraq. Therefore your claim is false.
(6) "ISIS was Iran's creation
This is also false. ISIS used to be known as Al-qaeda in Iraq. ISIS is an offshoot of Al-Qaeda, who is an offshoot of the Mujahedin who was funded by the US to fight the Soviets. Iran doesn't fit anywhere in this. Even the Al-Qaeda said they were once one with ISIS, & Iran is fighting side-by-side the Iraqis. Again prove to me how Iran created ISIS. http://www.vox.com...
Your turn :)
AbuJarir forfeited this round.
persianimmortal forfeited this round.
AbuJarir forfeited this round.
AbuJarir forfeited this round.
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.