(Phantom's 99th Percent) Intervention in Iran
| Started: | 7/15/2012 | Category: | Politics |
| Updated: | 10 months ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,331 times | Debate No: | 24722 |
 Pro Resolved: A U.S./Israeli coalition should utilize direct action against Iran's nuclear facilities. Definitions Direct action: Short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions conducted as a special operation in hostile, denied or politically sensitive environments and which employ specialized military capabilities to seize, destroy, capture, exploit, recover or damage designated targets. http://shadowspear.com...... Rules 1. No semantics or trolling 2. Drops are concessions 3. No new arguments in the last round *Rd. 1 is for acceptance. Rd. 2 starts argumentation. . |
 |
|
Pro I look forward to an exciting and thought-provoking debate! :) C1: Iran, An Existential Threat [1] [2] [3] Opponents to direct action often cite the argument that Iran is a peaceful nation and hasn't gone to war in hundreds of years, clearly ignoring the fact that Iran has supported terrorist organizations since the inception of the Islamic Republic and also ignoring the pertinent fact that Iran has a radically different type of government now than it has had in the past, but this will be addressed later. The important fact here in this contention is the fact that Iran is a threat to U.S. and Israeli national security and has shown signs of increasingly belligerent tendencies First, according to the AEI Critical Threats Project the NYPD has monitored, recorded and verified multiple Iranian reconnaissance units documenting vital areas in New York City. The troubling aspect about this is this is not a new phenomenon, but rather over the course of this decade Iran has systematically and incrementally been increasing its reconnaissance missions within the United States especially in key areas like New York City and Washington DC. Silber writes, "Over the last six months, our analysts have studied terrorist plots with a plausible nexus to Iran that have been attempted or carried out in Azerbaijan, India, Georgia, Thailand, as well as here in Washington. What we have learned has heightened our concerns. Disconcertingly, these plots demonstrate that Iran and/or Hezbollah remain committed to striking against Israeli and Western targets. Further complicating the task of law enforcement is the diversity of methods evidence by these plots, including differences in the profile of perpetrators, types of explosives used, delivery method, and tradecraft." This evidence indicates an ever growing amount of suspicious activity on the part of the Iranians: one includes the detention of Iranians photographing vital aspects of the Brooklyn Bridge (2008) and members of an Iranian delegation who were detained for photographing, blueprinting, and mapping the structural integrity of the Wall Street Helipad (2010). Second, Iran was the instigator of an assassination attempt on U.S. soil coupled with various terror attacks against key targets. ABC news writes, "FBI and DEA agents have disrupted a plot to commit a "significant terrorist act in the United States" tied to Iran. The officials said the plot included the assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir, with a bomb and subsequent bomb attacks on the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C. Bombings of the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Buenos Aires, Argentina, were also discussed, according to the U.S. officials."
C2: Iran and Terrorism [4] [5] A strawman argument against intervention is that Iran is incapable at this time to create a functioning warhead and ballistic missile needed to strike Israel. I will refute the capability fact later, but for now let us focus on why its a strawman argument. Iran's modus operendi when it comes to military operations is to use proxy agents usually under the direction of the Revolutionary Guard. Iran uses terrorist groups to infiltrate and create harm in various countries throughout the world. Thus, the issue is not over whether Iran can create a fully functioning warhead capable of striking Israel, but rather the issue is Iran giving graded nuclear material to terrorists. First, Al Qaeda. According to the Critical Threats Project, “First, the operability of the [Iranian Al Qaeda] network confirms that the Iranian regime is directly facilitating al Qaeda activity in the region, including coordinating with al Qaeda's representative in Iran to arrange the release of al Qaeda members from detention.� This arrangement, in place since 2005, further demonstrates the Iranian regime's willingness to discount the Sunni-Shia sectarian divide if it can help inflict harm on American security and interests. Second, the network's ties to multiple enemy groups illustrate the syndicate-like nature of al Qaeda's presence in Iran. Al Qaeda's core leadership in Pakistan, al Qaeda in Iraq, and the Taliban are all connected to the Khalil network according to Treasury. Recent American and coalition operations in Afghanistan corroborate the existence of other al Qaeda-affiliated networks inside Iran. An Iran-based al Qaeda network led by Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil funnels Gulf money and personnel for al Qaeda from Iran to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. The network, operates under an agreement between al Qaeda and the Iranian regime." Second, Hezbollah. According to the CTP Iran and Hezbollah are politically and militarily connected, and Hezbollah is a proxy agent of Iran. CTP offers evidence: Dual Lebanese-American citizen Hor Akl was sentenced to 6 years in prison by a U.S. court for attempting to smuggle $200,000 to Hezbollah. Akl previously pled guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization, money laundering, perjury and bankruptcy fraud.. Iran is shipping arms to Hezbollah via modified passenger. Representatives of the House Foreign Affairs Committee expressed concern about funds raised for Hezbollah through Lebanese expatriates in Latin America. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes Daniel Glaser, however, noted that “the most significant donor to Hezbollah is Iran. All other forms of Hezbollah fund raising pale in comparison to the funds that Hezbollah gets from Iran. Iran is the chief financial supporter of Hezbollah and Hezbollah survives on Iranian support."
C3: Timeframe [6] CTP writes, "Iran can acquire weapons-grade uranium for one weapon by mid-August 2012 under currently-announced plans for expanding enrichment. This scenario is somewhat likely. Iran will acquire enough 19.75% low-enriched uranium by June 1, 2012 to be within 2.5 months of producing weapons-grade uranium for one 15 kiloton bomb."� C4: Regional Arms Race [7] The Guardian writes, A senior Saudi Arabian diplomat and member of the ruling royal family has raised the spectre of nuclear conflict in the Middle East if Iran comes close to developing a nuclear weapon.Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to Washington, warned senior Nato military officials that the existence of such a device˜would compel Saudi Arabia to pursue policies which could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences. 'We cannot live in a situation where Iran has nuclear weapons and we don't. It's as simple as that,' the official said. 'If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, that will be unacceptable to us and we will have to follow suit.'"
[1] http://www.criticalthreats.org...... [2] http://homeland.house.gov...... [3] http://abcnews.go.com...... [4] http://www.irantracker.org...... [5] http://www.irantracker.org...... [6] http://www.irantracker.org...... [7] http://www.guardian.co.uk......  Con C1 - Iran is not an existential threat. Firstly, the economic reasons alone would deter any politician. As Keynes said, politicians "are usually the slaves of some defunct economist"[10]. If Obama administration puts the USA into a recession over this war, then he'll be out of power without doubt. Further, war will mean he has betrayed (arguably further) his liberal voter base. The war, in essence, would stop the government from remaining in power, and thus would be something the government of the USA would want to avoid. |
 |
|
Pro Pro Case C1: Iran, existential threat
Now, while the Iranian government has shown the ability to conduct sophisticated operations in countries within its sphere of influence the use of suboptimal agents to orchestrate an assassination plot in the United States is not entirely without precedent. For example, there appear to be some very interesting parallels between the Arbabsiar case and two other alleged Iranian plots to assassinate dissidents in Los Angeles and London... Sadeghnia's profile as an unemployed housepainter from Iran who lived in the United States for many years is similar to that of Arbabsiar, a failed used car salesman. Like the alleged Arbabsiar plot, the Sadeghnia case displayed a lack of sophisticated assassination methodology in an Iranian-linked plot inside the United States. There also have been numerous assassinations and failed assassination attempts that were conducted in a rudimentary fashion by operatives easily linked to Iran.� [1] Stephen makes the point further that Iran has so many other issues to deal with it doesn't make sense for them to act irrationally. On Syria, Iran isn't very concerned because the West seems to be doing nothing to force the Assad Regime to step down and also Russia is aiding the Assad Regime. On Turkey, Iran has nothing to fear. Even in my opponents own source the author tells us that to conclude a breakdown of Iranian-Turkish relationships is to sensationalize the issue. But more importantly, political instability, financial collapse and internal instability has led to Turkey moving away from pro-Western stances to pro-Islamic policy, even Iran in energy matters, i.e. their nuclear program. Battiato writes, "...it can be deduced that the intention of Erdogans party is to abandon Turkey's traditionally pro-western foreign policy in favor of one decisively more Islamic."� The problem with my opponent's source is that the author is seeing only a recent decline in favorability between the two states, well after Iran started its nuclear proliferation. [2] [3] But, TURN: if we assume Stephen's argument about regional rivalry is correct then it should apply to international relations theory. According to the theory of counter-balancing, if a rivalry exists between two countries each country will try and best the other, especially in terms of arms proliferation. This is demonstrably true as proven during the Cold War where both the U.S. and Soviets attempted to counter-balance each other. Iran, by proliferating first, will get the hegemonic edge over Turkey and will essentially create a nuclear umbrella over the Middle East. Stephen's final argument under C1 is that that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would spark patriotism and a rally-around-the-flag mentality. This argument has zero impacts because the pro-democracy/anti-regime movements have all but collapsed, and even if we assumed a movement could succeed the timeframe is too long to wait. According to Herrington, Though the movement lives on, the two years that have passed since that fateful day have been unkind. Analysts the world over have asked why the Green Movement did not succeed. Some believe it was simply not possible in the face of government suppression. The truth is, however, that a number of social, political, and economic barriers to regime change exist in Iran, and each has contributed to the perceived failures of the Green Movement.� The Green Movement being the pro-democratic movement in Iran, not to be confused with the environmental movements. [4] Note: Stephen never directly addresses the AEI and Silber evidence which indicates that Iran has been doing reconnaissance within New York City, Washington and other vital US cities. As such, both pieces of evidence are dropped and conceded. C2: Terrorism Stephen tries to link into an all out conventional invasion of Iran, but unfortunately thats not my advocacy and it isn't resolutional. But even if he tries to argue escalation, his own prior arguments kick this argument because it is not in the interest of Iran to escalate against the United States if it lacks its greatest chip on the table, its nuclear program. Note: Stephen completely drops link evidence from Hezbollah and the Al Qaeda argument. He thus concedes it.
His treaties argument is irrelevant since treaties do not paralyze action. The Iranian government can do whatever it wants. Moreover, his Source #7 links back to the tinyurl cite, not the evidence. He can post it in the next round. His third argument assumes nuclear warfare, not nuclear terrorism. Moreover, he gains no ground from the argument that the West will take action because (1) our sanctions aren't working and Iran is still gaining percentage on enrichment and (2) negating the resolution takes the last option off the table which leaves Iran unopposed. Stephen tries to argue that Iran knows that its neighbors won't want them to obtain a nuclear weapon. If this were true Iran would have stopped already. Just the risk of proliferation accesses the risk of a development of a nuclear weapon. As mentioned above, nations will not stand idly by while its rivals perceptually are on their way towards a nuclear weapon. Essentially all of the Gulf States are compelling the West to take action, but negating the resolution accesses the impact of an arms race. Even if you grant the possibility that Iran doesn't desire nuclear weapons, that fact doesn't kick the impact of perceptual arms proliferation. This source indicates that the Gulf States are nervous now, and an argument saying well Iran knows this doesn't even suffice as an argument. [6] Note: He dropped the specific AEI evidence which indicates that Iran is close to having capability of a functioning device or bomb. Con Case C1: Economics Second, my advocacy is direct action, not conventional invasion. Thus, my advocacy doesn't link into high costs of life and capital. Third, my opponent is in a double bind: if the regime is rationally it won't take action even if we destroy their nuclear facilities because a war would threaten regime survival. If they are not rational then a nuclear weapon will be developed which will spark regional instability. Refer to arms race.
[1] http://tinyurl.com...... [2] http://tinyurl.com...... [4] http://tinyurl.com...... [5] http://tinyurl.com...... [6] http://tinyurl.com...... Con C1 – Iranian Threat Firstly, the assassination. I’ll refer back to my previous argument: the argument in favour of the assassination being conducted by Iran is flimsy at best. My opponent has added as a source to his policeman a neoconservative, 20 years out-of-touch counsel. The evidence he gives is hardly compelling: Sadeghnia’s crime’s major similarity to Ababsiar is that Sadeghnia’s crime was not credibly linked to Iran’s government. And this precedence of, at best, one, hardly shows that the highly trained Qud Force is now suddenly useless: the reasoning behind this is terribly faulty precedence and absurd extrapolation. In Contrast, I provided four Iran experts on the subject, but I shall provide one more: Prof. Kahl states “[war]’s a recipe for accelerating Iran's drive for a nuclear deterrent and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of military confrontation”[2]. Regarding foreign countries, I am committing a turn. The fact that other nations are doing nothing to stop Assad’s administration has clear connotations that show Assad may flex his muscles. He is not the focus, Iran is, and so has a lot more leverage. In fact, one may rationally speculate, if war sparks between Syria and Iran – for which they have feasible motive as previously demonstrated – America and other nations are more likely to side with Syria. And regarding Turkey, my opponent still needs to demonstrate nuclear warheads are being created in Iran for this to hold any weight as a riposte. Moreover, the turn by my opponent suffers from this problem: Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons. I agree, if Iran gains nuclear weapons, the other nations will want to follow suit, and have said as much. The major restriction against nuclear weapons, though, as previously demonstrated, is motivated by a desire to remain strong diplomacy. Now, if this coalition wages war, then the desire for diplomacy disintegrates, and in its place nuclear weapon development. However, without nuclear weapons, Iran, by attempting to develop high-grade uranium for weapons, justifies other nation’s invasions, followed by an American invasion. However, they are not doing so, nor should, nor would. And regarding the failure of the Green Movement showing revolt is over: this is simply not true. We know of many protests staged[6]. We know of reviews in government have occurred. The only problem is the disorganisation[7], which is analysts agree is something that is fixed in the long term. Nations being overturned by revolution are rare: they change by gradual effect. My opponent needs to state the social, political and economic barriers stopping this transition, or it is simply an empty argument. Now, my opponent claims I drop AEI’s and Silber’s arguments. The truth is, there is none: it was a plea to an authority for an argument rebutted by a larger number of more valuable experts criticising them. C2 – Terrorism My opponent essentially says ‘We should invade Iran, because they’d give nuclear weapons to Lebanese terrorists’. There are numerous problems with this, the largest of which this is pure speculation! There is no evidence: this is irrational conjecture. Further, as a turn again, Invading Iran means they have no reason not to use nuclear warheads – or give them to others to use in a proxy attack – seeing as they are equally under threat. In fact, if they have nuclear warheads, it would be many times more likely they would simply fire nuclear warheads. My opponent has just contrived a reason. Further, my opponent seems to now be throwing around “concede” as if they were candy: concession happens on clashes, not random statements. Let’s say, for arguments sake, that Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda are close. This doesn’t affect any of the criticisms I brought up, nor is it even of any relevance to the argument. An accurate point would be pointing out my opponent conceded Hezbollah is no threat and the opportunity cost is heavily against war, and conceded that chasing after Hezbollah in the desert would not stop the threat they pose. This, in effect, nullifies the argument. C3 -Scale of War Further, war in Iran simply by firing rockets will not work, as experts agree. Libya was a nation that was in civil war, and long range warfare only barely helped them. Libya’s army (AFLAJ) numbered less than 80,000 and still was a terribly slow war, with ground troops. Iran’s army consists of over half a million active duty soldiers, with another 11 million able to be mobilised [2]. War with Iran would be on the ground, and bloody. C4 – Nuclear threat This argument is a series of disappointments: he drops all threat of Iran as a government, and moves it to claims of Iran as hosting terrorists with nuclear capacities. Now my opponent has to cite some motive for Iran not just developing nuclear weaponry (which requires 90% enriched uranium, which Iran does not have[3]), then make it in a weaponised form (as this cannot be done simply by common terrorists, only specialists) then give the country-destroying weapon away to be smuggled abroad to nations with astounding border protection, and essentially secure utter self-destruction when inevitably linked back to them[3]. Further, Iran gaining nuclear weapons will, again, spark war with all the countries in its borders, as provided by my opponent’s source, creating a turn against his argument. And moreover, the claims that the sanctions aren’t working are completely false: Iran’s uranium is enriched to less than 20%: not a serious threat to anyone. Further, he claims that the West won’t take action because nuclear terrorism negates the resolution. I don’t think my opponent understands: if they negate the resolution, then the situation changes. But that is not the situation. This may be evidence for a war in the future, but not in the present. The fact is, they are members of the treaty, and give no inclination of leaving it soon. Thus, there is no nuclear threat posed. C5 – Economics The oil prices rise with war, not arms races. My opponent is again throwing conjecture unsupported by fact, and thus I cannot refute the justification, but simply claim my opponent is being non-factual. The argument for military action still has massive costs. My opponent can play this down as much as he wants, but facts are facts: Iran in a war is a larger power than Iraq by a large margin. Iran's the 12th most powerful nation on earth[4], three times more powerful than Iraq. Think about this: three times the power of Iraq, with no political instability if the war goes ahead. The cost'd be astronomical. And the regime would surely take action if attacked, as would all rational nations. Iran, with such home power, as well as with the geographic placing of the bases protecting the nuclear test sites[5] means that Iran could very feasibly defend the region. Further, war would strengthen the regime: it would bring truth to the propaganda of the Revolutionary Guard, if war was declared[5]. But this doesn’t stop the fact that American war on Iran in this clash point still isn’t economically viable. C6 – Politics I’d like to start off by stating a definition from the Princeton Dictionary: U.S – “the executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States”. The key section is executive. The executive government in America is ruled by the Democrat Party and Obama. Ruling out Obama from the government is ruling out a third– and probably the most important third – of the government. This is, of course, foolish. If the Republicans take over, then there is a new government. So, should America wage war with Iran? In its current state, with a government whose mandate includes pulling out of wars, no, it should not. Finally, currently the majority of Americans do not support the war with Iran[8]. With this in account, it would be severely undemocratic, and further politically a bad move for the U.S. Government. As such, a war would be a terrible move for the government to make. |
 |
|
Pro C1: Iranian Threat Stephen critiques my source, but seeing as STRATFOR is one of the leading global intelligence firms I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion the author isn’t an expert. His bio indicates he was a member of the State Department, on numeous anti-terror investigations and is a VP of STRATFOR. Stephen pretty much disregards the substance of the STRATFOR evidence and asserts that there is no credible link. This ignores all the substance of the evidence that various other cases, not including the only example Stephen counters, demonstrates that Iran has attempted assassinations on U.S. soil. This kicks his argument that Iran wouldn’t attempt a poorly planned assassination. The Kahl evidence is irrelevant since my advocacy would destroy Iran’s facilities before they can achieve their nuclear deterrent, and if they try to continue then we strike again. At some point Iran will get the message that it is not in their interests to try and gain a nuke. Stephen: In fact, one may rationally speculate, if war sparks between Syria and Iran..." I don’t know if Stephen made a mistake or not, but Iran and Syria is Iran’s only close ally in the region; there won’t be a war between them. Stephen misunderstands the Turkey argument since it doesn’t presuppose Iran and nuclear weapons since the evidence indicates Turkey is in a political and economic mess now, which means Turkey is really no threat to Iran. Stephen also misunderstands the timeframe of the turn I made. The turn indicates that regional rivalry between Turkey and Iran (if there was one) would give both countries an incentive to out-arm the other for regional influence. This means that there is clear reasoning why Iran would want nuclear weapons, which is to increase its regional hegemony and to prevent Turkish influence from spreading in the region. On the Green Movement, my opponent’s own evidence talk about how the more radical factions of the movement are dead (ones calling for immediate democracy) but the overall sentiment isn’t dead. The problem with Stephen’s analysis is that nowhere does he actually prove a rally-around-the-flag mentality, nor does show that this “sentiment” will have any affect in the near future. Stephen violates the rules (losing the conduct vote) by responding (albeit weakly) to the AEI and Silber evidence, which he dropped in the first round. Saying the evidence is weak is still a response against the evidence, but he should have made it in the first round. But the rules are rules, drops are concessions so even if he thinks the evidence is weak he has conceded it. On this contention just the dropped-conceded evidence should be enough to demonstrate that Iran is an existential threat: reconnaissance units from Iran have been mapping out critical points in the U.S. like NYC and DC.
Stephen makes the argument that concede is only on clash points and not statements. I don’t know what type of debate he has done, but this is completely untrue. Any evidence which is ignored is considered dropped. If an overview argument does not answer the direct claims of the evidence it is dropped – they are referred as independent pieces of offense. But moreover, Hezbollah and al Qaeda aren’t even remotely close! Al Qaeda refers to the pan-Islamic movement that seeks to banish all Western influence from the Middle East and Central Asia and was the attacker on 9/1.1 Hezbollah is bad, but not that bad. The Al Qaeda argument is an independent reason to vote Pro because as indicated by the evidence Iran is giving sanctuary to Al Qaeda (just like Afghanistan before 9/11) and Al Qaeda as indicated by the evidence has openly stated it wants to acquire nukes and would use them against the West. Whereas Pakistan is an ally by financial means, Iran is nowhere an ally to the U.S. The threat of a sanctuary state, a non-ally to the U.S. gaining nuclear weapons is unacceptable and the risk is too great. He never mentions the arguments against Hezbollah so that can be extended which indicates an existential risk to Israel (remember the resolution also indicates Israel).
My threat analysis was never of a direct nuclear war with Iran, I don’t know where he got that from. Sorry my argument disappoints :P But do you know what is disappointing, his analysis. He tries to make the argument that Iran would need to nuclearize and then transport that across borders. First, this ignores the argument that Iran only needs a few months to create a nuclear bomb (and if you want more evidence for this, refer to his source #2 last round – it says the same thing) but secondly, Iran itself doesn’t need to transport it far: Al Qaeda is safe in Iran (which you dropped). Stephen: “Further, Iran gaining nuclear weapons will, again, spark war with all the countries in its borders… creating a turn against his argument.” It seems he ignored/dropped my last argument that: “Stephen tries to argue that Iran knows that its neighbors won't want them to obtain a nuclear weapon. If this were true Iran would have stopped already. Just the risk of proliferation accesses the risk of a development of a nuclear weapon.” Countries are not going to wait and see if Iran gets a nuke – if time goes too far without an action the risk of proliferation will spark an arms race. This analysis has gone dropped. First, on war costs, this is simply untrue. Stephen tries to paint a scenario where Iran and the U.S. go fullout on war but this is false for two reasons: (1) a war threatens regime survival and (2) the resolution advocates for direct action, not full scale invasion. The only potential argument he has is that Iran has a large military and geostrategic advantage. The military argument is irrelevant since his own sources indicate that in technology the U.S. would dominate cause all Iran’s military equipment is as old as the Iran-Iraq war and they haven’t been modernizing. The geostrategic argument is nullified because the U.S. surrounds them on land (Afghanistan and Iraq) and has a large portion of the navy in the Gulf. Risk of a nuclear strike outweighs on life and also precludes the link since a nuclear strike would also lead to military action on a much larger scale. C6 – Politics Voting It is clear at this point that Iran is a threat to both the U.S. and Israel which is apparant in its actions on U.S. soil including reconasance and past assassination attempts (even if you think the most recent was not of Iran's doing) the evidence indicates other past assassination attempts. It is clear that Iran is harboring Al Qaeda who has sworn to use nukes and has attacked the U.S. on 9/11. It is clear that Iran's actions will foster retalitory action from its neighbors which heightens the instability and volaility of the region.
Con In this debate, we've covered most issues in regards to what comes up in discussion of Iranian power and ability, and what happens if we wage war with them now. The debate has been an interesting one, and definitely enjoyable, and I thank my opponent for it. Now, to continue and finish the debate. The Non-Existent Threat of Iran Firstly, regarding the evidence for the Iranian threat, my opponent is stuck defending weak sources. The authority's evidence can be in two ways: either he is a great expert, or his argument is compelling enough to defend the contention brought up. Stewart does neither. My opponent does not dare defend Stewart's flawed reasoning, due to the filmsy defence: he only appeals to his stature. I'd like to refer to the previous round and remind my opponent Stewart's still 20 years out of touch: his last investigation was as only an agent in 1993: nothing more. His credentials to review the complexity of Iran is nothing compared to the concededly powerful testimonies of the 4 Iranian specialists provided in Round One: Alireza Nader, Gary Sick, Shahimi and Professor Kahl. Compare this to the outdated counsel of Stewart and the policeman Mr. Silber, and there is only one obvious side with the stronger evidence. My opponent claims that this is a drop and I have "violate[d] the rules", but I have firstly referred to Silber in each round. My rebuttal, as always, is this: there will always be people who state Iran is a threat. However, they are still in the minority, and lack convincing reasons to believe them. If my accepting the opinion of one barely-specialist opinion demonstrates that Iran in an existential threat, then what does this say about my opponent, who does not refer to four, much more specialised opinions on the subject? It is clear: he is resorting to policemen as specialists, whilst ignoring the actual specialist opinion. I went out, as stated in the first round that Silber's fears are false. I believe I have done that. I'd criticise my opponent for stating my expert's opinions are wrong, but he seems to have not addressed them at all. Kahl's testimony still stands: my opponent's entire case here rests on the idea that America can deal with Iran like it did with Libya: I outlined multiple reasons why it cannot. My opponent has dropped both that war would strengthen the administration's control and how Iran would require soldiers on the ground to stop nuclear facilities. Thus, this supports Kahl's testimony that nuclear warheads would be necessary. Further, as stated before, Libya took over a year to defeat without ground troops. Yet my opponent says that we can defeat without sending in an army, and that it takes but a few months to build nuclear weapons. So my opponent's plan would certainly result in Iran gaining nuclear weapons! Yet the well founded diplomatic approach stops nuclear weapons itself. Regarding Iran-Syria conflict, this is another case of my opponent being out of the loop. Since last year, their relations have been deteriorating fast, with Iran going as far to say Syrian leaders should quit[1]. Turkey is of the same nature[2]: "The increase in tensions between Turkey and Iran through 2011 and early 2012 represented...a resurfacing of one of its constant, underlying elements; namely sectarian enmity and a longstanding political rivalry". Further, my opponent states again that Iran and Turkey would both go for nuclear weapons in time of war. Again, this is false. If either went for and used nuclear weapons, then the situation changes. However, this presupposes either are going to attempt to gain nuclear warheads, which is conjecture. If either nation gained nuclear warheads, the nation would be attacked by most other nations. Both would be - and are - constantly checked by the IAEA to make sure they are not developing nuclear warheads. Neither nation would rationally attempt to gain nuclear weapons. If the situation changes - for example Iran is taken over by a coup which gives everyone guns, or Iran starts using alien blasters and nukes belgium - then we have a new situation. Neither nation would start a war nor develop nuclear warheads, given the current situation, as they would be invaded by massive coalitions and they would be defeated. The Green movement is a short point: he states radical factions are calling for immediate democracy: this is false, what radicals call for is (quoting) "a cull of the political leaders". And further I have repeatedly cited, but I shall cite another new source[3]. It's a fact so well known that a googling will confirm, if one ignores the sources I have provided. Terror My opponent seems to again misunderstand my argument: my oppponent's argument states Iran has nuclear weapons of some description, or is able to quickly produce it. Firstly, my opponent seems to read "accept that someone says that" as "accept that someone says that, therefore I concede the entire clash point". The times my opponent has pointed out concedences are times which actually don't support his case on their own. Again, I accept Al-Qaeda may exist in Iran. My criticism is that invading Iran on this flimsy evidence is foolish. My opponent's terrorism point started with Hezbollah, but now has swapped entirely to Al-Qaeda. The difference is, my criticisms are still the same. Al-Qaeda has caused roughly 3000 deaths[4]. The Iraq War, one that would be easier than one with Iran as previously demonstrated, has more than quintupled the casualties[5]. And my opponent concedes Iran has no reason to give away nuclear weapons, if it ever obtains them, instead of making warheads from them. Go Nuclear My opponent's argument still centres on the idea that Iran would get nuclear weapons (over years, not months, as I have demonstrated. My opponent's criticisms remain invalid, as the time period of years is to weaponise the nuclear resource: 90% is deadly, not the 20% my opponent claims). My opponent has dropped Iran has no reason to give nuclear resource to Al Qaeda. Finally, the point about proliferation of nuclear warheads stands from the previous contentions: if Iran gains the ability to quickly produce nuclear weapons, then all other Middle-East nations would invade. But this still is inconsistent with my opponent: he changes repeatedly between Iran gaining nuclear warheads, and Iran giving away nuclear materials. This inconsistency highlights my opponent's lack of ability to clearly state what Iran would do with nuclear warheads. Economics This is, again, a series of uncited conjecture. The first reason Iran would avoid war is discussed and dismissed as false multiple times by myself previously, whilst the second reason is again false conjecture: Iran has constantly been updating its weapons[6]. The economic cost would still be massive and undesirable. Politics This is a complete drop by my opponent, showing it is politically unwise for America to invade, and undemocratic to do so. Presidential change does not end a conflict, but we're not talking about ending a conflict, we are talking about starting one. This criticism is a complete red herring. It still stands: it is undemocratic to wage this war, and the existential U.S. Government has no reason to wage war with Iran. Sources for previous round and this one: http://tinyurl.com... Voting Iran, according to the vast majority of experts presented today, agree that Iran is not an existential threat, and my opponent conceded this. The terrorist threat is not only miniscule in precedent, but also the examples of the terrorist attacks are nothing but strenuous links, which, as I have stated previously, many agree are false. Even so, waging war due to terrorists being in a country is foolish. War with Iran would produce economic and politically terrible consequences. Keep this in mind when voting. |
 |
| CiRrK | Stephen_Hawkins | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 2 |
| CiRrK | Stephen_Hawkins | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
| CiRrK | Stephen_Hawkins | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
| CiRrK | Stephen_Hawkins | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
| CiRrK | Stephen_Hawkins | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 1 | 5 |
| CiRrK | Stephen_Hawkins | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
| CiRrK | Stephen_Hawkins | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
| CiRrK | Stephen_Hawkins | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 2 | 4 |
RFD - Part 3
I'd also recommend that you try running a counterplan next time, such as smart sanctions will solve. There's good evidence that sanctions worked in denying nuclear weapons to Iraq.
Con's attempts at painting Iran as a friendly regime are laughable. Even if Iran didn't attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous and that doesn't mean they didn't conduct reconnaissance on strategic sites in NY and D.C. Hezbollah basing in Lebanon doesn't mean Iran isn't their chief sponsor. Pre-2001, Al Qaeda based in Afghanistan but their chief sponsor was Saudi Arabian charities. To buy this argument, I'd have to accept the assumption that money cannot cross borders.
The easiest line to victory for Pro is: Iran sponsors Hezbollah, Iran would prolif to third parties, Hezbollah is a threat to Israel, Israel is resolutional as well. But I think Pro also wins enough of a link to Al Qaeda to win that there's a *risk* of Iran proliferating to them as well.
Once there's a risk of prolif, it doesn't matter if the timeframe is one year or five. That's still a huge impact.
On arms race, I think Pro controls the direction of the link: Iran would prolif first, to gain a strategic advantage, causing counterprolif. I don't buy that Iran fears counterprolif and thus won't prolif. As Pro said, they would have stopped already.
Con never proves that Iran has zero nuclear material and zero animus towards the US/Israel, so Pro is going to win some offense no matter what. Con could only outweigh with economy, at this point.
Con had some interesting arguments about internal Iranian dynamics, but I don't buy that the Green Revolution is on the cusp of success as long as Iran doesn't retrench. None of Con's evidence was *that* strong. If Con built the case that Iran was on the cusp of democracy, then maybe he could have won on this argument. I do buy that a strike would strengthen the Revolutionary Guard, but there's no impact given to this non-quantifiable strengthening.
Con, in addition to running defense on the futility of a strike (in that Iran's facilities are underground and unassailable), I'd also recom
Vote: CirRk wins
RFD - Part 1
CirRk has a lot more offense.
Pro offense: Iran prolifs to Al Qaeda (who nuclear attacks US), Iran prolifs to Hezbollah (who nuclear attacks Israel), Iran starts a regional nuclear war
Con offense: war is expensive, oil price shocks, politics
Further compounding the asymmetric in offense is Con's lack of impacts. Obama loses? So what? Why is that bad? A majority don't support war? So what? What is the consequence of violating majoritarianism? Oil price shocks? How MUCH does that affect the economy? How MUCH would war cost?
Ultimately, I think Con *did* have a potentially winning argument in oil price shocks. Regardless, of the type of strike, instability in Iranian oil will cause price shocks (because oil futures lead to speculation and war leads speculators to bet on prices going up). Then if Con read an impact card that a price shock down could push us into a double dip recession - that would give Con more offense. THEN Con needs some decent defense, e.g. a card that says an Israeli airstrike could only delay Iran by 1 year.
Which brings me to.... the uncertainty about what type of military intervention is being advocated. Pro tells me that it's not a full out ground invasion. But he makes me bang my head against the wall when he doesn't specify airstrike or tactical strike. So I *do* grant Con that the war may be costly. But we'd still win quickly, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Con never provides me an internal link to why we would nation-build in Iran, which is what was expensive in those two "battlefronts." We didn't spend a trillion dollars beating Saddam's army...
So CiRrK smartly uses a nuanced argument to dodge many of Con's attacks. He dodges cost by saying that it would not be a full-out war. He dodges MAD arguments by saying Iran would prolif to a third party. Con never acknowledges