The Instigator
jjrazz
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
flyinfur
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Resolved: The US would be justified in taking military action 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: 4/14/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,703 times Debate No: 3629
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (9)

 

jjrazz

Pro

Whether or not the United States would be justified in pursuing military options against Iran is a contentious debate. To determine justification in this case, two questions must be considered. Does the United States need to engage in any form of action? Are military options better than all other alternatives? I urge a pro ballot due to the fact that the answer to both these questions is yes.
Initially, action is needed. It is inevitable and unavoidable that Iran will attempt to construct nuclear warheads. According to the International Atomic Energy Association or IAEA, since 2003 Iran has been in direct violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which they signed. Additionally, the IAEA reports they tested the current nuclear material enrichment facilities in Iran and have determined the facilities retain the ability to enrich materials for not only nuclear power but also for bombs. The IAEA reported that these facilities posses the ability enrich enough uranium to build five bombs a year and the ability to enrich enough plutonium to construct three bombs a year. It is clear Iran will soon attempt to construct an atom bomb. A nuclear Iran would be detrimental to the global community. According to GlobalSecurity.org, "If Iran did acquire atomic bombs; it would put pressure on other countries in the region to do the same". As a matter of fact they go on to state "This could result in a regional arms race in the Middle East." Any since of safety that still exists in the Middle East would disappear due to constant fear of nuclear attack. The nation that understands this statement best is Israel. An Israeli official was quoted stating, "It's a huge concern. Iran is a regime that denies Israel's right to exist in any borders and is a principal sponsor of Hezbollah. If that regime were able to achieve a nuclear potential it would be extremely dangerous." Additionally, on 7 June, 2007 Time magazine published an article providing evidence that Iran would give atomic bombs to militant groups such as Hezbollah in a heart beat. If a nuclear Iran is not an immediate threat to the US, it is a threat to our allies in and around the Middle East and eventually Iran will threaten America. Therefore immediate action is needed.
Secondly, no alternatives exceed military options. I have already established taking no action is not an option. Additionally, if the US takes no action there is a chance Iran will start a nuclear war in the future which would cost more lives and money than if we took military action now. Another alternative would be trade sanctions. These would not work. The US does not influence the Iranian economy enough to even be mention in the Iranian CIA World Factbook article. Individually the United States cannot achieve any goal using sanctions against Iran. The only hope for a successful sanction against Iran would be to pass a resolution in the UN Security Council. Any efforts to this effect will fail. China and Russia have already used their veto power on several occasions to prevent similar resolutions from being passed. Therefore there is no chance of a successful sanction against Iran. The United States could attempt diplomatic negotiation. Unfortunately diplomacy will also fail. The government of Iran denies ever having nuclear ambitions. In order for diplomacy to succeed each party must have a bargaining chip and a desired return. The desired return for the US and the bargaining chip for Iran is the elimination of any possibility for a nuclear Iran. Iran will not admit to attempting to attain nuclear weapons and therefore cannot guarantee they will rid themselves of their nuclear ambitions because they claim they do not have them. The final feasible option is exploring military options. Something as simple as an air strike could ensure Iran does not become nuclear. In addition, if due to some change in events when diplomacy or sanction succeeded, we would have no way of knowing that Iran dismantled their nuclear facilities. They may lie about dismantling their facilities as they have lied about their nuclear ambitions. A military strike is the only way the United States can ensure the goal is accomplished. Clearly a military strike is the superior option.
In summation, my partner and I urge a pro ballot on the resolution concerning whether or not the United States would be justified in pursuing military options against Iran based on our two contentions: Action needs to be taken against Iran and military options surpass the alternatives.
flyinfur

Con

Recently, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran reported if President Bush were to lead a military assault on Iran it would be an impeachable offense. Clearly, the US would not be justified in pursuing military options against Iran. My partner and I urge a con ballot based on our three contentions; the resolution is duplicitous, Iran is not a threat, and Iran would become a threat if we attacked them.
Initially, this resolution is duplicitous. The United States currently is promoting democracy. Iran is more democratic than other US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and China. In addition, Other US backed regimes are far more oppressive than Iran. Has the Iranian government ever boil dissidents as the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan, have they seized their nation's riches and restrict political power to a single family, or does the Iranian government attack nonviolent protester like the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt? The answer to these three questions is yes. Moving on, the US has not been attacked by Iran in recent history and therefore has not been provoked the US. Any strike on Iran would be in direct violation of Chapter I, Article 2 Section 4 of the UN Charter. Finally is it not hypocritical to say only the US, Pakistan, India, Israel, and other members of the UN Security Council can have nuclear weapons whereas other nations cannot. This resolution is duplicitous.
Secondly, Iran is not a threat. Firstly, Iran is not a threat to Israel. President Ahmadinejad has never stated the goal of Iranian policy is to destroy Israel. Secondly, if there is concern for Israel due to the Iranian President's statements, I would like to remind the judge that Ahmadinejad does not make Iranian policy. The Khomeini makes policy in Iran. In fact in 2003 Khomeini initiated a diplomatic outreach to the US which included an offer to recognize Israel's right to exist. Even the IAEA has concluded there is no evidence to prove Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Iran did ratify and sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furthermore, according to Dr. Daniel Byman of Georgetown University writes Iran is highly aware that any major escalations in tensions between the US and Iran will likely break them as a nation. He writes Iran understands they cannot advance with their policies if they do not keep the US at least slightly appeased (CON-9). In another article by Dr. Byman, he writes all attacks against the US by Iranian sponsored militants have stopped. Clearly Iran is not a threat.
Finally, Iran will become a bigger threat if we do take military action. According to analysts, the United States would have to take out around 400 targets to dismantle the Iranian nuclear program. The article later reads all salvageable remnants of the strike would become the Iranian nuclear program. Then, it is reported that Iran will most likely make a huge investment in their nuclear program as Iraq did in response to the Osirak incident. According to the San Francisco Chronicle as a result of the Osirak incident, Iraq invested 2500% of what they had been previously investing in their nuclear program. If people are already worried about Iran's nuclear program, think of the panic when Iran invests billions into a nuclear weapons program. Additionally, Iran has a strengthening alliance with China who the US cannot upset. Currently China and Iran are making billion dollar oil deals. If we use military action against Iran we would greatly hurt our relationship with China. Furthermore, a Newsweek article dated 4 December, 2007 quoted an Iranian official stating, "We don't see a strategic need for nuclear weapons right now. That would all change of course if we were attacked." Finally I would like to remind the judge that Iran is a leading member of the Non-Aligned Nations. A strike on Iran could mean a joint action by the Non-Aligned Nations which consists of 118 members and is led by Fidel Castro. Some key members include Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and China. Therefore Iran would be a threat if we attacked them.
In summation my partner and I urge a con ballot for this resolution based on our three contentions; this resolution is duplicitous, Iran is not a threat, and Iran would be a threat if we took military action.
Debate Round No. 1
jjrazz

Pro

Initially, I would like to point out the obvious flaws of my opponents case. Duplicity is completely irrelevant to this debate. As cruel as it may be, the US government has no obligation to the Egyptian or Uzebekistani people. The social contract obligates that the US government does whatever is in the best interest of the American people. Alliances with undemocratic, immoral nations that are beneficial to the American people should be made in an effort to promote the well being of United States citizens. However, Iran threatens the American people. The social contract mandates that the US government protects its people from foreign and domestic enemies. Building upon this foundation, all US government officials take an oath which affims that they will do all in their power to protect America "against all enemies foreign and domestic." My oponent also argues that military action against Iran would be in opposition to the US charter. This would only be true if the United States was unprovoked. Iran gave 250mm rockets to terrorist groups. In turn, these rockets were used to kill several American soldiers. Aside from sponsoring terrorism, Iran provokes us in many other ways. My first contention, which I will later re-explain,clearly lays out acts committed by the Iranian state which provoke US action. Therefore it is irrelevant whether or not this resolution is duplicitouts.
Continuing on to my opponents second contention. I do concede that President Ahmadinejad has little to no policy making power in Iran. However he is an elected official and therefore represents the views and opinions of at least a majority of Iranians. Since Iran is a democracy, the majority opinion is the opinion of the nation. This proves that Ahmadinejad in pronouncing radical speech against US and its allies is representing the views of the Iranian nation. This means that Iran threatens American interests by being radical and by threatening US allies.
Now I will turn to my opponents third contention. The alliance system will come into play regardless of action taken. If we placed economic sanctions on Iran, its allies would take actions against the US as well. Therefore it cannot be considered at all important to this debate.
Now moving to my conentions. Here I will simply point out unrefuted points and points I have not yet addressed. Iran is threatening the US interests by creating nukes. Additionally my opponent has not refuted my second contention (no alternatives exceed military options). Therefore the point must be accepted as truth. I believe it would be useless to repeat myself here. Since this contention remains and Iran has provoked the US, the US would be justified in using military opions against Iran.
flyinfur

Con

My opponents brings up many good points but has obvious flaws in his case. His first contention is clearly negated by my first two contentions. I would redictate these points but it would be pointless due to the following information. Continuing on, his case is structured so that if any part of his second contentions is proved wrong, his case must fail. So I will keep it short and take out only one of his incorrect subpoints. If by some stretch of the imagination, Iran threatened the United States other options would be more appropriate. Here my third contention comes into play. I accept diplomatic efforts will bring allies into the picture just as war will. However, an economic struggle between two alliance systems would be less harmful to the US than war for one main reason. Both scenarios , war and economic struggles, will bring economic hardships. War adds violence to the picture. War brings two struggles as opposed to one. Additionally, only isolated nations are not part of the global economy. Therefore, big Iranian allies that can affect us (such as Russia and China) would not attack our economy becaus it would hurt theirs. This has been seen in China when their stock market dropped because the US market dropped. This proves economic pressure would be more appropriate and simply better than military action.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
jjrazzflyinfurTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: war is not justified
Vote Placed by lm12_13 9 years ago
lm12_13
jjrazzflyinfurTied
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 Issa 9 years ago
Issa
jjrazzflyinfurTied
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 apathy77 9 years ago
apathy77
jjrazzflyinfurTied
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 brian_eggleston 9 years ago
brian_eggleston
jjrazzflyinfurTied
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 mattshuster 9 years ago
mattshuster
jjrazzflyinfurTied
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 Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
jjrazzflyinfurTied
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 jjrazz 9 years ago
jjrazz
jjrazzflyinfurTied
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 flyinfur 9 years ago
flyinfur
jjrazzflyinfurTied
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