The Instigator
Jake15243
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Untitled123
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The US and Israel need to restrain from attacking Iran

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,430 times Debate No: 23258
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Jake15243

Pro

Despite Iran's nuclear development program continuing the United States and Israel need to exercise restraint in order to prevent all out war in the Middle East and also pushing the world closer to World War III. Everyone remembers the embarrassment the US government caused itself after allegations of WMD's in Iraq were proved false, if the same event occurred in Iran serious questions would be asked about the United States' statements to the world and they would not be a reliable source to those who currently strongly support them.

Iran has many allies in the region alone with the Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Syria, Pakistan and Iraq along with their strong diplomatic ties with China and North Korea. An attack on Iran means a war is almost certain and it would quickly spread engulfing the entire region and possibly the world.
Untitled123

Con

For the first paragraph that Pro has presented, I'd like to point out some of the contradictions in his logic.

He starts by noting that
Despite Iran's nuclear development program continuing

However, the argument then progresses to the threat of embarrassment the US government would cause itself after allegations turned out to be false. Wait... what?


If we both agree that Iran does have a dangerous nuclear program and are developing nuclear bombs, what's the threat of getting it wrong?

To refute his second point, I'd like to point out that many countries that the US has previously attacked has also had a significantly high amount of allies, but the US, being trigger happy and dependant on weapon manufacturers went ahead and did it anyways. An attack on Iran would not mean the start of WWIII since not that many countries would support a country that is developing nuclear bombs, and even if China did support Iran, it's unlikely that they would directly interfere and send troops over.



Now, to begin my argument.

It's in quite recent times that Obama has announced the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. They're in for a nightmare of soldiers with PTSDs, the media getting on their back for war horrors, etc. But, the American have a foolproof way to get out of this. Go into war with Iran!

The American economy and public are all very worrisome factors for the government right now. However, if the US charges into Iran, it can:

a) Have a huge boost to major companies that produce weapons since they need to destroy Iran
b) Delude the American public so that they will be scared of the 'Iran Threat', thus distracting them from domestic problems such as (Insert 9000 character list)
c) Make the president of the US get an achievement, for invading a foreign country
d) Take Iran's oil and sell it to get money

We can conclude that a war with Iran would be exceptionally beneficial to the US, and thus they should fight immediately.

Oh no.
I forgot Israel.

Well, Iran and Israel never got along. In fact, Israel and most Arabian states never got along. What has Israel done in the past? Well, in the Yom-Kippur War, or the 7 day war, they charged over, attacked a country, destroyed their military, took some land, and obtained more security. Thus, I see no reason why Iran should not be immediately attacked by the US and Israel.


http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.jpost.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
Jake15243

Pro

Sorry for not making my intial argument clear enough, what I meant was that Iran's nuclear program is continuing although the Iranians claim they are not looking to manufacture atomic weapons and so I referred to the false accusations in Iraq to say if this turned out to be true it would cause a great deal of embarrassment for the US.

Also the threat of WWIII would be dangerously high if there was an attack on Iran, I said in my first argument that Tehran had strong diplomatic ties with China and North Korea and never said anything about them sending troops into Iran although there is always the chance of them arming their allies. My point is though that the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Iranian government, the Palestinian Islamist faction Hamas and the Syrian regime have created a regional alliance and all leaders of the states and organisations have agreed to attack Israel and Western navy vessels in the surrounding waters and possibly the US if either Lebanon, Syria or Iran is attacked. There is no refuting this as Western leaders have admitted this as one of the main reasons why they are not willing to intervene in Syria at the moment. As well the Middle Eastern 'bloc' other neighbouring and nearby countries have vowed to defend Iran against Israel and the US. Iraq has promised to shoot down any Israeli military aircraft as Iraqi airspace would almost certainly be used in an Israeli strike on Iran, as well as this, nuclear-armed Pakistan has threatened to severe all ties with the US and support Iran if the Americans go to war with the Islamic Republic.

I think it is safe to say that your argument is based on the fact that invading Iran would be a major boost for the US economy and the president at the time of the attack. While this may be true, if the US were to go to war in Iran, it may boost the economy although millions even billions of dollars will need to be put into military build up once again and the American economy will continue to fail as it is at the moment. Despite the fact that the US confiscation of oil from oil-rich states means a major revenue for the country, this also happened in Iraq although the US continues to lose money today because military spending is much higher.

Also, boosting support for the president would only be temporary, think about it a lot of Americans supported the invasions of Afghanistan and later Iraq but after a few years and continued loss of personnel many began to question the Western involvement in these countries. Although the war in Iraq is completed, the Afghan war continues and brings more criticism with it.

I don't want to get off topic here so to finish off my argument I just want to say that due to Iran's large number of allies in the region who have vowed to support Tehran in a war with the West the war would quickly expand in the region and when European naval ships are attacked in the Gulf, the states under attack will then be forced to join the war, expanding it out further leading to WWIII.
Untitled123

Con

I'll start by addressing why the alliance between Iran and Syria would not be effective in times of real disputes.

First:
Their government ideologies are fundamentally different since one is Islamic and the other is nationalistic. Essentially, one is secular while the other is heavily religious. Thus, they are essentially incompatible.

I'll start by addressing why the alliance between Iran and Syria would not be effective in times of real disputes.

1:
Their government ideologies are fundamentally different since one is Islamic and the other is nationalistic. Essentially, one is secular while the other is heavily religious. Thus, they are essentially incompatible.

2:
The vast majority of people in the countires are of a different religion.
The Middle East is not lacking of religiously based dispute

On to present my points.

Why is going to war with Iran the best choice?

We've been pressuring Iran to stop its nuclear program for years, but it's been ineffective. Computer worms, sanctions have all failed to stop Iran's nuclear program, and Iran has continued to refit their missles for atomic bomb purposes and are stockpiling enriched uranium. Other countries in the Middle East and are :

The vast majority of people in the countries are of a different religion.
The Middle East is not lacking of religiously based disputes



On to present my points.

Why is going to war with Iran the best choice?

We've been pressuring Iran to stop its nuclear program for years, but it's been ineffective. Computer worms, sanctions have all failed to stop Iran's nuclear program, and Iran has continued to refit their missiles for atomic bomb purposes and are stockpiling enriched uranium. Other countries in the Middle East are not really paying that much attention to the US, and if they fail to make an example of Iran and follow through, we'll have a bunch of dictatorships feeling that they can get away with doing what they want.

It's not only friends of Iran, but also enemies of Iran are also starting their own nuclear arms programs in order to counter the threat. This would spiral into an arms race with devastating consequences. (It's basically what happened before WWI)

Finally, if Iran were to figure out how to make the atomic bomb, it would cripple the West from any interference. If the US or any other countries wants to help citizens of a dictatorship, all Iran has to do is threaten a nuclear war and then no country would really want to get involved. Iran has an atomic bomb program and needs to be stopped. Since diplomatic means have failed, the US and Israel should attack Iran and stop its program.
Debate Round No. 2
Jake15243

Pro

Jake15243 forfeited this round.
Untitled123

Con

Untitled123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Jake15243

Pro

Jake15243 forfeited this round.
Untitled123

Con

Untitled123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.