The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

The United States Should Not Intervene in 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,652 times Debate No: 24561
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




Evidence can be produced upon request, but should not be posted unsolicited. I'm studying to pass my last test before getting my degree, so I don't really have time to document every little thing. That's especially true since most of the documentation I've seen on this site seems to be at fourth hand from wikipedia or random little sites that I've never heard of before.

US intervention in Iran would have virtually no positive impacts and would seriously harm US and human rights interests in the Middle East.

Limited Gain
The consensus seems to be that a US/Israeli strike on Iran would delay Iran's nuclear program by a mere two years.

Regional Balance of Power
Currently, Iran is isolated and relatively unpopular in the Middle East. Iraqi's are upset with Iranian meddling in Iraqi affairs. The Gulf Arab States are scarred out of their wits by potential Iranian hegemony. Syria is embattled. Turkey is interested enhancing its own hegemony. An attack on Iran would only serve to gin up support for a perceived victim of US/Israeli aggression.

Internal Iranian politics
Within Iran, the current regime is unpopular among urban elites and the United States is not viewed unfavorably. An attack on Iran would bolster a weak regime and make the United States universally unpopular.

Proliferation Fears Overblown
Nuclear proliferation has not occurred despite N Korea obtaining nuclear weapons. With the United States already guaranteeing Saudi and Iraqi military security, it is unlikely that the other major states in the region would risk US displeasure by pursuing their own nuclear arms programs.

Iran is not an Existential Threat
While Iranian leaders might not grant Israel legitimacy, they are not suicidal. Iran's leaders rule over a sophisticated and educated population and have complex internal politics of their own to deal with. Whatever their words might be, Iranian leaders have enough self interest not to lob WMD's at their neighbors. And anyway, the Ayatollah has ruled nuclear weapons immoral, and the idea that Iran might use nukes before being attacked itself against the ruling of the Ayatollahs is unlikely.

So given the limited, short term gains (a mere two year delay), the long term losses (an entrenched regime), and the weakness of the stakes (proliferation unlikely and Iran too self-interested to go too far anyway) the United States should not attack Iran


I hereby agree to my opponents terms.


It is quite profound of my opponent to say 'absolutely no positive effects' to liberating the people of Iran. He also goes on to claim 'would harm the US and Human Rights Interests in the Middle East'.
While I respect my opponents opinion, I fear that he does not understand -much to my astonishment as a political science student- what it means to live even for a day in the Iranian regime.

Tons of gain:
I ask the audience (specifically those of whom have the luxury of reading the book 1984 by George Orwell) to imagine what it would be like to live in a place with no freedom of speech. Opposition against the government results in human rights abuses to both men and far more to women. What would you think of me if I said for a second here: Despite rapes of various women within Tehran, -whom were once virgins but raped by the 'moral' police- are given the death penalty for simply wearing their vials wrong that no benefit could be had in the Middle East? That the fatwa issued to Salamon Rushdie calling for his death for only coming close to depicting the prophet Muhammad was in any way justified? This is not including his yearly 'valentine cards' he receives in New York from Iranian officials reminding him of his death penalty. As you can see, humanitarian work is a HUGE gain. How absurd to suggest otherwise!

Balance of Power is Off:
After the fall of Saddam Hussein Iran remains a major player in the Middle East right now. This is very true as my opponent has mentioned. However when we look to Russia and their current affairs with supporting the Syrian government, one can only think where they may lie when faced with Iran. Why take the gamble? Why not intervene? In fact my opponent supports me on this: they have nukes and other world countries are scared out of their minds. Why not end the fear for them? We have an ally with Iraq for now and as my opponent has stated people want their government out. Why not help them?

Internal politics:
(Last sentence above)

Proliferation fears justified:
With Russian assistance within the area we know they DO have nuclear reactors. Whats worse is the hezbollah party is around as well (which is still a terrorist organization .. oddly enough with a mushroom cloud for their flag by the way .. wonder what they want .. hmmmm ....). These people very much seek nukes and to take lives against the United States. These people even hate other Muslims, as the Sunni minority is persecuted within the region.

Iran is a Threat:
You are dealing with a people in which claim they have the divine right to kill anyone they want in the name of God (or Allah in this case). That cannot be defeated, they simply wish to gain entry into heaven by opposing US and making everyone become a Shiia Muslim. Jews, women, Sunni's, all discriminated against as a result of this. Freedom of expression: gone. Are these people we want to make peace with? No. Fight them: for human rights, for freedom of expression, and more importantly for something Iran (to the best of my knowledge) never had ... a democracy that is wanted by the people! Thank YOU!
Debate Round No. 1


Reluctant_Liberal forfeited this round.


Arguments extended
Debate Round No. 2


Reluctant_Liberal forfeited this round.


arguments extended and please vote for me :)
Hopefully next time we'll have an ACTUAL debate ... this was a joke. Don't challenge and then back out. Not fair to the rest of us.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Reluctant_Liberal 4 years ago
Since the debate has been claimed by someone else, the point is moot. But, in that situation, I'd probably suggest you introduce your evidence when you bring up the argument.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
Does the prohibition against using sources extend to the challenger? I understand that you will produce sources upon request. For example, I would want evidence that the consensus is that intervening would only delay development by two years. Would you then produce that evidence? I would naturally want to introduce counter opinion; is the protocol that I shoulod wait for you to ask for it?
Posted by Reluctant_Liberal 4 years ago
Sorry. I suppose "intervene" is pretty ambiguous. By intervene I mean simply any conventional or nuclear military strike against Iran or their nuclear program. I fell into the trap of framing my debate based on the wording of a previous debate. My bad.

According to the definition above, that would not be an argument against my belief. Thanks for asking for clarification.
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
All I gotta say is: straight turn entire case
Posted by aero36 4 years ago
"It is not really intervention, it would be warfare to reduce their arms and protect Israel," does this count as an argument against your own belief?
Posted by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Define the word "intervene" since it can have multiple meanings.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct b/c of ffs. Arguments because Pro dropped all arguments with ffs.