The United States Should Not Intervene in Iran
Debate Rounds (3)
US intervention in Iran would have virtually no positive impacts and would seriously harm US and human rights interests in the Middle East.
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
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?
(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!
Reluctant_Liberal forfeited this round.
Reluctant_Liberal forfeited this round.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Magicr 4 years ago
|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|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct b/c of ffs. Arguments because Pro dropped all arguments with ffs.
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.