The Instigator
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CiRrK
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

phantom's 99th: Israel Should Intervene Militarily Against Iran's Nuclear Program

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 6 votes the winner is...
CiRrK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,263 times Debate No: 23924
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

ConservativePolitico

Pro

Resolved: Israel Should Intervene Militarily Against Iran's Nuclear Program

Intervene militarily - a small scall military operation, most likely done by air or sea that utilizes few if any ground troops instead sticking to long range and unmanned operations.

Against - opposed to, in order to prevent

Nuclear program - the Iranian nuclear program which is enriching uranium for supposedly peaceful purposes.

First Round is for acceptance.

No new arguments in the final round.

3 days to post an argument.

No schemantics.

This is Round One of phantom's 99th percentile debate tournament.
CiRrK

Con

I accept. Good luck dude
Debate Round No. 1
ConservativePolitico

Pro

I thank my opponent for debating this with me.

= Opening =

In order for me to fulfill the resolution I must really prove as to why Israel should intervene militarily against Iran. I will do this by providing evidence as to how Iran's nuclear program is illegitimate and show how Israel should feel wary about Iran and nuclear technology. If I can successfully present this information then the "should" part of the resolution will be justified.

= Arguments =

I. Iran and Energy

Iran constantly claims that their nuclear program is for "peaceful" purposes [1] only and that they want to use nuclear technology to provide power to their people. However, this seems a little suspicious for these reasons:

- Iran is the 4th largest oil producer in the world. [2][3]
- Iran takes in $77 billion a year in oil revenue [4]
- Iran is home to the third largest oil reserve in the world [5]
- Iran is home to the second largest natural gas reserve in the world [5]

Their claims about wanting energy might not be false but when they rabidly pursue nuclear technology after being condemned repeatedly by the global community it throws their motives into suspicion. Iran is not desperate for energy which makes it seem illogical that they should desperately pursue nuclear technology when their dire attitude does not match the reality of their situation. This makes one wonder if other motives are at play.

Also, 18% of Iran's energy is lost to infrastructure waste and failure. [5] Under the intense pressure of the international community you would think they would turn their focus to other areas of energy technology like infrastructure inefficiency if energy was truly as big of a problem as they claim.

II. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

If Iran's nuclear program was truly legitimate you would think that their dealings with the UN and the IAEA would also be purely legitimate however this is not the case. Iran has been known to expel UN inspectors, hide information from the IAEA and failed to comply with UN regulations. [1] Even in recent months Iran blocked UN inspectors from visiting their sites. [6] If these nuclear sites were truly just for energy then there would be no reason to expel UN inspectors. No reason at all. Again, this makes the nuclear program look suspicious.

The nuclear facilities in use aren't even big enough to use for power. The enrichment sites aren't big enough to produce viable amounts of uranium for a nuclear power plant but are large enough to create enough uranium to make a bomb. [7]

What we have here is an Iran who does not need energy as desperately as they claim, a government who refuses to comply with UN officials and regularly blocks or expels nuclear inspectors from nuclear sites that are not big enough to build a power plant around.

This begets an illegitimate nuclear program.

III. Israel and Iran

In order to fulfill the burden of "should" Israel must have reasonable suspicion that Iran's nuclear program is being used for purposes other than energy and that Iran would use this technology to harm Israel. We've already covered the first part so lets move on to the second part.

President Ahmadinejad is famous for his heated anti-Israel comments which go beyond a simple dislike.

"This entity (Israel) can be compared to a kidney transplanted in a body that rejected it," he said. "Yes it will collapse and its end will be near." [8]

"Iran believes that whoever is for humanity should also be for eradicating the Zionist regime (Israel) as symbol of suppression and discrimination," Ahmadinejad said in an interview with a Lebanese television network, carried by ISNA. [9]

"Do not assume you will be boosted with a (U.N.) recognition of a Palestinian state," Ahmadinejad said, addressing Israel. "There is no room for you in the region." [10]

As we can see, Iran is constantly saying how Israel is not fit for the region and that they will collapse and need to be "eradicated". This biting anti-Israel rhetoric gives an alternate motive to Iran's nuclear program. If they aren't using it for power then Israel has a good reason to think that they would be using it for military purposes.

IV. Iran and Terrorism

Iran is a proponent of state sponsored terrorism. Even if Iran does not have the military capability to produce a nuclear missile their nuclear program still presents a clear danger to Israel.

Iran has sponsored anti-US and anti-Israel terror groups [11] including Hezbollah and Hamas [12]. Hezbollah is famous for being extremely anti-US and anti-Israel. Hezbollah was cited in an attack on Israeli embassy workers just this year [13]. Iran supports this group heavily along with Hamas. Hamas is responsible for frequent rocket attacks into Israel.

If Iran so shamelessly supports these terrorist groups who are content to attack Israel then it is not hard to think that Iran would provide nuclear material for "dirty bombs" for these terrorist groups to exploit. Iran's nuclear is not only a potential direct threat to Israel but an indirect threat as well.

In Conclusion

As we can see, Iran's nuclear program is suspicious and seems to be anything but legitimate. Iran is extremely and openly anti-Israel. Iran supports anti-Israel terror groups. Nuclear technology is a dangerous technology that Iran could use to damage Israel.

Israel therefore should militarily intervene against Iran's nuclear program in order to promote and keep their national security.

Thank you.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[3] http://www.infoplease.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.nytimes.com...
[7] http://leuropa.eu...
[8] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
[9] http://www.haaretz.com...
[10] http://www.foxnews.com...
[11] http://www.cfr.org...
[12] http://terrorism.about.com...
[13] http://www.reuters.com...
CiRrK

Con

Pro Case

Iran and Energy [1]

CP argues that Iran does not nuclear power because it has enough energy provided through its oil industry, citing oil exports and oil refineries. There are a few issues with this argument:

First, Iran’s dependence on the oil market strangles its economy.

Mohamedi writes, “Iran’s revenues have fluctuated due to the vagueries of the world’s oil markets, periodically depressing government revenues. The government has often not been able to cut spending for political reasons and funded its deficits by borrowing from the Central Bank. Periodic bouts of lower oil prices have also led to foreign exchange shortfalls and a fall in imports, especially industrial inputs. Excessive domestic demand and disrupted industrial production has lead to periods of high inflation...

Second, Iran imports a high percentage of its oil from outside Iran.

Mohamedi continues, “Iran’s longstanding subsidies—to support consumption of refined oil products and natural gas—have also become a huge burden on the Iranian budget and its balance of payments. Iranians pay as little as 38 cents for a gallon of subsidized gasoline. This has resulted in runaway consumption and rising imports of gasoline. Iran currently imports up to 40 percent of its refined oil needs, because its own refineries cannot handle the volume needed for domestic consumption.”

Third, Iran’s refinery capacity is mostly for low grade fuel – Iran must import higher grade fuel

Mohamedi elucidates, “But a significant portion of what Iran’s refines is low-value fuel oil. It still relies on imports of higher value-added refined products, such as gasoline, jet fuel and diesel, to accommodate the growing public appetite for subsidized fuels, especially gasoline and gas oil.”

Insofar as these 3 arguments are true, then it is quite possible that Iran seeks to develop its nuclear power as a way to remove its dependence on foreign oil exporters and to protect its economy from oil shocks.

IAEA

My opponent argues that if Iran’s nuclear program was legitimate then why hide it and not follow all the regulations of the IAEA.

This line of thinking is problematic: this is what lead to the mess in Iraq. The U.S. and the global intelligence community was certain that Iraq had nuclear weapons due to skirting of regulations, insidious actions on the part of the Iraqi government, and IAEA reports. So this logic is empirically false and potentially dangerous.

Israel and Iran

My opponent argues that the Iranian president has made numerous statements implying destruction for the Israeli state. Though there’s a few problems:

First, the President lacks ultimate power in the Iranian state. CFR writes, “Yet amid the unrest are more fundamental questions about the broader significance of the Iranian office of president. While Iran's president has considerable latitude in domestic matters, and is the most visible member of Iran's inner circle on the world stage, his power remains secondary to the Supreme Leader.” [2]

The President has negligible powers when it comes to foreign policy or war matters. It is the Clerical Circle and the Ayatollah who wield these powers. In other words, there is no credible reason to believe what the President says.

Second, it is net disadvantageous for Iran to use a nuclear weapon – MAD [3]

Weiss writes,

“There is no evidence that the clerics ruling Iran, including the Ayatollah Khamenei, would launch a first-strike nuclear attack on Israel. Iran is aware of the Israeli capabilities for nuclear counterattack that would destroy Iran as a functioning entity for an indefinite period and wipe out significant parts of its national patrimony. Reports of the existence of a “martyrdom movement” among Iranian women have been used to fan Israeli fears of unprovoked Iranian suicide attacks… The ruling clerics did not seek power in order to see Iran destroyed; they see themselves as stewards of a revolution that they believe will bring Shia Islam to its rightful place of world leadership. They are not about to lose it in a nuclear holocaust.”


Third, it is net disadvantageous for its ultimate goals of destroying Israel – International Response [3]

Weiss writes,

“But rather than the use of weapons of mass destruction, Iranian leaders are more likely to see patience and the continuance of current trends as the best route to their desired goal for Israel. Indeed, Israeli policies have played into the hands of the Iranian leaders. The West Bank occupation, counterproductive military operations in response to continual harassment, and intransigence on the freezing and removal of settlements have drained much of the reservoir of sympathy and support for Israel that existed at the time of the Six-Day War.”

Fifth, my opponent claims that the President mentioned the existence of the state of Palestine – seems sort of counter-intuitive to use a nuclear weapon against an area intermingled with the people you are trying to protect (the Palestinians). Israel contains about 1.8 million Muslims…those of which would not be protected against a nuclear explosion.

Iran and Terrorism

My opponent argues that Iran remains a threat since it has terror ties and we wouldn’t want these terror groups to obtain a nuclear weapon. Again, theres a few problems:

First, cross-apply my analysis that it wouldn’t advantage Iran since the international community would clearly know that if there was a nuclear terror attack against Israel the link would be clearly that from Iran.

Second, cross-apply my analysis that this would only spark a nuclear retaliation.

Third, my opponent mentions the use of a dirty bomb. However, the problem here is that Iran wouldn’t need to be making high grade nuclear material for just a dirty bomb – it woulda happened already. Dirty bombs can be made from really low grade nuclear material.

Fourth, non-unique. If a terror group wanted to obtain a nuclear weapon they have a platheora of options: Pakistan which is the home of the nuclear black market, North Korea and the nuclear black market in the post-USSR states.

Con Case

C1: Israeli Strike Fails [3]

Weiss writes,

“The likelihood of a completely successful attack by Israel that destroys all of Iran’s nuclear fuel-making facilities is low. Their facilities are dispersed and some are deeply underground. This is in contrast to the state of the nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria when Israel attacked them in 1981 and 2007, respectively.In addition, Iran has beefed up its antiaircraft capability and is seeking to purchase Russian S-300 surface-to-air missiles, which would be effective against Israel’s current air force.”

C2: Rally-Around-the-Flag [3]

Weiss writes,

“A reasonably successful attack would delay but not destroy Iran’s ability to make nuclear weapons, would cause Iran to redouble its efforts in that direction, and would likely produce a degree of public anger that would translate into stronger support for its clerical government. Any military attack would produce Iranian retaliation, not only against Israel but also against American soldiers in Iraq if American support for the attack is given or suspected. It could unleash worldwide terror attacks against U.S. facilities and citizens.”

[1] http://iranprimer.usip.org...

[2] http://www.cfr.org...

[3] Weiss. Israel’s Future and Iran’s Nuclear Program.

Debate Round No. 2
ConservativePolitico

Pro

ConservativePolitico forfeited this round.
CiRrK

Con

Well extend arguments
Debate Round No. 3
ConservativePolitico

Pro

I apologize for my leaving of the site.

It was personal and I do feel bad.

Please Vote Con

Again, I apologize for this.
CiRrK

Con

No worries. Hope everything works out ok
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
Israel is the neocon co-conspirator. And if you know neocon political theory history it was developed primarily by Jews. And trust me, our goal isnt oil. Though its a nice side dish. : )
Posted by Apollo.11 4 years ago
Apollo.11
I know how much you neocons love sending US troops to expand the empire for oil interests, but perhaps you should read the resolution again. Don't drag Israel into this.
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
Yeah, ikr? Crazy. I thought a new perspective would be intellectually refreshing : )
Posted by BlackVoid 4 years ago
BlackVoid
Lol, I was wondering what was going through Cirrk's head when he took a non-interventionist position.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
US expansionism FTW
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
CiRrK
haha yeah. Im actually a radical neocon who believes in US expansionism. That being said, im playing devils advocate :D
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Actually, he said he agrees but is willing to take the other side.

Roflcopter
Posted by Apollo.11 4 years ago
Apollo.11
You guys disagree on something? Wow. This is a surprise for me.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
ConservativePoliticoCiRrKTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: lbkjalewkrn,3n4,lbkjalewkrn,3n4,lbkjalewkrn,3n4,dszklfjewarndsv3IO4U)(*#$*)(@#$h32KLJ432Q 421653AWR63AW59ASDE*/35\]F[]DGIJRSD;ALKFsdl:fkelRK5ANsdfN4EN,A.FROEIJUTRMEADSGL;KFJU534QW5OI34U5KN43,M5NBM,NFD,MNF,lkdfjlLKkjdklfgjlkjdflkjklajdfj
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ConservativePoliticoCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
ConservativePoliticoCiRrKTied
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: Concession equals win to Con for arguments. Conduct goes to Con as well for forfeits.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
ConservativePoliticoCiRrKTied
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 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: Pro concedes
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
ConservativePoliticoCiRrKTied
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: Pro forfeited.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
ConservativePoliticoCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Forfeit left arguments unanswered.