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

Is America fully correct on its policy on 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  
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: 2/7/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 435 times Debate No: 120217
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I'd like to hand the floor to my opponent for Round 1. I shall, However, State these -

1. My stance is that the USA's foreign policy on Iran is flawed, In that it does not consider the opposite side. More deliberation is required when it comes to USA and Iran.

2. Do keep this debate fair and clean. No slur words, Curses, Or insults. Purely factual/opinionate arguments are what's needed.

3. All the best to you.


I accept this debate. I would like for Con to state which US stance he is attacking in the next round, Because Trump had embraced many positions.
Debate Round No. 1


Under the Obama administration, It won't be wrong to say that our foreign policy on Iran was most reconciliatory. Indeed, After the Islamic Revolution, There have been very few instances in history wherein America appeared to concede to Iran in the name of peace, And Iran reciprocating by acknowledging the efforts. For a while after Obama's inauguration, True peace in the Middle East even seemed conceivable, With Ahmadinejad congratulating Obama, And Obama and Rouhani shaking hands - a solid albeit accidental encounter hailed as the indication of improvement in ties.

Then came the JCPA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) - the turning point. The JCPA came as a relief for many countries, For effectively this meant that America wanted to ensure peace genuinely. George Bush was known to be unforgiving of the nuclear program, And from the eyes of a foreign policy spectator, His era was one of great apprehension about the US-Iran communication. The JCPA seemed to provide a respite to the frequent brawl from General Assemblies to Economic Conferences, The US against any potential stimulants for nuclear Armageddon, Iran protecting its nuclear program.

In many ways, Iran needed the JCPA to restore hope that it was not the enemy state. The sanctions against Iran had led to significant damage of the Riyal, Especially in the context of 2008 - the year that proved fatal to the economic framework in Tehran.

My stance is to support the JCPA that Donald Trump was so ready to quit, To support the hard earned peace negotiations, To support what might have been our very last hope for nuclear peace.

The signatories - the USA, The UK, Russia, China, France and Germany, Along with the European Union, Affirmed Resolution 2331 - Iran's reaffirmation in the JCPOA that it will under no circumstances ever seek, Develop or acquire any nuclear weapons. A major focus on the negotiations was limitations on Iran's key nuclear facilities: the Arak IR-40 heavy water reactor and production plant (which was under construction, But never became operational, As Iran agreed as part of the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action (interim agreement) not to commission or fuel the reactor); the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant; the Gachin uranium mine; the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant; the Isfahan uranium-conversion plant; the Natanz uranium enrichment plant; and the Parchin military research and development complex.

What is most exceptional about the JCPA was how it was etched. For once, The international governments that are so frequently at loggerheads united, With the agreement of Iran. In the words of Laurent Fabius, Who signed the treaty for France, "That unity precedes this agreement reaffirms great hope for the future. " Since 2015, It is notable that till Trump's inauguration, There has not been a major violation by either side on the treaty - the US continued, However, Sanctioning blacklisted individuals from the I. R. I, Yet there was no crisis from this. For once, Peace prevailed, And as was expected, Peace would continue. It was also extremely arduous - 20 weeks of tough negotiations and 2 drafts resulted in the peace call. To put it simply, We have neither the backing now of all the other signatories, Nor even a neutral line with Iran, To repeat a process to end nuclear risks. 2015 seems to have been, The last hope.

Then Donald Trump comes in. The administration was visibly interested in pursuing further relations with Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates and Israel - the former and latter considered arch enemies of Tehran. Then in May 2018, The announcement to pull out of the JCPA. Donald Trump quoted it one of the worst deals ever signed, And reinstated sanctions on November the 4th. In response, The Iranian president Hassan Rouhani said that if needed he would "begin our industrial enrichment without any limitations". On 5 July, Iran threatened to close off the Strait of Hormuz if U. S. Decided to re-impose oil sanctions on Iran following US withdrawal from the JCPA.

In short, A poorly reasoned, Poorly thought out action resulted in the waste of millions of dollars spent towards negotiations and post JCPA deals. The USA promptly stopped all forms of connection to the regime, The Boeing orders for Iranian entities suspended, And the Riyal nosedived.

What's crucial here is that if the USA were correct, Why isn't the rest of the world agreeing? Why was it that on the very same day that the announcements were made, President Macron openly condemned the action? The other signatories stood their ground, Firmly agreeing to the commitments as the remaining signatories. And now Iran takes advantage, Forcing the remaining block of 5 countries to rush to end negotiations. The entire thing has become so messy now, With Iran threatening to continue their nuclear program should further deals not be brokered. We are in a worse position now, Than ever.


The JCPA allowed Iran to continue many endeavors that undermined the agreements made by America. It fails to require Iran to make a complete and correct declaration of nuclear weapons It appears to exempt Iran"s military facilities from inspections, De facto if not de jure, And it unlocked hundreds of billions of dollars in assets, Investments, And commercial deals, Some of which will fund or facilitate terrorism and military aggression. We cannot, However, Recover those assets or end those contracts, And for a short while, Iran"s paths to a nuclear weapon have been circumscribed (but not blocked, As President Barack Obama insisted). We must use the time that we have to build an international consensus against the rebuilding of Iranian uranium enrichment and plutonium production capabilities. The Iranian threat has not gone away, And it could get much worse overnight.
Debate Round No. 2


I disagree that the JCPA would have allowed Iran to continue its nuclear program undeterred - specific clauses barred the Islamic Republic from developing missile grade uranium and warheads, In return for specific exemptions from sanctions. Of course, It is logical to think that the regime would have weighed economic freedom, Or at least safety, Against any nuclear weapons development. Hence the JCPA would have provided a solid basis for stopping any nuclear weapons-related issues, And with the assurance of Iran.

That funds may be transferred for the wrong causes is no justification. For that matter, We can say that the American funds to Kurdish fighters in Syria could be transferred to the YPG militia in Turkey. Hence, Supporting people who fight for our cause can also undermine the safety of other countries. Besides, Specific assurances have been made that track the flow of funds. In any case, Rebuilding the economy, Not funding fringe groups, Would occupy utmost priority.

In short, The JCPA was an ideal situation for the world. Pulling out of the deal could only spell misery for our country, And for a nuclear free future. Iran has stepped up its ante, And what we have now is a dogfight of diplomats and foreign representatives for every summit.


Augmento forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.