Debatepedia partners with The People Speak Global Debates and the The National Debate Series: Boston (Nov. 10)
Debate Digest Nov 19th: Medical marijuana. Next Debate Digest article: Trying 9/11 terror suspects in NYC courts

Debate: Iran's nuclear program should be ended by force

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

[

]

[

]

[

]

[

]

[Edit]

Background and context

Iran has had a nuclear program for close to 50 years, beginning with a research reactor purchased from the United States in 1959. The Shah’s plan to build 23 nuclear power reactors by the 1990s was regarded as grandiose, but not necessarily viewed as a “back door” to a nuclear weapons program, possibly because Iran did not then seek the technologies to enrich or reprocess its own fuel. There were a few suspicions of a nuclear weapons program, but these abated in the decade between the Iranian 1979 revolution and the end of the Iran-Iraq war, both of which brought a halt to nuclear activities. Iran’s current plans — to construct seven nuclear power plants (1000 MW each) by 2025 — are still ambitious, particularly for a state with considerable oil and gas reserves. Iran argues, as it did in the 1970s, that nuclear power is necessary for rising domestic energy consumption, while oil and gas are needed to generate foreign currency.

Few observers believe that such an ambitious program is necessary or economic for Iran. Iran has asserted repeatedly that its nuclear program is strictly peaceful, stating in May 2003 that “we consider the acquiring, development and use of nuclear weapons inhuman, immoral, illegal and against our basic principles. They have no place in Iran’s defense doctrine.” Iranian government spokesman Gholam Hussein Elham said in July 2006 that the Islamic Republic will never produce weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei said in November 2004 that Iran would not “give up” its enrichment “at any price” and former President Khatami stated in March 2005 that ending Iran’s uranium enrichment program is “completely unacceptable.” Uranium enrichment can be used for both peaceful (nuclear fuel) and military (nuclear weapons) uses. However, two decades of clandestine activities have raised questions about Iran’s intentions, and Iran’s use of centrifuge enrichment technology makes detection of clandestine enrichment very difficult.

[Edit]

[

]

[

]

[

]

Write Subquestion here...

[

]

[Edit]

Yes

Claim: Israel is in emminent danger

Reasoning: Unlike Iraq in 1981, Iran has the capability to retaliate against an Israeli attack. Shihab-3 missiles can reach Israeli targets. Ali Shamkhani, Minister of Defense, warned in 2004 that preemption is not a monopoly of Israel and threatened that Iran might launch preemptive strikes on Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona in response to a possible Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear plants. Furthermore,Tehran can support terrorist operations inside Israel or on Israeli targets in foreign countries.

[

]

[Edit]

No

Claim: Iran's program is needed for future well-being.

Reasoning: U.S. officials often point out that Tehran has massive oil and natural gas deposits and, therefore, does not need to build expensive nuclear plants. The Iranians respond by noting that othermajor oil and gas producers such as Canada and Russia rely heavily on nuclear energy to generate electricity and for other peaceful purposes. Furthermore, burning more fossil fuels would further increase pollution and create severe environmental problems. Finally, the Iranians point out to their substantial domestic consumption, which absorbs a big proportion of the country’s oil production. If Iran does not switch to nuclear power, they argue, most of the production will be consumed domestically in the next few decades due to population growth. This would be devastating for an economy dependent on oil exports for most of its revenue.

[Edit]

[

]

[

]

[

]

[

]

[

]

Write Subquestion here...

[

]

[Edit]

Yes

Claim: Preemption will save lives

Reasoning: Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons. For example, Iran's civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing to operate and this allows for Iran to continue work on a vital part of their weapons development program. The U.S. National Defense Council has assessed with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons. A preemptive stike would set back Iran's potential nuclear weapons program and allow Israel and other potential targets to live in greater security.

[

]

[Edit]

No

Claim: There is no proof of active nuclear weapons capabilities.

Reasoning: Three years of robust inspection of Iranian nuclear and non-nuclear facilities by the IAEA inspectors led Dr. El-Baradi to conclude and certify that to date there are no indications of any diversion of nuclear material and activities toward making a bomb. At the same time, El-Baradi has pointed out that the IAEA cannot certify that Iran's program is exclusively peaceful. But the fact is that few among many states with a nuclear program have received such a clean bill of health from the IAEA. Such certification by the IAEA does and should take time and effort. Iran is prepared and willing to invest the time and effort necessary to receive the IAEA clean bill of health. The IAEA is also ready to pursue its investigation of Iran's nuclear activities. So should the states that have concern about it.

[Edit]

[

]

[

]

[

]

[

]

Write Subquestion here...

[

]

[Edit]

Yes

Claim: Uranium enrichment is a precusor ro nuclear weapons.

Reasoning: In 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCR) helped expose Iran’s undeclared nuclear activities by providing information about nuclear sites at Natanz (uranium enrichment) and Arak (heavy water production). Three years of intensive inspections by the IAEA revealed significant undeclared Iranian efforts in uranium enrichment (including centrifuge, atomic vapor laser and molecular laser isotope separation techniques) and separation of plutonium, as well as undeclared imported material. Iranian officials have delayed inspections, changed explanations for discrepancies, cleaned up facilities and in one case, Lavizan-Shian, razed a site. According to IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, “Iran tried to cover up many of their activities, and they learned the hard way.” In addition, Iranian officials told the IAEA only in January 2005 of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan’s 1987 offer of a centrifuge enrichment “starter kit.” In November 2005, Iran finally admitted that the Khan network supplied it with information on casting and machining parts of nuclear weapons.

[

]

[Edit]

No

Claim: Further diplomacy is still possible

Reasoning: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. However, if Barack Obama is elected president he believes that non-military options have not exhausted in confronting this threat. As president Obama would use direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. He would pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, he will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, the world would step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is the best way to make progress.

[Edit]