Iran is not a threat to world security

Thank you for the thoughtful response, jamesblue, and for clarifying your earlier argument. I would like to clarify a few points as well.As my opponent notes, we agree on a lot. This is not surprising, as the basic strategic contours are not in dispute within the community of those who closely follow international relations, of which my opponent seems to be a member.First, we agree that the best available intelligence strongly supports the conclusion that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon at this time. That said, as a point of clarification, I don't think I would agree with a definitive, categorical statement that Iran is not currently pursuing a nuclear weapon. Because of Iran's reluctance to allow inspectors at certain sites or to make disclosures requires by the P5+1 negotiation framework, I would allow for the slight possibility of a successfully concealed weapons program, though I do not think that is very likely.Second, I do in fact agree that one of the primary reasons why Iran has pursued nuclear weapons in the past is its leaders believe - with not a little justification - that the United States and Israel favor the removal of the current regime from power. As my opponent correctly notes, the spectre of 1953 looms large in the Iranian national consciousness, as does the trauma of Iraq's aggressive, US-backed warfare in the 1980's. The deterrent effect of a nuclear weapon - that is, a deterrent to American or American-supported military action - has been acknowledged by Iran's American opponents. [1] [2] I do not think that is the sole reason Iran sought nuclear weapons - national pride is a big one - but it is the primary strategic reason.Third, we agree that regional - and ultimately, global - total nuclear disarmament is an important long-term goal. However, practically speaking, there is no realistic short- or mid-term scenario in which Israel divests its nuclear arsenal. The realistic options for the Middle East in the next decade are a unipolar nuclear power, vested in Israel, or a catastrophic arms race.Finally, I agree that Iran is currently in a defensive military posture, though I do not think that matters terribly much. Iran's posture is defensive; Israel, too, is in a defensive posture vis-a-vis Iran, but both parties are wary of the other striking out. History is full of wars between nations that each party considered defensive. That said, Iran's own military is only part of the story. One must also consider its proxy support of organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which are more actively aggressive. The West is rightly wary of Iran's intentions based on this support.With all that is agreed upon, what is left? Only the resolution - that Iran is indeed a threat to world security. My opponent seems to think that because Iran is not currently pursuing a nuclear weapon, currently holds a defensive posture, and seeks to deter foreign-imposed regime change, that Iran is not a threat to global security. But his conclusion does not follow from these premises - indeed, these very factors contribute significantly to the threat that Iran poses, because they all incentivize Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.Although Iran is not currently pursuing development of a nuclear weapon - again, as best we know - it has done so in the past, in secret, in violation of international law. As my opponent noted, Iran has rational incentives to deter forcible regime change. My opponent also noted that Iran spends relatively little on its military, but what resources it does expend, it expends very strategically. Iran's doesn't have the military resources to directly counter US or Israeli military forces, so it has based its strategy on asymmetrical warfare (which the US has proved particularly poor at overcoming, it must be noted). [3] The deterrent force of a nuclear weapon is almost irresistible in this strategic context. The point being, Iran wants the bomb. It has every reason to! And because Iran wants the bomb, there's no reason to think that Iran won't take steps to obtain a nuclear weapon as soon as it is able. So Iran has a motive to obtain nuclear weapons.My opponent has provided no rebuttal to the fact that Iran has continued overt nuclear refinement operations, has strategically placed these operations in locations protected from military strikes, and has ramped its operations up to a level that could be weaponized in very short order. So Iran has the means to obtain nuclear weapons, relatively quickly. upon deciding to do soWere Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, its defensive posture, ironically, might result in pressure to use such a weapon. If Iran creates one or two warheads, it will know that it has put itself at risk of an Israeli strike. Unlike the Cold War, where the overall strategic match between the two great powers served as a disincentive to attack, the asymmetry between Iran and Israel give both countries an incentive to strike first. Iran, having a geographic advantage but an arsenal disadvantage, would recognize that an Israeli first strike would likely render them incapable of responding in kind - the nuclear weapons then become a "use them or lose them" resource. Israel, with an arsenal advantage but a geographic disadvantage, would recognize that the nation's small size means that even one or two nuclear explosions would be critically devastating, and would have an incentive to neutralize Iran's capacity as quickly as possible. Both countries, acting rationally and defensively, would almost certainly erupt in a nuclear conflagration. [4] Even if such a conflict with Israel did not erupt, the regional arms race - which, again, Pro did not rebut - with Sunni governments would quickly result in a multi-polar, unstable nuclear power distribution in an already volatile region.Thus, Iran's rational motivations do not negate the threat Iran poses, as my opponent argues. They are in fact the very elements that give rise to a very grave threat to regional and global security.With Iran having the motive and means to obtain a nuclear weapon, it stands to reason that Iran will most likely obtain a nuclear weapon if given the opportunity. Of late, Iran has been constrained by the harsh economic sanctions imposed by its largest potential trading partners in Asia and Europe. But if these sanctions continue unabated, and without hope of relief, eventually Iran will decide to renew its weapons program - this is why the hawkish strategy of permanent and intensified economic isolation for Iran is tantamount a quiet declaration of war. This is why the P5+1 talks are so critical - they provide an avenue by which Iran can be given relief from sanctions in exchange for agreeing to substantive, external obstacles to a weapons program. This is not just the analysis of the United States, but of all the P5+1 nations, including Russia and China, who would very much like to purchase Iranian oil, but not at the expense of allowing Iran the opportunity to develop a nuclear weapon. All these nations - not just the US and Israel - recognize the threat that Iran poses if it remains free to develop nuclear weapons. As do I, and as should all those reading.[1] http://www.newamericancentury.org...[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[3] http://iranprimer.usip.org...[4] http://www.foreignaffairs.com...