Iran Should Not Be Allowed To Develop Nuclear Weapons

My opponent's rebuttal is rather unsatisfactory and unorganized, but I will attempt to address his contentions in order and then frame his rebuttal in the context of the debate at the end. First he claims that Iran is highly anti-Semitic. This may very well be true. But how anti-Semitic do you have to be to slaughter millions of innocent civilians? Pro never addresses this factor. He merely assumes that they wish unimaginable harm on them and will act upon that desire merely because they are bigoted towards the Judaic faith. He then attempts to use analogy to justify a nation's right to weaponry. However, this analogy is flawed in many different ways. First, it would be fair in the example to also allocate 80 bombs to the McBrowns and remind the audience that the McBrowns most likely hold some contempt towards the Austins as well, though not on quite the same scale that the Austins despise the McBrowns. So do the McBrowns have the right to build a bomb? Obviously they do, insofar as the Austins have not been reprimanded for owning 80. And do the Austins have the right to prevent the McBrowns from doing so? Of course not! Under any sort of government, the government alone holds a monopoly on coercive force. This is the reason vigilantism is, as a practice, illegal. It would be up to the governing body to "check it out", but there would be nothing to "check out", as building a bomb has already been allowed 80 TIMES by the same governing body. You would not dispute a sovereign state's right to form an army, would you? Yet because this bomb is more powerful, you have drawn a line between armies complete with cavalry, tanks, and a navy, and armies with this one specific type of bomb. If your fear for Israel is the only reason that you retain the right to strip these weapons from Iran, then why would your argument not extend to stripping Iran of all weapons capable of harming Israel, including an air force and tanks? Why would this argument not extend to all Arab nations capable of harming Israel with similar ostensible motives? Pro's argument is absurd and fails on multiple levels. But, of course, he must refute MAD as a deterrent as well. My opponent is right. The past does not always predict the future. However, if Iran has been bent on attacking Israel for so long, then why did they not join the other Arab nations in repeated attacks against Israel? And does probable motive warrant a preemptive strike when no harm has actually been done? My opponent claims that hitting Israel with a few warheads will totally incapacitate them, however, Israel has a fantastic missile defense system, and their nukes are relatively covert. In essence, no one knows where they're stationed. And as soon as Israel learns that they've been hit by a nuke coming from Iran, they will obliterate them. It does not take an unscathed nation to press a button. The notion that a couple of nukes will undoubtedly prevent a counterstrike is absolutely absurd, and the size of Israel, about 75 miles wide at its widest and 250 miles long at its longest, certainly wouldn't permit incapacitation after "two or three warheads", which would most likely be rather impotent in comparison to warheads of more technologically advanced nations such as Israel or the United States. My opponent believes that Israel's nukes are essentially useless in the event of a nuclear war, and that Iran would be willing to risk a VERY possible annihilation of the majority of their populace. This is unfounded and he does not actually grapple with the concept of MAD. He thinks that if destruction isn't quite 100% assured that Iran will attack Israel, but, of course, if the annihilation of your entire nation is only 90% or 80% assured after attacking another nation, you will probably refrain from doing so, no matter how badly you despise your target. Pro fundamentally misunderstands the concept of MAD and thus provides an unsatisfactory rebuttal that is both invalid and incomplete. And the notion that Iran could give the nukes to Hezbollah or Hamas is irrelevant. The warheads are traceable by satellite and require something such as a plane or advanced launch system to deploy, neither of which Hamas or Hezbollah have. If, as pro says, we are sure that Iran has these nukes, then Israel is sure as well. If they are launched from within Iran or dropped by a plane (which Israel could probably shoot down anyway), Israel is still likely to strike Iran, and Iran knows this. MAD is still solvent and these very specific and peculiar scenarios do no justice to Pro's arguments.Pro drops my entire third contention. He does not provide us with a manner of achieving his resolution which is not either ineffective or ethically impermissible. Because Pro has conceded my entire third contention, the argumentative chain is unequivocally shattered, and to contest this is folly. As of now, Pro is asserting that we should either waste our efforts and, in the end, achieve nothing, or that we should commit morally impermissible acts to achieve an end, which is, as I've stated, undesirable. We have a negative duty not to behave in a manner that is morally impermissible, such as utilizing the lives of Iranians merely as means to eradication of warheads. In fact, Pro's only contentious argument is his MAD rebuttal. This is not to say it is a valid rebuttal, as I've shown above, but he leaves the other two points unsatisfactorily addressed. His only argument against the impermissibility of impinging upon sovereignty is a faulty analogy which ultimately proves nothing. My arguments stand, and impinging upon Iran's sovereignty, even under Pro's analogy, would be impermissible. He has done nothing to refute this notion. And unless he can provide a mode of action bearing auspicious properties that does not commit any acts that are morally impermissible, Pro concedes this point and ultimately the round. Pro states that the argumentative chain is not shattered, but this is because the chain hardly exists. None of Pro's rebuttals are satisfactory, and my arguments stand.