Iran poses a laegitimate threat to the United States

Ok let's take a look at some of my opponent's arguments: "September 11, 2001. Those terrorists were only a few people, yet caused us great harm and the lives of many." Are you suggesting that September 11 is proof that Iran will attack us? The hijackers of 9/11 were terrorists, not a nation with self interests to protect. As a country, Iran would have to face the implications of a conflict with the United States and here are a few facts to consider: Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Iran realizes that the repercussions of a war with the US would be devastating for its people and its economy. "Even more prudent, Iran v. US is like US v. Britain. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it my friend." How is this even remotely true? Iran is a sovereign nation. The US is not an occupying force in Iran. As our soldier friend below points out, Iran has a fairly pro-US populace. The American Revolution was fueled by the fact that the colonies were being governed and taxed without having any representation, and it had a huge amount of support among the colonists. This is has absolutely no parallel between today's situation with Iran. Apparently it is you who has not learned from history. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Iran declared open war against the United States, they would have the full support of Al-Quieda, the Taliban, and any other terrorist group. Furthermore, countries who hate us and hate Israel would use this as a good opportunity to gang up on us and attack. Iran isn't liked, but we are hated." Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are already against us, what would Iran attacking the US do to change this? Although you don't seem to realize it, Iran has virtually no allies in the political world. With the exception of Syria and Iraq, Israel and every other Arab country are either quietly or actively allied AGAINST Iran (http://www.newsweek.com...). Iran attacking the US would not be a "good opportunity to gang up on us". The US is allied with some of the most powerful nations in the world and has proved time and again that starting a war with it leads to inevitable failure. "Never leave your guard down. Just because it hasn't happened in a while does not mean it won't." I'm not implying that we shouldn't be actively seeking out terrorists and trying to uncover potential terror plots, I'm saying that we don't have any evidence that terrorists pose an active threat to our day to day lives. In his article "Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?: The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy" in Foreign Affairs Journal, Robert Mueller writes "One reasonable explanation (for the lack of terrorist attacks) is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad." "On September 10, 2001, did anyone actually think we were in danger of a terrorist attack?" Yes. The intelligence community had warned the FAA for years of possible attacks and the FAA dismissed them. A month before the attacks the CIA sent a message to the FAA warning of a possible hijacking (http://archives.cnn.com...). "Ignorance is Bliss. Watch FOX NEWS. They had a special about this. Real video-taped footage of a parade, led by the president of Iran (cant spell his name so not going to try) burning scarecrow of Bush, burning american flags, holding a prayer that was said to damn america, and hold speeches damning america. I think this is proof." This is proof? A parade from a documentary you apparently can't recall the title of or find any evidence of on a conservative news channel that is widely disregarded among the academic and intellectual community? I don't doubt that these types of events do occur, but that hardly represents the entire population. Secondly, President Ahmadinejad isn't even in control of the country's armed forces. That job goes to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini. The Iranian people WANT relations with the US. In a poll conducted in June of 2006, Iranians were asked what city in the world they would most like to visit. After Mecca (97% of the country's population is Muslim, after all) New York and Paris were virtually tied for second. Among people 50 and over, New York came in first, AHEAD of Mecca (http://www.iranvajahan.net...). The Iranian people are not a group of radical, anti-US fanatics as your friend Fox News likes to paint them. Your next two points rely on your previous points, which I have already proven to be dubious. "President of Iran has the upper class of the country on his side. Children are brainwashed from birth to hate America. A survey said that we had the most support from the teenagers of Iran. Why? Because they are teenagers. Look at Vietnam. Our citizens hated it, yet we still fought. Look to Iraq. Almost everyone hates it yet we are still there" I'm not going to respond to this claim until you provide some sort of evidence for it. If children are brainwashed from birth to hate America, why do so many teenagers support the US? Your logic here doesn't really make any sense. Finally, you end with this: "Israel is our strongest ally and we have promised to protect them . Iran HATES Israel, and has promised to destroy them." That's fine, but the resolve here is that Iran poses a threat to the United States, not Israel. As I have previously pointed out Iran is neither capable of carrying out nor willing to carry out a strike against the US. Yes, Ahmadinejad is a hard liner with anti-US bias, but people are characterizing him as having his finger on the button. But Iran doesn't have a nuclear button yet and won't for at least three to eight years, according to the CIA, by which point Ahmadinejad may not be president anymore. Iran is a nation full of moderates, with large pockets of pro-US sentiment. We must not alienate them based on groundless claims.