Resolved: The Iranian Nuclear Deal is a "mistake."

Thank you Lannan for this great debate. R1: Iran and Terrorism I agree with Pro that Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. They fund groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria’s military dictatorship. The Iran nuclear deal will give Iran a windfall of approximately $30 billion. Iran could use this wealth to support its terrorist proxies. The situation suggests a different outcome though. (1) The CIA concluded “Iran is unlikely to spend most of its post-sanctions funds on militants” [1](2) Iranian President Rouhani has planned to invest the windfall in infrastructure [2](3) Syria’s al-Assad government (Iran’s ally) controls less than 33% of Syria’s territory (a lost cause?)(4) Degraded oil and gas production needs significant investment ($100 billion)(5) Iranian infrastructure is in terrible shape (needs investment of about $500 billion)(6) Iran is confronting a heavy budget deficit ($19 billion) Bottom Line Iran could fund its terrorist allies. The people of Iran though are going to expect a dividend from this pact, and if Iran acknowledges its weak economy, awful infrastructure, budget shortfalls, product shortages and so forth… Iran will probably use most of its windfall on domestic priorities. That’s why the CIA reaffirmed this hypothesis, and that’s why Iran’s President Rouhani has planned to do just that. R2: Iran’s hostility to American interests Preventing a Nuclear Iran I agree with Pro that a nuclear Iran is against America’s interests. It would further expand the contagion of nuclear proliferation, potentially destabilize a region that provides us with significant energy resources, and it would threaten our allies such as Israel. There are two paths that lay ahead of the U.S. The U.S. could accept an Iran with nuclear weapons. The U.S. could also accept an Iran with heavy restrictions on its peaceful nuclear energy activities. If Iran is a threat to U.S. interests – and we can both agree that it is – it is preferable for Iran to have no nuclear weapons, especially if we can seal a deal that makes this the case. Must the U.S. Defend Iran? The annex that Pro references is a muddy area. It commits the U.S. and other states to “protect and respond to nuclear security threats.” If Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities would the U.S. have to defend Iran? This argument demands consideration. Secretary of State John Kerry was ambiguous saying “I don’t see any way possible that we would be in conflict with Israel … we just have to wait until we get until that point.” [3] If we assume that yes the U.S. will protect Iran’s nuclear facilities this would only apply if the nuclear facilities were only processing low-enriched uranium. If Iran were to somehow enrich weapons-grade uranium, the pact would become null and void and the annex would be irrelevant. Iran’s Military Iran has a considerable military in the context of the Middle East. However, the same reference shows that Israel’s military strength is about 50% greater than Iran’s (the spread in the “PwrIndx” is equivalent to the difference between the U.S. military and Turkey’s). Thus Iran’s military may appear strong on paper, but several factors must be considered: Iran’s military is more antiquated (significantly lower levels of weapons procurement) Iran is much more isolated (fewer allies) Israel’s military significantly overpowers Iran’s Iran is surrounded by a multitude of U.S. military bases R3: Iran is Close to a Nuclear Bomb “We cannot allow Iran to get nuclear power… [this] will only result in Iran getting the bomb” Iran is already producing high-enriched uranium. They could produce a nuclear weapon by November 2015. The Iranian nuclear program is running on full speed, and they will be able to produce an arsenal of nuclear weapons if we reject the deal. Furthermore, the State Department has committed that “Iran will ship all of its spent fuel from [its nuclear] reactor[s]” [4]. Enforcement Provisions The quote the IAEA Director himself: “The arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise our safeguards standards in any way. The Road-map between Iran and the IAEA is a very robust agreement.” [5] The IAEA has the ability to inspect all stages of the nuclear supply chain, whether it is nuclear facilities, uranium mines, centrifuge production facilities, or suspicious sites. If Iran were to try and hide nuclear activities, it would be nearly impossible because radioactive traces remain present in the environment for a lengthy period of time. Downgrading Iran’s Nuclear Capabilities The pact places a multitude of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program that make it impossible for it to acquire or develop a nuclear weapon within the context of the pact. This is why the deal is so important. Snapback Provision If Iran violates the treaty, the dispute goes to the U.N. Security Council. If the U.S. can’t pass a resolution, all sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council automatically kick back into effect 30 days later. Russia and China can’t do anything to stop this. They could introduce a new resolution to cancel the sanctions permanently, but the U.S. would veto this, nothing would be accomplished, and the snapback would kick in. If the U.S. introduced a resolution to say increase the rate of IAEA inspections and China and Russia vetoed it, no resolution would be passed and by default the snapback would kick back in. Bottom Line We can’t trust Iran. They aren’t America’s friend. That is why we have stringent provisions on the table that will make it nearly impossible for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. R4: Iran’s Oil and the U.S. Economy If Iran is allowed to increase the aggregate supply of crude oil in the international market, it would lower the prices for a wide multitude of goods and services. This is beneficial for the economy at large and for the consumer. The U.S. producers will find ways to react. We trade with China even though they produce a significant quantity of consumer goods. We trade with South Korea even though they are a major producer of automobiles and heavy industrial products. Trade spurs creative destruction, which ultimately benefits the economy in the long run. R5: Renegotiating the Deal “The U.S. can renegotiate… and allow Turkey to become a power in the Middle East” Iran is willing to sacrifice its economy and health for its nuclear weapons program. This is heavily influenced by the fact that Israel has a nuclear weapons program. They want some level of equality. That is why they have been undeterred in their quest to developing a nuclear weapon. I suppose we could renegotiate the deal, but that seems unlikely given the fact that many European nations, all other countries in the U.N. Security Council, and other nations have already agreed to the treaty. It seems like the opportunity for renegotiating the deal has passed. A Better Deal? Even if we were to renegotiate the deal, it seems incredibly unlikely that we could get anything better. It’s hard to envision that we could pressure Iran to give up the bulk of its nuclear weapons program, to give up its entire capacity to produce nuclear weapons, to allow open and robust inspections, and to furthermore concede that we are keeping many sanctions in place (with regards to human rights abuses, terrorism, etc.). The current treaty has all of these elements and more. When it comes to getting our hostages back, it would be most feasible to get them back home through different pieces of statecraft. Summary The U.S. should approve the Iranian nuclear deal. I’ll restate the merits of the pact: Downgrading Iran’s Nuclear Capabilities Eliminates 98% of Iran’s nuclear stockpile Caps uranium-enrichment to 3.67% (only useable for nuclear energy purposes) Cuts 2/3rds of Iran’s centrifuges Mandates that Iran ships out spent fuel from its nuclear reactor[s] Heavy Enforcement Provisions IAEA inspections at all parts of the supply chain Iran becomes a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) IAEA inspects all imports that have potential military dimensions (PMD) U.S. sanctions for Iran’s terrorism, human rights abuses, etc. will remain in effect Any violation of the treaty will force all sanctions to “snapback” after 30 days International Engagement Deeper connections to the world will pressure Iran to reform its institutions (J-Curve) More affordable crude oil prices Greater international market opportunities Given all of these provisions – Iran is prevented from developing or acquiring a nuclear weapon. If we reject the deal, Iran will have nuclear weapons. It is in America’s best interests to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed state, and this deal will do this. The Iran nuclear deal benefits the U.S., and the resolution is negated. [1] (http://tinyurl.com...) [2] (http://tinyurl.com...) [3] (http://tinyurl.com...) [4] (http://tinyurl.com...) [5] (https://www.iaea.org...) Any arguments without references were sourced in previous rounds.