Iran is not a threat to world security

Thank you, jamesblue, for bringing this important topic to the floor. As Con, I will be arguing that Iran indeed poses a threat to global security. I support the efforts of the Obama administration, Secretary Kerry, and the P5 + 1 nations to address this threat through diplomatic negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear agreement.Pro and I will probably agree on many points. The best information currently available from U.S. intelligence agencies is that Iran suspended its covert program to develop a nuclear weapon in 2003. [1] The findings of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate have reportedly been confirmed in an updated (but unreleased) NIE from 2010. [2] Heated rhetoric from the right in both the U.S. and Israel have downplayed these findings and have continued to insist, with little evidentiary support, that Iran is actively pursuing a covert nuclear weapon program. This exaggerated posturing from Likud and GOP leaders alike is detrimental to the security interests of both countries. Pro and I will agree that the military intervention encouraged by the right would be completely unjustified at this stage. I will also agree with what I think is the main point of Pro's "history lesson," which is that the history of U.S. / Iranian relations since the 50's have done little to engender trust. Considerable fault lies with U.S. leadership and its intelligence community, though I would hasten to add that the failings have been mutual, and not so one-sided as my opponent suggests.However, this does not mean that we should not recognize Iran as a global security threat. Global nuclear proliferation remains one of the leading dangers to the survival of humanity, alongside climate change. [3] The global nuclear threat derives not just from the large stockpiles held by the U.S. and Russia, but from the rising number of regional powers with nuclear capabilities, which threaten to escalate formerly small-scale territorial and ideological disputes between neighboring countries into nuclear confrontations - e.g., Pakistan and India, or the Korean peninsula. [3] It is necessary to consider what the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran would be. The willingness of the Israeli government to take preemptive military action against a nuclear-armed Iran is a given. [4] Additionally, a nuclear-armed Shia Iran would likely encourage the Sunni-led governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to revive long-dormant weapons programs. [3] One must also consider the potential "black swan" events that could give rise to instability in Iran -- ISIS represents a present territorial and religious threat to Iran's government, and the 2009 Green Revolution illustrated the diminished hold the regime has on its citizens. Any of these regional or internal tensions could erupt suddenly - a nuclear Iran simply makes it more likely that whatever conflicts arise escalate into a nuclear confrontation.Let's also be under no illusions about what Iran can achieve on a short timeline if it were to revive the illicit nuclear weapons program which it admitted it was once operating. Note that the NIE findings indicated that Iran suspended its covert (and clearly illegal) enrichment operations - its overt operations have remained a legitimate point of concern for the west, as it has ramped up from a "pilot" program to industrial-level production. [5] In 2012, the UN Int'l Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had begun producing nuclear fuel at a protected mountain facility insulated from potential air strikes - although ostensibly for civilian purposes, the location and security of the facility means that rapid conversion to weaponization could take place quickly without much capacity for the west to halt weaponization short of direct military intervention. [6] Iran has also refused to allow international inspections at military sites suspected of developing warhead designs and trigger devices. [7] During the course of P5 + 1 negotiations, Iran has missed disclosure deadlines to answer questions about its prior weaponization efforts, and its work on long-range-ballistic-missile delivery systems has continued unimpeded. [8] In short, Iran’s efforts to hide its nuclear facilities have intensified doubts about Iran's intentions, even though little evidence of an active weapons program has been recently detected. This is why the P5 + 1 talks are so critical for global security. A nuclear agreement is in the best interests of Iran, the United States, the Middle East generally, and Israel (even if Likud won't admit it for its own political reasons). While a comprehensive deal has always been a daunting challenge - and the talks are more likely to fail than succeed - a deal that alleviates sanctions for Iran while minimizing the risks that Iran can revive a clandestine nuclear weapons program would alleviate regional tensions that have come closing to snapping more than once in recent years. A successful deal could also help thaw the long-standing tension between the U.S. and Iran, leading to the possibility of a peaceful partnership in the future. [9]With that, I stand opposed to the resolution. Iran's nuclear production capacities render it a global security threat, albeit one that is better addressed by non-military means at present.[1] http://www.dni.gov...[2] http://www.nytimes.com...[3] http://www.un.org...[4] http://www.timesofisrael.com...[5] http://www.brookings.edu...[6] http://www.nytimes.com...[7] http://www.nytimes.com...[8] http://nationalinterest.org...[9] http://www.juancole.com...