Iran poses a laegitimate threat to the United States

Okey doke: "I was simply pointing out that a small force can cause great harm." I don't disagree with this conclusion, however I do think that these situations are different for the reasons I have stated. The colonies succeeded in expelling British forces, not attacking Great Britain. We are not occupying Iran. The terrorists of 9/11 were suicide attackers not representing a sovereign nation. Unlike Al Qaeda, Iran is a member of the UN, and would suffer severe repercussions if they were to attack the US. Simply because a smaller nation such as Iran COULD cause us great harm does not mean that they will, nor does it qualify them as a threat. You said this in response to my point that an attack on the US would be economically and politically devastating for Iran: "Really? In truth, if Iran attacked us, we would be force to invade them. If it came to that, the Iranian people would not be so fond of USA forces. Furthermore, the rich wage war but the poor must pay. Iran's president has shown a lack of compassion for the poor of Iran and the harms of war. He tries to instigate war himself with Israel. Your point is false" According to the International Monetary Fund, roughly 60% of Iran's budget comes from oil revenue. An attack on the US would immediately cut off Iran's ability to export oil. This alone proves my point regarding the disastrous implications of an Iranian attack. The entire country, not just the rich, would pay. Furthermore, if Iran attacked us unprovoked, we would be justified in retaliating, and I believe many of the Iranian citizens would realize that. "After these two points, we must realize that you have not proved why the weak Iran can not harm the strong USA." My point is not that they cannot harm us. Plenty of countries, such as Pakistan, India, Germany, China, etc. COULD harm us. The point I am making is that Iran WON'T instigate an attack because of the reasons I have stated above. "Terrorists have not failed against the USA yet." Iran is not a faceless terrorist group. It is a NATION which must face the backlash from both the US and the international community should they attack us. We don't have to hunt Iran like we do Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It is a country with defined borders and public leaders that's not going anywhere. "We have only 2 real allies, Israel and Britain" Have you ever heard of a little thing called NATO? It consists of the US, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, the UK, Greece, and Turkey. Its treaty states "The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." I rest my case on that point. In response to Mueller's quote from Foreign Affairs you had this to say: "Not always true. The status quo gives little inclination, but that doesn't mean a step up on Iran's part will not change that." So what we have is the opinion of the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies at Ohio State University vs yours, I guess. That's an interesting theory you have, but it is still a purely hypothetical argument. "My 5th point that Iran was not weak had nothing to do with that." You have yet to provide any evidence that Iran is anything but vastly militarily inferior to the United States. "I am not an encyclopedia. I do not source everything." I realize this. My quarrel is with the fact that you do not source anything. Neither of us is singularly qualified to debate this subject without any outside resources, that is why I often cite data or works of leading experts. You have yet to do this even once, which means that your argument is based purely on your own opinions, which have little bearing in a debate. "This point wins it for me. He ignores key facts that I brought up a. Iran will attack Israel b. USA will protect Israel c. Iran will fight against USA" First of all, you have given absolutely no proof that Iran will attack Israel. I didn't bother refuting your point because it has no place in this debate. Secondly, being forced to fight Iranian forces on foreign soil thousands of miles from our shores does not constitute a threat to the UNITED STATES. Our military has been involved in conflicts all over the globe for centuries. But that doesn't mean that we have been constantly under threat of attack from those places. Almost no one alleges that Iran poses a threat of any serious nature to the United States, there are no allegations that an Iranian fleet is going to seize Boston Harbor, or that Iranian paratroopers are going to descend upon New York City. Instead the case against Iran is based almost entirely upon hypotheticals. In an interview in late September with Newsweek magazine, the president of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who recently toured Iran's nuclear facilities, said that Iran posed "no clear and present danger" to anyone. He also stated that Iran is at least eight years away from developing the technology needed for nuclear weapons, if that is indeed their goal. There are many other nations in the world who could also acquire nuclear weapons in that time span based on their current nuclear capabilities. A war with the US would be disastrous for Iran and they and the rest of the world know that. Because of these facts, Iran does not pose a legitimate threat to the United States. The burden of proof is on my opponent to provide some sort of evidence that they do.