The Safavid's had a good chance at becoming a Great Power

Pro claims that the Safavid Empire was united by an old sense of Persian nationalism, but that only applies to ethnic Persians, who mainly only live in Iran and western Afghanistan [1]. However, the Safavid Empire spreads far beyond just that [2], so it can safely be assumed that the empire was very multi-cultural, including Arabs, Armenians, Uzbeks, Jews, and Turks, to name a few of its ethnic minorities.Actually, old Persian nationalism extended from Anatolia to Indo-Kush. Nationality is the pride of the nation, and should be differentiated from the pride of an ethnic group. The greatest empires in the middle east, were the old Persian ones, which time and time again conquered the lands. [1]Cyrus and Darius were a universal part of Middle Eastern life. Pro-Persian movements existed in every nation during Safavid rule. Even so, almost everybody in the Arab world has Persian blood in them, which made cultural integration smooth. Its an equalivalent of the racial integration seen in western Europe. Actually, the intergration of Cyrus's empire was so great, that all ethnic groups in the Arab world became seperated by language, and not skin. So, basically what I'm trying to point out, is that the Arab world is rooted in the foundation of Greek and Eastern Mountain peoples. The Arab people are considered Pan ethnic, so I guess this is your source [2]One last thing I forgot to point out, is that the Safavid dynasty was multi ethnic. Even though they had a largely Persian tribal bloodline, they had Armenian, Kurd, and Uzbek blood. Consisting of most of the places they conquered. [3]Also, on this note, Pro points out the unifying effect that Shia Islam had on the empire, but that ignores the fact that the Safavids committed lots of persecution against Sunni Muslims, Sufi Muslims, Christians, and Jews to keep it that way [4], and state-sponsored suppression has never been a good sign of political stability. This point is quite baseless. Iran was able to keep political stability, by keeping the state pure Shia'. The points about Christian or Jews really aren't supported, as there weren't many to begin with, and most Sunni muslims kept out of the Safavid empire. Simply putting this into a realist perspective. Persecution kept the empire pure of religious and other cultural movements, a trait exercised by all nations at the time. Tying this to the US, the GOP has been trying to close down immigration. Regardless of the true intent, it is a fact that most immigrants end up voting democrat. So, by that alone, you must ask yourself.....Would Persia truly of been better off with other influences in the country? [4]Pro argues that the weakness of the Safavid Empire's neighbors shows its own political strength. However, this is not necessarily true. European colonial powers such as England, France, Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal were all able to survive despite the fact that they had very strong neighbors all around them (i.e. each other).This displays a much higher degree of internal stability than that of an empire which is only able to survive because its neighbors are weak.I never admitted this as a sole reason, but it very well worked in their favor. The Safavids, as I already pointed out, had resisted European attempts to colonize Iran. They were simply to strong and hard to conquer. Shah Abbas, was able to formulate a modern army, based on gunpowder weaponary. European powers didn't develop modern gunpowder based armies until the 18th century. His army, which combined the Ottoman tactic (A quite successful one) of levying peasents armys, combined with organized and structured forces of the west, gave the Safavids a world wide military advantage. [5]First of all, I would just like to point out that Pro already conceded that all of these neighboring powers are weak... thus, logically, being strong compared to them provesnothingAudience, I didn't concede any of these points. I actually argued that the Mughals and Ottomans were in their golden age. The Mughals were the wealthiest in the world, and had its largest concentration of armies along the Safavid border. The fact that they were able to make brutal advances, and double their land in both invasions, has to count for something. I would even say they were already a great power. The Mughals and Ottomans were no joke in the 1600's. The Timurid dynasty and Ottomans, were at the height of their conquests. Pro points out that the Safavid Empire has beaten the Ottoman Empire in a few wars, but he fails to take into consideration the fact that during most of those wars, the Ottoman Empire was simultaneously occupied fighting off the European navies in the Mediterranean, making it extremely difficult for them to win on either front.Also, in one of the most important said wars, the Safavids managed to capture Baghdad, but only a few years afterwards, the Ottoman Empire recovered Baghdad and actually ended the war in a win! [5] I don't really find the contradiction that funny. We are arguing that it was possible for the Safavids to become a great power. By conceding the Ottomans were over extended, then you are conceding that the Iranians had great potential to take over other lands. And the battle of Chaldiran, the one you are referencing, took place in 1514.This was near Isthals creation of the empire, and the Safavids took it back at their height. It was actually the Mamluks who ended up controlling Mesopotamia, who were *technically* autonomoius of the Ottomans, but were officially a Safavid puppet, and the Ottomans never had any real control over Mamluk policy. Eventually, the Mamluks became so rebellious, that after the fall of the Safavids, massacred them all. [6]Again, the reason I am not responding to the contentions about the Safavid victories over the Uzbeks and Mughals is because Pro has already admitted (and is correct in saying) that those weren't very strong military powers to begin with, so being able to beat them is no big deal. I'm just restating that I never brought this up. I'll also restate that they all had reformed armies. While also restating that it only goes to show that they could of easily took land from the worlds wealthiest nation. Showing obvious potential. [7]I would like to end by saying, that the BOP is in my opponents hands as well. My strategy is to argue they already were a great power, so if even half of my points were true, then its apparent they had the potential.[1] http://www.cyrusthegreat.net...[2] http://thesocietypages.org...[3] http://www.iranchamber.com...[4] http://thinkprogress.org...[5] http://www.iranicaonline.org...[6] http://www.historyworld.net...[7] http://www.pbs.org...