Iran presents a real threat to the welfare of the United states and the world

Iran is a sovereign nation and has every right to develop nuclear power. That is not a threat to the United States. Perhaps it is an indirect threat to Israel. But that is Israel's problem, not ours. The subject of the debate is "the U.S. and the world." While Iran may be a minor threat to "the world" (mostly its own citizens), it is not a threat to the U.S. Even if it developed nukes, which it is a long, long way away from doing, it would not have the capability to strike the U.S. And it will not have the money to develop nukes as the oil runs out. Funding for Hezbollah will also dry up. No more threat. You say: "Although Iranian-funded groups may not have committed crimes on US soil, they DO commit crimes and attack US forces and allies elsewhere." Simple solution: Get the forces out of other nations and dismantle all alliances. I know this idea is "radical" given the Rooseveltian liberalism of both the Right and the Left, but it is the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. Modern conservatives and liberals both put FDR and Truman ahead of Washington and Jefferson, and this is a grave mistake. A growing number of Iranians are opposed to the conservative theocracy. This doubtlessly constitutes a majority. When applied to young people, it is a preponderance. The Old Guard is dying out, and young people -- who favor capitalism and democracy -- are replacing them. What keeps the Mullahs in control is the welfare state they've established and the nationalism inspired by America's antagonism towards their country. Step back and consider the fact that all major presidential candidates, save for Ron Paul, said they would consider a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran -- doubtlessly killing tens, if not hundreds of thousands. How would the U.S. people react to such a threat? Even the most ardent Bush haters, including myself, would rally to the president. But once the threat was removed, I would return to my anti-Bush stance. So has been the case of the Iranian people, particularly the young, as cited in my Round 1 argument. I never said the new Iran would be "pro-American." It is not the responsibility of a nation to be "pro-American." It is its responsibility to engage in peaceful commerce with its neighbors and to respect and defend the Natural rights of its citizens. This is what Iran will do when we back off and give it time. Your history is flawed. The U.S. government orchestrated a coup to oust the secular, democratically elected prime minister of Iran in 1953, and installed the brutal Shah. Imagine that we had an elected president who was ousted by Iran, and Iran then installed a brutal dictator who jailed, tortured, and killed U.S. citizens. How would we feel about Iran? This act of U.S. intervention -- deposing an elected government! -- led to the Islamic Revolution, but pre-Revolutionary Iran was largely secular and democratic (as evidenced by the "need" for the U.S. coup in the first place!). The thing is: There need not be a "grand revolution" this time. The fascist dictatorship of the Mullahs' welfare state will crumble just as soon as we allow it to. Just as we propped up Soviet Communism for decades (to the benefit of the military-industrial complex), we now prop up Islamic theocracies like Iran (to the same benefit). Finally, your argument that Iran is a "threat" rests on the religious superstition of its leaders. Well, our president is also a "Last Days" fundamentalist Christian. But only the most deranged liberal Democrat would argue that Bush is actually working, purposely, to usher in Armageddon. Similarly, only a divorced-from-reality neocon could make the argument that Iran poses a threat to the safety of U.S. citizens, living comfortably within our sovereign borders.