The Wars in Iraq,Afghanistan,and the imminent war in Iran

I regret that this debate is only 2 rounds, so maybe we can continue further dialog elsewhere. Alright, first of all in this debate, my earlier refutations and first to claims stand, because they were not opposed by my opponent. I'm going to divide his response into two claims, then refute them, and then finally provide further clarity into the voting issues on this round. The first half of his case goes as follows "Well according to this you basically just based this sentence almost liking it to those of a young Adolph Hitler in the 1930's. War is imminent with Iran no matter what and if it comes down to that it is necessary. Our clearly antagonic enemies of Iran is surrounded by our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan , who are becoming our allies along with Saudi Arabia and Syria. A pre-emptive strike on iran would never be approved by congress (which our current cong. is a joke anyways). Ahhh but a military war may not be necessary while one is with cutting off their supplies,and beat them into submission.....Iran DOES have the power to cause havoc in the world and especially in the mid-east." First of all the Hitler comparison isn't really adequate, because as I stated previous Ahmadinejad isn't really as radical as the mass media portrays him. Next, war is not imminent, because if we continue our policy of sanctions and diplomacy then we will avoid war. It has worked previously, such as in North Korea's case, and will continue to work if applied correctly. Your next major and final claim in this section is that Iran has the power to cause havoc in the middle east and the world. I grant you that Iran does weld some influence over Middle East politics, but simply because of their large amounts of oil reserves. (This also applies on a global scale) Militarily, Iran is not viewed as a threat, because they don't have the capabilities. They are simply raising rhetoric against other countries. Also, Iran doesn't have any nuclear capabilities, and their 3,000 centrifuges have since been halted since 2003. Russia has also talked about stopping their help with Iran to protect their natural gas interests in Tajikistan and Azerbijian. Next in the second half my opponent claims "Iran still hates iraq from the invasions from saddam and they are certainly strong enough topull off an extensice takeover of the middle east COUGH**Iran takes Afghanistan after we pull out Cough* germany and poland sep.1st 1939 cough** anyways if it will come down to a war with bodies we should remove their communications first such as in any war.....by the way im most Iranians are brainwashed into hating Americans,and Jews any ways....dont be fools peopele.....it is necessary.....maybe not this year but i can see us there by the end of 2009" Iran's hatred towards Iraq doesn't really play a role in this debate. The US hates Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, but nothing is changed. (As a side note, I think you should see a doctor, your cough seems to be contagious towards not only humans but also technology) Iran won't take Afghanistan, or Iraq because they know that the US will simply fight them. Michael O'Hannlon actually details this in an article. Iran wants to continue it's oil interests, but also needs to keep strong partnerships. The US as a larger foe would hurt them economically. Finally, the growing youth, which represents almost 45% of Iran is Pro-US, so the general idea that they hate the US is false, there is growing westernization under current policies of diplomacy and sanctions. In this round, the major issues are that my arguments regarding Iraq and Afghanistan hold, and after analysis of Iran and the situation there hold. The major issue is where are the current policies and how my opponent and I differ, and through this illustration I have shown why my side holds.