phantom's 99th: Israel Should Intervene Militarily Against Iran's Nuclear Program

Pro Case Iran and Energy [1] CP argues that Iran does not nuclear power because it has enough energy provided through its oil industry, citing oil exports and oil refineries. There are a few issues with this argument: First, Iran’s dependence on the oil market strangles its economy. Mohamedi writes, “Iran’s revenues have fluctuated due to the vagueries of the world’s oil markets, periodically depressing government revenues. The government has often not been able to cut spending for political reasons and funded its deficits by borrowing from the Central Bank. Periodic bouts of lower oil prices have also led to foreign exchange shortfalls and a fall in imports, especially industrial inputs. Excessive domestic demand and disrupted industrial production has lead to periods of high inflation... Second, Iran imports a high percentage of its oil from outside Iran. Mohamedi continues, “Iran’s longstanding subsidies—to support consumption of refined oil products and natural gas—have also become a huge burden on the Iranian budget and its balance of payments. Iranians pay as little as 38 cents for a gallon of subsidized gasoline. This has resulted in runaway consumption and rising imports of gasoline. Iran currently imports up to 40 percent of its refined oil needs, because its own refineries cannot handle the volume needed for domestic consumption.” Third, Iran’s refinery capacity is mostly for low grade fuel – Iran must import higher grade fuel Mohamedi elucidates, “But a significant portion of what Iran’s refines is low-value fuel oil. It still relies on imports of higher value-added refined products, such as gasoline, jet fuel and diesel, to accommodate the growing public appetite for subsidized fuels, especially gasoline and gas oil.” Insofar as these 3 arguments are true, then it is quite possible that Iran seeks to develop its nuclear power as a way to remove its dependence on foreign oil exporters and to protect its economy from oil shocks. IAEA My opponent argues that if Iran’s nuclear program was legitimate then why hide it and not follow all the regulations of the IAEA. This line of thinking is problematic: this is what lead to the mess in Iraq. The U.S. and the global intelligence community was certain that Iraq had nuclear weapons due to skirting of regulations, insidious actions on the part of the Iraqi government, and IAEA reports. So this logic is empirically false and potentially dangerous. Israel and Iran My opponent argues that the Iranian president has made numerous statements implying destruction for the Israeli state. Though there’s a few problems: First, the President lacks ultimate power in the Iranian state. CFR writes, “Yet amid the unrest are more fundamental questions about the broader significance of the Iranian office of president. While Iran's president has considerable latitude in domestic matters, and is the most visible member of Iran's inner circle on the world stage, his power remains secondary to the Supreme Leader.” [2] The President has negligible powers when it comes to foreign policy or war matters. It is the Clerical Circle and the Ayatollah who wield these powers. In other words, there is no credible reason to believe what the President says. Second, it is net disadvantageous for Iran to use a nuclear weapon – MAD [3] Weiss writes, “There is no evidence that the clerics ruling Iran, including the Ayatollah Khamenei, would launch a first-strike nuclear attack on Israel. Iran is aware of the Israeli capabilities for nuclear counterattack that would destroy Iran as a functioning entity for an indefinite period and wipe out significant parts of its national patrimony. Reports of the existence of a “martyrdom movement” among Iranian women have been used to fan Israeli fears of unprovoked Iranian suicide attacks… The ruling clerics did not seek power in order to see Iran destroyed; they see themselves as stewards of a revolution that they believe will bring Shia Islam to its rightful place of world leadership. They are not about to lose it in a nuclear holocaust.” Third, it is net disadvantageous for its ultimate goals of destroying Israel – International Response [3] Weiss writes, “But rather than the use of weapons of mass destruction, Iranian leaders are more likely to see patience and the continuance of current trends as the best route to their desired goal for Israel. Indeed, Israeli policies have played into the hands of the Iranian leaders. The West Bank occupation, counterproductive military operations in response to continual harassment, and intransigence on the freezing and removal of settlements have drained much of the reservoir of sympathy and support for Israel that existed at the time of the Six-Day War.” Fifth, my opponent claims that the President mentioned the existence of the state of Palestine – seems sort of counter-intuitive to use a nuclear weapon against an area intermingled with the people you are trying to protect (the Palestinians). Israel contains about 1.8 million Muslims…those of which would not be protected against a nuclear explosion. Iran and Terrorism My opponent argues that Iran remains a threat since it has terror ties and we wouldn’t want these terror groups to obtain a nuclear weapon. Again, theres a few problems: First, cross-apply my analysis that it wouldn’t advantage Iran since the international community would clearly know that if there was a nuclear terror attack against Israel the link would be clearly that from Iran. Second, cross-apply my analysis that this would only spark a nuclear retaliation. Third, my opponent mentions the use of a dirty bomb. However, the problem here is that Iran wouldn’t need to be making high grade nuclear material for just a dirty bomb – it woulda happened already. Dirty bombs can be made from really low grade nuclear material. Fourth, non-unique. If a terror group wanted to obtain a nuclear weapon they have a platheora of options: Pakistan which is the home of the nuclear black market, North Korea and the nuclear black market in the post-USSR states. Con Case C1: Israeli Strike Fails [3] Weiss writes, “The likelihood of a completely successful attack by Israel that destroys all of Iran’s nuclear fuel-making facilities is low. Their facilities are dispersed and some are deeply underground. This is in contrast to the state of the nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria when Israel attacked them in 1981 and 2007, respectively.In addition, Iran has beefed up its antiaircraft capability and is seeking to purchase Russian S-300 surface-to-air missiles, which would be effective against Israel’s current air force.” C2: Rally-Around-the-Flag [3] Weiss writes, “A reasonably successful attack would delay but not destroy Iran’s ability to make nuclear weapons, would cause Iran to redouble its efforts in that direction, and would likely produce a degree of public anger that would translate into stronger support for its clerical government. Any military attack would produce Iranian retaliation, not only against Israel but also against American soldiers in Iraq if American support for the attack is given or suspected. It could unleash worldwide terror attacks against U.S. facilities and citizens.” [1] http://iranprimer.usip.org... [2] http://www.cfr.org... [3] Weiss. Israel’s Future and Iran’s Nuclear Program.