America and the Straights of Hormuz: Interference

Good argument pro! I agree 100 percently with my opponent's definition of the straight. It is a very important trade route and Iran has no rights to close off the parts of the straight that it does not have ownership rights to. We agree, I believe, that they have full rights to close off their part of the straight, and it is their threat to close off the entire straight, that the United State is most angered and fearful about, as it can be seen as a lifeline to the US economy. Point A) and point B) are valid definitions and basic knowledge about the conflict in debate, and I will not spend time on them. However when looking at every issue we must take a look at both sides of the argument. Quote Atticus Finch "You must walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you can pass judgment about them." A brief history of why Iran had bad relations with the US. In 1979 the US had extremely good relations with Iran, which had been ruled by a gruesome dictator/monarch known as Shah Mohammad. His people and his country hated him. After a civil war the Shah was defeated and exiled from Iran. Because when he was king the US had friendly relations with him, Shah Mohammad fled to the United States, where he received treatment for his developing cancer, US support, and protection from the rebels, who demanded he be sent back to Iran and brought to justice. As a result of this the new Iranian government, (the one that replaced the Shah) started off in the very beginning with a bad note against the US. Then, the 1980s, the dreadful and gruesome Iraq Iranian war begun. A surprise attack from Iraq in the early 1980s pushed deep into Iran in a case similar to the 1990s Iraq invasion of Kuwait, only in a grander scale. Back then, believe it or not, the US had extremely strong ties with Iraq under Sadame Hussein. They also, (as I mentioned before) had a bad note against the new Iran government. As a result the US strongly support Iraq during the war, and the small bad note between Iran and the US from the 1979 ousting of Shah Mohammad now changed into a grievous hate as the US supported Iraq with massively effective weapons that cut down wave after waves of Iranian soldiers. Furthermore, the US, under the pretense of "escorting neutral Oil tankers" sent its nay directly into the Strait of Hormuz, even violating Iranian rights by sending its navy into waters agreed to be owned by Iran. Thus the tables, as you can see, have turned. The US have violated the rights of the Iranians by directly transpassing Iranian border. Things didn't just cool down here. In 1978, when the Iraqis were finally pushed back out of Iran and peace talks were held, a Iranian passenger airline, carrying 290 innocent civilian passengers was grievously shot down by the United State Navy, who claimed their radar detected it as an Iranian fighter. After investigations were held and the United Nation confirmed it was an innocent passenger airplane instead of a jet fighter, the US "showed regret at the loss of life, but did not apologize nor payed compensation to those family that lost loved ones." As a result of all this, relation between the Iranian state and the US have, ever since the nation was formed, been strained. Now, what is Iran's purpose at closing off the straight? On the surface, (as the title presents) Iran is a lunatic state that threatens the US for no reason what so ever just for pure terrorist purposes, as the media and the government has lead us to believe. Closer examinations of the conflict reveals more sympathy for Iran, however. The United States had called for a sanction against Iran's oil in 1980s, which grew tighter and tighter as US's allies agreed to support the sanction under diplomatic pressure from the US. In addition they also called for a worldwide ban against selling Iran airplane parts, (claiming Iran was using those parts to build jet fighters) which caused Iran's passenger airline to rely on an increasing unsafe air fleet, and an investigation shown the aircraft part sanction against Iran caused at least 17 airplane crashes since the sanction began, and caused an estimated 1500 innocent people to die. (what do you expect they are forced to rely, even today, on airplanes made in the 1950s.) As a result, this oil sanction and aircraft sanction caused both civilian death and other consequences. Now remember, oil is one of the Iranian Government's only way of profit. Because of that Sanction Iran's government's revenue is now down by a huge amount. Now, let us not forget Iran is a third world country. Its people were surviving off Government support in the forms of food and money. When the US called for all its allies to sanction Iranian Oil, those poverty stricken people in Iran could no longer get government aid. People were starving to death, which only gave more grounds for the US to call for an international attack against Iran, allegedly to "free the people" from their sufferings. If the US would leave Iran alone, they would not have any of those troubles. Now, how does this relate to the Strait of Hormuz? As the Iranian passenger air fleet grew more and more obsolete and unsafe, and the government was pushed deeper and deeper into debt trying to support the many poor families in Iran, the government grew more and more desperate. Its people were starving to death! For all the 25 years since the Sanction began Iran had been diplomatically trying to resolve the Issue. They've offered money, discounted oil, support in the UN, anything to stop the destructive US sanction, all to no avail. The US was firm in its demands that the Iranian Government, (appointed by revolutionaries who overthrew the Corrupt Shah Mohammad) to step down and allow the Shah's relatives, or at least a puppet government (obedient to the US) to form the New Iranian Government. In recent years the Sanction problem had gotten even more pressing. Finally the Iran Government realized they must either fight back against this sanction, or fall away into collapse and see anarchy take over in Iran. An effective way, and perhaps the only way the Iranians would have at least some ground in diplomacy with the US would be to shut down the strait of Hormuz. What's better than fighting back, and letting the United State Government taste a bit of their own medicine? To ruin the US economy when more than ten percent of the US population relies on government food stamps would surely let the Americans see just how gruesome and unfair their sanction had become! And that is exactly what the Iranians did. Now that you look at things from the Iranian point of view, look at WHY the Iranians did what they did, don't you feel at least some sympathy for the Iranians? Now, of course I am not defending the Iranian's rights to close of the straight. They have no right to close off international waters, but now perhaps after the United States have seen what it had done to Iran affected on its own country; they will be more sympathetic at the tables of diplomacy? Now, back to the topic. The key words here is "should the US be allowed to militarily intervene with Iran's threat to close off the straight." Had it changed to "should the US be allowed to diplomatically resolve Iran's threat" or "should the UN be allowed to militarily intervene with the Iranian Threat" there would be no conflict here. I agree with any good American that they should. However unfortunately the wordings are "should the US be allowed to MILLITARILY intervene" and thus I have to debate this issue. I hope I have changed your views on the issue by presenting a story from the Iranian perspective. For round three I will deliver the main points of my argument, why the US should not militarily intervene. (I am out of characters) A happy new year to you all. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...