Resolved: Iran is not developing nuclear weapons

It is my belief that Iran is not building up a nuclear weapons program because of three main factors: 1) Certain statements and declarations of Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei; 2) The numerous benefits of a peaceful nuclear program; and 3) The lack of perceived benefits for building a nuclear weapon. 1) The power structure in Iran is very complicated and unique from those of other nations. Essentially, the most influential and powerful figures are the leaders of the Revolutionary Guard, the members of the Guardian Council, and the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah is arguably the most prominent figure in Iranian politics and is somewhat monitored by the Guardian Council. Essentially, whatever these two figures say, is the law. In the past, Ayatollah Khomeini, the first ruling Grand Ayatollah following the Iranian Revolution, has made it very clear that the use of nuclear weapons is immoral. The current Ayatollah, Khamenei, has gone on record as stating that the building up and usage of nuclear weapons explicitly violates the moral code of Islam and, as such, in 2004 he issued a fatwa -an Islamic "executive order"- regarding nuclear weapons. In an official report from Iran to the International Atomic Agency, the government states that, "The Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the Fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons". As Iran is a well-known Islamic nation, its government and religion are almost completely intertwined. Because their religious leaders and political "puppeteers" have explicitly condemned the development and use of nukes, the argument that Iran is doing the exact opposite is ridiculous. 2) Of course, the argument can be made that Iran and its leaders are lying. However, the question must be raised as to the benefits of a nuclear weapon in the eyes of Iran. A nuclear weapon has the potential to establish Iran as a prominent figure in the Middle East (along with Israel, Pakistan, and India), a significantly reduced susceptibility to invasion, the ability to defend itself if attacked, and the ability to attack whomsoever it pleases (i.e. Israel). However, according to CNN reporter Fareed Zakaria, all of these benefits are perfectly achievable by means of a peaceful nuclear program, which Iran claims to be pursuing. This peaceful program is perfectly permissible under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran is a signatory which states, "Peaceful applications of nuclear technology...should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties of the Treaty". In being a nuclear state with a peaceful program, Iran would still gain an enormous level of influence both regionally and globally. Zakaria argues that with the development of an internationally-legal, peaceful nuclear program for purposes of energy and medicine, as Iran has long upheld, there is a lingering potential to further develop a weapon if deemed necessary and unavoidable. In having the legitimate potential to develop a fully-functioning weapons program within months, no nation would dare provoke Iran with the threat of a nuclear attack or invasion. The benefits of a nuclear program for peaceful purposes equate, if not outnumber, those of a nuke. 3) Finally, the perceived benefits of developing a nuclear weapon are insignificant and are diminished in the long-run for Iran. As I have already touched on the transferability of several benefits of a nuke to a peaceful program, reiterating them would be redundant. So to further list the perceived benefits of a nuke, I add one final "benefit". It has been argued that Iran wants to build a weapons program so as to attack the "Zionist" regime of Israel or any other nation. However, attacking an unprovoking nation, including and especially Israel, has far greater negative consequences for Iran. In attacking a nuclear weapons-possessing nation such as Israel, Iran would be committing an ultimately suicidal action as Israel would undeniably and justifiably retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal. Also, attacking a nation such as Israel would invoke the strong alliance between Israel and the US, France, and the UK. There are absolutely no benefits of building up a nuke when looking at the long-term impacts. For all of these reasons, I affirm the resolution and await a response from my opponent.