Israel will not experience a nuclear attack within the next twenty years

Hi, I'm new to this site but couldn't resist this one. Quickly to respond to and hopefully clarify the rules that the esteemed instigator has proposed. 1) I am intrigued by the idea of a 'burden of proof' existing in a debate which deals with possible future events. As I assume that like myself my opponent lacks a crystal ball or a modified Delorean I fail to see how this topic can be proved at all. I trust that voters will assess the arguments on the factual base of the evidence provided. 2) I'm not sure what 'trolling' or 'flaming' are but my opponent can rest assured I will not be spamming and hopefully will not be doing any of these (presumably related) other activities either. I must apologise for my ignorance of internet jargon. 3) I will endeavour to make all my arguments relevant but as this is an incredibly complex topic with a multi-national relevance and with the added fact of taking into account all conceivable ramifications over the next 20 years, my arguments may be quite wide-ranging. I trust that my adversary is satisfied with my interpretation and clarification of rules. Okay. Firstly, my opponent says: 'As we all know, Iran is working to acquire a nuclear arsenal.' I would strongly dispute this central statement on which all of Cons subsequent arguments are based. While we are all aware of the persistent allegations of this, there is no real evidence of the fact. 'Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction',source: http://en.wikipedia.org... 'Nonproliferation experts note Iran's ability to produce enriched uranium continues to progress but disagree on how close Iran is to mastering capabilities to weaponize.' source: http://www.cfr.org... 'The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program.[1] The support, encouragement and participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.' source: http://en.wikipedia.org... 'Tehran has denied pursuing nuclear weapons and insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes' source: http://www.cnn.com... Secondly, in the next sentence I would like voters to note my opponents acknowledgement of his own willful ignorance of the details of the topic he has chosen to debate and the allegations he is making. 'president whatever'?...... whatever. Thirdly, in the same paragraph my opponent miss-quotes the link that he himself has provided. (http://www.ynetnews.com......) The text in fact reads 'United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives', not 'the US and Israel will soon end lives.' Whichever way you quote it this is clearly more wishful prophesising on the part of president 'whatever' than it is a threat or statement of intent and also specifically refers to the political regimes rather than the people of these nations. At the risk of veering off topic, I wouldn't mind seeing revolutions overthrow a few corrupt governments myself. Fourthly, my opponent says: 'Russia is an ally of Iran.' Please provide evidence of Russia having links beyond the scope of general business dealings with Iran. Fifthly, my opponent says: 'Barack Obama...does not give a poop about Israel'. Like all US presidents since Israel was created the Obama will be under extreme pressure from the Jewish-American corporate and political lobbyists to maintain good relations with Israel. Israel is probably the foreign country that America is most concerned about in the whole world. While Obama may be less staunchly and obviously pro-Zionist than his immediate predecessor he definately can't afford to 'not give a poot.' My opponent says 'So, Iran has publicly said that it wants to destroy Israel and America. Okay. Now, let's add to that the fact that Iran is going to have its first nuclear weapon in a year or two.' Evidence please. It is clear to me (and I consider myself a rational being) that the best way of ensuring peace is diplomacy rather than aggression, the best way to provoke an attack from Iran would be to engage in any kind of 'pre-emptive' strike. My opponents observations that the current leaders of Israel and the US are pursuing friendlier more peacefull relationships with Iran surely makes a nuclear strike from anyone less likely rather than more so. The final quote from 'the Iranian guy' can also only be perceived as a threat of aggression from someone with a paranoid mindstate, predicting your religion will spread has nothing to do with nuking someone. It would be suicidal for Iran to attack Israel even if they had nuclear weapons capabilities (remember there is no proof) they would never catch up with the military strength of Israel let alone the US. These are two of the best equipped armies in the world, while most of the real aggressors in Iran have nothing more than a few sticks of dynamite in their shirt pockets. Martyrdom doesn't apply to entire nations at a time and there is no way Russia would take any risks sticking up for Iran if things did get nasty. I urge voters to recognise that my opponent has no evidence to back up his statements and to vote Pro. Thankyou.