should the United States Stanction against irans uranium expenditure

===Definitions=== Sanction- A punitive mechanism used to encourage a country to adopt or revise its policies. Trade sanctions might include increases in tariffs. (afsc.org) I agree with the other definitions. I think we all know what the words mean anyway. ===Burden of Proof=== Because sanctions against Iran are already occurring, my opponent assumes the burden of proof because he is arguing against the status quo. He is also the instigator. ===Roadmap=== I will begin with some constructive arguments and then move on to my opponent's case ===My Case=== Contention 1: Sanctions give the United States leverage when negotiating with Iran Peter Crail[1], a research analyst at the Washington-based Arms Control Association, regarding the effectiveness of sanctions on Iran says "Their purpose is not just to punish Iran, but to influence the regime to change its behavior." I look to this quote to show how sanctions provide leverage in diplomacy. Sanctions provide leverage in two ways. First, the threat of sanctions or further sanctions provides leverage because it is in the best interests of a country to avoid sanctions. Thus, they may back down when threatened with sanctions because of the damaging effect on the economy. Second, after sanctions are imposed, leverage is created. The United States will be able to directly influence the Iranian economy. Iran's economy is in poor shape and, according to Andrew Parasiliti (http://www.iiss.org... ) the International Institute for Strategic Studies; sanctions play a factor in their economic struggles. Because the United States has the ability to lift these sanctions, the United States can directly influence the Iranian economy, thus, the United States gains power and leverage Dr. Matthew Levitt writes[1], "Iran has reacted to sanctions with bellicose statements and attempts at ‘facts on the ground,' but the evidence is that sanctions are working." These sanctions have been effective in damaging the economy of Iran. Again, this gives the United States control over Iran's economy and well being, increasing leverage. The impact of the sanctions is the United States gains diplomatic leverage with Iran. This impact is extremely important because the relations with Iran are testy and the United States needs every advantage in negotiation. ===My Opponent's Case=== My opponent's sole contention is that United States must prioritize. He has not shown how Iran's nuclear program is not a priority. Thus, I do not think that we can look to this contention. However, I will address his subpoints. A.)The United States must prioritize. This is a very vague statement all governments must prioritize. However, I look to my opponent's statement "The United States government cannot afford to add conflicts to its list…" He then says that it will create instability. However, he must link this directly to sanctions with Iran, which he has not done. Also, he is implying that there is no conflict with Iran. There are already sanctions in place (http://en.wikipedia.org... ), so sanctions would not be taking on a new conflict, the conflict already exists. Thus, this subpoint falls B.)Financial Disadvantages. Again, he says that sanctioning will create new problems. However, as I showed previously, sanctions are not a new problem. When we look to his statement, "Financial problems occurs when a country takes on many problems thus colabsing due to economic infrastruture.", it is apparent there are two problems with it. First, he must show that the United States has taken on too many problems. Second, he must show that further sanctions will cause the United States economic infrastructure to collapse. [1] Levitt, Matthew, and Peter Crail. "Can Sanctions Be Effective in Halting Iran's Nuclear Program?" Council on Foriegn Relations, 19 Oct. 2006. Web. 22 Dec. 2010. Thus, I urge an affirmative vote.