North Korea is a more serious threat to United States National Security than Iran

==AC== 1. Alliance Biased Source --> All sources in politics is somewhat biased. But the fact remains that broad definitions of national security result in civil rights violations, e.g. the patriot act. Myer Evidence --> He says it applies to Iran, but Iran has a strategic advantage that North Korea does not. Iran has control over oil fields. Iran has in the past made the claim that any attempt against would result in the destruction or hindrance of oil, from fields and from passage near Irans waterways. --> Whereas a nuclear strike from North Korea against say Japan South Korea would be noticeable and easy to cast blame, a terrorist attack would be hard to pinpoint to any one source. Plus Iran could always make the claim that the material was stolen. 2, Proliferation --> He concedes ability to action are different, but he says it doesnt matter. It does matter on the fact that motive and intent is how we can gauge the threats. Since North Korea lacks incentive to use a nuclear weapon, and Iran has links to terror groups and jihadist mentality, then we can say Iran has more incentive and motive. Thus, Iran is a greater threat. For example, we wouldnt say Britian is a threat to the U.S. even though they hold nuclear technology, a rather formidable navy and army. This is true because Britian has no incentive to attack the U.S. Therefore, Britian is not a threat. Same applies to North Korea, they have no incentive, thus they arent a threat/ 3. Iran not dangerous Iran cant harm, terrorists can --> The fact that Iran sponsors terrorism, makes Iran the greater threat. The harm is what has to be weighed, not the mechanism by which is being produces. Since Iran has greater linkage to terrorist groups, who want to harm the U.S., Iran is the greater threat. --> Iran WAS looking for help from North Korea, but now isnt. Cant apply past actions to SQ threat situations ==NC== 1. Iran and terrorism Preventative measures --> Failed terrorist attacks doesnt reduce the overall threat. All that is needed is a dirtybomb, provided by Iran, to explode in any major U.S. city. Economic Crisis outweighs I link in to this harm, vote Con: Pollack, director of Middle Eastern Policy at the Brookings Institute, writes: "The reason the United States has a critical interest in seeing that Persian Gulf oil continues to flow copiously is that the global economy built over the last 50 years rests on a foundation of inexpensive, plentiful oil, and if that foundation were removed, the global economy would collapse. The United States has an interest in preventing any potentially hostile state from gaining control over the region and is resources and using such control to amass vast power or blackmail the world. The three main problems likely to bedevil Persian Gulf security over the next several years will be Iran's nuclear weapons program, the risk is not so much conventional military invasion as attempts to shut down tanker traffic in the Strait of Hormuz as a method of blackmail or foment insurrections in neighboring countries." The threat Iran poses, as opposed to North Korea, is that Iranian proliferation expands Iranian hegemony over the region which would give Iran control over the vast majority of oil production and transportation. Iran can, will and has done in the past choked the global economy by exerting its power over the waterways which oil is transported through. Russia --> Russia has no incentive to harm the U.S. 3. Iranian proliferation No ICBM --> My opponent clearly misunderstands weapon technology. Terrorists would not use an ICBM, North Korea even lacks ICBMs. Terrorists would use a suitcase bomb or a dirty bomb ==Voting Issues== 1. Threat: North Korea lacks incentive, whereas Iran has incentive. Iran has direct ties to terrorists organizations looking to harm the U.S. 2. Economic harm: Iran in unique position to have regional hegemony over oil. North Korea does not