America should go to war with Iran

Contention 1) A deceive military strategy in Iran will save the world and bring American troops home. War arouses from the natural outburst of violence and anger that comes from humans. (and all organisms) The desire to defend one's territory, take vengeance for a wrong, or simply control others is a common trait that every human society has either been consumed by or had to deal with. The idea of a human society without war is impossible. However, we can make the possibility and size of future conflicts smaller by establishing and maintaining a force to force stabilization across the globe. The United States has filled this role but with many rising superpowers, the US must remain the sole military force in the world or the conflicts between large military forces and the US will destroy our economy, our environment, and our lives. Military policy with regard to humanitarian/local concerns is slow and hardly beneficial as if the goal of the world is to be "free" governments should be free to do as they choose as long as they do not endanger other countries. War is a way in which a country can endanger another. America should only go to war with Iran over their potential of nuclear proliferation and an inevitable war with Israel. Iran's nuclear facilities have been under great question by the international community – in particular the key military leader of the world, The United States. Iran has failed to meet UN security terms mandated for the use of nuclear material. This is an opportunity for the US to stand against the ability for a country to proliferate, and express it's will against military power by forcing a surrender by Iran. If Iran and other countries are aloud to proliferate and obtain nuclear weapons, it exponentially increases the odds of a nuclear war of occurring: a nuclear war would be nearly impossible to contain. Israel sees Iran as a threat to their national security. With Iran wanting to wipe Israel of the face of the earth, the Israel government is prepared to defend itself. This means Israel will attack Iran even before Iran initiate attacks. The allies gained (those for and against Israel) would create the setting for another world war. The involvement of countries against countries can only lead to much larger wars. An Israel-Iran conflict would be drastically more complicated then a simple US invasion because it would not be purely offense: Israel would have to be defended plus any countries against Israel could have to be attacked too. Victory can be achieved quickly: we were able to succeed quickly in Iraq by defeating Saddam Hussein. With the size and strength of our military, Iran will quickly have to agree to the US and UN regulations and restrictions on its nuclear program along with agreeing to not attack Israel. (Likewise Israel would not be able to attack Iran, but would have no encouragement to do so without a threat) With a victory in the Middle East withdrawals from other wars will be easier. With the taste of victory, and the understanding that military strength should be used to protect the world; not force freedom, US military conflicts will be limited to only stopping potential dangers from emerging. The only way to control war is to implement fear, or use the threat of force. With this being restored – especially if America is not engaged in other conflicts – the world will be able to be a much more peaceful place. Few will challenge American dominance if there challenge will end quickly. Few will hate America as it is the keeper of the peace: the global actor that keeps people in line. With limited conflicts comes an age of (almost)-peace that can only benefit the world. Framework: What makes something a good idea? Our perception and how we see the world. Everyone will see an idea in a different light because everything is good and evil at the same time: all depending on the perception. If what is a good idea is relative then shouldn't the implementation of the idea be based of our perception also? As debaters we can only be concern with the theoretical implementations of the resolution, not the actual implementations. The beginning of a good idea is something we "should" do – not what will actually happen. As theoretical realities of the future are the bases of debate – not the real world – real world barriers and policies cannot conflict with a case. There forth: Pro only has to provide a case that makes going to war with Iran a reasonable course of action. The resolution supports this when it vaguely states "American" instead of an actual actor, leaving no policies to conflict with the simple theory.