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

My opponent seems to enjoy misquoting sources that deal with hypothetical situations as if they were fact, for example: "IF Iran threw caution to the wind, and sought a nuclear weapon capability as quickly as possible without regard for international reaction, it MIGHT be able to produce enough HEU for a SINGLE nuclear weapon by the end of this decade", assuming no technical problems. [/quote] is summarised by Con as: 'According to some experts, Iran WILL have fully functional nuclear weaponS in a year or two. ' This is clearly an invalid interpretation. If by some chance my opponent was referring to some other 'expert' opinion then please provide this evidence. My opponent says: 'Russia has made an alliance with Iran' yet as far as I can see this is purely a buisness deal involving Russia being contracted to build Iran's first nuclear power station, it is in no way a millitary alliance as my adversary implies. My opponent says: '1) The two sentences are two different ways of saying the same thing. ' while I agree that there is not a HUGE difference, I refer to my original point that the inclusion of the word 'regime' transforms this statement from a threat of force to a political prediction. My opponent says: 'I think the video I posted says everything ;)' to avoid being overly pedantic I will not make a big issue out of the fact that no video (particularly not one which lasts less than 3 minutes) could ever explain everything. However the video does little to back up Con's claims, it merely confirms that Russias relationship is a peaceful buisiness arrangement and also brings up the interesting fact of America's aggression to Iran being connected with oil. Even the biased and right-wing CNN are careful not to make unsubstantiated claims of the kind made by my opponent, preferring to just make sinister implications. My opponent also says :'Since Barack Obama does not really care about Israel, he could easily just leave Israel for dead. ' Not if he held any hope of a second term. While I am willing to believe that the current US president is a more highly principled man than the last few who have held his job, like all politicians his primary motivation will be to keep himself in power. Before raising a couple of fresh arguments of my own I will briefly turn to my opponent's fancifull 2013 scenario. This ignores the fact that Israel has a highly developed nuclear arsenal and armed forces of it's own and would not need any help from America or anyone else. Con also suggests that the US army would be overpowered in a conventional conflict with Iran which is of course nonsense, US being far better equipped. I also repeat that there is now way Russia would jeopardise it's own future by supporting Iran in a military capacity. Two other points in support of the Pro position: 1) All the allegations of Iran's intentions to build nuclear weapons come from US sources looking for any excuse to target Iran. I haven't found a single independant source for these allegations that does not have a pro-US / Israeli bias. Here are some examples of US aggression towards Iran: 'The Bush administration last week clearly marked out Iran as a prime target for US aggression. While stopping short of formally declaring "regime change" in Teheran to be official policy, Washington ratcheted up the pressure over Iran's nuclear program, repeating its unsubstantiated claims that the country was secretly building nuclear weapons. ' source: . http://www.wsws.org... 'The last thing the U. S. needs now is more instability, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael G. Mullen said Wednesday. And while the odds may be low that diplomacy will solve the problem, we can't know for sure because we haven't tried it. Only the Europeans have. If bilateral talks with nuclear North Korea were acceptable to Bush, then why is it still anathema to talk with Iran? ' source: . http://blogs.jta.org... 'Khamenei enumerated a long list of Iranian grievances against the United States over the past 30 years and said the United States was still interfering in Iranian affairs. He mentioned U. S. sanctions against Iran, U. S. support for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during his 1980-88 war against Iran and the downing of an Iranian airliner over the Persian Gulf in 1988. ' source: . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... 'the United States has been attacking Iran for many months, and not just with verbal insults and threats. It has been flying unmanned aerial surveillance drones over Iran since 2004; it has infiltrated combat and reconnaissance teams into Iran "to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic minority groups" (Seymour Hersh);2 it has bestowed an ambiguous "protected" status upon the Mujahedin-e Khalq, a group which, since 1997, the U. S. Department of State has designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization, but a group that the Washington regime now uses to launch cross-border attacks on Iran from within U. S. -occupied Iraq;' source: . http://www.counterpunch.org... There are many other examples as well of course. It is clear that the idea of a nuclear threat by Iran would give the US some kind of excuse for it's aggression beyond greed and oil, this is why the hugely powerfull US propaganda machine wants everyone to think Iran is building nuclear bombs. It is very similair to the subsequently disproved allegations of WMD in Iraq, which were the fraudulent basis for that conflict. 2) Iran would never nuke Israel as long as it (Iran) remains an Islamic state because the state of Israel contains many sites holy to Muslims such as Hebron, the Dome of The Rock and of course Jerusalem ,which is counted along with Mecca and Medina as one of Islam's three holiest cities. At the risk of hyperbole, suggesting that a muslim state of Iran would nuke Jerusalem is similair to suggesting that the catholic Republic of Ireland would nuke Vatican City! When Muslims and others talk of 'eradicating' Israel or 'wiping it off the map' they are of course referring to the title of Israel being applied to this land and the fact that it is controlled by a Zionist regime. There is no way they would risk contaminating Jerusalem, a site of holy pilgrimmage for Muslims, with nuclear radiation. The above argument may well be the strongest one I have made so far for the Pro position. I am still waiting for my opponent to provide satisfactory evidence of the following: 1. Any intention on the part of Iran to build nuclear weapons. 2. Any willingness on the part of Iran to use such weapons against Israel. 3. Any military pact or alliance between Iran and Russia. 4. That Iran has publically stated it wants to destroy the US and Israel. 5. President Obama's lack of concern for Israel. 6. Non US/Israel biased sources claiming any of the above. I urge a Pro vote. Thankyou.