Israel and Iran - lannan13's Tourney

C1) Nuclear Programa) The presence of fossil fuels does not rule out the developement of fossil fuels I agree, but when the world asks Iran to stop its nuclear program while it has current ample reserves of potential energy they begin to look a little suspicious. i. The more oil they export the more money you take in in revenues giving you more money for developement of current energy sources while the current regime works out its problems with the West. Like I said, most of their energy problems come from inefficient waste due to falty infrastructure. Iran can use this oil revenue to help rebuild its infrastructure instead of a nuclear program. ii. Yes, these reserves are finite but show no signs of being depleted in the near future. According to sources the world's oil supply will last through the mid-21st century [1]. This means Iran can live off of these reserves for many years to come before having to transfer to nuclear energy. iii. If Iran is truly running out of energy and is having troubles meeting demand then clean air is not going to be a very high concern. Also, nuclear power creates nuclear waste and Iran has not given any indication on how to handle such waste responsibly. b) There have been issues raised. Iran is known only to release its nuclear information after they the fact [2] so to speak which lends itself to suspicion that the next nuclear test is already underway long before they alert the IAEA. Also you failed to address the fact that Iran's current nuclear facilities are not set up to be condusive for electrical power but are only set up for enriching uranium for broad purposes. As for Israel, it is not publically known nor confirmed by any official party that Israel is a nuclear state which is why they refuse to comply with international law. They do not want it known whether they do or do not possess nuclear weapons and think that ambiguity is better than outright knowlege.[3] Israel will most likely to agree to such talks about banning nuclear weapons after Iran has given up theirs. Why should they forfeit what Iran routinely refuses to forfeit? However this debate is focused around self defense and any attack by Israel on Iran would not be one of aggression or conquest but a preemptive strike to deter potential Iranian nuclear ambition.What my first contention all adds up to is that Israel has more than enough evidence to suspect Iran of suspicious nuclear activity. IAEA glitches, refusing to back down from their nuclear program after repeated instances of being told to do so in a situation where it is apparent that they do not need nuclear energy at this time. Its not the act of simply developing nuclear power but the continuing defiance when it comes to the program itself. Iran simply refuses over and over again. [4] Such defiance makes one wonder why they would be so defiant. Certainly not simply over energy since they are not hurting for fuel. Once again this all adds up to extremely suspicious cercumstances and with the West's failure to stop Iran Israel feels as if they must take matters into their own hands before something can happen. --------------------C2) Israel and IranThe status of Palestinian residents in Israel is another debate completely. They have been offered deals and peace talks about dividing up Israel but no agreement can be reached since both sides feel entitled to Jerusalem, however this has nothing to do with the debate at hand.I already addressed the misinterpretation and said it was more akin to removing the Israeli regime from the pages of history (scroll up). Nevertheless the rhetoric stands belligerent and aggressive. Also my opponent failed to address the rest of the quotes (of which there are dozen) highlighting Iran's strong and ardent anti-Israel mentality. He has failed to do so because there can be no way to combat such blatent quotes calling for the removal of Israel. Wouldn't a nuclear weapon do just that? Either way, which ever way you spin it the current Iranian government hates Israel and has announced that it would revel in her destruction. The rhetoric stands. And while Iran may not have attacked another nation "aggressively" they have behaved quite aggressively as of late. Aggressive behavior:- threatening to close the Straights of Hormuz- refusing to give up nuclear program after dozens of requests- wishing that Israel would disappear- arming anti-Israel terroristsWhile they may not have overtly attacked a country they have certainly behaved in an aggressive manner. -------------------------------C3) Putting Two and Two TogetherOnce again Israel would never attack Iran just for the heck of it but instead would attack only if backed into a corner. With Iran's current unpredictable and arguably crazy "president" there is no guarentee that such a Cold War-esque stand off would truly result in a stand off. In order to preserve itself as a nation Israel will work to prevent such a situation. No one wants to be in a cold war.Also I would like to point out again that Israel is not a confirmed nuclear power but only suspected to be one. Perhaps they have no nuclear weapons at all and that is why they are working so hard to prevent Iran from getting one because a cold war stand off would be one sided due to their own lack of nuclear weapons. In that case the scenario you laid out would be unfair and threatening to Israel. -----------------------------Terrorists and CowardiceThere is evidence to suspect that if Iran ever obtained a nuclear weapon they would not use it overtly. As you said yourself they have not attacked someone openly in over a hundred years but that in no way means they haven't attacked anyone in the past century. Iran has always been afraid to take on Israel directly which is why they have funnelled money through Syria, another anti-Israel country, and Hamas in order to fight Israel indirectly. In light of this one must take into account the possible use of a terrorist operated and detonated "dirty bomb" or even small nuclear device. Iran has a history of backing terrorists, including Hamas and Hezbollah which have both staged attacks on Israel in the past. [4] Nuclear waste could easily be used to create a dirty bomb which is probably the most likely threat to Israel thus neutralizing the cold war scene you painted since without concrete evidence Israel could hardly launch a nuclear attack back on Iran. -------------------Preemptive Strike IIOnce again I will lay out the evidence that supports a justified Israeli preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. * Iran does not need the energy at this very moment* Iran has refused to shut down a suspiciously managed and unneeded nuclear program* Iran has partaken in heavy, belligerent and aggressive anti-Israel rhetoric* Israel might not have nuclear weapons thereby justifying keeping nukes out of the Middle East* Iran funds terrorist groups and partakes in state sponsored terrorism esp. against Israel* Iran can not be ruled out of using a nuclear tinged "dirty bomb" or small nuclear device via terrorist groups agains IsraelAll of these things together create a convincing case for a defensive preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear capabilities alone. My opponent dropped the rhetoric points (the extensive quote collection) and the terrorism argument because they are undeniable. Iran is dangerous and can and will use nuclear capabilities against Israel if given the chance. While I admit neither side is completely blameless, Israel would be justified in defending itself against shady scheming nuclear terrorist attacks from a nation who has made it a mission statement to destroy them.I thank you for a great debate, one of the best I've participated in. [1] http://science.howstuffworks.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://terrorism.about.com...