(Phantom's 99th Percent) Intervention in Iran

In this debate, we've covered most issues in regards to what comes up in discussion of Iranian power and ability, and what happens if we wage war with them now. The debate has been an interesting one, and definitely enjoyable, and I thank my opponent for it. Now, to continue and finish the debate.The Non-Existent Threat of Iran Firstly, regarding the evidence for the Iranian threat, my opponent is stuck defending weak sources. The authority's evidence can be in two ways: either he is a great expert, or his argument is compelling enough to defend the contention brought up. Stewart does neither. My opponent does not dare defend Stewart's flawed reasoning, due to the filmsy defence: he only appeals to his stature. I'd like to refer to the previous round and remind my opponent Stewart's still 20 years out of touch: his last investigation was as only an agent in 1993: nothing more. His credentials to review the complexity of Iran is nothing compared to the concededly powerful testimonies of the 4 Iranian specialists provided in Round One: Alireza Nader, Gary Sick, Shahimi and Professor Kahl. Compare this to the outdated counsel of Stewart and the policeman Mr. Silber, and there is only one obvious side with the stronger evidence. My opponent claims that this is a drop and I have "violate[d] the rules", but I have firstly referred to Silber in each round. My rebuttal, as always, is this: there will always be people who state Iran is a threat. However, they are still in the minority, and lack convincing reasons to believe them. If my accepting the opinion of one barely-specialist opinion demonstrates that Iran in an existential threat, then what does this say about my opponent, who does not refer to four, much more specialised opinions on the subject? It is clear: he is resorting to policemen as specialists, whilst ignoring the actual specialist opinion. I went out, as stated in the first round that Silber's fears are false. I believe I have done that. I'd criticise my opponent for stating my expert's opinions are wrong, but he seems to have not addressed them at all.Kahl's testimony still stands: my opponent's entire case here rests on the idea that America can deal with Iran like it did with Libya: I outlined multiple reasons why it cannot. My opponent has dropped both that war would strengthen the administration's control and how Iran would require soldiers on the ground to stop nuclear facilities. Thus, this supports Kahl's testimony that nuclear warheads would be necessary. Further, as stated before, Libya took over a year to defeat without ground troops. Yet my opponent says that we can defeat without sending in an army, and that it takes but a few months to build nuclear weapons. So my opponent's plan would certainly result in Iran gaining nuclear weapons! Yet the well founded diplomatic approach stops nuclear weapons itself. Regarding Iran-Syria conflict, this is another case of my opponent being out of the loop. Since last year, their relations have been deteriorating fast, with Iran going as far to say Syrian leaders should quit[1]. Turkey is of the same nature[2]: "The increase in tensions between Turkey and Iran through 2011 and early 2012 represented...a resurfacing of one of its constant, underlying elements; namely sectarian enmity and a longstanding political rivalry". Further, my opponent states again that Iran and Turkey would both go for nuclear weapons in time of war. Again, this is false. If either went for and used nuclear weapons, then the situation changes. However, this presupposes either are going to attempt to gain nuclear warheads, which is conjecture. If either nation gained nuclear warheads, the nation would be attacked by most other nations. Both would be - and are - constantly checked by the IAEA to make sure they are not developing nuclear warheads. Neither nation would rationally attempt to gain nuclear weapons. If the situation changes - for example Iran is taken over by a coup which gives everyone guns, or Iran starts using alien blasters and nukes belgium - then we have a new situation. Neither nation would start a war nor develop nuclear warheads, given the current situation, as they would be invaded by massive coalitions and they would be defeated. The Green movement is a short point: he states radical factions are calling for immediate democracy: this is false, what radicals call for is (quoting) "a cull of the political leaders". And further I have repeatedly cited, but I shall cite another new source[3]. It's a fact so well known that a googling will confirm, if one ignores the sources I have provided.TerrorMy opponent seems to again misunderstand my argument: my oppponent's argument states Iran has nuclear weapons of some description, or is able to quickly produce it. Firstly, my opponent seems to read "accept that someone says that" as "accept that someone says that, therefore I concede the entire clash point". The times my opponent has pointed out concedences are times which actually don't support his case on their own. Again, I accept Al-Qaeda may exist in Iran. My criticism is that invading Iran on this flimsy evidence is foolish. My opponent's terrorism point started with Hezbollah, but now has swapped entirely to Al-Qaeda. The difference is, my criticisms are still the same. Al-Qaeda has caused roughly 3000 deaths[4]. The Iraq War, one that would be easier than one with Iran as previously demonstrated, has more than quintupled the casualties[5]. And my opponent concedes Iran has no reason to give away nuclear weapons, if it ever obtains them, instead of making warheads from them.Go NuclearMy opponent's argument still centres on the idea that Iran would get nuclear weapons (over years, not months, as I have demonstrated. My opponent's criticisms remain invalid, as the time period of years is to weaponise the nuclear resource: 90% is deadly, not the 20% my opponent claims). My opponent has dropped Iran has no reason to give nuclear resource to Al Qaeda. Finally, the point about proliferation of nuclear warheads stands from the previous contentions: if Iran gains the ability to quickly produce nuclear weapons, then all other Middle-East nations would invade. But this still is inconsistent with my opponent: he changes repeatedly between Iran gaining nuclear warheads, and Iran giving away nuclear materials. This inconsistency highlights my opponent's lack of ability to clearly state what Iran would do with nuclear warheads.EconomicsThis is, again, a series of uncited conjecture. The first reason Iran would avoid war is discussed and dismissed as false multiple times by myself previously, whilst the second reason is again false conjecture: Iran has constantly been updating its weapons[6]. The economic cost would still be massive and undesirable.PoliticsThis is a complete drop by my opponent, showing it is politically unwise for America to invade, and undemocratic to do so. Presidential change does not end a conflict, but we're not talking about ending a conflict, we are talking about starting one. This criticism is a complete red herring. It still stands: it is undemocratic to wage this war, and the existential U.S. Government has no reason to wage war with Iran.Sources for previous round and this one: http://tinyurl.com...VotingIran, according to the vast majority of experts presented today, agree that Iran is not an existential threat, and my opponent conceded this. The terrorist threat is not only miniscule in precedent, but also the examples of the terrorist attacks are nothing but strenuous links, which, as I have stated previously, many agree are false. Even so, waging war due to terrorists being in a country is foolish. War with Iran would produce economic and politically terrible consequences. Keep this in mind when voting.