weather or not the us would be justified in persuing military action aginst iran

I'm first going to establish my case, then refute my opponents. The United States would be justified in persuing military action against Iran. Please keep in mind the question is justified, not should or shouldn't. 1. Iran poses a threat to US oil supply 2. A nuclear Iran would dismantle the Middle East 3. Iran supports terrorism. Iran currently poses a threat to US oil supply. With continuing continuity changes in oil dynamics, and Irans control over over the strait of hormuz can threaten over 37% of the worlds oil. Should Iran continue it's radical policies and threaten this supply, the United States and the world has adedquate reasoning to protect it's interests. Next, a Nuclear Iran would dismantle the Middle East. First, Iran is seeking Nuclear weapons. After the release of the NIE report, the Iranian government actually proclaimed that the report is false, and they are persuing nuclear technology. Also, Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs are set on providing nuclear capabilites to the country, and are even working with Russia. In fact, Iran recently received 2 weeks ago its first shipment of nuclear fuel from Russia. The major impact of a nuclear armed Iran is that a weapon could easily get into the hands of Hezbollah, or used by the Iranians as an actual weapon, or as a method of unneccessary exertion over the US. Finally, Iran supports terrorism. Michael O'Hanlon in an article discussed how whatever weapons Iran has, Hezbollah has, but the major threat is Hezbollah will use them. Iran has direct links to Hezbollah insurgency, but also to insurgency in Iraq. The Iranian national guard is rumored to have trained and aided many of the inurgents, and time and time again we see on the news Iranian weapons are being used against our soldiers. Should this continue, the United States would be more than justified in persuing military action. Next, refutations of the claims by the opposition. "Iran has no nuclear weapons. The UN weapons inspectors could not find them or any sign of them in the country that is 4% smaller size than that of Alaska. However, what they did find were nuclear power plants that were using uranium and plutonium to produce electricity for the ever growing population. There are currently around 70 million people in Iran. And they are slowly dwindling there natural resources including oil. " What you're saying is partially true. No one has ever really said "Iran has nuclear weapons." The problem is that they are trying to get nuclear technology and capability, and if they do, the US is justified in taking them out. You then say that they have nuclear power, but are simply using it for civilian usage. If this is true, then Iran has no reason to seek further nuclear technology since they already have the resources, but it simply isn't. Iran does have the rights to produce power, but when they pose a threat of giving nuclear materials to terrorists, (which they have given technology and weapons before) they pose a global threat. " Persuing a war with iran would be bad for the united states. Other countries don't support us in iraq and they did have chemical weapons. The united states would be more secluded that it already is from the European Naions, (i/e, Germany, France, Sweden and that is to name a few) In wich nobody will be there to support us." There are two problems with your argument. First, it's non-resolutional. The topic is if the US is justified in taking action, not if the US should or shouldn't or if the US could or couldn't. But pretending that it is, the US would have tremendous support. Currently France has incredible influence along with Britian over the EU. Britain would most likely support the US, and France, with Nicholas Sarkozy would most definitely support us. He himself has criticized the problems we're having with Iran. "The good news is that U.S. intelligence now believes Iran stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon a few years ago. If that's true, it takes some of the urgency away from a confrontation with the Iranian mullahs. The bad news is that anti-American people will use the new intel to mock the USA and minimize the threat from radical Islam. Far-left people in America love the fact that U.S. intelligence has contradicted the president on Iran. And even though the president says he learned about the new intel only last week, Senator Joseph Biden immediately called the president a liar, claiming he 'misrepresented intelligence.' Because of the new intel, it will be more difficult to hold Iran and other nations for their murderous activities in the future. We can all be glad that new intel says Iran is pulling back. Hope is always a good thing, but so is being realistic." I addressed most of this in my earlier claim, so for things I don't mention see above. The intelligence issue of holding Iran accountable isn't really and issue. We say Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, then they scream at us and tell us they do? I don't see an issue there. If we really use some basic logic here, the US had awful intelligence before Iraq, and Saddam said he didnt have anything, and he didn't, despite our convictions. Now we say Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, they proclaim they do. Do you see similar parallelism? "In all reality we cannot tell people what to do with their nuclear weapons. When we ourselves have not signed the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty." This again is a very contradictory statement. It's first simply incorrect. The US has signed the NPT of 1967, we practically brokered it, we simply don't follow it completely. Again this really isn't resolutional, it doesn't deal with justification of military action. The fact is, Iran supports terrorism, harbors US interests, and would collapse the Middle East under continued policies. The US would be justified in taking military action.