The UN should give Iran an atomic weapons-backed guarantee against a pre-emptive strike by Israel.

Many thanks for to my opponent, JoeBob, for taking up this debate. He began: "First, it is highly unlikely…(that) Israel would ever initiate military hostilities with Iran." I beg to differ. Israel has made her military intentions perfectly clear. At a recent conference in the US, Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert said: "(the) Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means." And earlier this month, Israeli Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper: "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," http://www.reuters.com... There words are backed up by this month's show of strength when Israel demonstrated that they had the capability to strike Iran by holding a large-scale military exercise. http://edition.cnn.com... Indeed, according to senior Israeli military sources, plans to use nuclear warheads to attack Iran are already in place. http://www.timesonline.co.uk... My opponent then wrote: "The only country Israel has ever attacked is Lebanon…" To say that Israel has only attacked Lebanon in recent years is to ignore their attacks on Syria, the most recent being an air strike in September last year. http://news.bbc.co.uk... This incident not without precedent. In 1981, Israeli warplanes destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor Saddam Hussein's regime was building. In addition to attacking Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, Israel also routinely attacks Palestine. Referring to the Palestinian resistance of Israel's illegal occupation of their land, Matan Vilnai, Israel's defence minister, recently said: "…they (the Palestinian people) will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah (holocaust) because we will use all our might to defend ourselves…" http://www.guardian.co.uk... The second tenant of my opponent's argument was: "Iran is one of the most abused nations of the 20th century." And he went on to give examples of this abuse. I am no apologist for Islamic fundamentalism or the current Iranian regime but I am in full agreement with my opponent's assertions in this matter. Indeed, I would add one recent example of how Iran has been misrepresented by right-wing media in the West. Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was widely reported to have said… "Israel should be wiped off the map" http://www.foxnews.com... …when the direct translation of what he said was: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk... My opponent's third point was: "Israel is already surrounded by military enemies. For the leaders of the Western world to announce that they too are declared enemies of Israel will not increase stability in the region. Instead, it may prompt other Middle Eastern nations to take action against Israel in the belief that the world is on their side." I merely propose that Iran should have a guarantee against attack by Israel, not that Iran should become allies of the Europe, China and America at the expense of Israel. I believe the US, in particular, will always be firm allies of Israel and if it was necessary for the UN to take action against them, the US would ask one of the other Council members to pull the trigger. The final tenant of my opponents argument was: "Israel has no pressing need to attack Iran." Iran is suspected of developing a nuclear weapons capability and this week demonstrated that they have missiles capable of delivering such a payload to Israel – an action that was regarded as highly provocative by Tel Aviv. http://news.bbc.co.uk... My opponent's conclusion was: "Forming nuclear defense treaties with Iran would only escalate the violence and instabilities in the Middle East." My response is that only by guaranteeing Iran's security can we stop violence escalating in the Middle East.