US has the right to pursue millitary options in Iran

First of all, I believe my friend Andrew Schriver knows you, and that would mean I know who you are, which would enthral me to no end. But on to the debate. I will first be countering my opponents points, then establishing main points of my own. First, Iran is allowing their civilians to invade Iraq This point falls for 2 points 1.) This, although it main be a problem, is in no way justification for military action. There has been a steady flow of arms and people coming from Iran into Iraq, but this problem is actually being solved diplomatically. An article in BBC news highlights a decrease in arms and personal shipment from Iran to Iraq as a direct result of diplomatic efforts between the US and Iran. Since diplomatic efforts are still being pursued and executed, there is, by the definition of a just war by the stanford encyclopaedist of philosophy, no justification for a military action. 2.) The reason for this semi-quasi anarchy in Iran is 85 percent of their population hates the current regime in power, as well as that regimes extremist policies. The reason this issue will take care of itself is within a year and a half, both the parliamentary as well as the presidential positions are up for grabs, and the pro-us reformist party demolished the conservative party in power in the 2005 local elections, and will do the same in the next elections. Since the issues of a government having problems controlling their citizens will fix itself, military option is unnecessary. Secondly, Iran is funding terrorist organizations such as hamas and Hezbollah. 2 responses 1.) you provided no sorce and i am hesitant to belive this is still in occurrence with the UN so heavily involved in all Iran is doing however even if it was i have another response 2.) You states that Iran is sponsoring terrorism that has attacked Israel. This may be true, and Israel is a US ally, but military options against Iran would be illegal and unnecessary. Illegal because the US signed the UN charter which specifically states that all conflict resolution goes to the security council until the security council fails. Since the UN has not failed, the US would be in violation of international law if we pursued any kind of military action. Also Israel, as was shown in the 6 day war, is the single strongest military force in the Middle East as is more than capable of taking care of itself with regards to all military options. Your final Point is that we have exhausted all diplomatic options. This is simply not true based on 1.) The successful reduction of Iranian arms flow through 1 on 1 diplomatic talks with Iran 2.) Iran has been mostly cooperating with the UN's IAEA as far as their nuclear issues are concerned, as was stated in an article issued by the NYT. Therefore, all my opponents points fall. My Case stands as such 1.) We have not exhausted all diplomatic options I already stated why, but it includes the successful arms reductions talks, and the IAEA being successful. 2.) It would break international law. Any action at this point would blatantly violate the UN charter, which the US signed, therefore the US would break an international treaty and destroy its credibility as a nation, by hypocritically violating the guidelines we swore to uphold. 3.) The problems will fix itself as I stated earlier, in the 2005 local elections, out of 1500 positions up for election, only 52 of the current presidents allies were placed in, or back in power. In the nearby parliamentary and presidential elections, Iran will replace their currents leaders, with the pro-US reformist party as they did in the local elections, and the problem will solve itself, therefore the US cannot be just in pursuing military options because this is yet another peaceful alternative that must, at very least, be given a chance before military options are pursued. Thus, my opponents case falls.