Economic Sanctions ought not be used to acheive Foriegn Policy Objectives

The affirmative's advocacy is that the United States Federal Government ought not use economic sanctions against Iran to achieve its foreign policy objectives. Parametricizing is legitimate because 1) The consequence that results from the use of sanctions varies from scenario to scenario. For example, the effects of sanctions against Canada would be very different than those against Iraq. It is impossible to make generalizing statements about sanctions because sanction require us to evaluate the circumstances of the situation, like the levels of trade, economic health of the target, cost of sanctions, and the international assistance available etc. Thus, a context must be specified in order to have a proper discussion about the resolution. The context I am specifying is completely predictable: a) the majority of sanctions are enforced by the US. Kimberly Elliot notes:"Of 104 sanctions episodes the United States was a key player in two-thirds. In 80 percent of U.S.-imposed sanctions, the policy was pursued with no more than minor cooperation" b) One of the most hotly debated political issues right now is whether the US ought to use sanctions against Iran. Any debater who has done topic prep has read that the US has sanctioned Iran and is having discussions to increase previous sanctions, hence this is the most predictable contextualization. 2) Accept all reasonable affirmative interpretation because the negative starts out the round with longer rebuttal times and the ability to adapt to the ac, so even if my interpretation is not the best, the negative can compensate. Because ought is a question of desirability, the phrase ought not implies that the affirmative's burden is to show that economic sanctions against Iran are not a desirable way to achieve the US's foreign policy objectives. My thesis is that it wouldn't be desirable for the US to use economic sanctions against Iran. Contention 1: It wouldn't be desirable to use a policy that doesn't work, because then the foreign policy objective wouldn't be achieved. For example, we don't use remotes to turn on the shower because remotes aren't capable of doing that. 1) Iran's oil industry will keep sanctions from being effective. Arshin Adib-Moghaddam explains: the comprehensive sanctions regime enforced by the United States has made it harder to do business in Iran; for the average Iranian who is dependent on the banking system and does not have the capital to move beyond the national confines by establishing, subsidiaries overseas, which is exactly what larger Iranian companies are doing to circumvent the sanctions. Moreover, the Iranian state does not seem to find it difficult to strike multibillion dollar deals. In the past year alone, Iran has signed a contract worth more than €1,5 billion with China's national petroleum and petrochemical companies. China's Sinopec has a €1.3 billion deal to upgrade Iran's Arak refinery and other deals worth over €35billion" Even if the US imposes sanctions that are multilateral, it won't be effective because Iran's oil industry is too strong. Therefore, solvency evidence read by the negative must explain how economic sanctions will deal with Iran's oil industry, because otherwise sanctions won't work. Ted Carpenter provides an additional warrant for why sanctions in Iran won't work. "The chances of successfully isolating Iran are remote. Both Russia and China have dragged their feet about tougher measures against Tehran, and the existing sanctions system leaks badly. Moreover, Iran is a midsize power with considerable clout in its region." Because of Iran's political connections and geographical location, sanctions won't work. Contention 2: Nuclear proliferation by Iran is inevitable, and economic sanctions will put the US in danger once Iran finally does go nuclear. Ted Carpenter writes: "Washington's strategy is likely to prove just effective enough to cause [Iran] economic problems, thereby irrevocably antagonizing [Iran] and creating even greater incentives for dangerous behavior. it seems increasingly unlikely that Tehran will be dissuaded from pursuing nuclear ambitions. Short of launching military strikes to take out their programs — a step that could easily trigger full-scale wars in the Persian Gulf— the global nuclear weapons club will probably have [a] new members within the next few years. do we really want a situation in which we have no formal relations with [a] two nuclear-armed power? Such a strategy would be extremely dangerous. Working to isolate [Iran] would exacerbate tensions and increase the possibility of a fatal miscalculation. Tehran [is] also aware that Washington has previously tried to use the isolation strategy against other "breakout" nuclear powers, without much success. The United States and its allies sought to use sanctions to get India and Pakistan to reverse course following their nuclear tests and the deployment of arsenals in the late 1990s. It is likely that despite issuing threats and waging ineffective campaigns to impose sanctions against Iran, the United States and the rest of the international community will ultimately have to accept reality and come to terms with the newest members of the global nuclear-weapons club. Trying to isolate nuclear powers, even obnoxious and unpredictable ones like Iran is a futile and potentially dangerous approach. A better strategy is to hold our noses and attempt to establish a reasonably normal diplomatic and economic relationship with such countries." Thus, sanctions won't prevent Iran from going nuclear, but will increase the likelihood of retaliation once Iran is nuclear. Furthermore, while the US imposes sanctions that don't work and are counterproductive, America is losing business. Brian Earley writes: Sanctions against Iran have forced American oil companies either to do their business elsewhere or give up their trade to foreign firms. It is not a coincidence that after Halliburton was scathingly rebuked by Congress for business dealings with Iran through its Dubai-based subsidiary that the company moved its entire headquarters to Dubai in 2007. Halliburton moved because it was more profitable for it to do business in Dubai than it was to for it to stay in the United States. When the US government prevents its companies from doing their business profitably, how can we expect them not to leave? In a capitalist society, profits keep companies afloat." American sanctions cost American jobs; getting ridding of them will help US's struggling economy without costing us taxpayer dollars. Thus, affirming would also be desirable to the USFG because the US can better protect its citizens. Contention 3: Even if sanctions do achieve the US's foreign policy objective, that would not be enough for a negative ballot as the negative would still need to show that achieving the US's foreign policy objectives against Iran is desirable. It wouldn't be desirable to achieve the US's foreign policy objectives if achieving those objectives will have disastrous consequences. If sanctions work, that would be a bad thing because Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is key to preventing a regional nuclear conflict. Thomas P.M. Barnett writes: "The history here is stunningly clear: Get a nuke and you'll never suffer attack from a fellow great power — not even a superpower. read your history: With the exceptions of our allies in Britain and France, the U.S. has looked down upon every rising power to ever get the bomb as constituting a loose canon capable of all manner of nefarious acts and strategic stupidity. And yet we're the only one that's ever pulled the trigger. Thus, the chances of nuclear war are higher in the negative world because only one nation in the middle east, i.e. Israel, will have nukes.