We should not attack Iran

Cons format of arguments will be as followed- 1) Refutations2) Extensions 3) UnderviewRefutations 1. Concession- Iran has nuclear capabilities. This will be the metric for the entire round. My opponents only refutation on this argument was a question- Why does having a nucear weapon make it a threat to the United States? Well, clearly Nuclear weapons cannot be trusted to small nations that may have ties with terrorist organizations, that are proven volatile, and that may force us to go to war. My opponent failed to address the underview arguments of why nuclear weapons in Iran are bad FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This debate's metric is centered around two things- 1) The reasons for going to war (Benefitting the U. S, other allies etc. ) and 2) Iran has nuclear capabilities, which is a gigantic concession in the first argument. Clearly con has all the ground on Iran's nuclear capabilities.2 and 3- Judges I asked you to group these two arguments together, my oppenent conceded that both of these arguments are the same, basically subtract 1 argument from my opponents case because pro only refuted my refutation as a whole for BOTH Arguments. Now onto the actual refutation, the problem with my opponents arguments are that they are not looking towards beneffiting the United States. My opponent is essentially saying we should let them have Nuclear Weapons and create a small scale Cold War, but this time Israel will be in between and may force us to go to war with Iran. The Pre- Emptive Strikes, Targeted Killings, and going to war, are all justified by intelligence which my opponent concedes to, and only if we eradicate the problem or the nuclear capabilities of Iran at the source will we be eliminating Iran's Nuclear capabilities. The goal of the attack would be to ERADICATE any possibility of Iran completing a Nuclear weapon, my opponents only refutation is that it would continue, but through my sources i show the United States will make sure Iran's Nuclear Capabilities are eradicated. We do not want Iran to retaliate against the United States or any of our allies, we do not want another Cold War, plain and simple. My opponent is advocating both, as you can see through my Underview of Israel and Iran's relations.4. MAJOR CONTRADICTION- Look at my opponents first point that quote "the truth is, the cold war prevented nuclear wa because both sides had weapons. " So my opponent is advocating the Cold War. Then skip to Pro's argument 5, stating in all Capital Letters quote "You (Con) are very right on another point. WE DO NOT WANT ANOTHER COLD WAR! " This is contradictory, my opponent is both for and against a nuclear standoff instilling fear. I am strictly against such a standoff, and thus you can see con is still being constant in his argumentation. My opponents only refutation aside from that was Iran is not a threat, according to pro's case, but where exactly in pro's case does it state this? Through Con's arguments 4 and 5 in the second round we can see Iran is a threat, then proceed to Con's Underview, showing Iran is an IMMINENT THREAT EVEN WITHOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS because of the relations with Israel.5. My opponent does not understand my pre-emptive strike ideology, Con is saying the war in itself, along with constant attacks against Iran would eradicate any Nuclear possibiities, that could be used to gain vast amounts of power for Iran, which as we both agreed, cannot be allowed. EXTENSIONS-Extend Refutation one from Round 2- Concession that Iran has clear nuclear capabilities. Impact in the round- Knowing Iran as a volatile nation, nuclear capabilities would allow a seemingly "Rogue" state to achieve power that it cannot be trusted with. Extend the Contradiction arguments, all of which still stand. Impact- My opponent keeps jumping left and right determining why we should not attack Iran, but has failed to give any clear reasoning because each argument clashes with another argument Pro makes. This contradiction is not in any way helping Pro's side, because now both con and the judges can weigh these contradictions and see that Pro has no ground, even before con's refutations. UNDERVIEW- Extend the Underview Points as follows-1-Contradictions still exist, not all refutations by pro linked to his own contradictions, thus you use the extension of contradictions by con, the perfect example is the entirety of my opponents arguments in round 2 and 3. In round 2, my opponent argued Iran has NO NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES. While Con argued they do. Now Pro is saying IRAN HAS NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES, while con completely agrees, justifying con's arguments and diminishing pro's.2- My opponents refutation- "The Second Paragraph does not matter because i agree that Iran is making a bomb. Well, extend 2, because this now works for Con, stating Iran is an IMMEDIATE THREAT. Untouched by Pro. Thus you Negate from this point.3- Concession- "Iran will not stop on it's own" Pro states in Round 3. This means somone MUST stop it before it becomes an even bigger threat. Never touched in the round.4- Countries threaten each other. That was my opponents refutation against 4, however this first of all was the wrong argument against my point 4, as con is stating we DO NOT WANT A STANDOFF WITH IRAN, a volatile nation that cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. 5- My opponent attempted to group Points 4 and 5 together, however the two points talked about two different thing. My opponents argument is only weighable on point 5, which actually talks about threats and imminency. The quote i gave, and the source i gave off point 5 still resonate in the round. This Proves Iran is a volatile nation that has the intent of harming other nations. Nextly, Israel and Iran once again are at extemelyhigh hostilities, where both sides are willing to launch attacks against one another, and both sides have already been proven to attack each other frequently, Israel using Targeted Killing and Iran using Assassinations. If this secret war were to escalate any further, the United States would be FORCED to intervene because it cannot terminate it's alliance with Israel, on top of that Iran has already stated it considers America Israel's ally no matter what, even if we do not attack it, and Iran would proceed to attack the United States if Provoked BY ISRAEL. Thus you can see these "Threats" my opponent talks of and the imminent danger i talk of are two completely different things. Conclusion- Extend the Entire Underview, this gives the truth behind the entire debate, because my opponent failed to attack any of the point correctly. Extend all refutations, Pro's BOP was to refute all argumentation, but instead Pro concedes to many different arguments, and brings up contradictory arguments that still clash with other arguments pro has said.