Iran Should Not Be Allowed To Develop Nuclear Weapons

Before I begin my constructive, I'd like to note that my opponent has made many arguments that all of you should consider irrelevant. The quotes from Ahmadinejad are irrelevant to an extent because Ahmadinejad is no longer in power, as Pro states, and Pro must demonstrate that these views are the views of the people by and large to hold any sway over this debate. You can disregard his attempted proof of an ongoing weapons program as well because of the nature of the resolution. The resolution does not state that we should bar Iran from continuing this specific program, but rather it operates under the assumption that Iran is pursuing nuclear weaponry. Inasmuch as a resolution about allowing Iran to build nuclear weapons is irrelevant if they are not doing so, I will argue that Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, not that this specific program should continue unhindered by the global community.Now for the framework. To win this debate, my opponent has a few burdens which he must overcome. He first must prove that the global community has the right to impede upon Iran's sovereign actions and that Iran will definitely use nuclear weapons for impermissible causes. He then must prove that the methods of achieving this are efficient and do not unduly harm others to achieve said goal. Then, he must prove that our methods will be sufficient in achieving this goal. If he does not keep this chain intact, then his resolution falls apart. I will be arguing that none of these links are valid in this constructive round:1. The Rights of IranMy opponent must prove that Iran does not inherently have the right as a sovereign state to develop nuclear weaponry. He is unfortunately in a double-bind here. Either he believes that sovereign states unequivocally have no right to obtain nuclear weapons, or he believes that some states reserve this right while others do not. You see, there are no binding laws that delineate the rights of sovereign states. It is therefore prudent to strip rights based on certain circumstances rather than allocating rights -- to say what one nation may not do rather than what it may. The only time that an international body ought to be allowed to intervene is if there is a definitive and sufficient threat from one sovereign nation impeding upon the sovereignty and inherent rights of another. Does Iran reserve the right to build nuclear weapons? The answer is yes, because a state may supplement its defense to whatever extent it pleases so long as these defenses are not used for malicious purposes. Just as you cannot strip an American's freedom of speech away because you think he will shout fire in a crowded theater sometime in the future, you may not take away Iran's right to defense through force merely because they may use it against another nation. Because according to this argument, America and Russia's proliferation during the Cold War ought to have been prevented by the international community. Same for Pakistan and India. Either Pro believes that no country has the right to nuclear weaponry, which he must warrant, or he believes that some sovereign states have rights that others don't, in which case his philosophy is inconsistent regarding what a sovereign state can and cannot do. 2. Likelihood of AttackPro states that it is likely that Iran will use the weapons to attack Israel. His "proof" contains quotes only from a man no longer in power and nebulous claims about the desire of Iranians to bomb Iran. I raise two concerns with this line of reasoning.-Iran has historically refrained from attacking IsraelIran has not participated in the Arab-Israeli wars [1]. They have, in the past, not joined forces with the rest of the Arab world to attack what they deem the holy land, and there's no reason to believe that they would decide to slaughter millions of people for the mere sake of revenge, Jihad, or whatever else you claim they would utilize as an excuse.-MADMAD, or mutually assured destruction provides cause for Iran to refrain from attacking Israel. Iran may be irrational at times, but they are not complete fools. The leaders of Iran do not want to turn their nation into a wasteland, nor do they want their workplace annihilated by Israel's bombs. You see, Israel reportedly has about 80 warheads [2]. You are asserting that Iran would be willing to undergo strikes from Israeli warheads, most likely much more powerful and technologically advanced than their own, just to kill Israelis? This is absurd and unless Pro provide a warrant for Iran's circumventing of MAD, he will lose this argument and ultimately the debate.3. Possible Costs Incurred, Sufficiency, and Likelihood of SuccessThe international community, as it stands, has three options to combat proliferation: diplomacy, economic sanctions, and military intervention. I am welcome to other suggestions from Pro as well. But insofar as these are our options, allow me to analyze each one individually. Diplomacy is obviously insufficient, as Iran is currently eluding all talks, and the notion that we could talk them out of developing these powerful weapons without some sort of threat to back us up is rather absurd. Economic sanctions actually damage regular Iranian citizens more than the government as well. Considering the fact that Iran, as Pro states, has expansive oil reserves and a substantial portion of the oil market, the government can offset losses through rent revenue on oil reserves, even if the revenue is diminished to an extent [3]. But sanctions still hurt the average Iranian, and insofar as this is true, we can see that sanctions, to achieve an end, utilize the economic status of innocent Iranians as means impermissibly, and that this end is not even achieved, as evidenced by Iran's current persistence as well as past failures of sanctions and their negative effects on primarily innocent civilians [4]. Damaging their economies can also exacerbate international resentment and affinity for extremist groups such as terrorist organizations, in what is known as "blowback". And because Iran is one of the leading producers of oil, sanctions increase oil prices, which can cause supply shocks in other nations if allowed to continue, leading to possible stagflation like what the US experienced in the 70's. Military intervention, on the contrary, has a bit more potential to work. But a few impermissible harms travel with this policy as well. Obviously the immense costs of warfare are included in this calculus, as the injury and death of soldiers and the ineluctable tendency for wars to produce immense civilian casualty rates. But once again this strategy places Pro in a double bind. He can merely invade the country and attempt to persuade the leaders to step down through violence, which is impermissible insofar as it uses Iranians as means to an end, violating Kant's categorical imperative and reducing the Iranians to mere tools for the international community to dispose of to persuade a sovereign state to do its bidding, as well as leaving the opportunity of continuance of development and even usage in the face of a hopeless war against the international community. He could also invade the nation and strip its sovereignty and decision-making abilities by force, toppling the regime and instituting a temporary body in its place. However, this constitutes an affront against the sovereignty of another nation merely because of ostensible potential to use an undeveloped weapon to harm others. Infringement upon sovereignty must be predicated on definitive harms, not pseudo-prescient fallible prognostication. The argumentative chain has been shattered, and Pro must mend it or forfeit.[1] - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...[2] - http://www.timesofisrael.com...[3] - http://www.voltairenet.org...[4] - http://www.aljazeera.com...