Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons.

C1: Existential Threat My opponent seems to be shifting the argument away from what it originally was. His original argument was that the US did not have to fear an Iranian nuke since other nations have nukes as well. The argument now is that a war would be costly. Seeing as though this is the last round, and he did not give any actual justifications for such a claim, his argument becomes moot. However, I would contend that his logic is flawed regardless of lacking any evidence: 1) Our military action is not to depose of a regime, it is to knock out nuclear facilities. Thus comparing it to Iraq of Afghanistan is a false comparison. 2) My opponent assumes escalation, but I would argue that, as implied by my opponent’s reasoning (that the regime would be careful not to use nukes because it would threaten their survival) the regime would not escalate the conflict because that would force higher retaliatory actions by the US and Israel. y opponent says he understands the concerns but since Iran lacks a way to land a nuke, our concerns our misguided. As mentioned before, the main short term fear is a low-grade transportable device, not the use of an ICBM. Moreover, he says that the US has been spying on Iran and they don’t need to fear us…yes they do, we might attack them. My opponent concedes all his other examples in this argument (since drops are concessions): China, USSR and Pakistan. C2: Iran + Terrorism My opponent asserts some dramatic claims here: like Al Qaeda is lacking recruitment. He provides no evidence so at this point don’t accept it. However, if you think intuitively it is correct then keep in mind that Al Qaeda has many sanctuaries: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mali and Somalia. My opponent argues that Iran will protect these nuclear weapons. Again, he lacks prior knowledge of the nuclear smuggling chain and that thefts have occurred in the past. Whereas Pakistan is an ally and depends on the US for internal security, Iran does not. There are many systematic flaws which make theft possible in Iran: (1) bribes and corruption amongst the Revolutionary Guard, (2) ideological hate of Israel and the West, (3) holes in transportation security and (4) political rivalries among the ruling clerics [some are more sympathetic to radicals than others] and (5) just the existence of protection does not mitigate attempts by Al Qaeda to gain a nuclear weapon. In essence the world right now is dangerous yes, but my opponent’s world is much more dangerous. It is giving Al Qaeda another option to pursue nuclear theft. -1- My opponent misunderstands the general argument being made about terrorist MO. Of course Iran hasn’t provided large conventional forces like tanks, but nuclear material would not be encompassed within this category. Nuclear material is transportable and equates with a terrorist MO. For example, van suicide bomb – instead of just conventional explosives, traces of nuclear material can be added. This is called a dirty bomb. Even though it might not have the impact of an actual nuclear warhead, the traces of radioactive material seep into the environment covering a large radius. This is much more dangerous in urban centers, like NY or DC. My opponent says Al Qaeda wouldn’t dare attack one of its sanctuary states. Sure, but that’s not my argument. 1) Al Qaeda is dispersed among many nations, not just Iran. 2) Al Qaeda wouldn’t attack Iran, it would simply divert its nuclear materials to make it hard to trace back to Iran. -2-My opponent argues that my nuclear umbrella argument does not apply to groups operating outside Iran, like Hezbollah and Hamas. 1) This ignores the argument that Al Qaeda does indeed have sanctuary which means US retaliatory actions against this sect of Al Qaeda will be close to impossible. So even if I don’t gain ground on Hamas and Hezbollah, I still win the link to the group which is the greatest threat to US national security. 2) Your argument assumes that both sides trust each other. This just isn’t the case – on the contrary both sides distrust and detest each other. Iran is the biggest state supporter of terrorism, and has backed the actions of both Hezbollah and Hamas. As indicated by the evidence from the first round, Iran facilitates the sale and transfer of arms to Hezbollah and Hamas in Iran or Iranian allies like Syria. Disruption of these types of actions become much more difficult when Iran has both nuclear material and midrange missiles. My opponent asks what calculus was he using. The calculus is this: “This would quickly bring about the demise of those in power, so the leaders of iran have no incentive to put their state of rule in jeopardy..."Essentially the calculus assumes that Iran prioritizes regime survival as top priority. If this is true, and my opponent’s argument relies on it then Iran shouldn’t be proliferating because the very risk of US escalation threatens regime survival. Moreover, the economic harm created by our sanctions have spurred economic protests and green movements throughout Iran – again a threat to regime survival. But since his question wasn’t an argument, you can count it as a concessions since he cannot respond to it in the last round. My opponent argues on the blur point that Iran has that capability. At this point it does not, which is why action now must be taken. We know that Iran is proliferating nuclear material but it is yet at that point to be an effective nuclear weapon. My opponent responds to the dirty bomb argument and the difficulty of tracking it by saying that terrorists can get it elsewhere. He misses the point. As I brought up in C1, it would be very difficult for terrorists to get nuclear weapons from those other sites, but not impossible. Adding Iran to the equation makes it more probable that terrorist groups can obtain nuclear material. Iran could easily deny nuclear theft and bog us down in the UN, and blame Pakistan or someone else. C3: Regional arms race My opponent argument against the Saudi Official is that Obama promoted debt reduction. As interesting as an argument that is the President can only go so far with those types of issues. Congress is vested with the authority in that realm. A more accurate example would be Leon Panetta coming out and saying that the DoD has allocated more funding for modernizing our nuclear weapons stockpile. Yes, I think we would take Panetta seriously. But moreover, the very threat of a nuclear arms race is what matters. It would be like dominos…fear escalates to more fear. The US cannot risk a Middle East in the midst of an arms race between two competing political and ideological states. That just exacerbates the link to terrorism because then instead of just having the potential for nuclear theft in Iran, then add to the mix Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and maybe even Egypt. Weighing How does one vote on these many competing claims? Unfortunately for my opponent the only true argument he has which gives reason for non-intervention is the risk of escalation, but that only appeared in this round not giving me the ability to respond with evidence just analytics. The question then becomes are the potential harms large enough to spur action? I believe they are. A world with a nuclear Iran increases the chances of nuclear terrorism by adding another country to the list of states with nuclear weapons, an enemy state at that. We know that a potential for even more nuclear states through an arms race exacerbates this very harm. Iran has attempted foolish actions in the past, like trying to assassinate the Saudi diplomat on our own soil. As indicated above, escalation is unlikely using the very logic of my opponent. As such, action is on balance more preferable because we mitigate high magnitude risks with little chance of high escalatory and operational risks. Sources: Vote Pro for sources. In all rounds I used thinktank or scholarly sources. My opponent used Wikipedia and non-professionally reviewed articles.