Iran presents a real threat to the welfare of the United states and the world

First, let me thank you for accepting this challenge. I look forward to learning some new things hopefully, and a stimulating fun debate. And let me say that this may sound a little rushed. I have 45 minutes to post this and i just got done with drug testing for debate (lame or what?). Sorry. Now, first I will go over rebuttals given by my opponent (con) and then continue onto my (pro) side of the flow. Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, yes. sorry. They are, however, pursuing nuclear power for electricity and such. What experts worry is that they will use the knowledge gained from pursuing civilian uses for nuclear power to make a nuclear weapon. so the Knowledge can be transfered over to the military side easily. This also helps explain why MILITARY officials run the civilian nuclear power program. Now for the question of funding terrorism. Although Iranian-funded groups may not have committed crimes on US soil, they DO commit crimes and attack US forces and allies elsewhere. Iran has funded, as well as Syria, terrorist groups operating in and against Iraq and other US allies. These are some of the people (yes Al Qaeda does too, and yes, Al Qaeda is Sunni) who plant roadside bombs that kill American troops and Iraqi civilians. As stated in the resolution, this presents a threat to America and the World by inflaming violence in an already vulnerable area. And my resolution DOES state, that Iran presents a threat to the US, but the whole world as well. So obviously a country funding terrorism anywhere is a threat to the whole world, but even more so in this volatile region. And besides terrorist groups, Iran funds radical Shiite militias in Iraq, extending the cycle of violence, so that they can gain influence in Iraq's government's doings. Yes, as i have stated in comments on other debates before, Ahmedinajad is a nutcase, but only a figurehead nutcase. The clerics on the council control the country's affairs, including the election. These clerics have control over who joins the election and who doesn't. The candidates are chosen by this council. Ahmedinajad was selected to be part of the election and selected for President. And yes, his term ends soon and he is unpopular and he will be gone soon. But this council will simply choose a better-liked radical akin to his kind. The name will change but the type will not. Now, onto his actual case points: EXHIBIT A: He says that Iran is running out of oil. It is. Sort of. The mullahs have not reinvested in digging new wells or maintaining old ones. thus oil and revenue must diminish. But, as stated in his own rebuttal, the clerics on the council will do what must be done to stay in power. They may wait a time, but they will not risk rebellion. And while prices may go up for a time, i do not think that the Iranian people will rebel because their gas prices went up from .34 cents a gallon. Iran's actual oil is not diminishing. It's still under Iran. But mullahs have not invested in its maintenance and reinvested in new wells. See, over time, wells inevitably diminish production yearly. So to stay ahead you must drill new wells. Many mullahs have not done this because they are reluctant to wait the 4-6 years it takes a new well to produce adequately. And they are not maintaining pipes, so oil leaks into the ground. Sooner or later, because the top clerics will do what they must to stay at the top, they will reinvest in oil. yes, prices will go up on gas in Iran. but the Iranian people will not rebel. They will be upset, much like we as Americans are, they might even protest. But there will be no rebellion, and Iran will regain the oil it lost over time. Iran will retain unfriendly ideals, and Iran will still present a threat. I agree that this is a weak point, but not weak enough on its own. EXHIBIT B: My opponent relies partially on his first point to carry this point, that there will be a grand revolution, that there will be a free-er Iran. First, who is to say that this new Iran will be much, if any, more Pro-American? And, like my opponent said in his case, United States INTERVENTION led to this earlier Islamic Revolution. We did not "give them space and let it happen". We MADE it happen. We ACTED. And that is what would be required now for any revolution to happen. And might i say, as shown by the previous Revolution, relying on a brand new revolution to bring about a new, friendly government is highly UN-reliable and dangerous. This new government has no guaranteed Pro-US stance, and no guarantee it will work. The new government will not likely run much better than the current one, and quite possibly could be even more dangerous. Relying on a new revolution to happen will not produce results, let alone the results we would like, and intervening to start a revolution will be worse. And so to reaffirm my case, As i said in my rebuttal, even if Iran is not pursuing "weapons", they are still enriching uranium. They are still pursuing nuclear power. and knowledge from nuclear power is easily transferable to nuclear WEAPONS. so in effect, Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons. And this nuclear power will not be needed when the Clerics actually act to stop the diminishing oil problem. The ends of nuclear power is nuclear weapons. Iran, like Syria, funds terrorist groups that menace not only America and its interests (such as Iraq), they menace other parts of the world as well. In Lawrence Wright's book, The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, he writes about Iran funding Hezbollah. Hezbollah, as I'm sure most of the audience and my opponent knows, menaces the fledgling government and country of Lebanon. Countless other expamples show that Iran funds terrorism groups around the world, attacking US interests, and making the world, especially the Mid-East, more and more vulnerable. If we want a safer country and a safer world, this must be stopped. A terrorist ridden Middle East only hurts the world. We cannot eliminate terrorism, but we CAN diminish it. Once again, Ahmadinejad and the clerics behind him believe, much like Christians with Christ, that "the Mahdi" will come and save Islam. Also, much like Judaism and Christianity, they teach that this savior's coming will be preceded by a period of war, strife and turmoil. The problem is, Iran works to bring about this period of turmoil. Their goals include bringing about this period. So obviously Iran present a threat