Iran should be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal

Starting Reactionary Remarks - Sorry for my use of the term 'folderol' I meant it only as a light antagonism, and not a subversion of your argument's credibility. (being English the House of Commons style of debating is my natural projection which I understand gets misinterpreted by many which is a fault of my own) - I will keep my terminology plain if that is how my opponent wishes the argument to go (whoever said eloquence was necessary in debate) Rebuttal I'd like to start my riposte with a proposition to my opponent: Does he believe that a country that treats homosexuality as a capital offence, can truly be trusted to exercise sound judgement over a unregulated nuclear stockpile? Would he really trust the council of guardians and the revolutionary Guard (who are becoming more analogous to the SA by the day)? I'd like to clear up my Pakistan point which you accentuated falsely (by a failure of my own); you see I meant countries not part of the Non-proliferation Treaty, such seemed obvious to me however it's clear I should have been more explicit for your sake (why else would I have included the glaring example of North Korea in my mention? ). Would you really describe the failed self- ostracised state of Pakistan as "Just fine" or "Safe"- there is a reason it's considered a hub of terrorism, inequality and injustice. If your example of a nation positively effected by owning a plethora of nuclear warheads is "Pakistan", this debate's going to be a lot easier than I expected. Secondly: Are you really calling Iran "stable"? For someone who's quick to question my understanding of international politics, you appear to be severely detached from Iranian reality; to preoccupied by the past and contempt for Israel by the looks of it (do you recall the 2009/2010 riots; did that look like the countenance of societal equilibrium? ). May I recommend a visit to this group page for a dose of erudition . https://www.facebook.com.... For If by stability you mean oppression you'd be empirically correct but fundamentally wrong in your conception of the two concepts and there dichotomy in relashontship and ethos. In our epoch do you really want more weapons designed soley for mass annihilation when contemporary conflicts are now nuanced with the conflicts being against rouge regimes, religious and ethnic sects and terrorist cells. Stop focusing so much on the past this is about the future; do you really want to build that future off a climate of dividing Cold War esque fear. So your logic for whether or not a country should be aloud to possess nuclear arms revolves around the amount of inventions they've created and the progress they made centuries ago (I fail to see how one of rational mind could use Ibn Sa as a case for giving ) :don't you think that's a tad ridiculous and irrelevant? - zeitgeist's are malleable chap. Belarus submitted to the ntp (Russia annoyed me in that deal). Follow the ntp rules that is the diplomatic way, and that will encourage members to move their focus towards Israel and scrutinise their nuclear policy instead ( I have no problem with Iran pursuing a conventional program as their oil reserves are dwindling and they need an economic boost). Evidence has shown connection between Pakistan and Iran engaging each other in black market dealing on nuclear weapons. I agknowledge your point about Israeli lobbyist power (in Britain most political parties have an inner 'friends of Israel' group); however as is evident by the behaviours of both my foreign secretary "William Hauge" and your foreign secretary "John Kerry" we are not afraid to stand up against them. You failed to understand my symbolic distinction between Iran and Persia; you see it wasn't until dear old Reza Shah started his dynasty that in 1935 he demanded that Persia be referred to by its ancient name of Iran; thus the imperial state of Iran ossified! all those achievements you lauded took place in times of Persian empire. And yet you had the audacity to condensed me with your tone over such basic history as the 1953 coup d'eta on mossadegh orchastarted by MI5 and the CIA in retaliation to oil nationalisation. My form of Iran vs Persia is a subjective/personal outlook. Do you think any authoritarian junta should be internationally endorsed when they should be prohibited to develop weapons exceeding limit oration set out in doctrine, does that not strike you as unfair to illustrate one gripe. "Please give me evidence of them trying to spread Islam outside of the middle east": Will a little known group called 'Hezbollah' suffice!