Nuclear_Power_in_Iran

Today my partner and I stand in firm negation to the United States pursuing military options against Iran. Our contentions are as followed; one, that politically, the US is not justified in pursuing military options against Iran. Two, that morally the US is not justified in pursuing military options against Iran and three, that Iran does not pose as an imminent threat to the United States. To begin with, a few key terms need to be defined. According to the Encarta World Dictionary, Justified: is serving as an acceptable reason or excuse for something and giving someone an acceptable reason for taking a particular action. Option: is a choice that is or can be taken, especially a course of action that remains open for somebody to choose. Pursue: is to work at something or carry it out. Finally, Military Options: are a range of military force responses that can be projected to accomplish assigned tasks. This leads to my first point, that politically, the US is not justified in pursuing military options against Iran. Article 2 of the United Nations charter, which establishes the basic conduct of every nation, bans the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state," with Article 51 allowing the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." Daniel Webster, the Secretary of State said “preemptive attack is only considered self-defense if the threat is imminent. This is only true when the threat is instant and leaving no other choice of means.” In the case of Iran, these qualifications are not met. As of February 10th, 2009 the New York Times reported that “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran took up President Obama’s invitation for direct talks between the United States and Iran on Tuesday. Mr. Ahmadinejad promised that if the United States was truly serious about changing the countries’ relations, then Iran was ready to respond in kind. “It is clear that change should be fundamental, not tactical, and our people welcome real changes,” he said. “Our nation is ready to hold talks based on mutual respect and in a fair atmosphere.” The affirmative may accuse diplomacy to have failed in past years, thus we should pursue armed forces, however for ust take a look at North Korea, which posed even a larger threat than Iran a year ago. Discoveries showed their capability for producing weapons of mass destruction; however, the international community did not directly go in and attack then, but diplomatically negotiated with North Korea and currently, as TIME reporter James Poniewozik, "North Korea is under control. "If the US pursued military options against Iran, they would also be breaking International law. According to the Brookings Institution, in 2007 the four other nuclear weapons states; China, Russia, France and Great Britian along with the United Nations, publicly announced that they would not authorize a US military operation after IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) released a report saying that Iran is not a nuclear threat after inspecting all nuclear facilities. Secondly, the United States is not morally justified in pursuing military options against Iran. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. January, 2007, 68% percent of people answered 'no' in response to the question, "If the U.S. government decides to take military action in Iran, would you favor or oppose it'" Only 26% would favor the action. When the United States went into Iraq in 2003, supposedly with evidence that they possessed nuclear weapons, they emerged with no weapons of mass destruction, but instead 4,243 dead soldiers and thousands more injured. This is exactly the same scenerio that the affirmitive is proposing to do with Iran. Since the United States does not have conclusive evidence that Iran is intending to use nuclear weapons, or even conclusive evidence that Iran will be able to develop nuclear weapons in the near future, it is immoral to send our soldiers into a country on such an empty threat. My final point remains a constant with the for-mentioned political and moral injustifications. That is, that Iran does not pose as an imminent threat to the United States. In 2007 the New York Times confirmed that, “American intelligence agencies concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb." Military action is premature since Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities are not an "imminent" Furthermore, a more recent interview in February 2009 with IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said "We know that Iran has developed a knowledge of the so-called fuel cycle, how to enrich uranium, but that is not synonymous with saying that this is a weapon program. A lot of countries are enriching uranium for peaceful programs without necessarily using it for weaponry." This reassurance along with the potential alliance forming between President Ahmadinejad and newly elected, President Obama leaves no justified reasons for pursuing military action against Iran. In conclusion, there is no clear-and-present danger that Iran will attack the United States with nuclear weapons. Additionally, if the United States wishes to proceed with some form of action, there are alternative, diplomatic means of ending any effort by Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. In the current situation if the United States were to pursue military action against Iran, they would be going against both the international, political community and their nation’s morals. So how can such an act be considered justified'