Debate, any additions?

In my Government class, I'm in a debate titled, "Resolved, that the U.S. should use force to deprive Iran of it's nuclear facilities", this is what I've put together so far. Tell me if you see any errors in it, and if you have any suggestions to add to it. I'd appreciate it.



Everyone in the world would sleep easier if they knew that Iran would never have nuclear weapon capabilities, however, there are several reasons why the United States shouldn't use force to deprive Iran of it's nuclear capabilities.

The argument that the U.S. should do something to deprive Iran of it's nuclear program raises somewhat of a moral issue for me. America has the most nuclear weapon devices in the world. How can one nuclear weapon yielding nation, tell another nation seeking the technology, that they don't have a right to do so. Especially when the United States is the only country who has used a nuclear device on an enemy. If a country told the United States to disarm, we wouldn't listen to them. So, why should Iran listen to us?

The Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which the United States is a member of as a nuclear-weapon state, while Iran is a member as a non-nuclear weapon state, states under Article Four: Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

To date, Iranian officials swear that their nuclear program is for strictly peaceful purposes, something that is guaranteed in the Non-proliferation Treaty, that both the U.S. and Iran have signed.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that his countries' nuclear program is "transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye" of international inspectors.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watch dog, is trying to keep a close watch on what Iran is doing.

Dr. ElBaradei, The Director General for the International Atomic Energy Agency, said that to date in Iran, the Agency had "not seen any diversion of nuclear materials... nor the capacity to produce weapons usable materials". He said that these were also "important elements in assessing the situation, assessing the risk, and understanding how to address the Iranian question".

He also stated in his last report on Iran February 22, that: Pursuant to it's Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, Iran has been providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and facilities, and has proceeded the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with such material and facilities.

There are certain aspects of Iran's nuclear program that Iran refuses to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect, but they are letting them look over reports, and at some of the materials they are using. The closest estimate to when Iran would have the capability to produce nuclear weapons, is 4-5 years from now. With 4 to 5 years of talking, a lot can be accomplished, as long as Iran sees that they can have their views heard without having to have a nuclear weapon. Iran has seen that once a nation has nuclear capabilities, people seem listen more closely to what they have to say.

If we use force to derive Iran of it's nuclear facilities, it will basically be an act of war. In the eyes of top Iranian officials, they say it's the same.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has threatened U.S. regional interests if attacked on many occasions.

Referring to the U.S., he said: "If they want to threaten us and use force and violence against us, they should not doubt that Iranian officials will use all they have in their power to deal a blow to those who assault them."

Iranian chief Nuclear Negotiator Ali Larijani, when asked if Iran would strike back if they were attacked by the United States, said, "Naturally a military action will have a military response and our response will be appropriate."

I don't feel that the United States' military, nor the American public can stand another War in the middle east. I feel that America if it put everything into it, could win against the Iranians easily, but I don't think that the American public would be willing to do so. We would need to reinstate the draft, which would be highly unpopular. And, with America's lack of a stomach for war, and lack of patience, Iran in my opinion would turn out to be just as bad, if not worse than Iraq has. The last thing America needs right now, is to lose what little leverage it has in the World, and to worsen it's image. Using force against Iran would do just that.

"It's" is not possessive, but the contraction of "it is." Use "its" instead. Change throughout your paper (i.e., change "it's nuclear capabilities" to "its nuclear capabilities," etc.).

"raises somewhat of a moral issue for me"
The "somewhat" here is hella weak. Drop it. Either it's a moral issue, or it isn't: you don't win debates by equivocating.

"How can one nuclear weapon yielding nation"
I think you mean "wielding" rather than "yielding." This sentence also appears to pose a question, in which case it should end with a question mark.

"So, why should Iran listen to us?"
Comma splice.

Put quotation marks around your quote from the NPT. Also note that the word "Proliferation" is always capped when it appears in the phrase "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

"his countries' nuclear program"
country's

"the U.N.'s nuclear watch dog"
"watchdog" is one word.

You should also put the period at the end of a sentence with a quote inside the quotation marks, rather than outside them as you have done.

Put the quote from Elbaradei's report in quotes.

"If we use force to derive Iran of it's nuclear facilities, it will basically be an act of war."
Delete "basically." It would be an act of war.

"I don't feel that the United States' military, nor the American public can stand another War in the middle east."
Comma after "public," don't capitalize "War," but do capitalize "Middle East."

At this point I'm going to take exception to one point in your conclusion: I don't think that this is a war we could win easily. If our war aims are limited to the destruction of a few facilities, then perhaps we could win. But if our goal becomes, as it did in Iraq, the establishment of a regime that is "peaceful, democratic and an ally in the war on terror," then total victory is impossible, as these are aims that cannot be accomplished by military means.

Some other points to consider:

It is not simply a question of whether a war with Iran is desirable. The real question before us today is whether this current administration can be entrusted to conduct such a war competently. Given all the evidence of mind-boggling incompetence in the conduct of the war and occupation of Iraq, the answer is no.

We currently treat the NPT as if it had no provisions pertaining to the nuclear powers, but this is not the case. The treaty obliges the nuclear powers to disarm, period. We cannot use the NPT as a rationale for war if we are ourselves not in compliance. A case could be made that, if we were sincere in our desire to eliminate nuclear weapons from the face of the globe, the most effective thing to to would not be to invade Iran, but to decommission our own vast stockpile of nuclear armaments that, since the end of the cold War, no longer have any strategic value.

A military strike against Iran would be of dubious legality, and arguably a crime against peace. It would violate the Kellogg-Briand Treaty of 1928, which is still in force, in that it would amount to a use of military force as an instrument of policy.