Modified:
11 Mar 2010
by Booji
Vote totals:
Yes:
0%
No:
0%
Neutral:
0%
Subscribe to This Debate
You are not currently subscribed to this debate.
Misc Debates
Subscribe to Newsletter
Tell a Friend
(Use commas to separate)
Search:
DEBATE: THE US IS RIGHT TO REVERT TO A MORE HARD LINE STANCE ON IRAN?
Posted by: booji
Karma:
3021
Diplomacy has been given its chance in Iran and has been spurned by the Iranians. So now after a year of reaching out the United States is returning to the more confrontational policy of G.W. Bush. However that policy equally did not have much success while he was in office and there is little reason to think that things will be different with Obama in the oval office.
Executive Summary
Join The Debate
All the Yes points
All the No points
THE US IS RIGHT TO REVERT TO A MORE HARD LINE STANCE ON IRAN?
A hardline stance does not mean no diplomacy
Diplomacy can carry on or even be enhanced by one of the main participants playing tough. It was becoming obvious that the US was not getting anywhere by being soft on Iran so it makes more sense to go back to being tough. Although this has failed before it does still have advantages. Particularly domestically it shows that the president is doing something and makes him more difficult to attack by the republicans for being too soft on national security issues. Being more diplomatic simply seems to have taken away the stick leaving any deal reliant on carrots alone. On the other hand that the USA was prepared to take a softer line shows that it can always move back to that stance should there be some substancial move come from Iran that calls for some sofening of the US stance.
THE US IS RIGHT TO REVERT TO A MORE HARD LINE STANCE ON IRAN?
No consequences have strengthend Iran's position
In former conflicts the US and the UN in general didn't use harsh consequences. In a result to this, the Iran gouvernment has gained in strength. It has made it known that they want to destroy Israel and just recently they have beaten down demonstrations brutally and tested new satellites and rockets.
To stop this danger the UN an in general has to show where the limits lie and punish Iran. This doesn't have to be in a miltiary way, but can be very effective as well if economical sanctions are used.
In addition these sanctions schould mainly hit an elite and not involve basic supplies, like food.
It is difficult to see what those consequences can be. Sanctions have been tried and it seems that more sanctions through the UN will always be watered down. So military action? could be disasterous for the US and Israel as well as Iran.
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
THE US IS RIGHT TO REVERT TO A MORE HARD LINE STANCE ON IRAN?
Iran has offered to accept the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) proposal to have it's Uranium enriched abroad.
Yes. Iran has proven several times that it cannot be trusted. They mask their desire to amass nuclear weapons with a supposedly "peaceful" nuclear energy program. They had a secret uranium enrichment facility hidden from the watchful eyes of the IAEA. It was only thanks to the United States that this was discovered. Why have it hidden in the first place? Why weren't they willing to be fully transparent in the first place? It would cause great instability in the already volatile region if Iran was able to produce a WMD. Also, we shouldn't forget that Iran has a hard line president, someone who has called for the destruction of Israel countless times. President Obama has tried the diplomatic approach for a year now, but no willingness was seen from the Iranian government. It's time for a different approach. It may not be the most popular strategy, but something has to be done fast. The threat is very real and it's looming over the horizon.The gesture the Iranians made is just a minuscule step. Assuming that Iran would be faithful to its word, which is what the first "nay" argument of this debate seems to subscribe to, is very dangerous.
President Ahmadinejad has claimed that Iran is willing to accept the proposals of the IAEA that were initially offered in October. The main proposal is for Iran to have it's Uranium enriched abroad and then returned as fuel rods at a later date[1]. This is to prevent Iran from developing its own enrichment process; allowing for the possibility of further enrichment to turn low-level uranium into high-level weapons grade material. It would initially appear that Ahmadinejad is making concessions to the IAEA to help continue development of it's Nuclear energy program. If these concessions are fair and honest, it would signal that Iran is taking a more diplomatic stance and beginning to cooperate with the diplomacy. An increasingly hard-line stance by the U.S. in the aftermath of these concessions may prove unjust and undermine the Obama administration's supposedly new approach to international relations.
What do you think? Vote on this point below.
Vote on the overall debate: The US is right to revert to a more hard line stance on Iran?
What do you think? Vote on this debate below.
booji
|13:13, 05 February 10
|Karma Score: 3021
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
philipedge
|16:08, 09 February 10
|Karma Score: 4
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
booji
|12:33, 11 March 10
|Karma Score: 3021
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
doublethink
|16:37, 03 February 10
|Karma Score: 96
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply
dredags
|12:16, 05 February 10
|Karma Score: 3
Applaud
Quote
Flag
Reply