- + Crissieboy joined Debatewise
- + Thebabeofbengal edited the debate Are women superior to men?
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Golmindalin joined Debatewise
- + Tracy Barret voted on the debate Prostitution should be legalised to protect sex workers from HIV/AIDS
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Elena Porjazova voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Loretta voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Explonential joined Central London Debating Society
- + Ll Blynch edited the debate Are London Underground staff justified in their strike action?
- + Soominchoi joined Debatewise
- + Elena Porjazova voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Plally7 edited the debate Will mankind make it to the next century?
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Maparent joined Debatewise
- + Arnavnarian joined Debatewise
- + Jiwoo Cj 1127 voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Arnavnarian voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
THE US IS RIGHT TO REVERT TO A MORE HARD LINE STANCE ON IRAN?
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.
The US is right to revert to a more hard line stance on Iran?
Yes, because... 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. Being more diplomatic simply seems to have taken away the stick leaving any deal reliant on carrots alone. The US needs to be both tough and diplomatic to tackle Iran. Threatening it with no offers of cooperation will not bring peace and offers of cooperation only do not seem to work either.
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[1].
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 substantial move come from Iran that calls for some softening of the US stance.
See history of changes to this point
The US is right to revert to a more hard line stance on Iran?
Yes, because... No consequences have strengthend Iran's position
In former conflicts the US and the UN in general didn't use threats about harsh consequences. In a result to this, the Iran government has gained in strength. It has made it known that they want to destroy Israel[1]. It openly violated human rights after the 2009 elections as they came down on demonstrations brutally[2]. Iran has also tested new satellites and rockets[3]. To stop this danger the UN and the world in general has to show where the limits lie and punish Iran. This doesn't have to be in a military way - it can be very effective if economical sanctions are used. In addition these sanctions should mainly hit the elite and not involve basic supplies, like food.
It is difficult to see what those consequences can be. Sanctions have been tried and they have little political effect.[1] So military action seems to be the only "hard line" tactic left and that could be disastrous for the US and Israel as well as Iran. It seems diplomacy is the only way left to tackle Iran.
Vote on this point: No consequences have strengthend Iran's position
See history of changes to this point
The US is right to revert to a more hard line stance on Iran?
No, because... 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[1]. It was only thanks to the United States that this was discovered[2]. 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[3]. President Obama has tried the diplomatic approach for a year now, but no willingness was seen from the Iranian government[4]. 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, , 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.
Vote on this point: Iran has offered to accept the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) proposal to have it's Uranium enriched abroad.
See history of changes to this point
Vote on this debate: The US is right to revert to a more hard line stance on Iran?
Modified:
27 Aug 2010
Point 1. 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.
Point 2. 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.
Point 1. Iran has offered to accept the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) proposal to have it's Uranium enriched abroad.
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.
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.