Roman Goerss

Fundamentals of Public Address

11/08/07

Policy Speech Outline:

 

Introduction:

 

U.S. Rhetoric towards Iran is intensifying. Mark Thompson of Time Magazine recently reported how President Bush warned that "World War III" could be the consequence of Iran gaining the know-how to make nuclear weapons. Many analysts believe that this rhetoric is a prelude to the government bombing Iran. This would be a serious mistake that would harm U.S foreign relations and place American lives in jeopardy.

 

Thesis Statement: The United States Federal Government should not bomb Iran. Doing so would lead to terrible consequences.

 

Disadvantages:

 

Bombing Iran would harm the U.S.’s diplomatic influence in the Middle East:

Gary Samore, Vice President of the Council on Foreign Relations thinktank, March 23, 2007: 

An attack on Iran would provoke a strong political reaction, both in the region and internationally.  In the Arab street, Washington’s efforts to pull together a Sunni axis to counter Iranian influence in the region and restart the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians could be fatally wounded.  More broadly, U.S. efforts - along with the Europeans - to build a P-5 consensus in the Security Council against Iran’s nuclear program would be shattered... 

 

To give just one example of the potential harm: According to Michael Barletta of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies: If the capabilities of modern terrorist organizations continue to grow, the threat of nuclear terrorism will surely worsen in coming years. Meeting this multifaceted challenge will require a more comprehensive and diversified response than imagined only months ago, one that goes well beyond a focus on the protection of nuclear assets per se. With the wide-ranging war on terrorism and the establishment of the Office of Homeland Security, the United States is setting the right course. It (The United States) must now find the political will and financial resources to sustain these efforts and to lead other …nations to adopt similar strategies.

 

Interest Support: Example: We need allies in Iraq right now. So the cooperation of others is a key asset in the war on terror and we cannot afford to further abandon our relationship with other nations.

 

Bombing Iran risks creating a conflict between America and Middle Eastern Muslims:

 

Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org, April 24th 2007. Based on a poll of 4 Middle Eastern Countries that surveyed citizens from Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia:

 

Large majorities across all four countries believe the United States seeks to “weaken and divide the Islamic world.” On average 79 percent say they perceive this as a US goal, ranging from 73 percent in Indonesia and Pakistan to 92 percent in Egypt. Equally large numbers perceive that the United States is trying to maintain “control over the oil resources of the Middle East” (average 79%). Strong majorities (average 64%) even believe it is a US goal to “spread Christianity in the region.”

 

Concludes Steven Kull: “While US leaders may frame the conflict as a war on terrorism, people in the Islamic world clearly perceive the US as being at war with Islam.”

 

If that perception is allowed to become more prominent, we run the risk of alienating moderate Muslims and creating a real clash of civilizations. On March 2nd of 2007 Hoover Institute Fellow Dinesh D’Souza described “Western attacks on Islam and the Koran and Muhammad… have the effect of alienating traditional Muslims and pushing them toward the radical camp.” He sums up the danger: “Do we really want to go to war with a billion Muslims?”

 

Interest Support: Example: Consider 9/11 as an example. We live in a world where less than 20 people can kill almost three thousand thanks to the power of technology. The United States can ill afford to exponentially increase the number of people seeking to wipe American citizens off the face of the planet. Every Muslim that turns to extremism means less safety for American citizens and the world.

 

Bombing Iran could also provoke Retaliation:

 

Iran has the capability to directly strike America and its allies:

Reuters online News Service reported on November 7th that “in a 2007 parade to mark the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, Iran showed among its weaponry the Shahab-3 missile, saying it could reach 2,000 km (1,250 miles) -- enabling it to hit Israel and U.S. bases in the region.”

 

According to Rahim Safavi, former leader of the Iranian revolutionary guard on September 24th: “Americans should know that their 200,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are in Iran's range."

 

Iran’s ability to do us harm doesn’t stop at direct military action, however:

 

According to Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute in September of 2006:

(If we bombed) Tehran would be tempted to cause even more trouble than it is already doing for U.S. and British occupation forces in Iraq. The infiltration of a few thousand dedicated Revolutionary Guards, working with tens of thousands of Iraqis in Shiite militias, could accomplish that goal. The Iranian regime would also be tempted to unleash its terrorist ally, Hezbollah, on American targets throughout the Middle East. And there is always the risk that an attacked and humiliated Iran might do something incredibly rash, such as closing the Strait of Hormuz or launching attacks against Israel, triggering a massive regional crisis.

 

Interest Support: Example: Imagine the same organization that rained rockets down on Israel for weeks on end turning its attention to the United States.

 

Conclusion: The cost of bombing Iran would be measured not only in a cost to abstract notions of justice but in a fundamental shift in the tide of history and the potential loss of many, many American lives.

 

 

Roman Goerss

Public Speaking

11/08/07

 

Response Briefs

 

Don’t we need to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons?

 

Bombing Iran won’t prevent them from acquiring Nuclear weapons

 

Gary Samore, Vice President of the Council on Foreign Relations thinktank, March 23, 2007: 

Even if you assume that Iran’s known nuclear facilities could be destroyed by air strikes and that Iran does not have significant secret facilities for the production of fissile material (both of which I believe is true), Iran has probably taken the precaution of  stockpiling material and equipment so it could recover from military attack as quickly as possible.  Moreover, Iran would probably withdraw from the NPT after an attack, which would allow it to rebuild without international inspection and therefore be more able to hide the facilities from a second wave of attacks in the future.  In short, very few people believe that air strikes can stop Iran’s program; at best, it can delay Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons capacity for some uncertain period of time. 

 

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12935/iran.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F4643%2F

 

Is the danger of the government bombing Iran a serious one?

 

It’s very serious.

 

National Security Correspondent Seymour M. Hersh of the New Yorker wrote all the way back in April 17, 2006:

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

 

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact

 

Don’t the Iranians want us to overthrow their government? Won’t bombing trigger an uprising that will install moderates?:


Not Really.

 

According to World Public Opinion.org on July 19th 2007:

Surveys of Iran…do not actually support the idea that Iranians are profoundly unhappy with their system of government. Polls do find that majorities in Iran strongly value democracy. But majorities also believe, rightly or wrongly, that they already live in a fairly democratic country. And while Iranians would like to see an improvement in relations with the United States, polls show Iranians have a quite negative view of the United States.

 

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/379.php?lb=brme&pnt=379&nid=&id=

 

Don’t we need to bomb now, won’t they have the weapon soon?

 

Not according to the experts.

 

According to Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute in September of 2006:

 

Above all, as policymakers consider the various options, they need to avoid a sense of panic. U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran will not be able to build

nuclear weapons for another 5 to 10 years. Prominent independent experts agree with that assessment. Even the Israeli government, which has an obvious interest in presenting a worst-case scenario of the Iranian nuclear threat, concedes that Tehran will not be able to build such weapons for another 3 years.

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa578.pdf

 

 

Won’t bombing give us a much needed victory?

 

The American Public is actually against bombing Iran, so it would only make the country feel more angry and disempowered. Katrina Heuvel of the Nation wrote on April 12th 2007:

 

In dealing with Iran, for example, only 8 percent support possible military action – taking that scenario, the report concluded, "virtually off of the table for most of the public." (However, never say never with this crowd in the White House and a Congress that fears being portrayed as "weak on terrorism.") In fact, "attacking countries that develop weapons of mass destruction ranked at the very bottom" of ways to strengthen our nation's security .

 

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7&pid=185299

 

 

Won’t bombing stop Iran from interfering in Iraq and other countries?

Just the opposite:

 

Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker on April 17th of 2006 quoted a senior pentagon military advisor:

“The best terror network in the world has remained neutral in the terror war for the past several years,” the Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said of Hezbollah. “This will mobilize them and put us up against the group that drove Israel out of southern Lebanon. If we move against Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines. Unless the Israelis take them out, they will mobilize against us.” Given the current situation in the Middle East, this could easily trigger a war.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact?currentPage=7

 

Won’t Bush wait for the approval of the IAEA?

 

Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker on April 17th of 2006 quoted a European Diplomat who has worked with the Bush administration:

There is little sympathy for the I.A.E.A. in the Bush Administration or among its European allies. “We’re quite frustrated with the director-general,” the European diplomat told me. “His basic approach has been to describe this as a dispute between two sides with equal weight. It’s not. We’re the good guys! ElBaradei has been pushing the idea of letting Iran have a small nuclear-enrichment program, which is ludicrous. It’s not his job to push ideas that pose a serious proliferation risk.”

 

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact?currentPage=6

 

Won’t bombing set an example and keep other nations in line (i.e. Libya)?

 

Bombing Iran would even further alienate the Muslim World. There is a strong tradition of solidarity in the Muslim faith, and although many in the Middle East are at odds with one another.

Ted Carpenter of the CATO Institute wrote on September 20th 2006:

 

If the United States attacks yet another Muslim country (which would make three in the last five years), most Muslims from Morocco to Malaysia will believe that Washington is out to destroy their culture and religion. America’s troubles with the Islamic world do not yet constitute a war of civilizations, but attacking Iran could well produce that result (Carpenter 9).

 

Carpenter, Ted. “Iran’s Nuclear Program.” Policy Analysis 578 (2006): 1-20.

Linked to from: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6690

 

Don’t we have the right to force Iran’s compliance to the NPT?

 

Actually the NPT is on Iran’s side:

 

“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.”

 

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf

 

Iran would pass off nukes to terrorist groups:

 

We have no reason to believe Iran would risk a counterstrike by providing weapons to terrorists. Indeed they seem to already be motivated by deterrence:

 

Ted Carpeter of the CATO Institute wrote on September 20th 2006:

 

It is significant that Iran has possessed chemical weapons for decades, yet there is no

indication that it has passed on any of those weapons to Hezbollah or to Palestinian groups that Tehran supports politically. Why should one assume that the mullahs would be more reckless with nuclear weapons when the prospect of devastating retaliation for an attack would be even more likely? The more logical conclusion is that Iran, like other nuclear powers, would jealously guard its arsenal (Carpenter 11).

 

Carpenter, Ted. “Iran’s Nuclear Program.” Policy Analysis 578 (2006): 1-20.

Linked to from: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6690

 

Islam is already a religion of violence:

Islam is a complex religion with multiple interpretations: Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic Studies at American University writes:

If America is able to reinforce the position [of the moderate Muslims of the world] through respect, seminars, conferences, actions that will strengthen them in society, then in the long term they will prevail. Because Islam essentially is the religion of balance and good faith and compassion. But if America continues with abuses such as those at Abu Ghraib and fails to improve the situation forIraqis, then the literalists will prevail because they will have the ammunition to argue that America is on the warpath against Islam, and therefore we must support a jihad against the enemy of Islam--the United States.

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/187/story_18723_1.html#indonesia

 

 

Economic Consequences:

Bombing Iran would have serious economic consequences:

According to Barbara Slavin, Author, "Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation" October 31, 2007

Council on Foreign Relations

“If the U.S. attacked Iran, the price of oil would go over $100 a barrel.  Well, it's obviously going there already… it'll maybe go to $150.  And I just don't think that the economies of the world can take that kind of punishment.” 

 

http://www.cfr.org/publication/14723/us_iran_relations_rush_transcript_federal_news_service.html?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2F404%2Firan

 

Many worry that a rise in cost to something as essential to the U.S. economy as oil could have serious repercussions for all Americans. Writes John W. Schoen from MSNBC:

“Most analysts acknowledge there is a “tipping point” where high oil prices would knock the economy into recession.”

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21673708/page/2/

 

“We are in a danger zone,'' says Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight Inc. and a former Federal Reserve economist. ``It would take two shocks to bring the economy to its knees. We got one shock in the form of the credit crunch. Oil could be that second shock.''

 

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4767

 

International law:

 

According to Robert Naiman of the Center for Just Foreign Policy:

 

Under the UN Charter, members of the United Nations are not allowed to threaten to attack each other, so by threatening to attack Iran, the U.S. is violating international law. By threatening to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, the U.S. is violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - part of the NPT bargain between the nuclear and non-nuclear powers is that the nuclear powers agree not to threaten non-nuclear powers with nuclear weapons.

 

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/?p=290

 

 

Counterplan:

 

Senator Barack Obama says he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

 

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/?cat=2

 

 

 

Works Cited:

 

Time Magazine Quote: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1682595,00.html

 

Gary Samore Quote 1: http://www.cfr.org/publication/12935/iran.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F4643%2F

 

Michael Barletta Quote:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/opapers/op8/op8.pdf

 

U.S. Goal to weaken and divide Islam:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/346.php?lb=&pnt=346&nid=&id=

 

D’Souza quote:

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/03/02/letting-bin-laden-define-islam/

 

Iran Missile Data

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071107/tpl-uk-iran-usa-military-strength-02bfc7e_1.html

 

Missile Quote Source:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BLA555415.htm

 

Second Missile Quote Source:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSBLA42460020070924?pageNumber=1

 

Cato Institute Letters:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa578.pdf