We Must Tolerate a Nuclear Iran
Debate Details
There is no doubt that a nuclear Iran would be a danger to the United States and its allies. But would the costs of going to war outweigh the costs of tolerating a nuclear Iran? And is diplomacy without the threat of military force ineffective?
The Debaters
For the motion
George Perkovich
George is an expert in US foreign policy, non-proliferation, security, global governance, non-governmental actors, India, Iran and Pakistan.Read More
Karim Sadjadpour
Karim Sadjadpour is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment. He joined Carnegie after four years as the chief Iran analyst at the International... Read More
Sanam Vakil
Sanam is a former research associate for the Council on Foreign Relations' Iran Project and served as a consultant to the World Bank Group's Middle... Read More
Against the motion
Patrick Clawson
Patrick's previous positions include five years as senior research professor at the National Defense University's Institute for National Strategic... Read More
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Reuel Marc Gerecht is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a non-partisan institution focusing on national security... Read More
William Kristol
Kristol is widely recognized as one of the nation's leading political analysts and commentators, Kristol regularly appears on Fox News Sunday and... Read More
Where Do You Stand?
- In the interest of self-preservation, Iran is unlikely to engage in unprovoked nuclear warfare against the West; thus efforts to subvert a nuclear Iran are more dangerous than tolerating one.
- Imposing nuclear sanctions on Iran would foster nationalistic sentiment and further challenge diplomatic relations between the Iranian government and the West.
- The U.S. does not have the global political capital to force Iran to comply with its demands, and attempts to do so would harm America’s reputation abroad.
- Iran has declared its intent to use nuclear weapons for military purposes and poses an immediate threat to its enemies; the U.S. should act before Iran develops a nuclear arsenal and cannot be diplomatically contained.
- Once developed, Iran’s nuclear program will likely extend to its allies and may lead to a global arms race.
- Many countries, including Brazil, South Africa and South Korea, have voluntarily given up nuclear weapons development in pursuit of global stability; Iran should do the same.
This vote is intended to capture your opinions before hearing tonight’s debate.
This vote is intended to capture your opinions after hearing tonight’s debate.
Are you sure?
{{ currentQuestion }} of {{ questions.length }}
Are you sure?
Are you sure?
{{ currentQuestion }} of {{ questions.length }}
Are you sure?
Review your answers below:
: {{ preVote[i] }}
Review your answers below:
: {{ postVote[i] }}
Post-debate voting in
{{ days }}d {{ hours }}h {{ minutes }}m {{ seconds }}sPlease enjoy the debate and come back afterwards to cast your Post-Debate vote
Before you cast your final vote, please tell us how you watched the debate
Tell us why you changed your mind:
For the Motion Against the Motion Undecided
: {{ preVote[i] }}
: {{ postVote[i] }}
Thank you for joining us! Enter your email address below to receive the post-debate analysis and debate updates from IQ2US.
Results
- Live Audience
- Online Audience
- Results
- Breakdown
The Discussion