Mr Khan said:
* Iran using the weapon is highly unlikely but the best counter argument to that is organizational theory on a state level. There are domestic factors that do infact cause States to act irrational.
* Nuclear proliferation in the middle east is likely is the stance I took. Heres a counter argument to it. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/02/don_t_fear_a_nuclear_arms_race?wp_login_redirect=0 (argues Egypt, Saudia Arabia, are incapable and Turkey is in NATO therefore uner USA nuclear emberalla)
* Coming from a US point of view, does a nuclear Iran effect US interest in the region enough it could be considered a threat to national security?
- Why does iran want nuclear weapons?
* Does nuclear weapons bolster Iran ability to fight proxy war against US and US allies? and is this a big enough threat that Iran should be stopped at all cost?
* I make the same the point.
Though so far economic sanctions have not stopped Iran and they did not stop North Korea. An argument is made that sanctions hurt US chances at stopping them. The sanctions only further encourage Iran to seek Nuclear weapons in order to gain bargaining leverage. It also turns future generations of Iranians against the US. The chance at diplomacy is now with the new president and the US shouldn't play hardball because its been proven ineffective.
* Attacks on Syria by Israel worked to thwart their nuclear ambitions, and after the first Gulf War Iraq did not restart their program either.
* Forgot about the Russian thing, That actually really helps.
I've already used most of your points in my paper but going back and fourth helps me work out kinks in the arguments.
My Real Redneck friends