The current war in Iran is justified

1. Straight of Hormuz

2. No nuclear weaponry

3. Allow bases to be set up close to Israel but not in israel

4. Oppressive regime that kills 30k of their own citizens at the same time

1.That point is confusing? Why should the US be the ones to control the straight of Hormuz? It is not land that belongs to the USA, nor should it. And to control it for economic/influence reasons, is a direct attack on the economic independence of every country that uses the straight for trade. Why sould foregin states owe the US to pass the straight of Hormuz? The US is not the world police, they are just another country, with very imperialistic and colonialism-like tendencies.

2. Why can't Iran have nuclear weaponry, but the US, Israel, France, UK, Russia, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea can? Iran is just as an unstable and unpredictable actor as North Korea, Russia, Israel and the current US administration. Also, Iran has it's proxies (eg: Hamas, Hezbollah.). Their nukes would be for deterrence, to stop an incoming israeli/american attack. 

3. That is not a valid reason to start a war, and put civilian lives in danger. If that is a valid and just reason, why hasn't russia attacked NATO to put bases closer to Belarus/Kalinigrad? Why hasn't China attacked southern nations to place bases closer to their allies and Taiwan? That excuse is just as bad as saying, "we are murdering civilians and causing an economic and humanitarian crisis so we can expand our OWN influence". Not to mention, the US has a very good foothold on the Middle-East. Israel is a military power who is an ally of the USA, the Saudi Arabia is a military and economic power who has very good ties to the US, and Iraq, Free Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE are all nations that are allies of the US, or host US bases or have good ties with them. Iran is pretty much surrounded.

4. Again, that is not a valid excuse. If the US want to play the world police, why not attack other dictactorial regimes? I get not attacking North Korea, China and Russia, they are, after all, nuclear powers. But why not tackle the dicatctorial regime in Myanmar? Why not end the civil war AND depose the military dictatorship in Sudan? Why not depose the extremely authoritarian and dictactorial regimes in Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan (you know, the war your president """"stopped"""", or mabye I should say "Aberbaijan"), Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan (again), Eritreia, Rwanda, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Chad and Mauritania? If the US want to be the good samaritan and help all those oppressed and being murdered by their regimes, do it fairly.

Also thank you for actually filling out arguments instead of just joining and forfeiting every round.

1. I’m not advocating for the USA to control the straight of Hormuz, I’m advocating (this is my least passionate point by the way but it is a benefit not a causation),  that instead of getting rid of arguably the most important straight to trade being blocked by high high taxes on every ship that passes by, would we want the USA to send a blockade all across the entrance the Panama Canal and ships can only pass if they pay us extreme amounts, I sure hope not. But also I’d advocate that the USA is acting like the world police and has been for a while, considering that no one else is doing the job, then who will, it’s better for the USA to do it instead of taking weak and/or oppressive countries to do it.

2. Those 12 countries that do have nuclear weaponry, got the weaponry BEFORE the the 1968 NPT agreement, which 90% (including Iran) of non nuclear countries prohibit the development of nuclear weapons. In which also in 2017 we got the TNPW agreement which is an updated version where it bans development, testing, (and possession for current non nuclear countries) of all nuclear weapons, in which Iran is breaking, which needs enforcement, and the UN isn’t doing anything, China and Russia would just back Iran, so the USA has to step in before 4 enemy countries have access to nuclear weapons. I don’t disagree with you that North Korea shouldn’t have them, but they had them before the agreements.

3. Sure it isn’t a valid causation, but it is a benefit that allows us to also have access to more eastern Middle East countries. Of course Russia cant just invade Ukraine to get bases towards Belarus, because they are also right next to Belarus, but Russia is doing it only to gain land, as well as Georgia and Azerbaijan 

4. Of course those regimes need to be stopped, and they should be in the future. USA can’t go after them however because they are more secluded, where as Iran publicly genocided them. Also after Iran I pray we will go to Cuba

1. Considering you agree/see that it is not a causation, I'll cede on that, as I misunderstood and thought you used that point in a matter of "it'll benefit us so it's okay to start a war over". It's a fact, control over the straight would benefit the US and the few allies the Trump administration hasn't shunned or insulted yet. In regard of the "world police" topic, there already is one. The UN is the world police, not the US. Russia looses it's veto power as soon as european leaders understand that Russia is very far from a superpower, and is just a country with numbers, nothing else. China's interests lie on subsarian/central Africa, so as long as they are appeased, they won't protest either (unless Xi Jingping decides to throw his patient demeanor out the window and starts making crucial mistakes like Putin). The last one with true veto power is the US. As long as the US commits to the UN, and actually punishes war criminals and genocidal leaders, then I'd be all for an intrevention of Iran. But as far as I'm concerned, the US is JUST another country. You are not an international organization with hundreds of members, the US (unfortunatly, because I personally held the US in very high regard after the amazing preformance of Biden in Ukraine and Obama's terms) are the modern representation of the new colonialism. "As long as you give me what I want, I don't care what you do" (Eg: The Indonesian invasion of East Timor and executions of suspected communists, funded and armed by the US; The ethnic cleansing of the Maya people in Guatemala by General Rios Montt; and the current genocide in Gaza, where the IDF are bombing civilian buildings and refugee camps). 

2. Not at all. Pakistan got their nuclear arsenal in 1998, India in 1974 and North Korea in 2006. And still, my point stands. Why can all of those countries have nuclear weapons but Iran can't? A fair agreement would be to NOT have nuclear weapons, for all countries. It is unjust that those countries get to have nuclear armament and veto power just because they were richer before the NPT agreement. (Just to be clear, I am, in no way, supportive of the iranian theocratic governament, even less of having nuclear weaponry in the hands of another dictactorial regime.)

3. Then if it's not a valid causation, it should not be used to justify the current conflict in Iran. 

4. Not at all. Many of those countries commit atrocities even clearer than in Iran, like in Sudan and Eritrea. Also, if the current US policy is to abandon NATO and your other allies like Taiwan and South Korea to avoid the death of your men, why go after other countries? Plus, don't forget that the Trump administration has done some VERY shady things and are walking to an authoritarian path. Mabye before worrying about other dictactorships, worry that your governament doesn't turn the Bastion of Liberty into the Bastion of Censorship.

I’m not going to talk about the third or first arguments anymore, however I am willing to debate the USAs involvement with UN in a different debate.

So you are absolutely correct about Pakistan India and North Korea. Pakistan and India however did not sign the NPT. Does this mean that we should forget them? Of course not. But were they a threat to the USA? No. So we were right not to get involved and the UN could’ve taken action. (I’ll stop talking about the UN now). 

North Korea is weird. I’d like to correct a minor thing of them getting their nuclear weapons in 2003 and not 2006. George W. Bush’s organization absolutely should’ve done something about it, as they were very vocal on how they dislike the “axis of evil” that they called North Korea. But also could’ve they done something is a question we can also ask. We did not discover their nuclear capabilities until they were finished. But even if we did the USAs military was already involved with the war on terrorism and splitting it with also dealing with east Asia would not be good for us. I hope you can understand why. 

But it’s different from the trump administration. Because Iran has not completed their nuclear weapons. We have been involved with military operations, but not in another war, besides giving foreign aid to Ukraine. So we have capabilities to stop them. Obviously China and Russia won’t, nato won’t, so if laws can’t be enforced it puts people at danger, so the USA is stepping up to that danger.

I wont get into shady buisness of trumps administration or go too heavily with nato. But they can be separate debates if you want.

NATO has no power, let’s face it. The USA threatened to leave nato twice and they quite literally begged for us to stay, because we do 90% of the work, so the arguments with South Korea and Taiwan or irrelevant because the protection of the USA alone is the same as the protection of NATO. Don’t believe me? Well let’s look at the war on Ukraine, I don’t think we can deny that the USA has been funding it, while some people may say France or UK is helping Ukraine. They are, but France has given them 10 planes and UK 10 tanks,. Yes this is an exaggeration but it’s honestly not that far off. 

But addressing African countries, most are in civil wars, which is different for Iran because they have the abilities to get weapons and fight for their freedom. Successful or not, this doesn’t affect the USA in a huge way. But the Iranians cannot fight back because they have militaries that became strong from OLDER aid from russia mostly but other communist countries. That’s why I also would want the USA to invade Cuba soon.

Before starting, I would be very interested in debating about NATO and/or the current administration, as those are topics that I educate myself and read about almost every day.

Iran is also not a threat to the USA. A threat to Israel? That it is. However, to the US? Iran does not have the power (in any sense, economic, military, etc) to reach US land. And, like I said, their nuclear devices would be to avoid this exact same thing that is happening right now. Also, thank you for correcting me in the year where North Korea got their nuclear weapons. I didn't know, and thought it was in 2006.

 

About NATO, you're wrong. Without NATO, the US fully loses it's foothold on Europe. We "begged" the US to stay only so we could worry about ourselves. Truth is, european leaders have become slacking, but we're not sloths that are defenseless without the US. NATO without the US would have the second largest fleet in the world, the largest infantry units in the world, the (2nd or 1st, not sure) largest armored veichle fleet in the world, and the second largest aviation fleet in the world. NATO would not be defenseless without the US. We can hold on alone pretty much. I'd say that the US being in NATO (currently, and with the current global tensions) only benefits us so we have another overseas "ally" and a few more manpower, i guess. About Ukraine, don't forget, military aid is not regular. A country like mine (Portugal) only has 30-ish Leopard 2s. So we would only be able to give them a small number. You used France and the UK as an example. France itself has about 200 Leclerc MBTs, so it's normal they can only give out 10, considering they are not a heavily militarized country like the US and also have overseas bases that need to be manned. Aid to Ukraine is proportional to the numbers of military apparel that the countries have. The african countries do not have a fighting chance for freedom. Each time they get a new governament, some new revolt appears, or corruption rises, or some power (mainly Russia and China) come to """aid""" them, and on the way establish bases and unfair agreements for african natural resourses. But that is another discussion, one that I would be interested in debating. It doesn't matter how old the Iranian jets or rifles are. 300+ americans have already died for a war that is utterly pointless and could've very much been avoided. Iran did NOT attack the US, because they don't have the power to, and they would gain nothing from an attack like that. Is not hypocritical to abandon your allies (that have shed blood and lost hundreds fighting your wars) because you want a more domestic-focused policy but then you go attack other countries to "free" them? Also, they USA does not have a good track record when it comes to "freeing" countries. Iraq, Granada, Panama, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, etc...

Starting, I guess we are we just don’t have agreement that Iran isn’t a threat to the USA. Because we have bases closer to Iran and if what the reports are said to be true, the developing missiles that are in Iran’s land will have capabilities to reach mainland.

I’m just going to forget nato and do a separate debate

But with your arguments if Britain and France having limited military and not being able to afford to send some to Ukraine further proves my point. If other countries won’t be able to help the Iranian people because they’re weak, we need to intervene. One of the greatest minds that I can think of is Dietrich Bonhoeffer and he famously said “Silence in the face of evil is evil itself”. While you could try and say it is irrelevant with other examples that are true, I would say that the correlation is eerily similar to Irans situation with what Bonhoeffer s was with Nazi Germany.

I still will stand by my claim that Africa is very different from Iran because he said yourself that there has and will be revolts. Iran is unable to have revolts to try and have a chance to get rid of the bottom of barrel regime they have right now.

I very much disagree with your 300+ deaths in the war. As there has publicly been only 13. Yes that is only publicly and what we know of, but even so it’d be a max of 30.

To the pointless war, the debate is to prove it is not pointless so we are just going to only say that when the debates over. 

Iran does impose an upcoming threat as they are devolving nuclear weapons capable of reaching the coast of California. And considering the past 4 years of Iran repeating saying “Death to America” i would say that having people who are saying that more than all other East Asian countries combined is probably not a good idea.

You do have a great point however of saying countries where we have not done well with. I could however say the opposite with countries that have worked when we had interference (South Korea, Kuwait, Thailand, etc) so it is a little pointless for the both of us, which is why I haven’t included it yet. But if that hasn’t convinced you yet, let’s look at when the USA and UK reinstated the shah of Iran, in which it became the FASTEST growing country in the world, with Tehran being the wealthiest city in the western hemisphere. Iran only fell when the USA backed out of Iran and the citizens got rid of the government, which cause Iran to turn to shambles.

First of all, other countries are definitly NOT weak. One royal marine is enough to deal with about some 5-6 iranian regular infantrymen, as the royal marines (for example) are arguably an low-tier special forces unit, comparable to Green Berets, in certain aspects, so other powers like the UK, France, Germany do have the capabilities to mop up Iran. There just isn't a need to. The Iranian governament might be unstable and violent, but they are not stupid. They know that any kind of engagement with NATO or the US alone leads to their own demise, just as it's happening. Like I said, the iranians obtaining nuclear devices would be for deterrence, NOT for offense, as once again, that would be the demise of not only the theocratic regime but the iranian people and civilization as a whole. 


As the 300 deaths, I meant casualties (injured, etc.). I was distracted and said deaths, sorry. But still, the Trump administration claims that Iran is out of the fight yet about 2B dollars worth of high-grade military equipment (1 F-35s, several KC-130 with one being a total loss, several MQ-9 drones, etc) and they cannot get close to the Iranian shore without being in range of drone swarms, something that has sunk american aircraft carriers in war games. For a country so weak and that would cost the US nothing, loosing several high-tech aviation devices does not look like such a win to me, considering that, to some extent, Iran is still there. 

Again the "death to America" comments are closer to bluff/propaganda (Just like Russia when it says to it's people that they are winning the war, etc). They are nothing but public statements to help with the brainwashing. Like I said, Iran governament knows a war with the US means a loss. 

I agree, it is true that the US, to a certain extent, have helped lift countries out of dictatorships, like you said, South Korea, and Kuwait and Thailand. But unfortunatly, the mistakes surpass the successes. 

To summarize, I just personally believe that it is not the US's place to intervene with Iran. If the UN ordered it, (and I believe they should), then I'd be more than supportive of US military action in Iran. But they did not. Iran did not attack the US, and even if the american people sees Iran as a threat, they did not attack. Fact is, the agressor here is the US and Israel. (Israel being a nation that repeatedly attacked it's neighbors and drag the US into their pointless wars.)

Sure the countries you named aren’t weak, but that is comparably. If UK was fighting Iran instead of the USA, they would have less money to spend on supporting troops and machines. If one plane went down in the war it’d be devastating, but if a plane in the USA went down, it would be a “aww man that stinks” and move on. The USA can afford it. We are not throwing soldiers there to fight by the way. We do have strategic military procedures that minimize casualties for us. If not then we’d have maybe 1k dead.

And for the argument that it looks like the USA is taking more damage than Iran, let’s look at this.

USA vs Iran

Causualties:  500 vs 26k

Vehicles damaged: 

30 drones vs 400 missile sites destroyed

1 Aircraft carriers vs 155 vessels

3 Fighter jets vs unknown but estimated to be 30

Land destroyed:

0 Acres vs 12% of the ENTIRE COUNTRY

So I don’t think we are losing the war.

Iran has not use it as propaganda because it was not targeted for citizens, when Russia does this it’s in newspapers of Russian tv channels for citizens to see. When Iran does this it is in public videos sent to the World. As most of their citizens obviously aren’t  succeptible  to propaganda if they are mass protesting even after being mass genocided during those protests.

The damages are over the benefits argument is just very wrong in my view. As we built a major trade canal through Panama, revolutionizing trade through the east and west, we stop the mass murder of Christians with Kuwait, same with Israel, made the highest growing country in the east, that only went downhill when USA wasn’t involved. Etc. The damages that have been done was most notably Vietnam, which yes does suck, but that was 70 years ago and when the USSR was here fighting us for it, the Iran war isn’t against Iran and China/russia, it’s against Iran alone.

Waiting for the UN is the most pointless thing to do as they have not done anything in the past decades, and nothing they do can be enforced. It is a moneymaking scheme that the USA should withdraw from(in another debate however) and still “Silence in the face of evil is evil itself” -Dietrich Bonhoeffer