[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comments][01.16-17]

敛寒影UID: 2613052

Iran

This house believes that the world would be safer if Iran's nuclear facilities were bombed.

January 11th 2009

From: http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/442

Nobody wants another war in the Middle East. Most people, including our two debaters, agree that a diplomatic solution is preferable. The question is whether a negotiated deal is feasible. Both Chuck Wald and Emily Landau concur that diplomacy, even with President Barack Obama's hand stretched out to Iran, has been unsuccessful. General Wald says it is time to move to tough sanctions and, if that fails, military action. Dr Landau says it is worth giving diplomacy another shot.

Defending the motion

General Chuck F. Wald   

Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Centre

Too often belligerent motives are ascribed to anyone who suggests the viability of the military option in resolving the international standoff over Iran's nuclear programme. However, the argument in favour of military action is not about what is preferred but rather about what might be necessary.

Against the motion

Dr Emily Landau

Senior research associate at the Institute for National Security Studies

The correct statement is that the world would be a safer place if Iran did not acquire a military nuclear capability. But bombing Iran's nuclear facilities is not going to achieve that goal, especially at this late stage of the game. It is with this in mind that I oppose the motion.

The proposer's opening remarks

I welcome this debate on such a provocative question. Too often belligerent motives are ascribed to anyone who suggests the viability of the military option in resolving the international standoff over Iran's nuclear programme. However, the argument in favour of military action is not about what is preferred but rather about what might be necessary.

It would be foolhardy to argue that military action is the preferred policy option for stopping Iran's nuclear aspirations, which are strategically untenable for the United States. No American general is eager for war. There remain levers, such as biting sanctions, that have yet to be tried. They should be implemented immediately and given a chance to work. But, should all other options fail to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, a US-led military strike is preferable to an Israeli attack, and certainly preferable to a nuclear weapons-capable Iran. Thus, I believe that maintaining and asserting publicly that military action is an option of last resort is the best hope we have for international security and peace. I have three main reasons for this view.

First, we are running out of both time and options. Diplomacy has failed. The Obama administration's commendable efforts to reach out to Tehran for the past year have yielded no progress, as the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has acknowledged. Instead, Iran has had an additional year to continue enriching uranium and has grown impudent enough to dictate deadlines for negotiating to the international community. While there is still hope for a new round of sanctions against Iran, these would have to be both multilateral in scope and much stricter than previous iterations in order to have any effect. Given continuing Russian reluctance, Chinese indifference and EU apprehension, it seems unlikely that we will see internationally-backed biting sanctions soon, if at all.

Nor does the prospect of regime change strike me as a particularly likely solution to this problem. The Iranian government appears to have no compunction about using violence to quell protests. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in particular, has so insinuated itself into Iran's economic and political structures that it has greater financial incentive to maintain power by deadly force than to make political concessions. But even should the opposition somehow succeed in wresting power from the current regime, there has been no indication among some of its leaders that it would curtail Iran's nuclear programme. Whether a new regime would be friendly towards the West is questionable, and I fear that they certainly will not be nuclear-adverse.

Meanwhile, it is increasingly likely that Iran will be able to develop a nuclear weapon by the end of 2010, should it choose to do so. A series of reports by the Bipartisan Policy Center, Meeting the Challenge, which I co-authored, make clear that given Iran's known nuclear capabilities at Natanz and its growing stockpile of low-enriched uranium, Tehran could be in a position to begin constructing a nuclear weapon by as early as March of this year. This is the timetable that must drive our policy, and not consideration for when sanctions or regime change might materialise.

Second, we must be realistic about the positive role the military option can play in averting a nuclear weapons-capable Iran. Holding war games or deploying an additional battle carrier group to the area might do more than any sanction to persuade Tehran that continued intransigence is too dangerous. Moreover, without necessarily firing a single shot, the US Navy could blockade Iranian ports in support of any international sanctions.

Should such pressure prove insufficient, and only once all other policy options have been exhausted, the United States could and should launch a punishing strike against Iranian nuclear and military installations. Such an attack would mostly involve air assets not currently strained by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We would also derive significant advantages from the presence of US forces in countries that border Iran. At the same time, we would need to ensure that our regional allies have additional air, missile and coastal port defence capabilities as well as upgraded facilities and militaries, so as to protect key assets.

Air strikes may disclose the previously unknown locations of Iranian facilities as Iranian forces move to protect them. The upcoming deployment of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) will give US air units additional ability to destroy nuclear sites buried underground. But even should those facilities resist sustained bombing, their entrances and exits will not.

We must, of course, be conscious of the major risks of military action. These include the possibility of US and allied casualties, galvanising Iranian support for the government, either direct or proxy Iranian retaliation, and unrest in the region, fomented by Iran.

It is also important to recognise that in order to be successful any military strike would require years of continued vigilance. It is too late to eliminate Iran's nuclear know-how; any bombing campaign would only delay their nuclear development. Thus, we would have to retain the ability to strike previously undiscovered sites and to ensure that Iran does not revive its nuclear programme.

Third, we must weigh the risks of failing to stop Iran's nuclear programme. Should the Iranians acquire a nuclear weapon, or even the ability to quickly assemble one, Iran would dominate the Persian Gulf, threaten moderate Arab regimes, embolden radicals throughout the region, pose an existential threat to Israel and destabilise Iraq. Additionally, with an effective nuclear deterrent, Iran will be freer to sponsor terrorism, wage proxy warfare, derail the Middle East process and violently repress its burgeoning democratic movement.

On the other hand, if Israel, in an event to prevent the above coming to pass, chose to conduct a unilateral military strike, it would alter the region's strategic landscape dramatically. Not only would such a strike be less effective than one led by the United States, it would yield widespread international condemnation—at least publicly—and could provoke Iranian retaliation against US interests and allies.

We all hope for a peaceful resolution of Iran's nuclear ambitions. But should we fail to reach one, a US-led military strike will be the least bad option available to us.

The opposition's opening remarks

The correct statement is that the world would be a safer place if Iran did not acquire a military nuclear capability. But bombing Iran's nuclear facilities is not going to achieve that goal, especially at this late stage of the game. It is with this in mind that I oppose the motion.

Military strikes can play a certain role in dealing with states' illegal military-directed nuclear programmes, but only when carried out at an early stage and preferably with the element of surprise. For this kind of nipping in the bud strategy to work, the nuclear programme must be limited in scope, so that serious damage can be achieved with a single blow. This is the essence of a pre-emptive military strike, as opposed to action that could easily become the prelude to war. In addition, predictions of the likely response of the attacked state must be taken into account by the attacking state, and assessed to be either of a very low probability, or entailing a minimal and/or acceptable degree of damage.

At the current stage of the international community's dealings with Iran, these conditions no longer exist. Military action will not eliminate the problem. With nuclear facilities spread throughout the country and Iran having prepared itself for years for this scenario by building up fortifications and defences, such a strike could at the very best delay the pace of its progress towards the bomb for a few years. And it would come at a relatively high price in terms of Iran's expected reaction; beyond the military response itself, it would open an account between Iran and whoever attacked it that would be very difficult to settle. Moreover, whether it was the United States or Israel that attacked Iran, the other would surely be implicated by Iran.

But there are additional reasons to reject the military approach. In conceptual terms, the major drawback of military attack as a tool of non-proliferation is that it focuses on denying capabilities, rather than altering states' motivations. Regardless of how successful a particular attack might be, it is less likely to become the basis for a long-term solution to the challenge posed by a determined proliferator than would be a negotiated bargain. We saw this in the case of Iraq. Israel's June 1981 attack on Osirak caused considerable damage and a serious setback to Iraq's nuclear programme, but did little to alter Iraq's basic motivation to acquire a military nuclear capability. Indeed, in the 1991 Gulf war it was revealed that Iraq was on the verge of achieving a military nuclear capability; in other words, its nuclear programme was delayed, but it remained motivated to achieve its goal, and continued working in that direction.

Tactically speaking, use of military force in the case of Iran could also backfire. While the goal of the attack would be not only to cause a setback in its programme, but to pressure Iran and put it on the defensive, Iran could easily use a limited attack on its facilities to advance its case. Because Iran consistently denies that it is working towards a military nuclear capability, if attacked it would use this in order to turn on the international community. Iran would accuse the United States and/or Israel of carrying out senseless acts of aggression when it is doing everything possible to cooperate with the international community.

Finally, there is an additional question of who would bomb? Would it be the United States? Israel? Practically speaking, there are no certain candidates for this job. Barack Obama has clarified that military action is not a realistic option, even though he continues to provide lip service to it by saying from time to time that all options are on the table. And while Israel might be more willing to carry out an attack on Iran's facilities, it is not clear whether it has the capability to do so, or whether it could or would act without a green light from the United States.

The reason military action might be considered for Iran at the present stage is that the diplomatic process has been unsuccessful. The problems encountered have been due both to Iran's demonstrated ability to consistently avoid serious discussion of its nuclear ambitions while gaining valuable time to press its nuclear program forward, and also to the lack of clear triggers for determined international action in the light of Iran's lack of compliance. Years went by without any meaningful response to Iran's defiance because international actors were skeptical of taking action before they identified a "smoking gun". With all the evidence now gained of Iran's military nuclear ambitions, the major players that have taken it upon themselves to intervene—from 2006 this has referred primarily to the P5+1 (US, Russia, France, UK and China, plus Germany)—are still not on the same page as far as their assessment of Iran. There are still different views of the stage Iran has achieved, the nature of the threat that it poses and to whom, and the best way to respond. Ongoing lack of unity and resolve on the part of the members of the international team facing Iran has played to its clear advantage.

Despair over the unsuccessful diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions so far has raised the perceived value of military action, but the best way to proceed is still diplomacy. What the diplomatic option needs, however, is a serious makeover. The United States needs to take the lead in this process and demonstrate its unwavering resolve, rather than allow Iran to dictate the pace and even content of the talks. The challenge for the United States is to move from simply embracing diplomacy to devising a coherent and focused strategy for carrying out what will no doubt be a difficult negotiation with Iran. But a negotiated settlement has the best prospect of improving regional conditions over the long term.

adammaksimUID: 2675466

biting sanctions sanctions 复数：国际制裁

galvanise vt.原意 电镀，引申为唤醒，很生动~

deterrent adj. 威慑的，制止的

nip in the bud strategy  就是扼杀在摇篮里吧

pre-emptive 先发制人

lip service 应酬话，假殷勤

smoking gun：The term "smoking gun" was originally, and is still primarily, a reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act. In addition to this, its meaning has evolved in uses completely unrelated to criminal activity: for example, scientific evidence that is highly suggestive in favor of a particular hypothesis is sometimes called smoking gun evidence. Its name originally came from the idea of finding a smoking (i.e., very recently fired) gun on the person of a suspect wanted for shooting someone, which in that situation would be nearly unshakable proof of having committed the crime. A piece of evidence that falls just short of being conclusive is sometimes referred to as a "smoldering gun."这个短语很有用，学习之~

comments:

"War is the bleeding politics, and politics is a war with no blood." As to me, war is not an alternative of diplomacy, but part of it, for both of them aim at the same goal determined by the need of politics. If there is a need in politics to launch a war, you will get one, and what contributes to this need is a little obscure for outsiders, like me, to clarify, yet I believe national security and economic interest will play a more important role in this game instead of world peace.

Moreover, this debate reminds me of another famous saying “No permanent enemies, no permanent friends, only permanent interests." War and diplomacy are both tools of politics to achieve a maximized national interest. As in this case, it can explain why Israel is more eager to implement military actions on Iran, for if Iran finally realizes its nuclear dream, it will be a bomb in Israel’s backyard. In contrast, as for America, a much more powerful country, though its potential interests will be threaten, it's not seriously enough for Uncle Sam to launch another war on the other side of the globe. And taking the possible retaliation from Iran, regional chaos, the different views existing in U.N. and America's domestic economy condition(yet I have to admit sometimes in some certain condition, a war can be the very best stimulus for economy.) into account, whether the advantages of a war can overweigh the disadvantages is hard to say.  

To sum up, neither a radical Iran with nuclear weapons or a war which in the most extreme case, can be the prelude of WW3 is not a ideal option to the world. At last we have to resort to the diplomacy and the sophistication of our politicians, although sometimes they are not so effective.

plukaUID: 2721764

NOTE

concur（同时发生，同意）

Dr Landau says it is worth giving diplomacy another shot.（值得再给一次机会）
the international standoff（抵消和局平衡） over Iran's nuclear programme.

foolhardy（愚勇的，有勇无谋的）

yielded no progress

using violence to quell protests.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in particular, has so insinuated（使迂回地潜入） itself into Iran's economic and political structures.

curtail（缩减） Iran's nuclear programme.
Tehran could be in a position to （能够，有做…的机会）begin constructing a nuclear weapon by as early as March of this year.

intransigence（不妥协态度，不让步，不调和）

upcoming（即将来临的）

know-how（专门知识，技术诀窍）
Third, we must weigh the risks of failing to stop Iran's nuclear programme.

nuclear deterrent（核威慑力量）, Iran will be freer to sponsor terrorism, wage proxy warfare, derail the Middle East process and violently repress its burgeoning democratic movement.
the least bad option available to us.（最不坏的选择）
nipping in the bud

This is the essence of a pre-emptive（抢先的） military strike, as opposed to action that could easily become the prelude to war.
it focuses on denying capabilities, rather than altering states' motivations.

Iraq was on the verge of achieving a military nuclear capability

Barack Obama has clarified that military action is not a realistic option, even though he continues to provide lip service（说得好听的话，空口的应酬话） to it by saying from time to time（有时） that all options are on the table（在桌面上，公开地）.

it could or would act without a green light（绿灯，放行，准许） from the United States.

COMMENT


The nuclear disarmament ranks the most persistent and tricky issue in the world. Iran riles the world, especially the United States, by taking a intransigent stance and continuing procession towords the nuclear weapon. Under the context of failed diplomacy, military action has been proposed as a possible option; controversies are triggered.


Advocates for bombing Iran listed several reasons. Firstly, options seems have been run out and the diplomacy resulted in fruitless negotiations controled by not the UN but Iran themselves. No progress has been yield insofar the current context, and the proposal of a new regime cannot guarantee a better prospect. Iran, in the meantime, is gaining the capability to build the nuclear weapon: the action is exigent. Secondly, as the last option, military strike will indeed yield some achievement. Not only can it destroy the known nuclear sites in Iran, it can also disclose the unknown locations, clear up Iran's nuclear threat with the assistant of subsequent surveillance. Given the incalculably catastrophe that may be provoked by Iran's nuclear program, a military action should be reserved as final option.


Opponents' contentions delved deeper on political aspect, pointing out that a bombing attack could lend Iran an excuse to accuse the US as unjust war starter. Also, the bombing itself may lead to ambiguous consequence due to the lack of preemptive advantage. Instead of clearing the nuclear threat, military actions could not fight the motives, leaving Iran the continuing ambition to revive its nuclear program. The opponent then explored the possible access by which a more fruitful negotiation could be conducted. The diplomacy, she insisted, would always be a preferable option.


As for my own opinion, I find the opponent's argument more convincing. For one thing, I do not think that the United Stats can afford the price of military action which may trigger another war--in fact, no country can. For another, as the opponent have asserted, long-term peace and quiet can not achieved through crude and oversimplified bombing.


错别字：surveillance

KiKi~淇水滺滺UID: 2679824

今天先贴下好词好句好了

Too often belligerent（交战的） motives are ascribed（随意给予） to anyone who suggests the viability（可行性） of the military option in resolving the international standoff（僵局） over Iran's nuclear programme. However, the argument in favour of military action is not about what is preferred but rather about what might be necessary.

But bombing Iran's nuclear facilities is not going to achieve that goal, especially at this late stage of the game.

Both Chuck Wald and Emily Landau concur that diplomacy, even with President Barack Obama's hand stretched out to Iran, has been unsuccessful.

Dr Landau says it is worth giving diplomacy another shot.

by common consensus

How much time will General Wald give sanctions before he decides it is time to pull the trigger?

An interesting question, in light of the "green" movement that is protesting on the streets of Iran, is whether a different regime might give up nuclear ambitions.

And even if a reformist regime were to pursue nuclear weapons, might it not be less frightening than the current lot led by。。。。。

All this is reminiscent of Iraq.

In short, General Wald's prescription could mean a decade or more of conflict with Iran

a provocative question

Should all other options fail to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, a US-led military strike is preferable to an Israeli attack.

Given continuing Russian reluctance, Chinese indifference and EU apprehension, it seems unlikely that we will see internationally-backed biting sanctions soon, if at all.

The Obama administration's commendable efforts to reach out to Tehran for the past year have yielded no progress


Comment
As the most powerful country all over the world, United States always considers itself as the world policeman. Just like what is said in this debate: “Given continuing Russian reluctance, Chinese indifference and EU apprehension, it seems unlikely that we will see internationally-backed biting sanctions soon, if at all.” It will criticize the ignorance of other countries to emphasize how much it cares about the all people living in this planet. Last time is the weapon in Iraq and this time, it focus on Iran.

Actually, it always seems a perfect excuse to invade another country for American government in my sight. How acid Times choose this topic to discuss when Mr Obama just received the Nobel Peace prize two months ago.

prettywraithUID: 197049

Comments (2010-01-16, 17):
There is no country like the United States, which could invade other counties for oil or other benefits under the flag of democracy or anti-terrorism. As a global police officer, the United States once again puts his gun aim at another country's head. This debate only concerns if it is necessary to take a military action. Both proposer and objector do not consider if their past political strategies in the Middle East was just. From my perspective, most American politicians believe that they have caught their satisfactory benefits and maintained an ideal balance in there, and American people believe that they have gotten their expected justice which is judged by their own values. As a matter of fact, American government has fomented the terrorism fighting for them over the long term. Moreover, one of results of the war is the high financial deficit, which will be solved by raising the taxes. In other words, American people pay for military expenditure of the invasion. Besides the unrest Middle East and continuous terrorist attacks, American people also make the weapon suppliers rich, and help the government get the cheaper oil, which is may be gotten in other ways. But, for American people themselves, I do not imagine what are the benefits of the war bring to them.

For Iran nuclear crisis, both arguers express their views clearly. Standing on the position as an American politician, I uphold the Mr. Wald's assertion. I have explained the reasons in above paragraph. And in my eyes, the war like Iraq War, almost nobody gets the benefits except for politicians and munitions merchants. Standing on the position as an American citizen, I prefer to Ms. Landau's remarks. The main reasons are peace has become main stream of world in the nuclear weapon era, and "a negotiated settlement has the best prospect of improving regional conditions over the long term". Furthermore, why American citizens will pay for another war unrelated their own benefits. Ironically, Mr. Wald also admits "Whether a new regime would be friendly towards the West is questionable and I fear that they certainly will not be nuclear-adverse". In other words, even if the current regime will be overthrown, the new regime still does not give up the nuclear program. If the America’s military action will solve this problem forever? I do not think so.

Wrong spelling:
military   millitary
value     vlaue
political   polictical
themselves  themslves

doodaUID: 2712643

Comment：
Nonproliferation of nuclear weapons are widely accepted by most of counties due to they have the power to threaten even thoroughly destroy out planet. To achieve this goal, US and other international communities conducted diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions but till now, failed to thwart.

Advocates of bombing off the Iran’s nuclear facilities assert that military strike will be the last and least bad option for US to take. Given the final, bitter international sanctions will be hard to implement,  Iran will gain more time to finalize his plan of making nuclear weapon and put it into reality. That will be too late for US to take military actions to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites.

On the other hand, opponents point out that military actions has lost the best occasion as a preemptive military strike; also the bombing can only be effective in temporarily destroy the nuclear facilities but can not erase Iran’s motivation of own nuclear weapons; third, more sophisticated strategic reasons reveal Iran must accuse US and its allies of carrying out aggression.

In my point of view, I think both proposer and opponent arguments are reasonable in terms of their individual view angle. Diplomatic strategies help make the situation more complicated and drag in more counties to involve. The merit of it can prevent radical action between tow counties and avoid war. While, on the other hand, it hard to form an effective union which have the same interests and same understanding of Iran’s threaten to whom. Those shortage make time for Iran to advanced its plan. By fortifying military strike, advocates suggest to take immediate action to bombing Iran before they assemble the nuclear weapon. What I suggest are balance the merits of both action and have Iran be conscious that if they carry out its plan intransigently, military strike can be materialized anytime when evaluations show sufficient evidence that Iran close to make it, but before that, US had better to find what the Iran’s real interests and fear through diplomatic ways.

海王泪UID: 2673613

My Comment

The proposer has three reasons for America to wage a war against Iran. No other better choice, realistic and positive effect of military strike, and worse consequence than what people have thought stand at the side that military option is necessary.

The opposition begins with pointing out the limited situation for taking military action. Only under specific conditions do the attacks make sense. Then she suggests additional reasons against the military option: Motivation would not change though US succeed in destroying facilities; backfire may arouse with the international community when US is doubted for senseless aggression; and who carry out the bomb attack remains a question. Thus the opposition is still in favor of diplomatic option, but different policies should be made in the negotiation to make progress in peace.

As far as I am concerned, the opposition’s opening remarks is more convinced. I agree with her argument that military action is ineffective and inefficient because it could not change Iran’s motivation but only put United States into a condemned position.

敛寒影UID: 2613052

commendable值得表扬的
yielded产生 no progress
have no compunction悔恨 about
intransigence不妥协态度，不让步，不调和
be conscious of知道
widespread international condemnation

play a certain role in dealing with...but only when

nipping in the bud防患于未然

the prelude序幕 to
and assessed to be either of a very low probability

in terms of根据，按照，在。。方面
surely be implicated by

In conceptual terms
Tactically speaking
Years went by without any meaningful response to

as far as远到，直到，至于


Regardless of how successful a particular attack might be, it is less likely to become the basis for a long-term solution to the challenge posed by a determined proliferator than would be a negotiated bargain. We saw this in the case of Iraq.

Comment:

Mr Wald think over this problem from wider prospect,he argued that military action is necessary with the reason that we are running out of both time and options,and we should not give Iron time to build up fortifications and defences.Considering the risks of failing to stop Iran's nuclear programme, there are positive role the military option plays in averting a nuclear weapons-capable Iran,such as air strikes may disclosing the previously unknown locations of Iranian facilities as Iranian forces move to protect them.
On the other side, Mrs Landau consider this problem from the more detailed aspects,listing several realistic problems we have to face,pointing out bombing Iran's nuclear facilities is not going to achieve that goal that the world would be a safer place.
I side on Mrs Landau’s oppinion. No American general is eager for war. But a negotiated settlement has the best prospect of improving regional conditions over the long term.

123runfordreamUID: 2697608

It is with this in mind that I oppose the motion.

It would be foolhardy
(foolishly adventurous and bold)to argue that military action is the preferred policy option for stopping Iran's nuclear aspirations, which are strategically untenable (not able to be defended)for the United States. No American general is eager for war. There remain levers, such as biting sanctions, that have yet to be tried.


We must, of course, be conscious of the major risks of military action. These include the possibility of
US and allied casualties, galvanising (to shock or surprise someone so that they do something to solve a problem, improve a situation etc) Iranian support for the government, either direct or proxy (n.代理权，代表权；代理人) Iranian retaliation, and unrest in the region, fomented by Iran.

Third, we must weigh the risks of failing to stop Iran's nuclear programme.
Should the Iranians acquire a nuclear weapon, or even the ability to quickly assemble one, Iran would dominate the Persian Gulf, threaten moderate Arab regimes, embolden radicals throughout the region, pose an existential threat to Israel and destabilise Iraq. Additionally, with an effective nuclear deterrent (the nuclear weapons that a country has in order to prevent other countries from attacking it), Iran will be freer to sponsor terrorism, wage proxy warfare, derail the Middle East process and violently repress its burgeoning democratic movement.


The challenge for the United States is to move from simply embracing diplomacy to devising a coherent and focused strategy for carrying out what will no doubt be a difficult negotiation with Iran.


Comment:
Nuclear again. This time happen in Iran, a sensitive district in the Middle East. Seen this debate, it focuses on whether it’s necessary to open fire on Iran to stop the nuclear program. According to Mr. Wald, a bombing is a better choice since the diplomatic way has failed. The reasons are that they don't have much time and options but having a battle; military option can avert Iran’s attention from the nuclear program; and if they fail to stop it, Iran will control the important place and threaten to the world.
While Emily Landau argues that the diplomacy is still the better one choice to take according to a series of bad effect by military action.
I don’t agree with military action. War can not solve problem at all but cause new ones. We see a lot of those things from the history, which are not gone far. People suffer at last and are the most serious victims. And things are not getting better in the end, not even there is an end existing or not. People suffer, world is damaged, problem can not be settled, what is good for having a war? Definitely not.

tequilawineUID: 2702008

1 Too often belligerent motives are ascribed to anyone who suggests the viability of the military option in resolving the international standoff over Iran's nuclear programme.
2 The question is whether a negotiated deal is feasible.
3 It is with this in mind that I oppose the motion.
4 There remain levers, such as biting sanctions, that have yet to be tried.
5 Thus, I believe that maintaining and asserting publicly that military action is an option of last resort is the best hope we have for international security and peace. I have three main reasons for this view.
6 Given continuing Russian reluctance, Chinese indifference and EU apprehension, it seems unlikely that we will see internationally-backed biting sanctions soon, if at all.怎么翻译If at all
7 But even should the opposition somehow succeed in wresting power from the current regime, there has been no indication among some of its leaders that it would curtail Iran's nuclear programme.
8 Should such pressure prove insufficient, and only once all other policy options have been exhausted, the United States could and should launch a punishing strike against Iranian nuclear and military installations.
9 Third, we must weigh the risks of failing to stop Iran's nuclear programme. Should the Iranians acquire a nuclear weapon, or even the ability to quickly assemble one, Iran would dominate the Persian Gulf, threaten moderate Arab regimes, embolden radicals throughout the region, pose an existential threat to Israel and destabilise Iraq.时态怎么不对呀？
10 Not only would such a strike be less effective than one led by the United States, it would yield widespread international condemnation—at least publicly—and could provoke Iranian retaliation against US interests and allies.
11 And while Israel might be more willing to carry out an attack on Iran's facilities, it is not clear whether it has the capability to do so, or whether it could or would act without a green light from the United States.
12 The problems encountered have been due both to Iran's demonstrated ability to consistently avoid serious discussion of its nuclear ambitions while gaining valuable time to press its nuclear program forward, and also to the lack of clear triggers for determined international action in the light of Iran's lack of compliance.
13 Ongoing lack of unity and resolve on the part of the members of the international team facing Iran has played to its clear advantage.


comment
Everyone should have a attitude about this issue that has bugged the world for a while, I don't know, I only know what I really value most is that the precious peaceful at the moment, and would be better if without Irap and Afghran war.


Should i blame the guy who advocate war action for their imprudence with their seemingly fully evidences? Answer is no. Too often belligerent motives are ascribed to them who suggests the viability of the military option in resolving the international standoff over Iran's nuclear programme. However, the argument in favour of military action is not about what is preferred but rather about what might be necessary. Following that, is three main reasons for this view.

Should i applaud for the guys who are in favor of diplomatic policy to solve it? Me either. As the arguer said, most times military strikes can play a certain role in dealing with states' illegal military-directed nuclear programmes, but only when carried out at an early stage and preferably with the element of surprise. That means, if we set off now, maybe already a little late, far way from stopping the nuclear weapon diffusion. Meantime, we also take into account of the backfire, while the goal of the attack would be not only to cause a setback in its programme, it would also contains turning on the international community to the senseless aggression from USA or Israel.

The real one matters is if we can do it at the worst of time in military strikes without casualties. Our goal is to make a more peaceful world, but to achieve it on the cost of human lives, i think, that is not the mold we want. Sometimes when use our advanced technology to defend ourselves, we also need to consider whether what we done will sow the hatred seed into the human heart, just on that we wanna protect ourselves.

Opition
option
Stikes
strike
Techonolgy
technology

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

comment：

Nowadays the world is filled with fear of terrorsits. Since the 911 case in America, many people began to think more about their living situation. It seems that the world is not safe as we think before.

Americans ristricted the spread of nuclear facilities for the sake of world peace. However, I believe that the world will be safer if Iran's nuclear facilities are bomed. The reasons are as follows:

First, countries which once thought of attaking Iran might stop thinking about that. Because Iran has nuclear facilities, these countries will think more before they want to break the peace. In this case, no country dare to attack Iran, which bring peace to our world.

Second, other countries who do not have nuclear facilities will try their best to develop such technology. Nuclear weapon is such a terrible kind of weapon which can destroy the whole earth that almost no country is willing to use it in the war. However, If more countries master the technology and have the nuclear facilities, there will be fewer and fewer wars because no country dare to attack the countries who hold the nuclear weapons.

All in all, I think the world will be safer if Iran holds the nuclear facilities.

Sorry, I hurry to finish my comment here. I have to prepare my exams.

jinziqiUID: 2387034

belligerent 交战的
foolhardy 有勇无谋的
impudent 鲁莽的
regime 政权
compunction 内疚
quell 制止，用武力镇压
prelude 序幕

However, the argument in favor of military action is not about what is preferred but rather about what might be necessary.

Tactically speaking, use of military force in the case of Iran could also backfire.

To be honest, it takes me a long time to read this article for I am notinterested in. Although I hope the world can be peace forever, therealways be issues between any nations. How to solve the issue of Iranand whether the government should bomb Iran's nuclear facilities or notis the main discussion. I believe diplomatists can solve the difficult issue by diplomatic methods.

木虫虫UID: 2694986

[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comments][01.16-17]

nuclear facilities 核设施
diplomatic solution 外交手段解决
preferable 更好的
concur 一致同意
stretched out
1 : a system of industrial operation in which workers are required to do extra work with slight or with no additional pay
2 : the act of stretching out : the state of being stretched out
3 : an economizing measure that spreads a limited quantity over a larger field than originally intended: as a : a slackening of production schedules so that a quantity of goods will be produced over a longer period than initially planned b : a restructuring of a loan repayment schedule over an extended period of time

tough sanctions             military action
it is worth giving diplomacy another shot

belligerent （交战的）motives
ascribed to 把……归于
standoff 僵局，平衡
provocative 刺激的
untenable 难以防守的
commendable efforts 值得称赞的努力
have yielded no progress
iteration 反复申请
Islamic伊斯兰
insinuated 旁敲侧击
nuclear-adverse
be in a position to 有……的机会
intransigence不妥协
Air strikes 空袭
Persian Gulf 波斯湾
destabilise 破坏政府稳定
nuclear deterrent核威慑力
unilateral单方面的
nip in the bud 消灭于萌芽状态
single blow 不堪一击
backfire 事与愿违
lip service 空话
from time to time 不时，偶尔


However, the argument in favour of支持…… military action is not about what is preferred首选的 but rather about what might be necessary.

acquire a military nuclear capability

late stage of the game  最终的对策阶段

It is with this in mind正是基于此 that I oppose the motion.

It would be foolhardy有勇无谋的 to argue that

First, we are running out of both time and options.

Given continuing Russian reluctance不愿意, Chinese indifference不在乎 and EU apprehension忧虑, it seems unlikely that we will see internationally-backed国际社会支持的 biting sanctions soon, if at all.

have no compunction内疚 about using violence to quell protests镇压

when sanctions or regime change might materialise可能兑现.

At the same time, we would need to ensure that our regional allies have additional air, missile and coastal port defence capabilities as well as upgraded facilities and militaries, so as to为了 protect key assets.

Iran will be freer to sponsor terrorism, wage proxy warfare, derail出轨 the Middle East process and violently repress暴力镇压 its burgeoning迅速发展的 democratic movement.

Military action will not eliminate the problem.

it remained motivated to achieve its goal, and continued working in that direction

Tactically speaking战术上讲
Practically speaking实际的讲

The challenge for the United States is to move from摆脱 simply embracing diplomacy拥抱外交 to devising a coherent条理清楚的 and focused strategy for carrying out what will no doubt be a difficult negotiation with Iran.



Comment

It was apparent to all of us that the nuclear deterrent of Iran threatens United State most. Since 911 had happened, Arab regimes
become the biggest upset for American, in this article debates on whether USA should take a military action towards Iran's nuclear facilities.

In my view, this provocative question out look is about safety of a nation even of the world, but inside is a intractability political problem. This nuclear crisis itself is a symbol of that the situation in Persian Gulf area is out of control by American. It must be the final reason of with great anxiety of the diplomatic solution fail and hasty to take a Air strikes in Iran.

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

01.16&01.17(comments)

…even with President Barack Obama's hand stretched out to Iran, has been unsuccessful.
【Too often belligerent motives are ascribed to anyone who suggests the viability of the military option in resolving the international standoff over Iran's nuclear programme.】 However, the argument in favour of military action is not about what is preferred but rather about what might be necessary.

It would be foolhardy（愚勇的，有勇无谋的莽撞的） to argue that military action is the preferred policy option for stopping Iran's nuclear aspirations, which are strategically untenable for the United States. No American general is eager for war. There remain levers, such as biting sanctions, that have yet to be tried. They should be implemented immediately and given a chance to work. 【But, should all other options fail to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, a US-led military strike is preferable to an Israeli attack, and certainly preferable to a nuclear weapons-capable Iran.】Thus, I believe that maintaining and asserting publicly that military action is an option of last resort is the best hope we have for international security and peace. I have three main reasons for this view.

impudent（放肆无礼的，厚颜无耻的）
standoff

Given continuing Russian reluctance, Chinese indifference and EU apprehension, it seems unlikely that we will see internationally-backed biting sanctions soon, if at all.
Nor does the prospect of regime change strike me as a particularly likely solution to this problem. The Iranian government appears to have no compunction about using violence to quell protests. 【The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in particular, has so insinuated itself into Iran's economic and political structures that it has greater financial incentive to maintain power by deadly force than to make political concessions.】/ But even should the opposition somehow succeed in wresting power from the current regime, there has been no indication among some of its leaders that it would curtail Iran's nuclear programme.

Should such pressure prove insufficient, and only once all other policy options have been exhausted, the United States could and should launch a punishing strike against Iranian nuclear and military installations.

Additionally, with an effective nuclear deterrent（核威慑力量）, Iran will be freer to sponsor terrorism, wage proxy warfare, derail（出轨） the Middle East process and violently repress its burgeoning democratic movement.

We all hope for a peaceful resolution of Iran's nuclear ambitions. But should we fail to reach one, a US-led military strike will be the least bad option available to us.

Military strikes can play a certain role in dealing with states' illegal military-directed nuclear programmes, but only when carried out at an early stage and preferably with the element of surprise. For this kind of nipping in the bud（nip in the bud一开始即加以阻止，扼杀...于萌芽状态，防...于未然） strategy to work, the nuclear programme must be limited in scope, so that serious damage can be achieved with a single blow.

At the current stage of the international community's dealings with Iran, these conditions no longer exist. Military action will not eliminate the problem. With nuclear facilities spread throughout the country and Iran having prepared itself for years for this scenario by building up fortifications and defences, such a strike could at the very best delay the pace of its progress towards the bomb for a few years. And it would come at a relatively high price in terms of Iran's expected reaction; beyond the military response itself, it would open an account between Iran and whoever attacked it that would be very difficult to settle. Moreover, whether it was the United States or Israel that attacked Iran, the other would surely be implicated by Iran.

But there are additional reasons to reject the military approach. In conceptual terms, the major drawback of military attack as a tool of non-proliferation is that it focuses on denying capabilities, rather than altering states' motivations. Regardless of how successful a particular attack might be, it is less likely to become the basis for a long-term solution to the challenge posed by a determined proliferator than would be a negotiated bargain. We saw this in the case of Iraq.

Tactically speaking, use of military force in the case of Iran could also backfire.

Finally, there is an additional question of who would bomb? Would it be the United States? Israel? Practically speaking, there are no certain candidates for this job. 【Barack Obama has clarified that military action is not a realistic option, even though he continues to provide lip service（说得好听的话，空口的应酬话） to it by saying from time to time that all options are on the table.】 And while Israel might be more willing to carry out an attack on Iran's facilities, it is not clear whether it has the capability to do so, or whether it could or would act without a green light from the United States.
The challenge for the United States is to move from simply embracing diplomacy to devising a coherent and focused strategy for carrying out what will no doubt be a difficult negotiation with Iran.

Comments:

1. Chuck Wald: Chuck Wald who defends the motion that the world would be a safer if Iran’s nuclear facilities were bombed, reckons that the military action is necessary rather than perferred. He demonstrates his argument by giving three main reasons.

2. Emily Landau: In contrast with military action, from Emily Landau’s opinion who opposes the motion, a negotiated settlement would be more preferable. Emily Landau provides several reasons to argue that military action will not eliminate the problem, especially at this late stage of the game.

I agree more with Emily Landau rather than Chuck Wald, since Emily Landau’s argument is more convictive and forceful to me, as well as accords with my personal view that military action cannot solve the problem satisfactorily as we expect. First, not all the hot potatoes can be settled by military action, including Iran’s nuclear facilities, we shouldn’t attach too much importance to or expect too high effectual of military action, which always brings extraordinarily great sorrow or deep hurt. Second, we have no evidence to demonstrate that military action is the only way to solve the problem, just as Chuck Wald has said, military action is necessary rather than perferred. Furthermore, bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities may induce more knotty questions. We should take all the factors into account from the long run.

=====
拼写：
contrast
convictive
satisfactorily

jilinlinUID: 2396929

My comments: 01.16/17
        The discussion is about the necessity to launch a military strike towards Iran to distroy its nuclear facilities. I agree that the less countries master nuclear know-how, the less nuclear threatens to the overall humans would be. However, I am also wondering what the true reasons about the purposes of impeding Iran’s nuclear programme.
        In my point of view, the aim of both proposer and opposer of the military actions is to curb Iran’s attempt to develop nuclear weapons. The differences between them are the means of achieving the goal. One is through force, while the other is via moderate diplomacy. It is always hard to identify the rightness towards political aims when at different stances and on behalf of different interests. And sometimes war is the most immediate and effective way to resolve conflicts. Whether the US will fire depends on weighing the advantages and disadvantages of military approach which was argued in the article.
        The proposer provided three main viewpoints to support the military motion. Firstly, it may lack of sufficient time or short of other options before Iran researches its nuclear ambitions. Since Iran has worked on the programme for years and other options seem to be unreachable such as using internationally-backed biting sanctions or changing the current regime. Secondly, the arguer believed that military strikes play a positive role in averting a nuclear weapon-capable Iran by the means of air assets. In my opinion, the arguer oversimply considered the task of fixing the nuclear sites which was said to be achieved by Iran’s self-disclosure. What is more, the arguer pointed out the grave consequences of failing to stop Iran’s nuclear programme to persuade people to support the military strikes.
        The opposer of the military attack argues that US cannot achieve its goal via bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities especially at this late stage of the game. And the military strike could easily become the prelude to war. Moreover, such approach focuses on denying capabilities rather than altering states’ motivations which cannot resolve the problems fundamentally.