Elections Disad – Core – Hoya-Spartan 2012
Download 2.41 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Turns Iraq
- ( ) Strikes distract US – causes Iraq theater to flare-up
- ( ) Even limited attacks on Iran spur instability in Iraq
- ( ) Strikes make Iraq instability inevitable
- ( ) Strikes make Iraq a mess
Turns Heg( ) Iran strikes absolutely crank hegemonyStephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization and frequently writes for Global Research Reports –Global Research, March 7, 2007 – cross-posted at: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/911review. Attacking Iran will just make things far worse. It would be a fanatical "hail Mary" act of insanity that by one definition is repeating the same mistakes, expecting different results. It has no more chance of success than our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if nuclear weapons are used, including so-called low-yield ones, it will be an appalling crime against humanity and catastrophic event potentially affecting millions in the region by radiation poisoning alone. If it happens, it will irreversibly weaken US influence and credibility everywhere accelerating our decline even faster toward second-class status and loss of world leadership already hanging by a thread. It could also be a potentially lethal blow to the benefits of "Western civilization" always arriving through the barrel of a gun and thuggish heel of a colonizer's boot with the US having the biggest barrels and largest shoe sizes. Turns Iraq( ) Strikes in Iran jack Iraq stability and successful withdrawalPaul Kelly 7/2/08 (Editor, The Australian, “All must lean on Iran”) There is, however, no denying that the US and Iran are on a collision trajectory. Former US diplomat Nicholas Burns, who was number three at the State Department under Bush, told The Australian: ``I think for President Bush and for the next president, Iran is the most serious foreign policy challenge because the consequences of an altercation with Iran are incalculable for our interests and for the fate of the larger Middle East. We have been right to keep the military option on the table but I do not believe there is an inevitability about war with Iran.'' The arguments against hostilities by either the US or Israel are far greater than recognised. First, any strike will prejudice the pivotal US strategic goals in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would expose 150,000 US forces in Iraq to Iranian retaliation. It would threaten progress in Iraq and vastly complicate US force withdrawal. It would trigger Iranian terrorist activity across the region and provoke Shi'ite militia group Hezbollah into strikes. It would represent a complete refusal to absorb the lesson from the 2003 invasion of Iraq: that resort to massive military action unleashes forces beyond the control of the US. Second, the global economic consequences would be grave. Iranian retaliation would see the world oil price skyrocket from its present high level. Commander-in-chief of Iran's revolutionary guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari, has warned that Iran ``will definitely act to impose controls on the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz''. This will take inflation and recession threats to new peaks in the industrialised world. The resentment towards Bush would be even greater. Third, the Bush administration would implode politically. There is little grasp in Australia of the dramatic power shifts within the administration with Vice-President Dick Cheney's influence on the wane and the diplomatic option in the ascendancy under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates ( ) Strikes distract US – causes Iraq theater to flare-upRiedel, Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, 2007 (Bruce, Speech for the University of Maine School of Policy and International Affairs http://www.brookings.edu/views/speeches/riedel20070723.htm gjm) First, we should recognize clearly how awful the military option is and what a catastrophe war would be for America, for Iran and for the region as a whole. To imagine war with Iran use as your template not the Israeli air strike on Osirak in 1981 but the war last year between Israel and Hizballah in Lebanon with hundreds of clashes, dozens of air strikes and extended salvoes of missiles and rockets – close to 4000 in the end—into Israel's cities, especially Haifa. Only a war with Iran would not be fought in the relatively small space of the Galilee, it would be fought across the whole of the Middle East from Lebanon to the Khyber Pass. Iran would have every incentive to strike American targets across the region with missiles, terrorists and insurgents. An early casuality would be the Maliki government in Iraq which could not afford to choose between its two most important sponsors. The Shia street in Iraq would go with Iran as would the Shia warlords Iran has supported there for years. Once again the Kurds would be in a hard place torn between America and Iran. Whether the Karzai government in Kabul could survive is also open to question. So the US would find the twin insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan burning more intensely while it struggled to destroy targets deep inside Iran and Iran retaliated with terror on a global scale. And once the fireworks begin to settle down, what then? Do we try to occupy Iran? With what army? This is not an option that serious policy makers should spend much time considering. When we looked at it in the Clinton administration – long before the Iraq war—it was wisely rejected. ( ) Even limited attacks on Iran spur instability in IraqDaily Times, Monday, January 24, 2005 http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-1-2005_pg4_21 [gjm] Even a limited US attack on Iran, which shares a 1,450-kilometer open border with Iraq, would invite Tehran to use its influence among Iraq’s Shiites to sabotage the separate peace US forces have enjoyed in southern Iraq. The same is true in Afghanistan, which has a 900-kilometer border with Iran. “When you’re trying to stabilise Iraq and you’ve got this long border between Iran and Iraq, and you’re trying to keep the Iranians from interfering in Iraq so you can get the Iraq government up and running, you shouldn’t be picking a war with the Iranians,” said Carafano. ( ) Strikes make Iraq instability inevitableInternational Crisis Group Middle East Report February 23, 2006 http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3976&l=1 gjm Should it be attacked, Iran possesses a wide range of potentially lethal responses, most obviously in Iraq, where, through its abundance of allies, it could further destabilise the situation and target U.S. forces, particularly by mobilising some members of the Shiite constituency. Terrorist attacks orchestrated by Iran could wreak havoc throughout the Middle East, and extend to the West itslf. In discussions with European officials, Iran has said it could be “helfpful” on a wide variety of Middle Eastern issues if an understanding on the nuclear issue were reached, but the inference is clear that the opposite could also be true. There are other consequential risks. A military strike could send the price of oil skyrocketing, particularly if, as threatened, Iran attempted to close the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s principal passageway for oil exports. It also likely would provoke a considerable domestic backlash, with even opponents closing ranks behind the regime, at least in the short-run. ( ) Strikes make Iraq a messDaily Times, Monday, January 24, 2005 http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_24-1-2005_pg4_21 [gjm] WASHINGTON: With the bulk of its ground forces tied down in Iraq, the United States has compelling reasons to avoid military action against neighbouring Iran even while stepping up pressure to halt its nuclear programme, analysts said. “There are no good military options,” James Carafano, a military expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Friday.The United States could launch pinpoint strikes on targets in Iran from US warships or from the air. But short of an imminent threat from nuclear-armed Iranian missiles, any gain would likely be outweighed by the trouble Iran could cause US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said. Anthony Cordesman, an expert on Iran at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said Iran “would see any pre-emptive attack as encirclement.” “It would probably react hard to whatever happened, and that would make it more destabilising than stabilising,” he said in an interview. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 2.41 Mb. Share with your friends:
|