Iran

1nc
Extension has open a space to conclude a final deal new sanctions will embolden
Iranian hardliners, derail the deal, and cause US-Iran war
Keith Ellison 7/19 Ellison, Progressive Caucus Calls on Congress to Let Diplomacy Work on Iran
Nuclear Deal,
http://www.noodls.com/view/22BBDBF175E30FB21446CE018FE168D96B0EE1CA?2972xxx1405781061#
sthash.EnoQdgxI.dpuf

WASHINGTON-Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairs Reps Ral l M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN), along with Reps. Barbara Lee
(D-CA), Jim Moran (D-VA), John Conyers (D-MI) and Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) released the following statements today after an

agreement

was reached for a four-month extension on negotiations over Iran's nuclear program between the United States, the
United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, Russia (P5+1) and Iran. "News of a four month extension in negotiations with Iran
means the prospect for an Iran without nuclear ambitions is still very possible," Rep. Grijalva said. "It also means
peaceful and normalized relations are well within the scope of possibility. I am encouraged to see all parties involved continue the momentum
towards that goal, and encourage them to take the time, space and steps needed to succeed where others have failed." "We

are on the
edge of a significant moment in the history of diplomacy," Rep. Ellison said. "Congress should not undermine our
diplomats during negotiations with Iran's representatives in Vienna. Since negotiations began, Iran has complied
with the Joint Plan of Action. Transparency and access have increased. We now know more about Iran's nuclear
capabilities. If negotiators need more time to reach a comprehensive agreement, we should support them, not make
it harder for them to do their jobs by passing more sanctions. It is in America's best interest to continue on the path of
diplomacy." "Last year's first-step deal addressing Iran's nuclear program was a diplomatic victory that directly reduces Iran's ability to achieve
breakout capacity," said Rep. Lee. "This

extension will continue to restrict Iran's nuclear capability while creating the
diplomatic space and time for a long-term deal that supports U.S. national security interests and a more peaceful and secure
world." "It is critical that Congress take no action that undermines the Administration's diplomatic efforts
during this extension which was provided for under the Joint Plan of Action," Rep. Moran said. "I continue to be hopeful that an
agreement can be reached which will avert the threat of a militarized Iranian nuclear program." "There's only one safe and sensible
way to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon-diplomacy," Rep. John Conyers said. "The temporary agreement reached last year has yielded
real benefits for the US and the broader world. The

choice is whether we continue to build on this success or return

to mutually destructive confrontation. Denying our negotiators the time they need to secure an agreement would
simply result in Iran unfreezing its nuclear program. While some advocate for additional sanctions, these
measures would counterproductively embolden hardliners in Iran's government and put us back on a path to
war. Americans oppose the use of military force against Iran by a margin of 70 to 22, and for good reason: War with Iran would be disastrous
for US interests and carry unacceptable costs in terms of lives and treasure. Americans know that we must give diplomacy a full opportunity to
succeed so we can direct our limited resources towards urgently-needed rebuilding here at home."

US-Iran nuclear talks have been extended Political Capital critical to keeping
congress from placing new sanctions
Deccan Chronicle 7/19 For Barack Obama, foreign crises grow more challenging,
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/140719/world-americas/article/barack-obama-foreign-crises-growmore-challenging

Washington: Surveying a dizzying array of international crises, President Barack Obama

stated the obvious: "We live in a complex

world and at a challenging time." And then suddenly, only a day later, the world had grown much more troubling, the challenges
even more confounding. The downing Thursday of a passenger plane carrying nearly 300 people spread the impact of the standoff between
Ukraine and Russia far around the globe. The prospect of more Mideast casualties was assured when Israel launched a ground offensive in the
Gaza Strip after unsuccessful efforts to arrange a cease-fire between the Israelis and Palestinians. Yet

there was a ray of hope

week's end with the announcement that the U.S. and its negotiating partners had agreed to
extend nuclear negotiations with Iran for four months rather than allowing the talks to collapse as a Sunday
deadline neared. Still, there's no guarantee of overcoming stubborn differences with Iran and reaching a final agreement. Obama also
will have to find a way to stave off pressure from members of Congress, including some fellow Democrats, who see
the extension as a stalling tactic by Iran and are anxious to further penalize Tehran. "Increased
economic pressure would strengthen our hand, but the administration opposes it," said Republican Rep. Ed
elsewhere at

Royce, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "It should welcome congressional efforts to ratchet up the economic pressure on
Iran." The cascade of overseas developments comes as the American public's views about Obama's foreign policy have soured, turning what
was once seen as his strength into a potential liability. For

a second-term president already hamstrung on the domestic

front, the world stage hardly looks like the refuge it sometimes has offered leaders in their final White House years.
Obama has said repeatedly that a world in turmoil demands American leadership, but this burst of new challenges is showing the limits of that
leadership. Fresh American economic sanctions on Russia couldn't stop the missile attack on the Malaysian Airlines plane, which U.S. officials
believe was carried out by pro-Kremlin separatists in eastern Ukraine aided by Moscow. Obama was also unable to persuade the European
Union to join him in penalties aimed at Russia's most powerful economic sectors, settling instead for more tepid EU actions that strained efforts
to portray a united Western front against Vladimir Putin's government. In the Middle East, Israel began its assault in Gaza despite objections
by the U.S. and the prospect of mounting civilian casualties. The urgent international issues add to the pile of foreign policy challenges
already causing headaches for the White House: Syria's persistent civil war, the rise of Sunni extremists in Iraq, China's increased aggression in
territorial disputes in Asia. The White House insists the U.S. is better off under Obama's foreign policy leadership, citing as one example his
commitment to ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that he inherited from President George W. Bush. "I think that there have been a
number of situations in which you've seen this administration intervene in a meaningful way that has substantially furthered American interests
and substantially improved the tranquility of the global community," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. Obama and his advisers
have tried to project a measured approach to dealing with the deepening instability. Obama stuck to plans to hold fundraisers in New York and
a transportation event in Delaware on Thursday, after the plane was downed and Israel began ground military operations in Gaza. Obama also
carried on with plans to spend the weekend at Camp David, the presidential retreat in the Maryland mountains. The strategy reflects the
view of the White House that there is a danger in presidents believing they are presiding over circumstances or events that dwarf the
challenges faced by their predecessors. Such thinking, Obama's aides say, can lead to overreach as presidents think that extraordinary
measures are required and that their decisions can bypass the normal checks and balances. To Obama's critics, that approach smacks of
timidity and restraint that have left both foes and friends more willing to dismiss his warnings as empty threats. For a brief moment over the
past few days, it

appeared the White House was on the offensive, not just reacting to world events.

Escalates to major power war

Trabanco 9 Independent researcher of geopoltical and military affairs (1/13/09, Jos Miguel Alonso
Trabanco, The Middle Eastern Powder Keg Can Explode at anytime,
**http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11762**)

In case of an Israeli and/or American attack against Iran, Ahmadinejad's government will certainly respond. A possible
countermeasure would be to fire Persian ballistic missiles against Israel and maybe even against American military bases in the regions.

Teheran will unquestionably resort to its proxies like Hamas or Hezbollah (or even some of its Shiite allies it has in
Lebanon or Saudi Arabia) to carry out attacks against Israel, America and their allies, effectively setting in flames a large
portion of the Middle East. The ultimate weapon at Iranian disposal is to block the Strait of Hormuz. If such chokepoint is indeed
asphyxiated, that would dramatically increase the price of oil, this a very threatening retaliation because it will bring intense financial and
economic havoc upon the West, which is already facing significant trouble in those respects. In short, the necessary conditions

for a
major war in the Middle East are given. Such conflict could rapidly spiral out of control and thus a
relatively minor clash could quickly and dangerously escalate by engulfing the whole region and perhaps

even beyond. There are many key players: the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Persians and their respective

allies and
some great powers could become involved in one way or another (America, Russia, Europe, China). Therefore,
any miscalculation by any of the main protagonists can trigger something no one can stop. Taking into consideration that
the stakes are too high, perhaps it is not wise to be playing with fire right in the middle of a powder keg.

2nc overview
Disad outweighs sanctions cause immediate collapse of negotiations and locks in
path to war ensures Iranian retaliation and widespread conflict in the Middle East
draws-in Russia and China causing great power nuclear war thats Ellison and
Trabanco bigger risk than AFF theres a narrow and limited window for
negotiations future policymakers solves their scenarios
Negotiations failure locks in war
Ghoreishi 7-15 (Shahed, M.A. candidate studying the Middle East and International Economics at the
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, B.A. from the Henry M. Jackson school of
International Studies at the University of Washington, Why the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Wont End in
Failure for Iran and the West, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/07/15/iran-nuclearnegotiations-wont-end-failure-iran-west/)

Along with domestic political benefits of a

successful outcome, the economic benefits are also huge. The United States has
already lost billions implementing sanctions on Iran. Under the pressure of sanctions, many lucrative opportunities
for western companies in Iran have been impossible. However, after the interim deal with Iran last
November, France sent a delegation of businessmen to Iran, a US energy company signed a preliminary agreement
worth over a billion dollars as the energy opportunities of Irans vast natural gas and oil reserves
remain unutilized. Not to mention Irans advantage in human capital compared to other US allies in
the Middle East. Western businesses clearly would like to invest in an open Iran. John Kerry announced before his arrival that
significant gaps remain between the west and Iran. These are technical concerns that can be fixed. The
benefits of a deal are huge for both Washington and Tehran both economically and geopolitically. The cost of
failure? Both Obama and Rouhani would be disappointed and possibly embarrassed with a major hit on their respective political capital, with
only sanctions and possible conflict on the horizon. This is something neither side can afford. For this reason, I cannot
fathom talks failing on Sunday. At best a deal will pass. At worst the negotiations will be extended only to be completed down the line.

Escalation fast and guaranteed Russia and Chineses interest

Michel Chossudovsky (Professor of Economics University of Ottawa author of several books about
International Stability) May 2005, Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran,
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html

The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. Iran is the next military target. The
planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World
domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War. Military

action against Iran would directly involve

Israel's participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an
implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks. Israel is a nuclear power with a
sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded,
particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs
and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is
underground") In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat. The planned attack on Iran must be understood in
relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. The

conflict could easily

spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and

Georgia, where US troops are stationed. An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also
put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops
in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.) In other words, the shaky

geopolitics of

the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of
Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict. Moreover, US
military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian
sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to
produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.

Poor relations risk miscalculation and escalation to full scale war

Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, January 9, 2008.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40731

So while President Bush beats an old drum during his Mideast tour, repeating the claim that Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons at a press
conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Wednesday, regional actors are hearing a different tune. Regardless of Bush's message, the
writing many see on the wall reads that Washington's Iran strategy is bound to fail. Though the U.S. embarked on a policy of isolating Iran
during the 1979 hostage crisis, the policy was significantly intensified after the end of the Cold War and the initiation of the Middle East peace
process. Israel, who only a few years earlier had lobbied Washington to open up to Iran, insisted that it could not pursue peace with the Arabs
unless the U.S. adopted a tougher line on Iran. The Bill Clinton administration's commitment to the peace process gave birth to the Dual
Containment policy in 1994, which was "designed to reassure Israel that the U.S. would keep Iran in check while Jerusalem embarked on the
risky process of peacemaking," according to Kenneth Pollack, who served as an Iran analyst with the CIA at the time. In the words of Martin
Indyk, assistant secretary of state under Clinton, Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking and the isolation of Iran were symbiotic. "The more we
succeeded in making peace, the more isolated [the Iranians] would become. The more we succeeded in containing them, the more possible it
would be to make peace," Indyk said. Consequently, Israeli and U.S. rhetoric on Iran climaxed during this period. While Israeli Prime Minister
Yitzhak Rabin accused Iran of "fanning all the flames in the Middle East," U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher told reporters in March
1995 that "Wherever you look, you find the evil hand of Iran in this region." Iran's own actions did little to cast much doubt on these
accusations. Similarly, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair blasted Tehran in December 2006 as he toured the region and sought to shore
up Arab support against Iran. Much like Rabin and Christopher before him, Blair wanted to form an "arc of moderation" consisting of Israel and
pro-Western Arab dictatorships to isolate Iran. Yet after

a decade of making Iran's isolation a central tenet of

Washington's Mideast policy, the track record is clear: In spite of all the rhetoric and all the political capital invested in this
approach, the policy of containing Iran has failed miserably. Though a significant cost has been imposed on
Iran, the isolation policy has neither prevented Iran's rise nor has it compelled Tehran to moderate its
foreign policy. As President Bush tours the region, he will seek to give the impression that the U.S. is not deserting this policy and that
increased support from regional actors can succeed in containing Iran. Yet his message will likely be met with great scepticism. Now, more than
ever before, Washington seems to have little choice but make a shift on Iran. First, Iran has continued its nuclear programme in spite of both
U.N. sanctions and Washington's unilateral financial sanctions. The strategy of incrementally tightening the U.N. sanctions has been derailed by
the December National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which ascertained that Iran currently does not have a nuclear weapons programme.
Consequently, the much anticipated third U.N. resolution seems nowhere in sight. Russia and China have signaled greater resistance to it in
response to the NIE and the Iranian U.N. ambassador has taken a month's vacation, reflecting Tehran's lack of worry. And in a great blow to the
effort of forcing Iran to face a united Security Council, Russia has begun delivering nuclear fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor after years of
procrastination. Second, U.S. commanders in Iraq have toned down accusations of Iranian meddling and indicated that Iran is pressuring its Shia
allies to cease hostilities. Col. Steven Boylan, spokesperson for David Petraeus, told the Washington Times earlier in January that the U.S. is
"ready to confirm the excellence of the senior Iranian leadership in the pledge to stop the funding, training, equipment and resourcing of the
militia special groups." The statement stood in stark contrast to earlier assessments by the Pentagon about Iran's intimate involvement in Iraqi
violence. Third, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, sent a significant signal to Washington only days later during a speech
to students at Yazd University. Declaring that the conditions the U.S. has put forth for establishing relations between the two countries
currently make it disadvantageous for Iran, he nevertheless made the unprecedented announcement that "nobody said that these relations
have to be severed forever" and that "the

day when having relations with the U.S. is in our interest, surely I will be
the first to approve of such relations." Khamenei's statement passed largely unnoticed in the Western media, but its significance
is undeniable. Fourth, and perhaps more importantly, U.S. domestic politics has turned against the current course on Iran. The top three
Democratic Presidential candidates -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards -- are all on the record favouring unconditional
diplomacy with Tehran. Furthermore, the winner of the Iowa Republican primary, Mike Huckabee, also favors dialogue. Never before

has

support for diplomacy with Iran -- particularly in the middle of an election season -- been so strong in the U.S. These
developments have all contributed to a perception in the region that not only can the U.S. not sustain its isolation policy, but that some
dealings between the U.S. and Iran may already be taking place behind the scenes. Consequently, Arab states have initiated their own
diplomatic overtures towards Tehran in order to avoid ending up appearing more hawkish on Iran than Washington. Improving ties with Tehran
in the wake of a likely U.S.-Iran thaw is the strategically wise thing to do, the Arabs calculate. In December 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad was invited to address the Gulf Cooperation Council summit in Doha. Not to be outdone by Qatar, the Saudis invited the firebrand
Iranian president to Hajj as the Kings special guest. Both invitations were unprecedented. Moreover, diplomacy between Egypt and Iran has
intensified in the last few weeks with several high-level visits. This Arab outreach to Iran -- which largely is a response to a perception of the
likely failure of Washington's Iran policy -- has made the U.S. effort to contain Tehran all the more unfeasible. Against this backdrop, the idea of
an U.S.- Arab-Israeli alliance being formed to counter Iran's rise -- a key impetus for President Bush's Mideast tour -- seems more farfetched
than ever. In this context, the incident between five Iranian vessels and three U.S. Naval ships in the Strait of Hormuz this past Sunday may not,

the
most dangerous source of tension is the current state of no-war no-peace between the U.S. and Iran,
which has created an atmosphere in which incidents at sea -- whether intentional or accidental -- can
escalate into full-fledged wars with unpredictable regional repercussions. As a result, instead of making the Arabs
as the Bush administration may have hoped, clarify the threat Iran poses to the region. Rather, the read of regional players may be that

more receptive to President Bush's message, the naval episode may prompt them to further lose faith in the policy of isolation.

UQ

UQ 2nc UQ wall
Extension means Iran nuclear talks are moving along successfully and an agreement is
within reach. New US sanction will undermine the talks, splinter the international
coalition, and provoke a US-Iran war. Obamas ability to assert is political press on
democrats to prevent them from breaking ranks and supporting new sanctions is
essential for the deals conclusion thats Ellison
Prefer this evidence, it cites Obamas full court press on democrats as the reason why
GOP calls or new sanctions have been kept in check. Moreover, it creates a brink the
democrats are facing political pressure to jump on board with new sanctions, but
Obama can and must hold them together
Extension allows for negotiation room new sanctions will crush a deal
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 7/19 Carnegie Experts on Iran Nuclear Deal Extension,
http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/07/19/carnegie-experts-on-iran-nuclear-deal-extension/hggg

With Iran and the P5+1 powers agreeing to a four-month extension of nuclear talks, Carnegie experts are available to
assess the implications of the extension and the challenges that need to be overcome to reach a final deal. To request an
interview, please contact Clara Hogan at chogan@ceip.org. "Neither the U.S. nor Iran is prepared to accept the other's conditions for a final
deal, so extending

the talks is better than any alternative action at this point. Iran is upholding an interim
agreement that keeps it from accumulating nuclear material. Adding more sanctions on Iran now would
prompt the Iranians to resume enriching uranium to higher levels, and would make other countries stop enforcing sanctions.
It would weaken the United States' position." George Perkovich "It was not realistic to expect that the U.S. and Iran would
be able to bridge four decades of festering mistrust in six months. Extending the negotiations is better than any alternative options. To
optimists, the normalization of official dialogue between the U.S. and Iran has been one of the huge achievements of this process. To skeptics,
it will remain difficult to find a technical resolution to what is essentially a political conflict. The nuclear issue is the not the underlying cause of
U.S.-Iran mistrustit's merely a symptom of it. The challenge remains finding a way to reconcile Iranian ideological proclivities, U.S. political
realities, and Israeli security concerns." Karim Sadjadpour "The

limited-term rollover expresses three things: agreement

by both sides that not negotiating may make things worse; concern by the powers that Iran hasn't done enough to justify
a six-month extension; and negotiators' fear of critics in the U.S. and Iran who demand quick results." Mark Hibbs

Window for deal is now open sanctions will crush it

LA Times 7/16 Obama cites 'real progress' in Iran nuclear talks,
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-obama-iran-nuclear-20140716-story.html

President Obama said Wednesday that international negotiations

over Irans nuclear program have made real

progress in several areas, and have produced a credible way forward, despite substantial differences between Tehran
and six world powers. In an appearance at the White House, Obama said he continues to weigh whether to press forward with the
negotiations if they dont conclude by a self-imposed deadline Sunday. But his positive comments suggested that he is leaning toward
continuing the 5-month-old diplomatic effort. Although

significant gaps remain, Iran has met its commitments

under the interim nuclear deal reached in November, the president said, adding that he would continue discussions with Congress,
Iran and the five other countries in negotiations. In Vienna, Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad
Zarif signaled Tuesday that talks probably would be extended, saying they believed progress had been made, even though the two sides have
been at an impasse on the core issue of how much uranium enrichment equipment Iran should retain. Kerry returned to Washington on

Tuesday, where he met with Obama and Vice President Biden to discuss Iran and other foreign policy crises. In Vienna, meanwhile, diplomats
discussed pausing the talks for several weeks, but said they had not resolved the issue. It remains unclear whether the group could extend a
preliminary agreement that has governed present negotiations, or would need to negotiate new terms that include additional incentives for
Iran and the six world powers. If new terms are required, the deal-making could take time. Iran and the six powers France, Britain, Germany,
Russia, China and the United States have been seeking an agreement that would ease international sanctions on Iran if it accepts restrictions
aimed at guaranteeing that it doesnt gain the capability to build nuclear weapons. Congressional

skeptics are trying to build

support for new sanctions. They also want to set mandatory terms for the final deal or require that Congress gets a say in the
negotiations.

Iran deal is within reachObamas political capital is critical

Lee 7-16 (Carol E, Obama Still Hoping Iran Investment Pays Off, 2014, WSJ Blog,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/16/obama-still-hoping-iran-investment-pays-off/)

The U.S. is trying to broker a trio of high-stakes foreign-policy deals over the next few days, but just one of them a
nuclear agreement with Iran is of particular importance to President Barack Obama. For Mr. Obama, a deal
with Iran is one of the only major planks in his foreign-policy agenda that is still within reach. Middle East
peace talks, for instance, have so collapsed that the president is now merely seeking a ceasefire to quash the current flare up of violence
between Israel and Hamas. And unlike the two other efforts the administration is pursuing this week a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas
and a new coordinated package of U.S. and European sanctions against Russia over its intervention in Ukraine the Iran negotiations are a rare
place where Mr. Obama is shaping events rather than reacting to them. From Ukraine and Russia to Syria, Israel, Gaza and Iraq, and even the
crisis at the southern U.S. border all of the issues flaring up in recent weeks have put the president in a reactive, not proactive position. Iran,
on the other hand, is a piece of the foreign policy portfolio Mr. Obama has sought to shape since entering the White House in 2009. So its hard
to imagine talks would get this close to the July 20 deadline and the White House would end negotiations without adding time on the clock. Mr.

Obama has invested a tremendous amount of personal time in rapprochement with Tehran. He pursued
secret backchannel U.S.-Iran talks knowing they would strain relations with key allies, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, once they became
public. And hes

burned domestic political capital to keep Iran talks going by holding off members of his
own political party who want additional sanctions against Tehran. Inside the White House the Iran issue is treated
as a coveted part of Mr. Obamas would-be presidential legacy. An Iran deal is, essentially, viewed as the
Obama foreign policy brass ring. Administration officials half-jokingly muse about Mr. Obama flying on Air Force One from Tel Aviv
to Tehran before leaving office in 2017. White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Tuesday that Mr. Obama will decide
on a path forward in coming days, after discussing the issue with Secretary of State John Kerry, whos said talks in Vienna had
made progress but significant gaps remain, and consulting lawmakers in Congress. Im not in a position to speculate about which path will be
taken at this point, Mr. Earnest said, but that will be the subject of a number of discussions in the days ahead. Despite the

discussions, one thing is certain: this is purely Mr. Obamas call.

Momentum will rebuild as the finish-line approaches proves sustained PC is key

Tim Starks 14. Fate of Iran Sanctions Bill Rests Largely With Reid, 1-28,
http://www.rollcall.com/news/fate_of_iran_sanctions_bill_rests_largely_with_reid-2304481.html?pg=3

Bill Prospects Though

momentum has stalled for a Senate vote on the Iran sanctions bill, Bloomfield notes that
AIPAC has positioned itself well as Obama pursues a final Iran nuclear accord. Theyve already got 59
co-sponsors, he said. The administration and Reid are on notice. Thats not chopped liver. While some observers
see the momentum for the bill as having stalled, others contend that it will continue to build over
time, owing to some national opinion polls that point to Obamas position weakening and damaging remarks from Iranian

officials. Reid

is responsible for keeping the chamber Democratic in the fall and I think he knows that
the longer he puts off a vote, the more politically untenable his position becomes, said a senior Senate aide.

Extension opens up diplomatic solution congress pushing sanctions

Sarah Jones 7/19 Obama Takes A Huge Step Forward Towards an Agreement Deescalating Tensions
with Iran, Politics USA, http://www.politicususa.com/2014/07/19/obama-doctrine-takes-huge-stepforward-deescalating-tensions-iran.html

Late Friday evening, at 7:50 PM Eastern and 1:50 AM in Vienna, Austria, Senior White House administration officials teleconferenced on
background with reporters regarding the good news. There

has been sufficient progress in negations with Iran to move

forward with the next several months of negotiation. Right before the call, the extension had been agreed to. We reached
agreement tonight. For those of you who dont know, its 2:00 in the morning here, a Senior White House official told reporters last night,
voice weary but obviously pleased with the progress. In addition to continuing the Joint Plan of Action, Iran

has agreed that it will

move forward in a more expeditious manner to complete the fabrication of all 20 percent oxide in Iran
into fuel in a timely manner, and will indeed during this four-month period fabricate 25 kilograms of its 20 percent oxide into fuel for
the Tehran Research Reactor. In addition, Iran will dilute all of its up to two percent stockpile. That is at least three metric tons. And although it
doesnt hold much SWU, separate work units thats the measure of energy, so to speak at the moment, in a breakout scenario its quite
significant and quite important. So we think this is a big step forward. President Obama had to fight with Congress to even get the room to
try to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran. He finally got that room, but Congress

is waiting in the wings to impose even

tougher sanctions on Iran and trying to dictate terms of a final agreement. Under the Obama administration, the European Union,
Canada, Switzerland, Australia, Japan, Korea and Norway have imposed national sanctions on broad economic sectors in Iran. As negotiators
headed to Vienna at the beginning of the month to work toward an agreement with Iran, President Obama directed them to see if there had
been sufficient progress over the past six months in the negotiations with Iran in order to justify a continued effort toward an agreement. If
there had, they would continue on until November 24. Good news. This

means that negotiations will be extended through

November 24th, even though the original plan called for them to last a year. Its more of a passing Go type of extension. If
you accomplish this, you can proceed with the plan. The Joint Plan of Action is working so far. It has halted the progress
of the Iranian program and rolled it back, although there are still gaps. In exchange, Iran got modest relief but their economy is by no means
recovered and heavy sanctions are still imposed. A

Senior White House official explained that there are still gaps, so they are
not saying everything has been resolved, but it does mean that we saw openings and progress and creative
proposals that began to see a potential assurance that elements of the Iranian program could be assured as peaceful to
our satisfaction. The path toward a more peaceful co-existence is treacherous and requires constant effort. Additionally, the negotiators
consulted on a regular basis with Israel and worked toward being more transparent with Israel about their efforts. It sounded as if negotiating
with Iran thus far had been rewarding and difficult at the same time. This is the tough work of slogging it through in an effort to avoid
escalation. The hundreds of people working on an agreement with Iran cant offer us any guarantees. We dont get guarantees with much in
life, but certainly with trigger sensitive negotiations, anything can happen. But what we can have is hope, and a sense that we are doing
everything in our power to avoid escalating a conflict as the first or second resort rather than last resort. While the previous administration
took a more sanctions-oriented turn in 2006 with Iran (weapon oriented sanctions, not broader economic or oil sanctions as under Obama), its
also fair to say that there is a cost to cowboy diplomacy, and one of those costs is a loss of esteem and good will. Obama took a marked
deviation from Bushs overall approach, in that he decided to try first to deal directly with Iran. It was after this effort, which his administration
believes added credibility to his requests, that not only the U.N. but the E.U. and other countries enacted broad economic sanctions beyond the
U.N.s resolutions. Its also fair to say that Congressional Republicans wanted to make a show of force, even if that force was just a threat,
rather than give room for diplomacy to work. Lindsey Graham keeps the pedal to the metal full throttle at all times, cowboy hat teetering
recklessly in the wind, his hands off the wheel and his eyes closed. The speak-softly-but-carry-a-big-stick approach of President Obama is
markedly different, and in this case, effective precisely because of his diplomatic efforts before he needed/wanted something. Theres no
telling if an ultimate nuclear agreement will be reached. But each
more the Obama Doctrine than the Bush Doctrine.

small step is a victory for diplomacy, and diplomacy is much

Default to maintaining PC hiccups during negotiations are inevitable and risk

sanctions pressure
Pillar, 2-17-2014 Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown
University (Paul, Nonresident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, The Iran
Negotiations Begin, http://nationalinterest.org/print/blog/paul-pillar/the-iran-negotiations-begin9894)

Given that vigorous opposition to reaching any agreement with Iran persists on the U.S. side (or more
accurately, the Israeli side), even though that opposition suffered a temporary defeat with the sidelining of the Kirk-Menendez
sanctions bill, expect to hear in the weeks ahead much commentary about any sour notes that are struck in the
negotiations or in anything that takes place alongside the negotiations . The negative commentary will be
coming not from people who, like the ayatollah, are trying to shield themselves from political ramifications of failure that may stem from reasons outside their control. Rather, it will
come from people who want the negotiations to fail and will enthusiastically highlight anything that
could be used as an argument to abandon the talks.

Extension signifies progress for an agreement new sanctions will derail risk US-Iran
war
USA Today 7/20 Extending Iran nuke talks worthwhile: Our view,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/07/20/iran-nuclear-negotiations-rouhani-obamaeditorials-debates/12884451/

In a world rife with intractable conflicts, it's something of an oddity that negotiations to end a uniquely
menacing threat have percolated quietly, making progress that just a few months ago seemed far beyond
reach. Facing an unattainable Sunday deadline to achieve an agreement to roll back Iran's nuclear weapons program, all parties
have agreed to an extension until Nov. 24. In the interim, Iran will continue to allow intrusive inspections and
receive minor relief from economic sanctions that are crippling the Iranian economy. The extension, signaled by both
sides in recent days, was expected. But the muted reaction of skeptics, who see total capitulation by Iran as the only option,
was telling. Their alarmist predictions that easing sanctions would be disastrous have proved false, as
have their dire warnings that Iran would cheat while negotiations contained. By all accounts, Iran is
complying. In fact, it has gone further, agreeing to alter the design of a key plutonium reactor and proposing to convert much of its bombgrade uranium to a less dangerous form. None of this means an agreement will be reached. The technical obstacles to a credible agreement
are daunting. Hard-liners in Iran, Israel and the U.S. Congress still appear intent on scuttling any deal. Members of Congress from both parties
have gone as far to say they will vote to tighten sanctions not loosen them unless Iran also gives up its missile program and abandons
terrorism, neither of which is even a subject of the current negotiations. Republican Rep. Ed Royce of California, chairman of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, criticized

the extension of the talks and called for ratcheting up the economic
pressure on Iran. But moving ahead with new sanctions at this delicate point in the negotiations would undoubtedly
derail them. On the Iranian side. President Hassan Rouhani, whose election led to the surprise Iranian opening, faces powerful domestic
opponents bent on holy war with the United States. Iran's supreme leader has sent conflicting signals, first forswearing nuclear weapons, then
last week saying Iran must retain a robust enrichment capability, ostensibly for energy generation. But

amid all the maneuvering,

one thing should be clear at least to reasonable observers: Any agreement in which Iran abandons nuclear weapons would
be an astounding achievement, one that could lead to a reassessment of the caustic U.S.-Iran relationship. It would avoid a
nearly certain nuclear arms race in the Middle East, not to mention an equally likely U.S. war with Iran prompted by
an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

UQ A2 no deal
Extension provides key time for deal
RIA Novosti 7/19 German Foreign Minister Hopes Extension of Talks to Resolve Iran's Nuclear
Program Issue, http://en.ria.ru/politics/20140719/191039968/German-Foreign-Minister-HopesExtension-of-Talks-to-Resolve.html

MOSCOW, July 19 (RIA Novosti) - German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who is currently on a visit to Mexico, has said he hopes

the extension of the negotiations between P5+1 group and Iran until November will allow to reach an agreement
on Tehrans nuclear program. "These few months till November may be the last and best chance to finish
the nuclear dispute peacefully. Obviously, negotiations cannot continue indefinitely. Before the term of the plan expires, Iran should
prove the peaceful nature of its nuclear program," the head of German Foreign Ministry said.

Extension will allow for comprehensive agreement Iran has made progress
The Guardian 7/16 Obama indicates extension to Iran nuclear talks as deadline looms,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/16/obama-kerry-path-forward-iran-nuclear-talks

Diplomats told the Associated Press that Iran and other world powers involved in the talks Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia have
tentatively decided to extend the talks beyond the original deadline that falls this Sunday. "There

are still significant gaps between

the international community and Iran and we have more work to do," Obama said in a statement from the White
House. "So over the next few days, we'll continue consulting with Congress, and our team will continue discussions with Iran and our partners,
as we determine whether additional time is necessary to extend our negotiations." Obama administration officials have in recent days been
stressing the advances

made during the temporary, six-month agreement in which Iran halted its nuclear
program in exchange for some sanctions relief, as a condition of the current talks. Obama struck a similar tone. "It is clear to me we've
made real progress in several areas, and that we have a credible way forward," he said. "Over the last six
months, Iran has met its commitments under the interim deal we reached last year, halting the progress of its
nuclear program, allowing more inspections and rolling back its most dangerous stockpile of nuclear material," he
said. Earlier on Wednesday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest conceded that much remained to be done. "Part of secretary Kerrys
consultations with the president will involve a discussion about the path forward, which reflects the fact that some gaps remain here, just four
days before the preset deadline for these negotiations to end." Iranian journalists accompanying Tehran's diplomatic delegation in Vienna
reported on Wednesday that ongoing nuclear talks will draw to a close this Friday but will be extended for a few months, citing an unnamed
official. "It is not clear for how much time the negotiations will be extended for," the semi-official Fars news agency reported. "Talks are
currently under way about the period of an extension and the conditions under which it will be allowed." Fars, which is affiliated with Irans
elite Revolutionary Guards, said the completion of the talks this week did not mean negotiations had failed. Similar reports were published by
other Iranian news agencies, including the state news agency Irna, which said the Islamic republic had not yet officially consented to the
extension. Isna, another Iranian news agency reporting from Vienna, quoted an anonymous Iranian official as saying that talks will finish, for
now, on Friday. "Negotiations between Iran and P5+1 will

be extended for a few months so that we can work on drafting

a comprehensive agreement, Isna quoted the official as saying.

Gaps exist but can be resolved

Deccan Chrionicle 7/19 Iran, powers extend talks after missing nuclear deal deadline,
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/140719/world-middle-east/article/iran-powers-extend-talks-aftermissing-nuclear-deal-deadline

Vienna: Iran and six powers agreed to continue talking for four more months after failing to meet a July 20 deadline to
reach a deal on curbing the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for ending sanctions, enabling Tehran to access $2.8 billion of frozen cash.
But U.S. officials warned that most sanctions against the Islamic Republic would remain in place. The announcement came in the early hours
of Saturday after nearly three weeks of marathon talks in a 19th century Viennese palace, where senior officials from Iran, the
United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China were holed up in negotiating rooms struggling to reach an agreement. Iran will be
allowed to access in tranches an additional $2.8 billion of its frozen assets during the period of extended talks, senior U.S. officials told
reporters in Vienna. "Iran will not get any more money during these four months than it did during the last six months, and the vast majority
of its frozen oil revenues will remain inaccessible," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in a statement released in Vienna on Saturday. "We will
continue to vigorously enforce the sanctions that remain in place." It remains uncertain whether four more months of high-stakes talks will
yield a final deal, since major underlying differences remain after six rounds of meetings this year. Western nations fear Iran's nuclear
program may be aimed at developing a nuclear weapons capability. Tehran denies this. The six powers want Iran to significantly scale back
its nuclear enrichment program to make sure it cannot yield nuclear bombs. Iran wants sanctions that have severely damaged its oil-dependent
economy to be lifted as soon as possible. After years of rising tension between Iran and the West and fears of a new Middle East war, last
year's election of a pragmatist, Hassan Rouhani, as Iran's president led to a thaw in ties that resulted in November's diplomatic breakthrough.
A senior U.S. official told reporters Washington would make clear to countries around the world that "Iran is not open for business" during the
four months of extended talks. In exchange for the $2.8 billion, Kerry said, Iran has agreed to continue neutralizing its most sensitive uranium
stocks - uranium that has been enriched to a level of 20 percent purity - by converting it to fuel for a research reactor in Tehran that is used to
make medical isotopes. Kerry said the future of Iran's enrichment program was one of the most divisive topics. "There

are very real

gaps on issues such as enrichment capacity at the Natanz enrichment facility," he said. "This issue is an absolutely critical
component of any potential comprehensive agreement. We have much more work to do in this area, and in others as well."
'SIGNIFICANT GAPS' Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told reporters earlier this week that Tehran
would be willing to delay development of an industrial-scale uranium enrichment program for up to seven
years and to keep the 19,000 centrifuges it has installed so far for this purpose. But Kerry said after several face-to-face meetings with Zarif it
was "crystal clear" that for Iran to keep all of its existing centrifuges was out of the question. EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and
Zarif spoke of "significant gaps" in a joint statement they issued in the early hours of Saturday. Another difficult issue in the talks, diplomats
said, is how to address Iran's suspected past atomic bomb research and the duration of any long-term restrictions on its nuclear program. The
negotiations began in February in Vienna. "We

will reconvene in the coming weeks in different formats with the clear
determination to reach agreement on a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (long-term agreement) at the earliest possible
moment," Ashton and Zarif said.

UQ A2 UQ overwhelms
Overwhelms what the entire DA is that Obama has enough political weight to
control the Iran deabte, but the plan splinters it
GOP will use ANY opportunity to sanction Iran, while Ried has prevented a vote until
now, that has been with the assistance of pressure from Obama.
GOP will continue to push for a vote Obamas strength is key prevent democratic
splintering
Rebecca Shimoni Stoil 2/6/2014 Republicans said set to push Iran bill to a vote, The Times of Israel,
http://www.timesofisrael.com/republicans-said-set-to-push-iran-bill-to-a-vote/

WASHINGTON After

days in which political insiders here tried to write the obituary for the Senate bill that
would impose additional sanctions on a recalcitrant Iran, Republican senators were poised Thursday to
renew their push on the legislation. In a letter, Senate Republicans called on Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid (D-NV) to allow the bill, which has driven a wedge between some Democrats and the administration,
to come to a vote. The Daily Beast reported that Republican senators were planning on utilizing procedural tools
on Thursday to pressure Reid into allowing the bipartisan Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act to be voted
upon. The Obama administration has been adamant in its opposition to the legislation, which was initiated in December by
Senators Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The bill currently has 59 co-sponsors, hovering just below a
veto-proof majority in the upper house. While 13 Democrats support the bill, a number have chosen to sit on
the fence in a struggle that pits the administration against powerful lobbying groups such as AIPAC. Although
the bill is on the Senate calendar, Reid has refused thus far to schedule a vote on the legislation, which has driven
a wedge among Democrats who hold a thin majority in the upper house. In their letter, Senate Republicans called on
Reid to bring the bill to a vote not just because of the significance of the legislation itself, but as a matter of democratic principle. You have
already taken unprecedented steps to take away the rights of the minority in the Senate, the senators wrote to Reid. Please do not take
further steps to take away the rights of a bipartisan majority as well. In the letter, the senators also noted that the American people
Democrats and Republicans alike overwhelmingly support this legislation. Senators can use the floor to publicly call out Reid and the
Democratic leadership for refusing to allow a vote, or can tack the bill on as an amendment to other pieces of legislation deemed important by
the Senate leadership. They can also refuse to support legislation if the bill is not brought to a vote. In last weeks State of the Union address,
President Barack Obama warned that if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it.
Supporters say the bill reinforces rather than undermines presidential authority by allowing the president to waive future sanctions either by
certifying Iranian compliance with the interim agreement with Iran reached in Geneva late last year, or in the event that a final agreement is
reached. At the same time, it sets basic terms for a deal, mandating that a final arrangement must dismantle Irans nuclear infrastructure. The
bills reported demise came following repeated lobbying efforts both by the administration as well as by a coalition of lobbying groups including
J Street, Americans for Peace Now, the National Iranian American Council, the American Security Project and the Atlantic Council, coordinated
under the leadership of the Ploughshares Fund. Under

pressure from the administration, at least four Democratic co-

sponsors of the bill, including Chris Coons (D-DE), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) all have
indicated that they are willing to put the bill on ice at least for the time being. In an interview with MSNBC last
month, Manchin said that he did not sign it with the intention that it would ever be voted upon or used upon while we were negotiating.
Saying that it would be good to give peace a chance, Manchin said he co-sponsored the bill because I wanted to make sure the president had
a hammer if he needed it and showed them how determined we were to do it and use it if we had to. Republicans

will attempt to

force Democrats to stake a position on record, creating a catch-22 situation for the Democratic legislators who will have to
vote against a bill they co-sponsored or go against a Democratic administration. Iran on January 20 stopped enriching uranium to 20 percent
and started neutralizing its existing stockpile of that grade just steps away from weapons material in order to fulfill commitments reached
under an interim deal in Geneva. The US and the European Union also lifted some sanctions in response to the Iranian moves. The

interim

Geneva accord will last for six months as Iran and the six-nation group the five permanent members of the UN
Security Council plus Germany negotiate a final deal. Those talks are to start February 18 in Vienna.

UQ A2 congressional veto
Obama can waive sanctions if a deal is reached
Deutsche Welle 7/19 Iran talks extended: Deal or no deal?, http://www.dw.de/iran-talksextended-deal-or-no-deal/a-17795348

But won't the skeptics in Congress demand both - minimum enrichment and maximum inspections - thereby setting conditions that can never
be met? This matters: Congressional

approval is required to lift sanctions as part of a deal. Acton is concerned. "There

is a real danger that, if an agreement is reached, it will fall apart in the US." But he points out that Obama could buy time, using
presidential authority to waive sanctions at first, making the case to Congress: "If you're not happy with how this
is being implemented, you're going to be able to vote down the road not to remove sanctions."

UQ A2 russian scuttle
Iran committed to deal
Ghoreishi 7-15 (Shahed, M.A. candidate studying the Middle East and International Economics at the
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, B.A. from the Henry M. Jackson school of
International Studies at the University of Washington, Why the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Wont End in
Failure for Iran and the West, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/07/15/iran-nuclearnegotiations-wont-end-failure-iran-west/)

Meanwhile in Tehran, President Rouhani who was elected last year has already invested endless political

capital in reaching
a deal with Washington. Criticism from Irans hardliners has been quelled by Ayatollah Khameneis
endorsement of the negotiations with the west. Most recently, some have been critical of Khameneis comments that Iran
would need 190k functioning centrifuges many more than Irans current 19,000 that the west is trying to reduce. This would be seen as a
negotiating death wish.

Iran will not let Russian retaliation tank talks

Roula Khalaf 3/24/14 In new cold war, Russia can hit America where it hurts on Iran, Financial
Times, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f13b3608-b338-11e3-b89100144feabdc0.html#axzz2wvrBrH6M

Iranian officials, however, also appear mindful that the east-west tensions could be a minefield. They have
trod a cautious line in their reaction to Russias annexation of Crimea, with some commentators expressing
hope that Europes need to reduce reliance on Russian gas offered opportunity for Irans struggling energy
sector. Despite the short-term benefits of closer ties with Russia, Irans objective in resolving the nuclear
dispute is to fix its economy with western finance, investment and technology not tie it to a faltering
Russian economy saddled with its own set of sanctions.

Insiders agree
RT 3-27-14. Historical Iranian nuclear deal to be shelved again?, http://rt.com/op-edge/iran-nucleardeal-problems-621/

Nevertheless, Iran's

top nuclear negotiator, Abbas Araghchi, said that the crisis in Ukraine, which is the worst
"no impact" on talks. "We also prefer the [powers]
to have a unified approach for the sake of negotiations," he added. "I haven't seen any negative effect," Michael Mann, a
spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who coordinates the talks on behalf of the six nations, told
reporters. "We continue our work in a unified fashion."
confrontation between the West and the East since the Cold War, had so far had

And, if they try, Iran will not follow Russian lead

Michael Adler 3/19/2014 (an expert on Iranian nuclear issues at the Woodrow Wilson Center, writes
regularly on the issue for Breaking Defense) Russia Threatens To Derail Iran Talks Over Ukraine,
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/03/russia-threatens-to-derail-iran-talks-over-ukraine/

CBS correspondent Margaret Brennan quoted in a tweet a US official saying the

Russians are not about to pull out of the

Iran talks because Russias participation isnt a favor theyre doing for the West. Meanwhile, if Iran is dedicated to getting an
agreement in order to stop sanctions from destroying its economy, the Russians may no longer have the
influence in the Iranian talks that they had before.

Russia wont scuttle Iran because of Ukraine shit

Howard LaFranchi The Christian Science Monitor March 27, 2014. After Crimea: What Putin might
do next, http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20140327/after-crimea-what-putin-might-do-next

Nor does Russia seem prepared to cut off its cooperation with other world powers not least because such a
move would only confirm the US narrative of Russia's "isolation." As a US Treasury official noted as negotiations with Iran resumed
the day after Crimea's vote to secede from Ukraine, Russia is likely to remain a participant in the nuclear
talks with other world powers even those like the US and European countries that had just imposed
sanctions on Russia over Crimea because it is in Russia's interest to do so. The Russians "have been
involved in this because they have a shared interest in ensuring that Iran doesn't obtain a nuclear
weapon," the official said. "We expect that interest hasn't changed."

Zero risk Russia scuttles prolif, stability, Russia-Iran relations and invasion
prevention
RT 3-27-14. Historical Iranian nuclear deal to be shelved again?, http://rt.com/op-edge/iran-nucleardeal-problems-621/

However, despite warnings that Russia could

throw a wrench into nuclear negotiations with Iran, senior US

officials downplayed this idea, saying they had seen no change in the posture of Russia in Vienna. In
fact, it wont be rational for Russia to undermine the nuclear deal process and there are a number of
reasons for this. First, Russia, as well as other P5+1 states, is not interested in enlargement of the nuclear club
since new members could diminish their strategic advantage. Second, its good to remember that the
northern tip of Iran is roughly 160 kilometers from Russias southern border, and if Iran develops a nuclear weapon,
that weapon would be a lot closer to Russia than to many other parties involved. Third, Russia prefers
stability in the Middle East not only because its own stability and security depends on this, but Moscow also considers that an
Iranian bomb could spark nuclear programs in other Arab countries, for instance, Saudi Arabia, with unpredictable results that would touch
every single country in the world. Fourth, Russia has always had closer ties with Iran than the Western powers and has been seen to use its
relationship with the Islamic Republic in the past as a lever of influence over the West. Given the ongoing war in Syria, another Russias ally,

Moscow is interested in maintaining strong and warm relations with Tehran, and therefore, will try to
smooth the talks as much as possible so as to get a beneficial deal. Finally, if Russia changes its stance in
the negotiations, it will lead to the failure of diplomacy, which in its turn can result in the US-led
military action, so hated by Russia. Indeed, President Obama has repeatedly warned that he would use force if necessary to keep
Iran from developing a bomb an idea that turns stomachs in Moscow. Attempts to prepare and implement strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities
are a very, very dangerous idea, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said last January. We hope these ideas will not come to fruition.

Link

2nc link wall must READ

Obamas continued full court press is key he has to use capital to fight off hardliners,
who would quote torpedo and make violent conflict more likely thats Deccan
Chronicle
Obama must maintain his political strength in order to keep hardliners in check and
prevent sanctions EXPLAIN TOPIC/PLAN LINK thats AUTHOR NAME
ANY legislation that undermines Obama negotiation unity allows the Iranian
hardliners to expose gaps stalling talks
Donna Cassata 2/3/14 Clinton warns new Iran sanctions could upend talks, Associated Press,
http://www.wtvm.com/story/24613934/clinton-warns-new-iran-sanctions-could-upend-talks

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

is warning Congress that new unilateral sanctions against Iran could

lawmakers to work with the Obama

upend sensitive international negotiations over its nuclear development, imploring

administration in

presenting a unified front to Tehran. Echoing President Barack Obama's deep concerns about another round
of tough economic penalties, Clinton said any congressional action could undercut U.S. work with its allies as well as
American influence with Russia and China in forcing Tehran to negotiate after years of inconclusive talks. "Now
that serious negotiations are finally under way, we should do everything we can to test whether they
can advance a permanent solution," Clinton said. "As President Obama has said, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed,
while keeping all options on the table." Clinton offered her assessment in a three-page letter to Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Levin's office released the letter, dated Jan. 26, on Sunday. Levin and several other committee
chairmen have expressed a willingness to hold off on sanctions to give diplomatic efforts a chance. However, 59 Republicans and Democrats
back legislation to impose a new round of penalties on Iran, maintaining that crippling economic sanctions forced Tehran to make
concessions. The legislation, sponsored by Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., would blacklist several Iranian industrial sectors
and threaten banks and companies around the world with being banned from the U.S. market if they help Iran export any more oil. The
provisions would only take effect if Tehran violates the six-month interim deal or lets it expire without a comprehensive nuclear agreement.
Iran agreed in November to slow its uranium enrichment program to a level that is far below what would be necessary to make a nuclear bomb.
It also agreed to increased international inspections to give world leaders confidence that it is not trying to build weapons in secret. In
exchange, the U.S. and five other nations - Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China - agreed to ease an estimated $7 billion worth of
international sanctions against Iran's crippled economy for a six-month period while negotiators try to broker a final settlement. Iran has long
maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Clinton said the intelligence community has said new sanctions could undercut
the chances for a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran. "I share that view. It could rob us of the diplomatic high ground we worked so
hard to reach, break the united international front we constructed and in the long run, weaken the pressure on Iran by opening the door for
other countries to chart a different course," said the former New York senator and possible 2016 presidential candidate. In his State of the
Union address this past week, Obama repeated his threat to veto any new Iran sanctions if Congress passes legislation. Clinton, who said she
repeatedly backed Iran sanctions during her eight years as senator, cautioned lawmakers. "If the world judges - rightly or wrongly - that
negotiations have collapsed because of actions in the United States Congress, even some of our closest partners abroad - to say nothing of
countries like Russia and China - may well falter in their commitment. And without help from our partners in enforcing them, any new measures
we put in place will not achieve maximum impact," Clinton said. Levin, who had written to Clinton Jan. 16 seeking her views, said her letter
"is

another strong signal to Congress that we should not take any legislative action at this time that
would damage international unity or play into the hands of hard-liners in Iran who oppose negotiations."

Obama has halted sanctions for the time being with democratic support, however,
lawmakers can reverse course if the equation is changed new debates about OCEAN
POLICY undermine Obama, causing defections
Peter Weber 1/30 (senior editor at TheWeek.com) What sank the Senate's Iran sanctions bill? After
Obama's State of the Union speech, it looks like Democrats are going to give peace a chance, after all,
http://theweek.com/article/index/255771/what-sank-the-senates-iran-sanctions-bill]

If there is any momentum on the bill now, it's on the other side. Obama reiterated his veto threat in the very public
setting of his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, saying that "for the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance
to succeed." Jan. 20 marked the beginning of a six-month period of negotiations between the U.S., Iran, and five other world powers aimed at
preventing Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. The negotiations won't be easy, and "any long-term deal we agree to must be based on
verifiable action," not trust, Obama said. But "if John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong
and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today." After the speech, at least four Democratic cosponsors Sens.
Chris Coons (Del.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Ben Cardin (Md.) said they didn't want to vote on the bill while
negotiations are ongoing. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) had already adopted that position earlier in the month. The distance these
cosponsors put between themselves and the bill wasn't uniform. Cardin punted to Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who is opposed to bringing the bill
to the floor for a vote. (Cardin "wants to see negotiations with Iran succeed," a spokeswoman's said. "As for timing of the bill, it is and has
always been up to the Majority Leader.") Manchin, on the other hand, told MSNBC that he didn't sign on to the bill "with the intention that it
would ever be voted upon or used upon while we were negotiating," but rather "to make sure the president had a hammer if he needed it." He
added: "We've got to give peace a chance here." With

the list of Democratic cosponsors willing to vote for the bill

shrinking by five, the dream of a veto-proof majority in the next six months appears to be dead. Even Republican
supporters of the legislation are pessimistic of its chances: "Is there support to override a veto?" Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.),
the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told National Journal on Wednesday. "I say, 'No.'" So, what happened to the
Iran sanctions bill? The short version: Time, pressure, and journalism. The journalism category encompasses two points: First, reporters
actually read the legislation, and it doesn't quite match up with the claims of lead sponsors Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sen. Mark Kirk
(R-Ill.), who say the sanctions would only take effect if Iran was found to be negotiating in bad faith. A much-cited analysis by Edward Levine at
the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation showed that the Iran sanctions would kick in unless Obama certified a list of impossible or
deal-breaking conditions. Journalists also started asking the cosponsors about their intentions. It's possible there were never 59 votes for the
bill, but the legislation was filed right before Christmas and many reporters (not unreasonably) conflated cosponsorship with support for the
bill, regardless of what was happening with the negotiations. They only asked on Tuesday night and Wednesday because Obama brought up the
issue in his State of the Union speech. Time without action always saps momentum, but with the Iran sanctions bill it also allowed events to
catch up with the proponents of new sanctions. When they filed the bill Dec. 20, the interim Iran deal was just a talking point; a month later it
was reality. The Obama administration, U.S. intelligence community, and outside analysts agree that new sanctions would scuttle the deal, and
its harder to take that risk when that deal is in effect. Finally, critics of the bill including the White House and J Street, the liberal pro-Israel
lobbying group had time to mount a counterattack. Starting Jan. 6, J Street and other groups opposed to the legislation "reached out to
senators who were on the fence and senators who'd cosponsored on day one," says Slate's David Weigel. "The message was the same: Have
you guys read this thing?" Dylan William, J Street's director of government relations, describes the strategy in more depth: We made
especially prodigious use of our grass tops activists. These are people who have longstanding relationships with members of Congress to
express two things. One: The bill is bad policy. Two: There was no political reason that these senators should feel they need to support the bill.
There is deep political support in communities for members of Congress and senators who want to reserve this peaceably. [Slate] So take a
bow, J Street for now, the David of the Israel lobby has slain its Goliath, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is
pushing for the legislation. That

could all change if the interim Iran deal falls apart or some other event
intercedes to change the equation for lawmakers. But momentum is hard to un-stall, and lawmakers are now considering
changing the bill into a non-binding resolution. John Judis at The New Republic is relieved, and counts Obama's veto threat Tuesday night as
the boldest part of his speech. "If these negotiations with Iran fail, the United States will be left with very unsatisfactory alternatives," he
writes: Use military force to stop Iran, which might only delay Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, and will potentially inflame the region in a
new war, or allow Iran to go ahead and hope to contain Iran as we have contained other potentially hostile nuclear powers. Obama may not be
able to secure authorization for the first alternative... and if he opts for the second, he will leave open the possibility of regional proliferation or
of Israel going to war against Iran. It's

in America's interest and, incidentally, Israel's as well to allow the current

negotiations to take their course without malignant interference from Congress and AIPAC. [New Republic]

2nc internal will reintroduce

Both republicans and democrats are looking for any chance to reintroduce a fight for
sanctions faltering talks or Iranian hardline antics will spark the debate thats
Sargent
Will reintroduce
Jim Lobe 1/23 ( The Washington Bureau Chief of the international news agency Inter Press Service)
Top Israel Lobby Group Loses Battle on Iran, But War Not Over, http://www.lobelog.com/top-israellobby-group-loses-battle-on-iran-but-war-not-over/

No one, however, believes that AIPAC and its allies have given up. If the P5+1 negotiations should falter, the
Kirk-Menendez bill is likely to be quickly re-introduced; indeed, one influential Republican senator said it should be put
on the calendar for July, six months from Jan. 20 the date that Nov. 24 interim accord formally went into effect. It seems likely that
advocates [of the bill] are getting ready to shift to some form of Plan B [which], one can guess, will look a
lot like Plan A, but, instead of focusing on derailing negotiations with new sanctions, [it] will likely focus on imposing conditions on any
final agreement conditions that are impossible to meet and will thus kill any possibility of a deal,
according to Friedman.

Negotiation failure or Iranian act out will revive sanctions

Erin Delmore 2-5-2014. Democrats split over Syria, Iran, http://www.msnbc.com/all/democratssplit-over-syria-iran

The unity that guided congressional Democrats through last falls budget battles is fracturing over debates in the foreign policy arena.
Republicans are looking to take advantage of their rivals inter-party fights. Over strong objections from the president, 16

Senate
Democrats support a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran should the country fail to reach a
permanent agreement with international negotiators to roll back its nuclear program. Those senators,
along with 43 Republicans, argue that tough sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first
place and further pressure would flex American muscle in the 6-month talks toward crafting a permanent solution. The bill drew support from
Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, and Harry Reid, D-Nev., both close allies of Obamas but also leading supporters of policies favoring Israel. The
American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Americas most powerful pro-Israel advocacy group, has lobbied members of Congress from both
parties to support the sanctions. Other

Democrats are siding with the Obama administration, which argues that
imposing new sanctions damaged good-faith negotiations while empowering Irans hard-liners rooting
for the talks to fail. (A National Security Council spokeswoman charged last month that the sanctions bill
could end negotiations and bring the U.S. closer to war.) The Senate bill has been losing steam ever
since the White House ratcheted up pressure on Senate Democrats to abandon the it. Introduced in December
by Democrat Robert Menendez, D-N.J. and Sen. Mark Kirk. R-Ill., the legislation was backed by 59 members but now Senate leaders say they
will hold off bringing the legislation to a vote until the six-month negotiation process ends. Adam Sharon, a spokesman for the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, which Menendez chairs, said the New Jersey Senator stands behind the bill that bears his name. Menendez and 58 other
senators support the bill, Sharon said. Its his bill, three or four senators say they wouldnt call for a vote now. His position has been, having a
bill, having this in place is an extremely effective and necessary tool when negotiating with the Iranians that we need to have to avoid Iran
crossing the nuclear threshold. He stands behind this bill and the whole essence of the bill is to have sanctions in waiting, but you have to move
on them now to make it happen. The movement is still alive in the House with enough votes to pass, despite a letter signed by at least 70
Democrats opposing the measure, and a letter of criticism by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Obama reiterated in last weeks State of
the Union address a promise to veto any attempt to impose new sanctions on Iran. Wendy Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator, acknowledged
this week that the temporary agreement with Iran is not perfect, calling it a first step on the way to a final agreement. This is not perfect but

this does freeze and roll back their program in significant ways and give us time on the clock to in fact negotiate that comprehensive
agreement, Sherman said Tuesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The deal reached in November promised the easing of up
to $8 billion in sanctions in exchange for Irans agreement to slow its nuclear program and allow verification by international inspectors. Iran
insists its nuclear facilities are for civilian energy use but other nations fear they could be used to build nuclear weapons. The deal struck by the
U.S., Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany extends for a six-month period while all parties try to reach a more permanent solution.

Should those nations fail to reach an agreement or if Iran violates the terms along the way, Congress
will have an opportunity to revive the legislation, which would place restrictions on Irans oil exports, digging into a
split between Congressional Democrats who refuse the White Houses instance that additional sanctions
would embolden Irans hard-liners, and allowing Republicans to use issue as a wedge.

Iranian slip ups will leads to sanction revival

Steve Benen 2/4 Senate effectively scraps Iran sanctions bill, http://www.msnbc.com/rachelmaddow-show/senate-effectively-scraps-iran-sanctions-bill

Proponents, meanwhile, havent given up. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), for example, told The Hill hes still hoping to find
senators to endorse the effort, despite White House warnings. Were working on that, he said. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), meanwhile,
who wrote the bill and remains its chief sponsor, said he expects Iranians to abandon the diplomatic process and create new support for his
legislation. They cant help themselves, he said, adding, In the end the Iranians will help me out. Maybe, maybe not. Even

skeptics

of the sanctions bill have said if Iranian breaks the terms of the existing deal or scuttles diplomatic efforts in the coming
months, Congress can always return to the issue. All the more reason, they argued, to wait and see what diplomatic efforts can
produce. In the meantime, Obama wanted some breathing room for the international negotiations. As of yesterday, thats exactly what hes
earned.

Sanctions can quickly re-spawn

Lockshin 1-21 (Matt, senior campaign manager and online organizer at CREDO Action, A Big Day for
Diplomacy With Iran, 2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-lockshin/a-big-day-for-diplomacyw_b_4632941.html, CMR)

The bottom line is that Congress

needs to give President Obama the space he needs to cut a reasonable deal.
Legislation that seeks to tie his hands not only makes it less likely that diplomacy will succeed (which in
turn makes war much more likely), it also makes it more likely that the failure of diplomacy would be blamed (perhaps justifiably)
on the United States. What Can We Do Now? The short version is that we need to do all that we can to provide time and space
for the administration to negotiate a verifiable deal that protects our interests and advances our security in a peaceful
manner. Congress will try to prevent that, and it's our job to ensure that it doesn't. In terms of strategy, we need to keep the
pressure on Democrats in both chambers of Congress not to help the Republicans start another war. Senate Democrats are our
top targets. Although momentum has slowed on the new Iran sanctions bill, we remain in a dangerous
position. If anything goes even a little awry in the ongoing negotiations, then move for new sanctions can quickly
regain momentum. Getting more Democratic senators on the record opposing new sanctions now is a priority, as is holding accountable
those who are pushing for new sanctions. In the House, we need to make sure Democrats don't give bipartisan support to any bill, even a nonbinding resolution, supporting new sanctions or setting down markers about what an acceptable final deal will look like. And Democrats in both
chambers need to be reminded that should President Obama cut a reasonable deal with Iran, we will need them to back him up by passing
legislation that reduces sanctions in exchange for a verifiable agreement that stops Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear bomb.

Faltering negotiations bring the sanctions bill back

Greg Sargent 2/3 Another big blow to the Iran sanctions bill, Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/02/03/another-big-blow-to-the-iransanctions-bill/

This comes after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (belatedly) weighed in against the sanctions bill, another blow to its prospects.

While it does appear that the push for a sanctions vote has run aground, its worth reiterating that if
something goes wrong in the talks, those who want a vote including Republicans who appear to be using this as
a way to divide Dems, and Democrats who refuse to be swayed by the administrations insistence that a vote could derail diplomacy
could have a hook to revive their push.

A2 no foreign polcap
Not our argument Obama doesnt need political capital on the foreign stage, he
needs democratic unity to give him the perception of having political strength our
story isnt that Iranian hardliners are swayed by Obamas PC but rather they assess his
political strength as a barometer of control over Congress and negotiations
domestically to determine their behavior
Strong president allows cooperative negotiations as it provides Iranian moderates
cover, while the perception of a weak president provides a window of opportunity for
Iranian hawks to disrupt negotiations thats Friedman

Nuts/bolts

A2 Hirsch
Sequencing unpopular policies ruin the agenda Obamas entire first term proves
Hirsh, 2/7 --- Chief correspondent (2/7/2013, Michael, Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital; The
idea of political capitalor mandates, or momentumis so poorly defined that presidents and pundits
often get it wrong, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-politicalcapital-20130207))

. THE REAL LIMITS ON POWER Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention span, of course,
just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another well-worn
meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health

care law in his first term. But the real

problem was that the plan was unpopular, the economy was bad, and the president didnt realize that the national mood (yes,
again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For
Americans in 2009 and 2010haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal
spending that never seemed to find its way into their pocketsgovernment-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far.

So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights
over the debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the
countrys mood. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform
was that it distracted the governments attention from other issues that people cared about more urgently, such as the
need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didnt really have the
time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation with loopholes. Health

care was

sucking all the oxygen out of the room, the aides said.

Hirsch concedes PC matters

Hirsh, 2/7 --- Chief correspondent (2/7/2013, Michael, Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital; The
idea of political capitalor mandates, or momentumis so poorly defined that presidents and pundits
often get it wrong, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-politicalcapital-20130207))

The point is not that political capital is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for mandate or
momentum in the aftermath of a decisive electionand just about every politician ever elected has
tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was
elected and Romney wasnt, he has a better claim on the countrys mood and direction. Many pundits
still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. Its an unquantifiable but meaningful
concept, says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. You cant really look at a
president and say hes got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, its a concept that matters, if you
have popularity and some momentum on your side.

A2 No Spillover
Congressional confrontation of the president costs PC and trades off with the agenda
Berman 10 (Emily Berman is Counsel in the Liberty and National Security Project at the Brennan
Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, 2010 3 Alb. Govt L. Rev. 741, CMR)

First, all extract a significant toll in political capital, sometimes more than Congress possesses, or more than it is able to spend.87 The

cost
in political capital can be especially high in the national security arena, where the Executive has argued
spuriously but successfullythat it ought to have a monopoly on policy, and where the rewards for legislative diligence are
weak. The Presidents detention and interrogations policies present one example. When the Supreme Court invalidated the Presidents
initial military-commissions scheme,88 Congress could have refused to enact any law authorizing military commissions until the President
disclosed to Congress the memoranda justifying enhanced interrogation tactics. Instead, Congress simply passed the Military
Commissions Act, providing congressional approval for the Presidents desired military commissions. This may have simply reflected
Congresss reasoned policy judgment. But seeming

to oppose needed national security measureseven if that

opposition is merely a temporary effort to secure relevant informationexacts a political toll. Second, to exercise its
powers, Congress must overcome the significant challenges to collective action that plague all
legislative decision-making.89 Given the drastic nature of some of Congresss tools, those challenges prove
insurmountable in all but the most extreme cases. Third, the disclosure or nondisclosure of some information can dramatically change

the very political environment upon which the current system relies to resolve disputes.90 When Congress most needs information
because it knows little or nothing about secret activity within the executive branch for which there have been no public signals of any
problemis precisely when Congress most lacks both political capital and incentive to compel disclosure. Yet if the information would reveal
malfeasance, public support for Congresss active pursuit of an investigation might become considerably more intense. Until that information
becomes public, Congress may lack sufficient support to maintain the political will necessary to employ the tools at its disposal.91 To make
this problem concrete, consider that before the New York Times broke the story of the NSAs domestic warrantless surveillance activities,92
Congress would have had little basis for intrusive inquiry into what the NSA was doing, or the related question of what surveillance Justice
Department lawyers had authorized. It was only when the press published its initial information about the controversial program that
legislators gained sufficient leverage and the political capital to hold hearings and demand additional information. An executive branch
successful in maintaining confidentiality is thus also successful in maintaining a political environment that facilitates nondisclosure. If these
problems were not enough, executives since the mid 1980s have unilaterally disabled some of Congresss most effective tools for obtaining
information from executive officialscontempt of Congress resolutions, Congresss inherent contempt powers, and civil enforcement
actions. Historically, contempt-of-Congress resolutions have proved important to extracting information from the Executive. Contempt
citations, or threats of contempt citations, have succeeded in securing congressional access to disputed information, for example, from thenSecretary of State Henry Kissinger on CIA covert actions;93 from President Reagans Secretary of the Interior James Watt on Canadas
treatment of U.S. mineral investors;94 from President Clintons White House Counsel Jack Quinn on the firings of several White House Travel
Office employees.95 But to have more than symbolic effect, a contempt citation requires executive branch enforcement, with a congressional
contempt vote triggering a grand jury investigation into possible indictment.96 Since 1984, the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel
(OLC)97 has taken the position that a United States Attorney is not required to refer a congressional contempt citation to a grand jury or
otherwise to prosecute an Executive Branch official who carries out the Presidents instruction to invoke the Presidents claim of executive
privilege before . . . Congress.98 Because the Justice Department will not proceed with a contempt prosecution in these circumstancesand
indeed refused to proceed against Miers and Bolten when they were held in contempt in early 2008 as well as against then-EPA chief Anne
Gorsuch when she was held in contempt for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena in 198299 contempt citations lack the force
they once had to resolve information disputes between Congress and the Executive.100 Unless a contempt citation prompts a compromise
resolution of its own forcewhich might happen, for example, if it generates sufficient public pressure for disclosureit is an empty
gesture. Congress also has inherent contempt power to try a witness for contempt in the House or Senate, andif found guiltyto imprison
that witness in the Capitols jail.101 But use of this power is as problematic as Congresss other tools.102 A contemnor can be held only
until the end of the current session of Congress.103 And OLC has opined that inherent contempt suffers the same constitutional infirmities as
the criminal contempt statute if used against executive officials claiming executive privilege at the Presidents instruction.104 Thus any use of
inherent contempt powers against executive officials likely will give rise to protracted litigation over the constitutionality of such actions. Most
importantly, inherent contempt

is unseemly, cumbersome, disruptive of Congresss ability to carry out its

other pressing duties,105 and requires an inordinate expenditure of political capital.106 A system of
oversight that depends on the legislative sergeant-at-arms hauling off Washington bureaucrats into the well of the Capitol until they repent
their taciturn ways is simply no way to run a government. Because of these drawbacks, the inherent contempt power has fallen into disuse
it was last invoked in 1935107and remains unwieldy.

Plan imposes huge political costs on Obama---drains capital for other battles
Saunders 13 (Elizabeth N. Saunders, George Washington University, The Electoral Disconnection in US Foreign Policy,
January, http://mortara.georgetown.edu/document/1242780359442/SaundersElectoralDisconnectionJan2013.pdf, CMR)

Self-interested elites can impose costs on the president in exchange for their support (or for refraining from criticism) in
two principal ways. The first is by forcing the president to pay political costs to achieve his preferred policy, without
affecting the policy itself. Such cost raising bargains force the president to spend political capital that he might
have expended elsewhere.70 If the expected political costs are too high, the president may decide not to pursue a military
operation at all, or to curtail an operation already in progress. A second possibility is a more direct bargain or compromise that changes the
final form of the presidents decision, affecting either the policy itself or how the policy is implemented. The configuration of elites involved
in a particular issue will affect whether cost-raising or policy-adjusting outcomes emerge. A complete discussion of how likely different elites
are to impose certain types of costs on the president is beyond the scope of this paper, but here it is important to note that the process of
elite coalition management can have significant consequences for policy choices and implementation, particularly when elites are able to
extract policy-adjusting concessions. The

president may be pulled away from his ideal point to accommodate

elites, even if public opinion is not pushing in the same direction.

Presidential war power battles expend capital---its immediate and forces a trade-off
ONeil 7 (David---Adjunct Associate Professor of Law, Fordham Law School, The Political Safeguards of
Executive Privilege, 2007, 60 Vand. L. Rev. 1079, lexis)

a. Conscious Pursuit of Institutional Prerogatives The

first such assumption is belied both by first-hand accounts of

information battles and by the conclusions of experts who study them. Participants in such battles report that
short-term political calculations consistently trump the constitutional interests at stake. One veteran of the
first Bush White House, for example, has explained that rational-choice theory predicts what he in fact experienced: The rewards for a
consistent and forceful defense of the legal interests of the office of the presidency would be largely abstract, since they would consist primarily
of fidelity to a certain theory of the Constitution... . The

costs of pursuing a serious defense of the presidency, however,

would tend to be immediate and tangible. These costs would include the expenditure of political capital
that might have been used for more pressing purposes, [and] the unpleasantness of increased friction
with congressional barons and their allies. n182 Louis Fisher, one of the leading defenders of the political
branches' competence and authority to interpret the Constitution independently of the courts, n183 acknowledges that
politics and "practical considerations" typically override the legal and constitutional principles
implicated in information disputes. n184 In his view, although debate about congressional access and executive privilege "usually
proceeds in terms of constitutional doctrine, it is the messy political realities of the moment that usually decide the issue." n185 Indeed,
Professor Peter Shane, who has extensively studied such conflicts, concludes that their successful resolution in fact depends upon the parties
focusing only on short-term political [*1123] considerations. n186 When the participants "get institutional," Shane observes, non-judicial
resolution "becomes vastly more difficult." n187

GOP will use the plan as a political tool to attack Obama

Greenblatt 11 (Alan, Why The War Powers Act Doesn't Work, June 16,
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/16/137222043/why-the-war-powers-act-doesnt-work, CMR)

"The War Powers resolution really does

not work," says former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), who co-chaired the Iraq Study Group
and the 9/11 Commission. Instead, the War Powers Act has largely been used as it's being used now as a
political tool that allows Congress to criticize a president about the prosecution of a war. "The rhetoric is

sadly familiar," says Gordon Adams, a foreign policy professor at American University. "It just flips by party, depending on who's deploying the
troops." No More Vietnams The law was passed over the veto of President Richard M. Nixon. The intention was to prevent America from
entering into protracted military engagements, as Vietnam had become, without the approval of Congress. The president has 60 days to seek
formal approval from Congress after engaging in hostilities, with the possibility of a 30-day extension. "When the United States makes a
decision to go to war, it ought not to be made by one person," says Hamilton, who was chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee from
1993 to 1995. Rarely Declaring War The U.S. has engaged in dozens of military actions abroad, but Congress has declared war formally only a
handful of times. War of 1812 Mexican War (1846) Spanish-American War (1898) World War I (1917) World War II (1941) Source:
Congressional Research Service But, as Hamilton notes, no president has accepted the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, viewing it as a
violation of the separation of powers and the president's authority as commander in chief. In 2000, the Supreme Court turned back a
challenge brought by a group of 31 members of Congress who complained that U.S. participation in a bombing campaign in Yugoslavia violated
the act. "There's a long pattern of members going to court on War Powers cases," says Louis Fisher, a constitutional scholar who retired last
year after 40 years as an adviser to Congress. "Ninety-five percent of the time, courts say, 'Thirty of you are saying the president violated the
law, 30 others in an amicus brief are saying he didn't. We're not going to get involved,' " Fisher says. A

Political Cudgel As a result, the

debate over violations of the War Powers Act has devolved into a distraction. Hamilton says the law's intent was valid and
that "Congress ought to hold the administration's feet to the fire with regard to Libya." But he argues that the 1973 law has become a
"political tool that allows members of Congress to dodge taking a position on the intervention itself. As is often the case, they argue the
process rather than the substance." Both the Republican and Democratic congressional caucuses are divided about Libya. Some would prefer
a more concerted effort to target Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, while others worry about an expansion of the mission from protecting
civilians to seeking regime change. As a result, it's

difficult for Congress to speak with one voice in its battle with

Obama. On June 3, the House approved a resolution criticizing the president for not providing a "compelling rationale" for the Libya
campaign, but turned back legislation that would have pulled out U.S. forces within 15 days. Party Vs. Principle Both Hamilton and Adams
say the War Powers Act is being used primarily as a political cudgel against Obama. "Is the War Powers Act about
protecting the power of Congress relative to the president, or about the two political parties?" asks Noah Feldman, a professor of international
law at Harvard University. While some members

of Congress may use the law to criticize the president for

political reasons, others will defend a president of their own party even those who had invoked the War Powers Act the last time the
other party held the White House.

Yes spillover---GOP will use the plan to wage broader attacks on Obama
Gerstein 10 (Josh, Republicans revive 'soft on terror' charge, Jan 31,
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7DA60F08-18FE-70B2-A8E8FED00CB8D160, CMR)

A series of recent

controversies capped by Fridays decision to pull a key 9/11 trial out of Manhattan is prompting
Republicans to turn up the pressure on President Barack Obama, by resurrecting the kind of soft on terrorism
charge that has dogged Democrats in the past. Obama largely escaped any controversy over terrorism in the 2008 campaign, because
voters were so focused on the economic crisis and because many were supportive of Obamas plans to break from the Bush-era war on terror,
by ending the Iraq war and shutting down Guantanamo Bay prison. But a series of stumbles in recent weeks has given Republicans

a chance to renew that line of attack against Obama, at a time when hes already confronting public criticism of his
handling of the economy and health care. The GOP has leapt on Obamas handling of the Christmas Day bombing plot, saying he was slow to
speak to the public about the initial attack and criticizing the Justice Departments decision to try the suspect in a civilian court, not a military
one. Republicans also are criticizing the Justice Department for an FBI decision to end questioning of the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
after less than an hour and read him his Miranda rights. That came on top of the congressional uproar over Obamas plan to close
Guantanamo Bay prison by moving the detainees to U.S. prisons. Obama missed a self-imposed one-year deadline to close the facility.
Republicans also criticized the Justice Departments decision to send five alleged 9/11 plotters to trial in Manhattan, just blocks from the World
Trade Center site a decision the administration abruptly abandoned Friday after powerful Democrats came out against the New York venue.
Its

the death of a thousand self-inflicted cuts, said Peter Feaver, a National Security Council official
under presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Conservatives like Vice President Cheney have been making the critique from the
beginning but it did not stick until the self-inflicted wounds reached a culmination point.. I think they did with the underwear bomber. Prior to
that the self-inflicted wounds were separated. They didnt congeal into a single story line, but now I think they have.
Republicans howled after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the system worked because passengers on the plane jumped on
the Abdulmutallab. And the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, went on a ski vacation shortly after the attack.
The terrain changed on them with the Christmas bombing. It

provided, fairly or unfairly, Exhibit A for what the critics on the

right ... were arguing: that by not taking terrorism seriously, you make America more vulnerable. Mirandizing [Abdulmutallab] plays right into
that. The system worked plays into that. Having someone take a vacation for a week plays right into it, Feaver said. GOP stalwarts like
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) have been pummeling Obama over these issues since last spring,
when the White House badly misjudged congressional sentiment and lost a series of votes related to closing the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Republicans seem emboldened, too, after Sen.-elect Scott Brown aggressively used the terrorism issue to score
points with voters in his stunning Massachusetts upset. He attacked Obama's decision to hold civilian trials for terror suspects Now even
mild-mannered Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), hardly a partisan bomb-thrower, is joining the parade of GOP
lawmakers taking Obama and his team to task.

Impact

2NC ! Turns Cred

Turns credibility faster than solvency - sends immediate signal of US open-ended
commitment to military aggression and rejection of multilateralism
Just the link destroys US credibility the world is watching Obamas ability to engage
Iran, failure wrecks US global diplomacy
Jon B. Alterman 9/4/13 (Zbigniew Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy and directs the
Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) US-Iran Nuclear Deal
Hinges On Syria Vote, www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/09/us-iran-nuclear-deal-hinges-onsyria-vote.html

Focusing solely on events in Syria, however, misses a large part of the Iranian calculus, if not the largest. What

really matters to Iran

is how successful Obama is in winning congressional support for his Syria policy. If he fails, it will deal a double
blow to the president. Not only will the Iranian government dismiss the possibility of negotiations with
his administration, it will also conclude that Obama can be defied with impunity. The international cost
of domestic political failure would be profound. To start, it is worth noting the extent to which foreign
governments are sophisticated consumers of American political information. Decades of international cable news
broadcasts and newspaper websites have brought intimate details of US politics into global capitals. Foreign ministers in the Middle East and
beyond are US news junkies, and they seem increasingly distrustful of their embassies. For key US allies, the foreign minister often seems to
have made him- or herself the US desk officer. Most can have a quite sophisticated discussion on congressional politics and their impact on US
foreign relations. The Iranian government is no exception. While former president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was emotional and
shrill in his opposition to the United States, there remains in Iran a cadre of Western-trained technocrats, fluent in English and nuanced in their
understanding of the world. President Hassan Rouhani has surrounded himself with such people, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
has charged them with investigating a different relationship between Iran and the United States. As they do so, they

cannot help but

be aware that on the eve of Rouhanis inauguration, the US House of Representatives voted 40020 to
impose stiff additional sanctions on Iran. The House saw Rouhanis electoral victory as a call for toughness, not potential
compromise. If Iran were to make concessions in a negotiation with the United States, they would surely seek
sanctions relief and other actions requiring congressional approval. To make such concessions to Obama, they would
need some confidence that he can deliver. A president who cannot bring around a hostile Congress is
not a president with whom it is worth negotiating. In this respect, Syria is a dry run for Obama's lobbying ability on foreign
policy. Until now, his record with Congress has been checkered. Congressional representatives complain that the White House has given them
the cold shoulder time after time, and there seems to be little warmth between the president and his former colleagues in the legislature.
Persuading Congress to back a military action that the majority of the public opposes will require presidential charm, pressure, and a good
measure of buttonholing and jawboning. Based on his past performance, Obama appears to be neither a joyful nor an especially skillful
practitioner of these political arts. As difficult as it is for Obama to persuade Congress to fight another battle in the Middle East, it would be
even more difficult to persuade it to accept a negotiated deal with Iran. Suspicions about Iran run deep in the United States, as well as among
many US allies in the Middle East. Should the White House decide to focus principally on the presidents domestic legacy, it may seem less
costly to deter Iran and maintain that no clear nuclear threshold has been crossed than to sell a deal to a skeptical Congress. That would then
put the onus on Iran to make any approach to the United States sufficiently attractive to gain the presidents attention. Iranians will surely view
a demonstration of the presidents inability to bring Congress along on Syria as a sign that there is no hope of his delivering Congress on Iran.
US-Iranian negotiations, surely in the offing for later this year, would be stillborn. There is, however, an even more stark consequence of
Obama losing the Syria vote in Congress. Should

the White House, with its immense power and prestige, fail to
build sufficient support, leaders around the world will conclude that this president can be defied with
impunity. If he cannot win the support of those close to him, what hope does he have of winning over
those at a distance? The consequence here would be a combination of much more difficult diplomacy and
even more bad behavior around the world that requires diplomacy to address. Hard-liners in Iran and their allies around the
Middle East would certainly be emboldened, and regional states would be far less likely to rely on US cues in

managing their own issues. Arab-Israeli negotiations, as well, would be dealt a fundamental blow, as each party would retreat to its
own maximal position. China, Russia and a host of other countries are watching closely as well.

Talks key to US credibility and leadership

Graham F. West 11/5 (MA student at the George Washington Universitys Elliott School for
International Affairs and a Research Intern for the Project on Middle East Democracy) Obama in Iran
with the GOP, http://muftah.org/obama-in-iran-with-the-gop/

Drawing on historical analogy can be a perilous exercise in international relations. Yet given the recent and rapid progress in U.S.-Iranian
relations, it is impossible not to reflect on Richard Nixons surprising state visit to China in 1972. Indeed, the allure of such a comparison has
proven irresistible for many foreign policy analysts. While

the opening of relations with Beijing was a deft political

move intended to drive a wedge between China and the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War,
increased engagement between the United States and Iran could produce far more strategic benefits.
An easing of tensions between the two countries would enable much-needed progress on two major international
crises: the ongoing Syrian conflict and the question of Iranian nuclear ambitions. Like Nixon did with China, President Obama should
seize on positive Iranian gestures, as well as encouraging discussions recently held between Iran and the P5+1 in Geneva, to push
for a historic, high-level government visit to Tehran. An Iranian Opening In advance of his September address to the United Nations General
Assembly in New York, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and senior officials in his administration launched what many deemed, often
disparagingly, as a charm offensive. As a part of this strategy, the new Iranian president appealed directly to the American people in a
number of U.S. media appearances. In an interview conducted in Tehran on September 18, Rouhani assured NBCs Ann Curry that under no
circumstances would *Iran+ seek any weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Two days later, he wrote an op-ed for the
Washington Post arguing that rather than focusing on how to prevent things from getting worse, we need to thinkand talkabout how to
make things better. Cautious desire for bilateral engagement emerged during Rouhanis visit to New York. The prospects for such
engagement were initially explored in a private meeting between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad
Javad Zarif. Hope was cemented with a celebrated eleventh hour phone call between Presidents Obama and Rouhani on September 27 as the
latter was preparing to return home. The beginnings of dialogue in New York were followed by bilateral discussions during P5+1 negotiations
in Geneva between U.S. Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman and Irans Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, which were purportedly
useful in beginning to overcome the deep mistrust that has defined the U.S.-Iranian impasse for over three decades. All this engagement
appears aimed at fulfilling Rouhanis major campaign promise to seek constructive interaction with the world. Perhaps even more important
than Rouhanis diplomatic efforts, however, are whisperings about its reception within Irans domestic political sphere. Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave a speech on September 16 where he appeared to endorse the Rouhani administrations efforts. Khamenei spoke
of what he has previously termed heroic leniency, comparing engagement with the West to a wrestler who has to show flexibility
sometimes while still remembering his primary objective. This expression of support is critical to Rouhanis efforts after all, Irans executive
branch is ultimately subservient to the office of the Supreme Leader. Thus far, both the Iranian parliament and public seem supportive of
Rouhanis outreach, as reflected by the positive reception he received upon returning home from New York. A formal state visit by the United
States would validate not only Rouhanis recent efforts at engagement, but also the campaign platform that the Iranian people endorsed by
electing him. It would signal respect for the sovereignty and legitimacy of the Islamic republic, thereby working against the atmosphere of
suspicion and derision that feed Rouhanis hard-liner rivals. Arguments that the United States is only interested in fostering regime change
would gain less traction; the Iranian government could present a visit by Obama as a form of Western capitulation and admission of defeat of
over three decades of hostility, validating the revolutionary ideology of resistance to both Eastern and Western influence and domination. As
such, perhaps like never before, the time would seem ripe, for a U.S. government trip to Iran. Appealing to Obamas Real Adversaries:
Republicans A state visit to Tehran would have benefits for the United States as well. Despite the opposition of American partners such as
Israel and Saudi Arabia to improved

US-Iran relations, direct engagement would bolster the United States

lagging credibility in the regionthe start of a long, uphill battle, but a start nonetheless. It would also solidify the
importance of U.S. leadership in Western efforts to negotiate with Iran.

Turns credibility
Klapper 11-13-13 (Bradley, Obama seeks time from Congress for Iran diplomacy, but lawmakers
push for new sanctions,

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/c00a20048d354114a36da338495b6149/US-United-StatesIran, CMR)

Responding to Rouhani's promise of flexibility, Obama has staked significant international credibility on
securing a diplomatic agreement. His telephone chat with Rouhani in September was the first direct
conversation between U.S. and Iranian leaders in more than three decades. The unprecedented
outreach has angered U.S. allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. And lawmakers are deeply skeptical.
"This is a decision to support diplomacy and a possible peaceful resolution to this issue," White House
press secretary Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday. "The American people justifiably and understandably
prefer a peaceful solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and this agreement, if it's
achieved, has the potential to do that. The American people do not want a march to war."

T/ Credbility-Nuclear Iran crushes US credibility

Inbar, 11/2 Prof. Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is a professor
of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum, "Op-Ed: Washington
Must Strike Iran, Not Bargain With It"
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14050~~23.UoawzPmsiSp, CMR

Finally, Iran

is the supreme test of American credibility in world affairs. After saying so many times that a
nuclear Iran is unacceptable, allowing the radical regime of the mullahs to acquire a nuclear bomb or develop a
nuclear break-out capability will be a devastating blow to American prestige. Today the US is probably at its lowest ebb in
the region. Friends and foes alike are bewildered by the policies of the Obama administration, seeing an extremely weak president who seems
to be clueless about Middle East international politics.

2NC ! Turns Heg

Try or die scenario for hegemony failure dooms US leadership globally
Leverett 11-7-13 (Flynt, senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C. and a
professor at the Pennsylvania State University School of International Affairs, and Hillary Mann Leverett,
EO of Strategic Energy and Global Analysis (STRATEGA), a political risk consultancy, Americas moment
of truth about Iran, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/07/333513/americas-moment-of-truthabout-iran/, CMR)

Americas Iran policy is at a crossroads. Washington can abandon its counterproductive insistence on Middle Eastern
hegemony, negotiate a nuclear deal grounded in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and get serious about working
with Tehran to broker a settlement to the Syrian conflict. In the process, the United States would greatly
improve its ability to shape important outcomes there. Alternatively, America can continue on its present
path, leading ultimately to strategic irrelevance in one of the worlds most vital regions-with negative
implications for its standing in Asia as well. U.S. policy is at this juncture because the costs of Washingtons post-Cold
War drive to dominate the Middle East have risen perilously high. President Obamas self-inflicted debacle over his
plan to attack Syria after chemical weapons were used there in August showed that America can no longer credibly threaten the effective use
of force to impose its preferences in the region. While Obama still insists all options are on the table for Iran, the reality is that, if Washington
is to deal efficaciously with the nuclear issue, it will be through diplomacy. In this context, last months Geneva meeting between Iran and the
P5+1 brought Americas political class to a strategic and political moment of truth. Can

American elites turn away from a selfdamaging quest for Middle Eastern hegemony by coming to terms with an independent regional power? Or are they so
enthralled with an increasingly surreal notion of America as hegemon that, to preserve U.S. leadership, they will
pursue a course further eviscerating its strategic position? The proposal for resolving the nuclear issue that
Irans foreign minister, Javad Zarif, presented in Geneva seeks answers to these questions. It operationalizes the approach advocated
by Hassan Rouhani and other Iranian leaders for over a decade: greater transparency on Irans nuclear activities in return for
recognizing its rights as a sovereign NPT signatory-especially to enrich uranium under international safeguards-and removal
of sanctions. For years, the Bush and Obama administrations rejected this approach. Now Obama must at least consider it.

Turns heg balancing from Russia, China, and rising powers

Leverett 11-7-13 (Flynt, senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C. and a
professor at the Pennsylvania State University School of International Affairs, and Hillary Mann Leverett,
EO of Strategic Energy and Global Analysis (STRATEGA), a political risk consultancy, Americas moment
of truth about Iran, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/07/333513/americas-moment-of-truthabout-iran/, CMR)

If Obama does not conclude a deal recognizing Irans nuclear rights, it will confirm suspicions already held by
many Iranian elites-including Ayatollah Khamenei-and in Beijing and Moscow about Americas real agenda vis--vis the Islamic
Republic. It will become undeniably clear that U.S. opposition to indigenous Iranian enrichment is not
motivated by proliferation concerns, but by determination to preserve American hegemony-and Israeli
military dominance-in the Middle East. If this is so, why should China, Russia, or rising Asian powers
continue trying to help Washington-e.g., by accommodating U.S. demands to limit their own commercial
interactions with Iran-obtain an outcome it does not actually want?

2NC ! Turns terror

Turns terrorism biggest link, guts solvency
Avraham 9/9
Rachel, Analysis: The Main Terror Threat is Iran, Not Syria,
http://www.jerusalemonline.com/rachel/analysis-the-main-terror-threat-is-iran-not-syria-1579, CMR

Speaking at the World Summit on Counter-Terrorism, Maj. General Amos Gilad reiterated that the main effort should be to prevent Iran from
going nuclear. Israel has to focus on this threat. A

nuclear Iran can change the entire order in the Middle East. He
claimed that Iranian officials have even admitted that their nuclear program will help terrorist
organizations like Hezbollah, by providing them with a nuclear umbrella that will protect them against
retaliation whenever they engage in acts of terrorism, thus thwarting Israeli and western counter-terror measures. Prof. Uzi
Arad, head of the National Security Council, added that from an international legal perspective, Iran is also a greater violator than Syria. While
emphasizing that there are many atrocities being committed in Syria as we speak and that Assad has done terrible things, he claims that the
Geneva Convention only prohibits using chemical weapons on foreign fighters, not ones own citizens. Furthermore, Syria never ratified the
Chemical Weapons Convention, implying that Syria cannot be held legally responsible for using chemical weapons against her own people. To
the contrary, Arad emphasized that Iran has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran ratified, by internationally seeking to
develop nuclear weapons. Their level of breach is higher than the Syrians, Arad stated. Additionally, he believes that from a strategic point of
view, our eyes should be on Iran, even if you look at Syria. Iran

is the main sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, while

Syria is merely a proxy state of Iran. Israeli Defense Minister Boogie Yaalon emphasized, When we talk about states that
support terrorism, Iran tops the list. He stated that Iran supports terrorism around the world as a means to export their
revolution to other nations, with a special emphasis on Shiite communities in countries like Lebanon and Bahrain. He accused Iran of taking
advantage of the instability caused by the Arab Spring to promote radical Islam. Yaalon stated that Iran exploits the fact that the majority of
states in the Middle East were artificially formed by the Sykes-Picot Agreement and were only held together by a dictator, causing these
countries to descend into chaos once the dictator was overthrown. He also noted that Iran was behind the attempted assassination of the Saudi
Ambassador, as well as the Burgas terror assault and numerous attacks on Israeli embassies, demonstrating the extent to which Iran is a threat
to world peace. These Israeli security experts view Irans nuclear program to be a threat to global security ,
while Assads regime is mainly a threat to his own people, even though there are spillovers into the Golan Heights and other areas. To confirm
this point, Arad claims that more Americans support the United States attacking Iran to prevent the country from becoming a nuclear power
than starting a war to protect the Syrian people from Assads atrocities, since the American people understand that Iran is a greater global
threat than Syria.

--Iran will supply terrorists with nuclear weapons

Donnelly, December 2011 (Thomas Donnelly, a defense and security policy analyst, is the director of the Center for Defense Studies at AEI, Danielle Pletka is the
vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at AEI, Maseh Zarif is the research manager and Iran team lead for AEIs Critical Threats Project, which researches and analyzes key and
emerging US national security issues, CONTAINING AND DETERRING A NUCLEAR IRAN, http://www.aei.org/files/2011/12/05/-containing-and-deterring-a-nucleariran_145258702168.pdf, CMR)

It is likely that the Iranians value nuclear weapons not only for their deterrent purposes but also,
if delivered by a suicide terrorist, for the intoxicating promise of devastating effect and potential
deniability. It is also worth recalling that the Islamic Republic was created by risk takers who took full
opportunity of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavis weaknesses and then, in consolidating power, were willing to ride the
wave of popular anger and emotion that surrounded seizing the US embassy in Tehran and
holding US hostages in 1979, with very little understanding of what the result might be.69 Whatever the

the presence of a radical populist as the leading civilian and

international face of the government is not an expression of strategic caution.
true power and status of President Ahmadinejad within the regime,

MPX US-Iran war

Diplomacy failure spark a US-Iran war
Jacob Glass 3/25/14 (Harry S. Truman Scholar and a Udall Scholar. He recently completed a TrumanAlbright Fellowship at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars' Environmental Change
and Security Program) As Iran Nuclear Negotiations Begin, Threat of Increased Sanctions Looms Large,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-glass/as-iran-nuclear-negotiati_b_5024604.html

Last week Iran and the so-called P5+1 countries -- Russia, China, Britain, France, the U.S., plus Germany -- began a new round
of negotiations in the Austrian capital of Vienna. While perhaps overshadowed by tensions on the Crimean Peninsula and
missing Malaysian Flight 370, the talks mark a significant step towards resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis. Yet
misguided calls by Congress to increase sanctions on Iran threaten to scuttle progress, and underscore the fragility of the negotiating process.

Over the past three decades, Iran has faced crippling sanctions imposed by America and the international
community. Trade restrictions have steadily increased to block Iran's lucrative petroleum export market as well as the country's participation in
the global banking system. All told, international sanctions have cost Iran over $100 billion in lost oil profits alone. So

called "carrot
and stick" policies have long been fundamental to international diplomacy. The "stick" has been a sharp one,
and has finally brought the Iranians to the negotiating table. During his September visit to the UN General Assembly in
New York, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani spoke with President Obama over the phone, marking the first direct communication between an
American and Iranian president since 1979. On November 24, an interim "first-step" deal was reached to freeze Iran's nuclear development
program and pave the way for a comprehensive agreement. The deal halts uranium enrichment above 3.5 percent and puts international
observers on the ground in Iran, all but ensuring that negotiations cannot be used as a delay tactic. Yet

amid these positive signs

that diplomacy is working, members of Congress have advocated for even more sanctions to be levied
against Iran, specifically in the form of Senate Bill 1881, sponsored by Illinois Republican Mark Kirk and New Jersey Democrat Robert
Menendez. New sanctions would torpedo the Vienna talks and reverse the diplomatic progress that has
been made. Iranian officials have already promised to abandon negotiations if new sanctions are passed.
Even our own allies, along with Russia and China, have opposed the move. Passing unilateral sanctions
will splinter the fragile international coalition, needlessly antagonize Iranian negotiators, and make a
violent conflict with Iran more likely. Diplomatic victory will only be achieved if the international community stands united
before Iran. To this point, the Obama administration has avoided a vote on SB 1881 by threatening a veto of the bill,
and the administration's full court press to prevent Senate Democrats from supporting new sanctions has
bought international negotiators time. Several influential Democrats, including Senator Richard Blumenthal from
Connecticut, have agreed to postpone a vote on the bill, contingent on productive negotiations. Although
legislation imposing new sanctions has been avoided thus far, the pressure on Congressional Democrats to act will
intensify as talks in Vienna move forward. This round of negotiations is widely projected to be more difficult than the November
deal, and inflammatory rhetoric from Tehran is likely. Nevertheless, sanctions are not the answer. Instead, we must continue to let diplomacy
run its course. Sanctions have done their job by bringing Iran to the table. In return, Iran expects to be rewarded with sanctions relief. The

passage of new trade restrictions would effectively withdraw the carrot, and hit Iran with another stick.
Consider the negotiations over. The risks of delaying new sanctions is slight. The sanctions relief Iran is receiving is valued between
$6 and $7 billion, and represents only a small fraction of the remaining restrictions blocking Iran from using the international banking system
and selling oil. Should Iran prove to be a dishonest negotiating partner, sanctions can be renewed and ratcheted up. Most importantly,
international observers will be on the ground in Iran to prevent Tehran from racing towards a nuclear weapon while negotiations are ongoing.
At the same time, the benefits of successful diplomacy are immense, as a comprehensive deal would be a dramatic victory for U.S. nonproliferation efforts. Further, the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program would significantly ease tensions between its two biggest rivals in the
region, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Our congressional leaders must not be so confident as to think Iran is desperate for a deal. The unprecedented
overtures of President Rouhani to the West are widely seen as a test to gauge if a favorable solution can be negotiated with the international
community. Should he fail to do so, hardliners within the Iranian government will be empowered to revert back to a pre-Rouhani foreign policy
dominated by isolation from the West and an aggressive nuclear development program. Our senators are

facing significant

political pressure to resist multilateralism and pursue increased sanctions based on an uncompromising mistrust of
Iran. But history judges leaders not upon their conformity with party politics, but upon the ultimate results they achieve. It's time to negotiate
with the Iranians on good faith, and begin the serious work of establishing

the beginning of a new era in Iranian-Western relations.

a meaningful nuclear agreement that could signal

MPX---Yes War
Escalates, extinction
Mahdi Nazemroaya, Research Associate, Centre for Research on Globalization, The Next World War:
The Great Game and The Threat of Nuclear War, Global Research, 11011,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-next-world-war-the-great-game-and-the-threat-of-nuclearwar/22169?print=1

Any attack on Iran will be a joint operation between Israel, the U.S., and NATO. Such an attack will escalate into a major war.
The U.S. could attack Iran, but can not win a conventional war. General Yuri Baluyevsky, the former chief of the Russian Armed Forces General
Staff and Russian deputy defence minister, even publicly came forward in 2007 to warn that an attack on Iran would be a global disaster and
unwinnable for the Pentagon. [97] Such a

war against Iran and its allies in the Middle East would lead to the use of nuclear

weapons against Iran as the only means to defeat it. Even Saddam Hussein, who during his day once commanded the most powerful Arab
state and military force, was aware of this. In July 25, 1990, in a meeting with April C. Glaspie, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein
stated: But you know you *meaning the U.S.+ are not the ones who protected your friends during the war with Iran. I assure you, had the
Iranians overrun the region, the American troops would not have stopped them, except by the use of nuclear weapons. *98+ The diabolically
unthinkable is no longer a taboo: the use of nuclear weapons once again against another country by the U.S. military. This will be a violation of
the NPT and international law. Any nuclear attack on Iran will have major, long-term environmental impacts. A nuclear attack on Iran will also
contaminate far-reaching areas that will go far beyond Iran to places such as Europe, Turkey, the Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia, Pakistan, and
India. Within the NATO alliance and amongst U.S. allies

a consensus has been underway to legitimize and normalize the

idea of using nuclear weapons. This consenus aims at paving the way for a nuclear strike against Iran and/or other countries in the
future.This groundwork also includes the normalization of Israeli nukes. Towards the end of 2006, Robert Gates stated that Israel has nuclear
weapons, which was soon followed by a conveniently-timed slip of the tongue by Ehud Olmert stating that Tel Aviv possessed nuclear weapons.
[99] Within this framework, Fumio Kyuma, a former Japanese defence minister, during a speech at Reitaku University in 2007 that followed the
statements of Gates and Olmert, tried to publicly legitimize the dropping of atom bombs by the U.S. on Japanese civilians. [100] Because of the
massive public outrage in Japanese society, Kyuma was forced to resign his post as defence minister. [101] The Uncertain Road Ahead:
Armageddon at Our Doorstep? The March into the Unknown Horizon... According to theChristian Science Monitor, Beijing is a barometre on
whether Iran will be attacked and it seems unlikely by the acceleration in trade between China and Iran. [102] Still a

major war in the

Middle East and an even more dangerous global war with the use of nuclear weapons should not be ruled out. The globe is facing
a state of worldwide military escalation. What is looming in front of humanity is the possibility of an all-out nuclear war and the
extinction of most life on this planet as we know it.

Iran war escalates

Kahl 1-17-13 Professor @ Georgetown, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East
Colin, "Not Time to Attack Iran," Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137031/colin-hkahl/not-time-to-attack-iran?page=show

Kroenig's discussion of timing is not the only misleading part of his article; so is his contention that the United States could mitigate
the "potentially devastating consequences" of a strike on Iran by carefully managing the escalation that would ensue. His picture of a
clean, calibrated conflict is a mirage. Any war with Iran would be a messy and extraordinarily violent
affair, with significant casualties and consequences. According to Kroenig, Iran would not respond to a strike with its "worst forms of retaliation, such as closing the Strait of Hormuz or
RIDING THE ESCALATOR

launching missiles at southern Europe" unless its leaders felt that the regime's "very existence was threatened." To mitigate this risk, he claims, the United States could "make clear that it is

Iranian leaders have staked their domestic legitimacy on resisting inter-national

would inevitably view an attack on that program as an attack on the regime
itself. Decades of hostility and perceived U.S. efforts to undermine the regime would reinforce this perception. And when combined with the
interested only in destroying Iran's nuclear program, not in overthrowing the government." But
pressure to halt the nuclear program, and so they

emphasis on anti-Americanism in the ideology of the supreme leader and his hard-line advisers, as well as their general ignorance about what drives U.S. decision-making, this perception

means that there is little prospect that Iranian leaders would believe that a U.S. strike had limited aims. Assuming the worst about Washington's intentions,

Tehran is likely to

overreact to even a surgical strike against its nuclear facilities. Kroenig nevertheless believes that the United States could limit the prospects for escalation by
warning Iran that crossing certain "redlines" would trigger a devastating U.S. counterresponse. Ironically, Kroenig believes that a nuclear-armed Iran would be deeply
irrational and prone to miscalculation yet somehow maintains that under the same leaders, Iran would make clear-eyed decisions in the immediate aftermath
of a U.S. strike. But the two countries share no direct and reliable channels for communication, and the
inevitable confusion brought on by a crisis would make signaling difficult and miscalculation likely. To make
matters worse, in the heat of battle, Iran would face powerful incentives to escalate. In the event of a conflict, both sides would
come under significant pressure to stop the fighting due to the impact on international oil markets. Since this would limit the time the Iranians would have to reestablish deterrence,
they might choose to launch a quick, all-out response, without care for redlines. Iranian fears that the United States could success-fully
disrupt its command-and-control infrastructure or preemptively destroy its ballistic missile arsenal could also tempt Iran to launch as many missiles as
possible early in the war. And the decentralized nature of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, especially its navy, raises the prospect of unauthorized responses that
could rapidly expand the fighting in the crowded waters of the Persian Gulf. Controlling escalation would be no easier on the U.S. side . In the
face of reprisals by Iranian proxies, "token missile strikes against U.S. bases and ships," or "the harassment of commercial and U.S. naval vessels," Kroenig says that Washington should turn the
other cheek and constrain its own response to Iranian counter-attacks. But this is much easier said than done. Just as Iran's likely expectation of a short war might encourage it to respond
disproportionately early in the crisis, so the United States would also have incentives to move swiftly to destroy Iran's conventional forces and the infrastructure of the Revolutionary Guard

proxy attacks against U.S. civilian personnel in Lebanon or Iraq, the transfer of lethal rocket and portable air defense systems to
could cause significant U.S. casualties, creating irresistible
political pressure in Washington to respond. Add to this the normal fog of war and the lack of reliable communications between the United States and Iran, and
Washington would have a hard time determining whether Tehran's initial response to a strike was a one-off event or the prelude to a wider campaign. If it were the latter, a passive
U.S. approach might motivate Iran to launch even more dangerous attacks -- and this is a risk Washington may choose not to
Corps. And if the United States failed to do so,

Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, or missile strikes against U.S. facilities in the Gulf

take. The sum total of these dynamics would make staying within Kroenig's proscribed limits exceedingly difficult. Even if Iran did not escalate, purely defensive moves that would threaten U.S.

Strait of Hormuz -- the maritime chokepoint through which nearly 20 per- -cent of the world's traded oil passes -- would also
create powerful incentives for Washington to preemptively target Iran's military. Of particular concern would be Iran's
"anti-access/area-denial" capabilities, which are designed to prevent advanced navies from operating in the
shallow waters of the Persian Gulf. These systems integrate coastal air defenses, shore-based long-range artillery and antiship cruise missiles, Kilo-class and midget
personnel or international shipping in the

submarines, remote-controlled boats and unmanned kamikaze aerial vehicles, and more than 1,000 small attack craft equipped with machine guns, multiple-launch rockets, antiship missiles,
torpedoes, and rapid-mine-laying capabilities. The entire 120-mile-long strait sits along the Iranian coastline, within short reach of these systems. In the midst of a conflict,

the threat

to U.S. forces and the global economy posed by Iran's activating its air defenses, dispersing its missiles or naval forces, or moving its mines out of storage
would be too great for the United States to ignore; the logic of preemption would compel Washington
to escalate. Some analysts, including Afshin Molavi and Michael Singh, believe that the Iranians are unlikely to attempt to close the strait due to the damage it would inflict on their
own economy. But Tehran's saber rattling has already intensified in response to the prospect of Western
sanctions on its oil industry. In the immediate aftermath of a U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear program, Iranian leaders might perceive that holding the strait
at risk would encourage international pressure on Washington to end the fighting, possibly deterring U.S. escalation. In reality, it would more likely have the opposite effect,
encouraging aggressive U.S. efforts to protect commercial shipping. The U.S. Navy is capable of keeping the strait open, but the mere
threat of closure could send oil prices soaring, dealing a heavy blow to the fragile global economy. The measures that Kroenig advocates to mitigate this threat, such
as opening up the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve and urging Saudi Arabia to boost oil production, would be unlikely to suffice, especially since most Saudi crude
passes through the strait.

Iran war escalates

Jeffrey White, defense fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, What Would War with Iran
Look Like, AMERICAN INTEREST, July/August 2011, http://www.the-american-interest.com/articlebd.cfm?piece=982

A U.S.-Iranian war would probably not be fought by theUnited States and Iran alone. Each would have partners
or allies, both willing and not-so-willing. Pre-conflict commitments, longstanding relationships, the course of operations
and other factors would place the United States and Iran at of more or less structured coalitions of the marginally willing. A

Western coalition could consist of the United States and most of its traditional allies (but very likely not Turkey, based on the evolution of
Turkish politics) in addition to some Persian Gulf states, Jordan and perhaps Egypt, depending on where its revolution takes it. Much would
depend on whether U.S. leaders could persuade others to go along, which would mean convincing them that U.S. forces could shield them from
Iranian and Iranian-proxy retaliation, or at least substantially weaken its effects. Coalition warfare would present a number of challenges to the
U.S. government. Overall, it would lend legitimacy to the action, but it would also constrict U.S. freedom of action, perhaps by limiting the
scope and intensity of military operations. There would thus be tension between the desire for a small coalition of the capable for operational
and security purposes and a broader coalition that would include marginally useful allies to maximize legitimacy. The U.S. administration would
probably not welcome Israeli participation. But if Israel were directly attacked by Iran or its allies, Washington would find it difficult to keep
Israel outas it did during the 1991 Gulf War. That would complicate the U.S. ability to manage its coalition, although it would not necessarily
break it apart. Iranian diplomacy and information operations would seek to exploit Israeli participation to the fullest. Iran

would have its

own coalition. Hizballah in particular could act at Irans behest both by attacking Israel directly and by using its asymmetric and
irregular warfare capabilities to expand the conflict and complicate the maintenance of the U.S. coalition. The escalation of
the Hizballah-Israel conflict could draw in Syria and Hamas; Hamas in particular could feel compelled to respond to an Iranian
request for assistance. Some or all of these satellite actors might choose to leave Iran to its fate, especially if initial U.S. strikes seemed
devastating to the point of decisive. But their

involvement would spread the conflictto the entire eastern

Mediterranean and perhaps beyond, complicating both U.S. military operations and coalition diplomacy.

MPX---Russia/China
Nuclear-biological war---turns hegemony
Lunev, 1 Former Soviet Union Military Officer and Worked for the CIA and FBI (Stanislav, 6/19/01,
Sino-Russian Treaty Challenges US,
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/18/194633.shtml) CMR
It is known that Red China considers as its own sovereign territory not only Taiwan, but most of the international waters of the South China Sea
and practically all islands in that sea as well. Beijing also is already involved in territorial disputes with a dozen neighboring countries including
Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, India, and others that have the bad luck to be near neighbors of Communist China. There is no doubt that, by
using a treaty with "democratic" Russia,

Beijing will dramatically increase its political and military pressure over not only Taiwan

but also its neighboring countries, especially in the favorable resolution of territorial disputes. As a result of this development, the danger of

military conflict with U.S. involvement will grow very quickly, and escalation of tension in the Western Pacific could
become a reality in the near future. As another result of this treaty, Russia and China will increase their
collaboration against American and allied interests by continuing the proliferation of nuclear, biological
and chemical warfare technologies, especially nuclear missile weapons. There is no doubt that Moscow
and Beijing have determined that despite their international obligations, they will support proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction in an effort to challenge and restrict America's abilities to project U.S. power and
deploy a forward presence abroad . Increased weapons sales to North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
Cuba and other rogue states will provide these countries with new capabilities to undermine American
interests worldwide. Russia and China are heavily involved in proliferation efforts not only for the
money involved, but also and mostly because they know that when many rogue nations have nuclear
and missile weapons, the U.S. military, limited by arms control agreements, will not be able to exercise
its policy of nuclear deterrence.

MPX DA solves CRED

Sanctions turn credibility sends immediate signal of US aggressiveness collapses
legitimacy because our diplomacy appears impotent or deceiving
Collapses international law and norms by setting a precedent for countries to
outsource war authority
Talks key to US credibility and leadership
Graham F. West 11/5 (MA student at the George Washington Universitys Elliott School for
International Affairs and a Research Intern for the Project on Middle East Democracy) Obama in Iran
with the GOP, http://muftah.org/obama-in-iran-with-the-gop/
Drawing on historical analogy can be a perilous exercise in international relations. Yet given the recent and rapid progress in U.S.-Iranian
relations, it is impossible not to reflect on Richard Nixons surprising state visit to China in 1972. Indeed, the allure of such a comparison has
proven irresistible for many foreign policy analysts. While

the opening of relations with Beijing was a deft political

move intended to drive a wedge between China and the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War,
increased engagement between the United States and Iran could produce far more strategic benefits.
An easing of tensions between the two countries would enable much-needed progress on two major international
crises: the ongoing Syrian conflict and the question of Iranian nuclear ambitions. Like Nixon did with China, President Obama should
seize on positive Iranian gestures, as well as encouraging discussions recently held between Iran and the P5+1 in Geneva, to push
for a historic, high-level government visit to Tehran. An Iranian Opening In advance of his September address to the United Nations General
Assembly in New York, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and senior officials in his administration launched what many deemed, often
disparagingly, as a charm offensive. As a part of this strategy, the new Iranian president appealed directly to the American people in a
number of U.S. media appearances. In an interview conducted in Tehran on September 18, Rouhani assured NBCs Ann Curry that under no
circumstances would *Iran+ seek any weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Two days later, he wrote an op-ed for the
Washington Post arguing that rather than focusing on how to prevent things from getting worse, we need to thinkand talkabout how to
make things better. Cautious desire for bilateral engagement emerged during Rouhanis visit to New York. The prospects for such
engagement were initially explored in a private meeting between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad
Javad Zarif. Hope was cemented with a celebrated eleventh hour phone call between Presidents Obama and Rouhani on September 27 as the
latter was preparing to return home. The beginnings of dialogue in New York were followed by bilateral discussions during P5+1 negotiations
in Geneva between U.S. Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman and Irans Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, which were purportedly
useful in beginning to overcome the deep mistrust that has defined the U.S.-Iranian impasse for over three decades. All this engagement
appears aimed at fulfilling Rouhanis major campaign promise to seek constructive interaction with the world. Perhaps even more important
than Rouhanis diplomatic efforts, however, are whisperings about its reception within Irans domestic political sphere. Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave a speech on September 16 where he appeared to endorse the Rouhani administrations efforts. Khamenei spoke
of what he has previously termed heroic leniency, comparing engagement with the West to a wrestler who has to show flexibility
sometimes while still remembering his primary objective. This expression of support is critical to Rouhanis efforts after all, Irans executive
branch is ultimately subservient to the office of the Supreme Leader. Thus far, both the Iranian parliament and public seem supportive of
Rouhanis outreach, as reflected by the positive reception he received upon returning home from New York. A formal state visit by the United
States would validate not only Rouhanis recent efforts at engagement, but also the campaign platform that the Iranian people endorsed by
electing him. It would signal respect for the sovereignty and legitimacy of the Islamic republic, thereby working against the atmosphere of
suspicion and derision that feed Rouhanis hard-liner rivals. Arguments that the United States is only interested in fostering regime change
would gain less traction; the Iranian government could present a visit by Obama as a form of Western capitulation and admission of defeat of
over three decades of hostility, validating the revolutionary ideology of resistance to both Eastern and Western influence and domination. As
such, perhaps like never before, the time would seem ripe, for a U.S. government trip to Iran. Appealing to Obamas Real Adversaries:
Republicans A state visit to Tehran would have benefits for the United States as well. Despite the opposition of American partners such as
Israel and Saudi Arabia to improved

US-Iran relations, direct engagement would bolster the United States

lagging credibility in the regionthe start of a long, uphill battle, but a start nonetheless. It would also solidify the
importance of U.S. leadership in Western efforts to negotiate with Iran.

Obama success over Iran is key to global heg and econ

Leverett and Leverett 1-20

Flynt - professor at Pennsylvania State Universitys School of International Affairs and is a Visiting
Scholar at Peking Universitys School of International Studies, and Hillary Mann Leverett, Senior
Professorial Lecturer at the American University in Washington, DC and a Visiting Scholar at Peking
University in Beijing, 1/20/14, Iran, Syria and the Tragicomedy of U.S. Foreign Policy,
http://goingtotehran.com/iran-syria-and-the-tragicomedy-of-u-s-foreign-policy

Compare Obamas handling of Iran and other Middle East challenges to President Nixons orchestration of the
American opening to Chinaincluding Nixons willingness to break the crockery of the pro-Taiwan lobbyand the inadequacy of
Obamas approach become glaringly apparent. And that, Hillary underscores, is why we wrote our book, Going to Tehranbecause we
think its absolutely essential for President Obama to do what Nixon did and go to Tehran, as Nixon went to China,
for the Middle East is the make-or-break point for the United States, not just in our foreign affairs but
in our global economic power and what were able to do here at home. If we cant get what were doing in the
Middle East on a much better, more positive trajectory, not only will we see the loss of our power, credibility, and
prestige in the Middle East, but we will see it globally. Getting the nuclear issue right is, arguably, just one
piece of the project of realigning U.S.-Iranian relationsbut it is a uniquely critical piece. As Hillary notes, in Iran, they see reaching a
nuclear deal with the United States as absolutely essential [to any prospect of broader realignment]even though they absolutely believe it is a
show issue. For if they could get the United States to accept the Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear capability, this is the essential step to
getting it to accept Iran as an independent, sovereign power. Of course, that is something Western governments have been manifestly
unwilling to do for decades, going back even decades before the 1979 Iranian Revolution. For the Iranians, if they can get the United States to
recognize their independence and sovereignty through this nuclear deal, recognizing Irans right to nuclear capability, thats *how+ you can open
the way to go forward.

MPX A2 1AC solves the disad

Their advantage is too generic to solve the disad Iran negotiations are in a unique
circumstance over the next 4 months
General legitimacy or credibility will not assure hardliners in Iran that Americas hawks
arent gaining traction
New sanctions on Iran will tank credibility also embroil any major country we would
like to impress via Israeli strikes

MPX Sanctions turns the K structural violence

DA turns the affsanctions are structural violence
Muhammad Sahimi, Professor, University of Southern California and Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi,
former researcher, Oxford Research Group, The Unfolding Human Catastrophe in Iran, ALJAZEERA,
102812, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/20121023101710641121.html

Apart from the vague and shifting red lines which continue to afflict the thick fog of Western national security rhetoric vis-a-vis Iran, not a single word was uttered by either men about the
plight and suffering of the Iranian people who have had no role in the decisions made by the Islamic Republic's leaders. But, the fact is that the sanctions, exacerbated by government

incompetence, have the potential to give rise to a major human catastrophe The lack of sensitivity to the plight of ordinary Iranians was - at least on the President's part - surprising, because
when his administration together with the European Union began imposing sanctions on Iran, they promised the world that the sanctions will be "smart" and "targeted". The world was

sanctions are
now in full force, and are hurting the same people who we were told were not meant to be their target,
in what is yet another case of "collateral damage" inflicted by Western policy towards Iran, and its disenfranchised people who have lost control over
their destiny at both home and abroad. In fact, there are very strong indications that a human catastrophe could emerge whose scale poses as
much a threat as an outright military attack. The supposedly "smart" and "targeted" sanctions have been increasingly expanded to all areas, even if they
promised that the sanctions will not hurt millions of ordinary Iranians who go about their daily lives and, in fact, oppose many of their government's policies. But, the

are not part of the official sphere of sanctions. This is intentional, even if Western leaders tell us otherwise. To avoid criticisms of the type that they were confronted with after they imposed
all-encompassing sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s, the US and its EU allies have imposed sanctions on Iran's Central Bank and practically all other Iranian banks that are involved in commercial
transactions with the outside world. Since these banks open lines of credit for imports, and provide financial guarantees for commerce with the outside world,

it has become

very difficult, if not impossible, to import vital goods and products into the country, even those that absolutely have nothing to do with the military, or oil, or the
nuclear programme. In effect, this is the type of sanctions imposed on Iraq, but in a supposedly more "humanitarian" way. An area that has been hit very hard is the
pharmaceutical sector. Although Iran produces a large part of the medicines and drugs that its population needs, based on the generic versions of brand-named
pharmaceuticals, it is still unable to produce the most advanced drugs that have come to the market over the past 10 to 15 years that deal with a variety of serious illnesses, simply because
their generic versions are not yet available. As a result, Iran must still import a significant amount of drugs every year to address the needs of the Iranian people when dealing with such
illnesses as leukaemia, AIDS, and others. But, the sanctions imposed on Iran's banks and financial institutions have effectively prevented Iran from importing the necessary drugs and the
associated chemicals. At the same time, as Iran's oil exports continue to decrease due to the sanctions strain on the countrys resources, it becomes increasingly difficult to pay for the
expensive imported drugs, even if a way can be found for importing them. As a pharmacist in Tehran said, "The warehouses for pharmaceutics are empty because we cannot import what we

the shortage of drugs has all the

makings of a human catastrophe. According to recent estimates as many as 6 million patients are
currently being affected by the impact of sanctions on the import and manufacture of medications inside Iran. This has prompted many of Iran's healthcare professionals
need due to the sanctions, and even if we could, we do not have the resources to pay for them due to the sanctions." As a result,

to raise their voices, and begin protesting the impending danger they're witnessing before their eyes. The board of directors of the Iranian Haemophilia Society recently informed the World
Federation of Haemophilia (IFH) that the lives of tens of thousands of children are being endangered by the lack of proper drugs as a consequence of international economic sanctions imposed
on Iran. According to the letter that the Society's board sent to the IFH, while the export of drugs to Iran has not been banned, the sanctions imposed on the Central Bank of Iran and the
country's other financial institutions have severely disrupted the purchase and transfer of medicines. Describing itself as a non-political organisation that has been active for 45 years, the
Society condemned [FA] the "inhumane and immoral" US and EU sanctions and appealed to international organisations for help. Some statistics are very telling. Tens of thousands of Iranian
boys and young men are haemophilic and need certain drugs that must be imported. Many of them may need surgery for a variety of reasons, but in the absence of proper drugs for their
haemophilia illness, the surgeries cannot be performed, because the bleeding could not be stopped. Several credible reports from Iran indicate that surgeries for all haemophilic patients have
been cancelled, and at least a few have already died.There are about 37,000 Iranians with MS, a debilitating disease that can be controlled only with advanced medications; otherwise, the
patients will die. In fact, three members of one of our extended families in Iran are afflicted with multiple sclerosis. Furthermore, given that even under the best medical conditions 40,000
Iranians lose their lives to cancer every year, and that it has been predicted by many medical experts that Iran will have a "cancer tsunami" by 2015 as every year 70,000 to 80,000 new cases of
cancer are identified in Iran, the gravity of the situation becomes even more perilous. Fatemeh Hashemi, head of Iran's Charity Foundation for Special Diseases, which cares for the needs of
patients with life-threatening diseases, including a variety of cancers in adult patients as well as children, heart diseases, lung problems, multiple sclerosis (MS), and thalassemia, recently wrote
a letter to United Nations' Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The Foundation has been a highly successful nonpolitical organisation that, in addition to Iran, has also served many people in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and whose work has been recognised by the UN. In her letter Hashemi said that she leads an organisation "with 6 million patients and, hence, in contact with 30 per cent of
Iran's total population". Emphasising the non-political nature of her organisation and her letter, Hashemi added: "Although drugs have not been sanctioned, due to the impossibility of paying
for the imported drugs through the banking system, the heavy shadow of the sanctions is felt in the health sector. Not only has importing drugs been disrupted, importing the raw chemicals
[for the drugs that Iran does produce] has also been disrupted... As a human activist, I call on humanity's conscience to pay attention to the fact that, despite the claims by those that have
imposed the sanctions,

their pressure is having its destructive effect on the life and health of the people." Hence, the

supposedly "smart" and "targeted" sanctions that were not going to hurt the ordinary Iranians have been inflicting significant damage on the Iranian people. The net result is that shortage of
drugs for patients with serious and life-threatening illnesses is becoming chronic in Iran, and is reaching hazardous levels. Meanwhile, recent reports indicate that two large plants that produce
drugs for a variety of illnesses have also been closed. The reason is that it has become essentially impossible to import the chemical compounds used in the production of the drugs, due to the

the path taken by the United

States and its allies is eerily similar to what was done to Iraq in the 1990s. The United Nation's UNICEF
estimated that the sanctions imposed on Iraq caused the death of up to 500,000 Iraqi children. Given
that Iran's population is three times that of Iraq, if the sanctions imposed on Iran last several years - as they did with Iraq
sanctions imposed on Iran's financial institutions that deal with the outside world. The world must recognise that in certain respects

the number of dead resulting from them could be larger than that of Iraq. Moreover, given that Iran still imports a significant amount of wheat, rice and other
food products, if the sanctions drag on, not only could hundreds of thousands of Iranians die due to shortage of drugs and medical goods, the shortage of food could
also become very significant. It should also be noted, if only in passing, that sanctions did not change the policy of Saddam Hussein's regime. Thus, after causing the
-

death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, those who had been jockeying for war with Iraq all along argued that the sanctions had failed, and "regime change" was the only alternative.
As we now know Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, nor was it trying to produce them. Iran also does not have nuclear weapons yet, but Western policy has the power to change
the Iranian leadership's calculus and make it seem like the only viable option remaining with the power to guarantee regime survival. In sum, comprehensive sanctions not only killed
thousands in Iraq, but they eventually laid the path to war. One key difference in the case of Iran is of course that one of its few lifelines to the outside world is still China, which depends on
Iranian energy to abet its ongoing economic expansion, hardly a commendable development for those supporting human rights and entertaining hopes of democratisation in the Islamic
Republic. The sanctions have arguably failed to meaningfully shift the stance of Iran's Revolutionary Guards and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who most recently emphasised
that the Islamic Republic is prepared to negotiate and has in fact never left the negotiating table, but will not be cowed into submission. So, if, for instance, Iran is expected to forgo 19.75 per
cent uranium enrichment and close the underground Fordow enrichment facility, two of the P5+1's key demands at the Baghdad and Moscow talks, there must be some form of quid pro quo.
Without one, there is no incentive for Iran to cooperate in an atmosphere already severely afflicted by a longstanding deficit of trust. There have been rumblings and rumours of possible
sanctions relief after the US presidential election but nothing tangible as of yet. There are many voices within Iran that have called on the leadership to find a compromise with the West. The
US and its allies can make such voices stronger and louder if they offer to lift some of the sanctions, or at least have exceptions that allow Iran's financial system to be involved in the import of
vital goods and products with no military or nuclear applications, such as drugs and food stuffs. It may be useless to preach to the Obama administration about the human, moral, and ethical
toll of its policy toward Iran, given that the President has in many respects perpetuated the destructive Middle East policy of George W Bush, which in Iran's case has been even tougher and

the emerging catastrophe will be an ethical and moral problem for the
West for decades to come, a catastrophe that is being created simply because Western governments appear to blindly pursue crippling sanctions against Iran
more damaging to the livelihood of the Iranian people. But,

as an end in themselves, as opposed to a means by which to further the diplomatic process. Given the tragic history of the US intervention in Iran in the past, it is be prudent to rethink the
consequences of such blind sanctions, and their effect on the thinking of the Iranian people about the US - a largely pro-US population in one of the most turbulent areas in the world that has
been known for its hostility towards the United States and its perceived negative impact in much of the region.

MPX A2 Sanctions Good

We control UQ existing leverage moving negotiations forward new sanctions
ensure failure and Middle East war
Sick 1-20 (Gary, teaches Middle East politics at Columbia University, member of the National Security
Council staff during the Ford, Carter and Reagan presidencies, Don't derail Iran nuclear agreement,
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20140121/OPINION/301210011/Don-t-derail-Iran-nuclearagreement, CMR)

Thirty-five years ago, when the Iranian revolution overthrew the shah and our diplomats were taken hostage, I was in the White House. Many of those taken prisoner remain personal friends of mine. With this experience, it is

to derail an enormous opportunity to halt Irans nuclear

could be setting us on the path to a third major Middle East war. Last November, five permanent members of the United Nations

difficult to watch the foreign policy calamity taking shape in Washington. A combination of domestic politics and misguided intrusion is on track
program. At worst, it

Security Council and Germany -- the so-called P5+1 -- concluded a preliminary deal with Iran to resolve the long-standing dispute about Irans nuclear program. This agreement, set to take effect Monday, was possible because the
election in Iran last year brought a fresh face, Hasan Rouhani, to the presidency in Iran. He replaced the belligerent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose policies had isolated Iran as never before. A decade earlier, Rouhani had been the
chief negotiator of the nuclear issue. At that time, he basically offered to maintain Irans nuclear enrichment program at a low level in return for recognition of Irans right to develop peaceful nuclear power. European negotiators,
with the backing of the Bush administration, rejected the offer, insisting instead that no deal was possible unless Iran halted all enrichment of uranium. After the talks broke down, two things happened. First, Ahmadinejad replaced
the Rouhani team, accusing it of being too generous to the West. Second, Iran accelerated its production and installation of centrifuges. To date, according to the U.S. intelligence community, Iran has taken no decision to build a

The agreement
between the P5+1 and Iran on Nov. 23 basically freezes Irans nuclear program in place while talks proceed on a
permanent settlement. During that time, the U.S. and its allies agree not to introduce any new nuclear-related
sanctions on Iran, while providing some modest relief from the sanctions that they have imposed on Iran over the past few years. Now, a group of senators -- some
Democrats, more Republicans -- is sponsoring a bill that would impose new sanctions and urges the United States to provide
military support if Israel decides to unilaterally attack Iran. This misguided bill threatens to derail the
negotiations and sabotage progress. Our negotiators do not want or need this extra sanctions threat.
They already have a strong hand, and new sanctions will almost certainly be seen by Iran as evidence of bad
faith. A new round of sanctions will also send a message to our allies that the U.S. is not serious about achieving a
negotiated outcome, and allied support is critical. In addition, if further sanctions are needed, they can quickly be imposed later. If negotiations do collapse, it will be hardliners in Iran who will be the biggest winners. The failure of another round of talks will prove their claim that negotiating with the U.S.
is pointless and strengthen their argument that those seeking to open Iran to the West are weak and naive. President Obama has threatened to veto the bill, but that might not be enough. Anti-Iran legislation is
nuclear weapon. However, Iran now has the technical know-how to produce a bomb. In short, we are still paying for our misjudgment of Iran and our own interests a decade ago.

politically popular and, with powerful lobbying behind it, such bills often pass by veto-proof majorities. Today we are at the most hopeful moment of the past three decades. A final agreement has yet to be negotiated, and there

we have a real chance to cap Irans nuclear development and establish iron-clad measures to guarantee that it will
not be used for military purposes. By contrast, the Senate bill attempts to inject the Congress into a delicate international
negotiation. That only risks derailing efforts to find a peaceful solution, bringing us closer to another war in
the Middle East.
are certain to be ups and downs. Even so,

MPX all HOT SPOTS

Deal is key to dtente with Iran that prevents collapse of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan
and Syria
Saidi, 1/3/14 Dr. Nasser H. Saidi is an economist; adviser to governments, central banks; governance
advocate and promoter of crowdfunding & clean energy. He is the former Chief Economist and Head of
External Relations of Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and founder and Executive Director of
the Hawkamah-Institute for Corporate Governance and The Mudara Institute of Directors at the DIFC
between 2006 and 2012 (Why Dtente With Iran Is a Historic Game Changer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-nasser-h-saidi/us-detente-with-iran-gamechanger_b_4476864.html)

We are at a potential cusp, a transformational moment in the Gulf and the Middle East where dtente

with Iran could radically

change the geopolitics and economics of the region. The opportunity should not be missed. Iran was headline news last
month after the P5+1 (shorthand for U.S.) reached a deal whereby Iran agreed to curb some of its nuclear activities in return for a promised
USD 7 billion in sanctions relief. In a deal agreed for a six-month timeframe and reflecting the current balance of power between the
negotiating parties, Iran agreed to halt enrichment of uranium above 5 percent purity, neutralize its stockpile of uranium enriched to near 20
percent purity, stop building its stockpile of 3.5 percent enriched uranium, forswear "next generation centrifuges," shut down its plutonium
reactor and allow extensive new inspections of its nuclear facilities. Concessions Iran "won" included suspension of international sanctions on
Iran's exports of oil, gold and cars, which could yield USD 1.5 billion in revenue, unfreezing USD 4.2 billion in revenue from oil sales and
releasing tuition-assistance payments from the Iranian government to Iranian students enrolled abroad. Following the announcement, Iran's
official missions hogged the limelight as did the GCC Summit's leaders applauding Iran's "new direction," though its communiqu also voiced
concern over Iran's plans to build more nuclear power plants on the Gulf, saying these "threaten the environmental system and water security."
The issue is not the nuclear dossier but Iran's geo-strategic role The current focus of negotiations is on Iran's nuclear capability and sanctions. It
will take time and confidence-building measures to overcome suspicion, mistrust and three decades of deep freeze in relations. On both sides,
hardliners and losers from dtente (notably Israel and Saudi) will actively attempt to derail negotiations. However, the

opportunity and

overture offered by the election of Hassan Rouhani should not be missed. A new path must be chosen. The ultimate purpose
and objective lies not in the nuclear dossier but in defining Iran's future geo-strategic role in the Gulf, Middle East and South East Asia. It is
about Iran's active participation in healing long-standing open wounds, including the cancer of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Only

a Pax
Americana-Irania can lead to a stabilization of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and prevent Syria from
turning into a failed state with destabilizing spillovers into neighboring countries, notably weak Lebanon and
Jordan. The Iran dtente stakes are high. A large dividend from dtente would result from reduced military
expenditures, of "swords into plowshares" across the Middle East. In 2012, the Middle East countries spent more than
USD 132 billion in military spending, the highest percentage of GDP in the world (with Saudi leading at 8.9 percent of GDP, Oman 8.4 percent
and Israel 6.2 percent). Freeing up economically sterile military expenditure and re-orienting spending for investment in human capital,
infrastructure, R&D, economic and social development projects and regional public goods would lead to much-needed job creation, increase
productivity growth and raise real incomes for the young generations of a region that has witnessed too much violence, wars, death and
destruction. A new path must be chosen.

Syria impact
Chossudovsky 11-28-11 [Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of
Ottawa, The Arab Spring: Neoliberalism, "Regime Change" and NATO, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1111/S00239/the-arab-springneoliberalism-regime-change-and-nato.htm, CMR]

Were a military campaign to be waged against Syria, Israel would be directly or indirectly involved in military and
intelligence operations. The hitherto covert role of Saudi Arabia and Turkey in destabilizing Syria would also emerge
as open aggression towards long-time regional rival Iran. A war on Syria could quite possibly ignite a

conflagration across the entire Middle East and North Africa, with repercussions on a global scale: Iran's
historic allies, Russia and China, will be pitted against the US and NATO powers; and religious schisms
across the region could vent into an explosion of internecine conflicts ; also proxy wars currently being waged in
East Africa by Western powers could escalate with untold human suffering in an already famine-hit region.

Iraq impact

Corsi, 7 Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard & Staff Reporter for World Net Daily, 1-8 (Jerome, "War with Iran is Imminent,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53669)

If a broader war breaks out in Iraq, Olmert will certainly face pressure to send the Israel military into the Gaza after Hamas and into Lebanon after Hezbollah. If that
happens, it will only be a matter of time before Israel and the U.S. have no choice but to invade Syria .
The Iraq war could quickly spin into a regional war, with Israel waiting on the sidelines ready to
launch an air and missile strike on Iran that could include tactical nuclear weapons. With Russia ready to deliver the $1 billion TOR M-1 surface-to-air missile defense
system to Iran, military leaders are unwilling to wait too long to attack Iran. Now that Russia and China have invited Iran to join their Shanghai Cooperation Pact, will Russia and China sit by idly

China may have their moment to go

after Taiwan once and for all. A broader regional war could easily lead into a third world war , much as World Wars I
should the U.S. look like we are winning a wider regional war in the Middle East? If we get more deeply involved in Iraq,

and II began.

Afghanistan impact
Morgan 7 Former member of the British Labour Party Executive Committee & a political psychologist, researcher into Chaos/Complexity Theory, Stephen, "Better another Taliban
Afghanistan, than a Taliban NUCLEAR Pakistan!?", http://www.electricarticles.com/display.aspx?id=639, CMR

Indeed, fighting Pashtun tribes has cost him double the number of troops as the US has lost in Iraq. Evidently, he could not win and has settled instead for an attempted political solution.

Musharraf stated clearly that he is acting first

and foremost to protect the interests of Pakistan. While there was outrageous in Kabul, his deal with the Pashtuns is
essentially an effort to firewall his country against civil war and disintegration. In his own words, what he fears
most is, the Talibanistation of the whole Pashtun people, which he warns could inflame the already
fierce fundamentalist and other separatist movement across his entire country. He does not want to open the door for any
When he agreed the policy of appeasement and virtual self-rule for North Waziristan last year, President

backdraft from the Afghan war to engulf Pakistan. Musharraf faces the nationalist struggle in Kashmir, an insurgency in Balochistan, unrest in the Sindh, and growing terrorist bombings in the
main cities. There is also a large Shiite population and clashes between Sunnis and Shias are regular. Moreover, fundamentalist support in his own Armed Forces and Intelligence Services is
extremely strong. So much so that analyst consider it likely that the Army and Secret Service is protecting, not only top Taliban leaders, but Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda central leadership
thought to be entrenched in the same Pakistani borderlands. For the same reasons, he has not captured or killed Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership. Returning from the frontier provinces
with Bin Ladens severed head would be a trophy that would cost him his own head in Pakistan. At best he takes the occasional risk of giving a nod and a wink to a US incursion, but even then
at the peril of the chagrin of the people and his own military and secret service. The Break-Up of Pakistan? Musharraf probably hopes that by giving de facto autonomy to the Taliban and
Pashtun leaders now with a virtual free hand for cross border operations into Afghanistan, he will undercut any future upsurge in support for a break-away independent Pashtunistan state or a
Peoples War of the Pashtun populace as a whole, as he himself described it. However events may prove him sorely wrong. Indeed, his policy could completely backfire upon him. As the war

should the
Taliban fail to re-conquer al of Afghanistan, as looks likely, but captures at least half of the country, then
a Taliban Pashtun caliphate could be established which would act as a magnet to separatist Pashtuns in
Pakistan. Then, the likely break up of Afghanistan along ethnic lines, could, indeed, lead the way to the
break up of Pakistan, as well. Strong centrifugal forces have always bedevilled the stability and unity of Pakistan, and, in the context of the new world situation, the
country could be faced with civil wars and popular fundamentalist uprisings, probably including a
military-fundamentalist coup dtat. Fundamentalism is deeply rooted in Pakistan society. The fact that in the year
following 9/11, the most popular name given to male children born that year was Osama (not a Pakistani name) is a small indication of the mood. Given the weakening
base of the traditional, secular opposition parties, conditions would be ripe for a coup dtat by the
fundamentalist wing of the Army and ISI, leaning on the radicalised masses to take power. Some form of
intensifies, he has no guarantees that the current autonomy may yet burgeon into a separatist movement. Appetite comes with eating, as they say. Moreover,

radical, military Islamic regime, where legal powers would shift to Islamic courts and forms of shira law
would be likely. Although, even then, this might not take place outside of a protracted crisis of upheaval and civil
war conditions, mixing fundamentalist movements with nationalist uprisings and sectarian violence
between the Sunni and minority Shia populations. The nightmare that is now Iraq would take on gothic
proportions across the continent. The prophesy of an arc of civil war over Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq
would spread to south Asia, stretching from Pakistan to Palestine, through Afghanistan into Iraq and up
to the Mediterranean coast. Undoubtedly, this would also spill over into India both with regards to the
Muslim community and Kashmir. Border clashes, terrorist attacks, sectarian pogroms and insurgency
would break out. A new war, and possibly nuclear war, between Pakistan and India could no be ruled
out. Atomic Al Qaeda Should Pakistan break down completely, a Taliban-style government with strong Al Qaeda
influence is a real possibility. Such deep chaos would, of course, open a "Pandora's box" for the region and the
world. With the possibility of unstable clerical and military fundamentalist elements being in control of
the Pakistan nuclear arsenal, not only their use against India, but Israel becomes a possibility, as well as
the acquisition of nuclear and other deadly weapons secrets by Al Qaeda. Invading Pakistan would not
be an option for America. Therefore a nuclear war would now again become a real strategic possibility.
This would bring a shift in the tectonic plates of global relations. It could usher in a new Cold War with
China and Russia pitted against the US. What is at stake in "the half-forgotten war" in Afghanistan is far greater than that in Iraq. But America's capacities for
controlling the situation are extremely restricted. Might it be, in the end, they are also forced to accept President Musharraf's unspoken slogan of Better another Taliban Afghanistan, than a
Taliban NUCLEAR Pakistan!

Pakistan instability causes nuclear war

Pitt 9 a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and
"The Greatest Sedition Is Silence." (5/8/09, William, Unstable Pakistan Threatens the World,
http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=commentary&article=2183 )

But a suicide bomber in Pakistan rammed a car packed with explosives into a jeep filled with troops today, killing five and wounding as many as
21, including several children who were waiting for a ride to school. Residents of the region where the attack took place are fleeing in terror as
gunfire rings out around them, and government forces have been unable to quell the violence. Two regional government officials were
beheaded by militants in retaliation for the killing of other militants by government forces. As familiar as this sounds, it did not take place
where we have come to expect such terrible events. This, unfortunately, is a whole new ballgame. It is part of another conflict that is brewing,
one which puts what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan in deep shade, and which represents a grave and growing threat to us all. Pakistan

is now trembling on the edge of violent chaos, and is doing so with nuclear weapons in its hip pocket, right in the middle of
one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the world. The situation in brief: Pakistan for years has been a nation in turmoil, run by a shaky
government supported by a corrupted system, dominated by a blatantly criminal security service, and threatened by a large fundamentalist
Islamic population with deep ties to the Taliban in Afghanistan. All this is piled atop an ongoing standoff with neighboring India that has been
the center of political gravity in the region for more than half a century. The fact that Pakistan, and India, and Russia, and China all

possess nuclear weapons and share the same space means any ongoing or escalating violence over there has the
real potential to crack open the very gates of Hell itself. Recently, the Taliban made a military push into the northwest Pakistani
region around the Swat Valley. According to a recent Reuters report: The (Pakistani) army deployed troops in Swat in October 2007 and used
artillery and gunship helicopters to reassert control. But insecurity mounted after a civilian government came to power last year and tried to
reach a negotiated settlement. A peace accord fell apart in May 2008. After that, hundreds including soldiers, militants and civilians died
in battles. Militants unleashed a reign of terror, killing and beheading politicians, singers, soldiers and opponents. They banned female
education and destroyed nearly 200 girls' schools. About 1,200 people were killed since late 2007 and 250,000 to 500,000 fled, leaving the
militants in virtual control. Pakistan offered on February 16 to introduce Islamic law in the Swat valley and neighboring areas in a bid to take the
steam out of the insurgency. The militants announced an indefinite cease-fire after the army said it was halting operations in the region.
President Asif Ali Zardari signed a regulation imposing sharia in the area last month. But the Taliban refused to give up their guns and pushed
into Buner and another district adjacent to Swat, intent on spreading their rule. The United States, already embroiled in a war against Taliban
forces in Afghanistan, must now face the possibility that Pakistan could collapse under the mounting threat of Taliban forces

there. Military and diplomatic advisers to President Obama, uncertain how best to proceed, now face one of the great nightmare scenarios of
our time. "Recent militant gains in Pakistan," reported The New York Times on Monday, "have so alarmed the White House that the national
security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, described the situation as 'one of the very most serious problems we face.'" "Security was deteriorating
rapidly," reported The Washington Post on Monday, "particularly in the mountains along the Afghan border that harbor al-Qaeda and the
Taliban, intelligence chiefs reported, and there were signs that those groups were working with indigenous extremists in Pakistan's populous
Punjabi heartland. The Pakistani government was mired in political bickering. The army, still fixated on its historical adversary India, remained
ill-equipped and unwilling to throw its full weight into the counterinsurgency fight. But despite the threat the intelligence conveyed, Obama has
only limited options for dealing with it. Anti-American feeling in Pakistan is high, and a U.S. combat presence is prohibited. The United States is
fighting Pakistan-based extremists by proxy, through an army over which it has little control, in alliance with a government in which it has little
confidence." It is believed Pakistan is currently in possession of between 60 and 100 nuclear weapons. Because Pakistan's stability is threatened
by the wide swath of its population that shares ethnic, cultural and religious connections to the fundamentalist Islamic populace of Afghanistan,
fears over what could happen to those nuclear weapons if the Pakistani government collapses are very real. "As the insurgency of the Taliban
and Al Qaeda spreads in Pakistan," reported the Times last week, "senior American officials say they are increasingly concerned

about new vulnerabilities for Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, including the potential for militants to snatch a weapon in transport or to
insert sympathizers into laboratories or fuel-production facilities. In public, the administration has only hinted at those concerns, repeating the
formulation that the Bush administration used: that it has faith in the Pakistani Army. But that cooperation, according to officials who would
not speak for attribution because of the sensitivity surrounding the exchanges between Washington and Islamabad, has been sharply limited
when the subject has turned to the vulnerabilities in the Pakistani nuclear infrastructure." "The prospect of turmoil in Pakistan sends shivers up
the spines of those U.S. officials charged with keeping tabs on foreign nuclear weapons," reported Time Magazine last month. "Pakistan is
thought to possess about 100 the U.S. isn't sure of the total, and may not know where all of them are. Still, if Pakistan collapses, the U.S.
military is primed to enter the country and secure as many of those weapons as it can, according to U.S. officials. Pakistani officials insist their
personnel safeguards are stringent, but a sleeper cell could cause big trouble, U.S. officials say." In other words, a shaky Pakistan spells trouble
for everyone, especially if America loses the footrace to secure those weapons in the event of the worst-case scenario. If Pakistani militants
ever succeed in toppling the government, several very dangerous events could happen at once. Nuclear-armed India could be galvanized into
military action of some kind, as could nuclear-armed China or nuclear-armed Russia. If the Pakistani government does fall, and all those
Pakistani nukes are not immediately accounted for and secured, the specter (or reality) of loose nukes falling into the hands of

terrorist organizations could place the entire world on a collision course with unimaginable disaster. We have all been
paying a great deal of attention to Iraq and Afghanistan, and rightly so. The developing situation in Pakistan, however, needs to be placed
immediately on the front burner. The Obama administration appears to be gravely serious about addressing the situation. So should we all.

Key to US-Iran relations

Mason 1-22 (Robert, Lecturer in International Relations at the British University in Egypt, Looking
Ahead to Post-Obama U.S.-Iran Relations, http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/looking-ahead-to-postobama-u-s-iran-relations/, CMR)

In my forthcoming book on Iranian foreign policy, Foreign Policy in Iran and Saudi Arabia: Economics and Diplomacy in the Middle East (I B
Tauris, 2014), I make the argument that active containment

of Iran has failed and that active engagement (consistent

diplomacy and the utilization of a range of soft power tools, mainly economic, to support and achieve clear diplomatic objectives) will help

rebuild relations between Iran and the West. The U.S. and its Western allies could include positive
measures such as sanctions relief and eventually sanctions removal, foreign direct investment to develop Irans oil and gas
industry, and technology transfer from countries such as Japan to achieve this objective. But such engagement requires time. I also argue that a
deal with Iran not only hinges on the success of the preliminary nuclear deal, but also on the success of any renewed cooperation in other
areas. For example, should there be clear headway made from bringing Iran into informal or formal talks on the future of Syria (e.g. Geneva II)
or Afghanistan, then this could contribute to confidence and sustain future diplomatic engagement.

A2 Yadlin escalation likely

Evidence assumes a moderated response by both sides and says A scenario of
regional escalation would require the United States to intervene and would
signicantly change the regional balance of power 1nc impact is US-Iran conflict
Extend the Parsi current relations prevent mechanism to prevent escalation and
encourage fast escalation
Small conflict can escalate neither side can should restraint
Sally Buzbee is the AP's Chief of Middle East News, based in Cairo, January 21, 2008.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/18/news/nation/11_26_261_17_08.txt

The chances of open conflict seemed to ease after December's U.S. intelligence report. But President Bush's strong Iran
warnings during his Mideast trip, coupled with a recent ship standoff, are raising fears that a small incident could
someday spiral -- even by accident -- into a real fight. Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Bush
Thursday of sending "a message of confrontation" during his trip to the region. It was a sharp response to Bush's tough rhetoric that Iran remains
a serious threat. The war of words had eased a bit since late last year, when a U.S. intelligence report concluded Iran had halted a nuclear
weapons program four years ago. But Bush went out of his way while visiting Gulf countries to reiterate that "all options" against Iran remain on
the table. Pointedly, he also warned of "serious consequences" if Iran attacked a U.S. ship in the Gulf, even if it had not been ordered by the
Tehran government but was the result of a rash decision by an Iranian boat captain. At the same time, Bush said he has told leaders of Sunni Arab
states -- who want the U.S. to keep Shiite Iran's ambitions in check but are nervous about the impact of any military confrontation -- that he wants
a diplomatic solution. In part, the president seemed to be trying to assure both Arab allies and Israel that the United States remains intent on
pressuring Iran. He also seeks reluctant European support for another round of Iran sanctions. But the scenario Bush outlined -- a rash decision on
the water, spilling over into real fighting -- is just the thing that many U.S. military officers, and much of the Gulf Arab world, are sweating over.
Adm. William J. Fallon, the top U.S. military commander in the Mideast, told The Associated Press last week that Iran runs the risk of triggering
an unintended conflict if its boats continue to harass U.S. warships in the strategic Gulf. "This kind of behavior, if it happens in the future, is
the kind of event that could precipitate a mistake," Fallon said. "If the boats come closer, at what point does the captain think it is a direct
threat to the ship and has to do something to stop it?" Key details of the Jan. 6 incident -- when five small Iranian boats swarmed three U.S.
warships in the Gulf's narrow Strait of Hormuz -- remain unclear, including the source of an accented voice heard warning in English: "I am
coming to you ... You will explode after ... minutes." Iran called the tapes fabricated. Notably, the U.S. commanders did not fire any warning
shots and the Iranians eventually retreated. But in a mid-December incident, publicized by the Navy for the first time last week, a U.S. ship did
fire a warning shot at a small Iranian boat that came too close, causing the Iranians to pull back. The worry: That in

a heated political
climate, such cat-and-mouse maneuvers could spiral into a more-serious exchange of fire, difficult for
either side to pull back from. Of course, Bush could succeed in getting Iran to be less aggressive with his strong words. But a major
Gulf paper, the Khaleej Times, fretted publicly about the potential for an "ugly flare-up," comparing the confrontation to last year's Iranian
seizure of British sailors. Iran eventually freed the British sailors, but then -- as now -- its motivations were deeply obscure. Ahmadinejad is
struggling to retain domestic political support, in dire need of a boost to keep any real political influence during his last year and a half in office
before seeking re-election. Standoffs with the United States often give him just such a boost, as the country draws together despite the bitter
differences dividing its hard-line and pragmatic factions. "Whenever there is a potential for confidence-building, there are actors, entrenched
actors, in the Iranian system (who) have an incentive to keep the crisis going," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace in Washington. In both the Jan. 6 confrontation and last year's British sailor seizure, the Iranian boats were manned by the
country's hard-line Revolutionary Guards, not its regular navy, "which has been better behaved and much more professional," Fallon said. Iran's
supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his sometime-protege, Ahmadinejad, are believed to be the two high officials in Iran with the most
control over the Guards. There have been some attempts to cool down the rhetoric. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told an interviewer this week
that he did not view Iran as a direct military threat to the United States, although he considered it a "challenge" to keep Iran contained. But people
often listen the most closely to presidents. And as long as Bush and Ahmadinejad are both in office and focused on each other, said Gulf
political analyst Mustafa Alani, the

threat of "accidental war" will keep many people on edge.

Current relations will not prevent escalation.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy
(Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World
Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also wrote "Keeping Iran's

nuclear potential latent", Harvard International Review, and is author of Iran's Nuclear Program:
Debating Facts Versus Fiction, December 21, 2007.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IL21Ak01.html

Despite critical strategic importance and escalating military deployment, reliable mechanisms to alleviate
tension in the waters of the Persian Gulf region remain weak or non-existent. Three major wars during the past
three decades have created one of the most volatile regions in the world, an area that is also the hub to nearly half the energy
needs of the industrialized world. Glaring issues in the region's maritime arena, specifically the physical proximity of naval
vessels of the United States and Iran, have the potential to ignite an already heated political and military climate.
Perpetual preoccupation with the US-Iran rift has left little time or resources to establish prudent
measures to thwart unwanted military escalation. The US and Iran are eyeball to eyeball in the Persian Gulf, where maritime
borders between Iran and Iraq remain murky. Considering recent incidents involving British sailors temporarily apprehended by Iran, it is clear
that the risks of an accidental clash are running high. This threat is heightened by the fact that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards
Corps, the country's most powerful military unit branded as terrorists by the US, shoulders the main responsibility in protecting Iran's territorial
waters.

Impact Israel strikes

US strikes 2nc
Negotiation failure ensures new round of sanctions and military strikes on Iran
Ghoreishi 7-15 (Shahed, M.A. candidate studying the Middle East and International Economics at the
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, B.A. from the Henry M. Jackson school of
International Studies at the University of Washington, Why the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Wont End in
Failure for Iran and the West, http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/07/15/iran-nuclearnegotiations-wont-end-failure-iran-west/)

Not only would a deal and a potential dtente with Iran give Obama the necessary breathing room from the
criticism he has faced over his Middle East policy, it would be a major win over the long term for his foreign policy
legacy. Failure to reach an agreement with Tehran would provide the hawks with an opportunity to
call for additional sanctions or military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. President Obama was previously able to
stave off Congressional calls for sanctions with the threat of a veto in his 2014 State of the Union address which was a defeat for AIPAC and proIsrael hawks. Should

the talks fail, the White House would be forced back into the arms of Congress where
additional sanctions on Iran would be called for and effectively end any future agreement with
Tehran. As Sundays deadline approaches, the U.S. Congress hoped for the opportunity to kill the deal as evidenced by a harshly worded
warning to the White House.

Escalates, extinction
Mahdi Nazemroaya, Research Associate, Centre for Research on Globalization, The Next World War:
The Great Game and The Threat of Nuclear War, Global Research, 11011,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-next-world-war-the-great-game-and-the-threat-of-nuclearwar/22169?print=1

Any attack on Iran will be a joint operation between Israel, the U.S., and NATO. Such an attack will escalate into a major war.
The U.S. could attack Iran, but can not win a conventional war. General Yuri Baluyevsky, the former chief of the Russian Armed Forces General
Staff and Russian deputy defence minister, even publicly came forward in 2007 to warn that an attack on Iran would be a global disaster and
unwinnable for the Pentagon. [97] Such a

war against Iran and its allies in the Middle East would lead to the use of nuclear

weapons against Iran as the only means to defeat it. Even Saddam Hussein, who during his day once commanded the most powerful Arab
state and military force, was aware of this. In July 25, 1990, in a meeting with April C. Glaspie, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein
stated: But you know you *meaning the U.S.+ are not the ones who protected your friends during the war with Iran. I assure you, had the
Iranians overrun the region, the American troops would not have stopped them, except by the use of nuclear weapons. *98+ The diabolically
unthinkable is no longer a taboo: the use of nuclear weapons once again against another country by the U.S. military. This will be a violation of
the NPT and international law. Any nuclear attack on Iran will have major, long-term environmental impacts. A nuclear attack on Iran will also
contaminate far-reaching areas that will go far beyond Iran to places such as Europe, Turkey, the Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia, Pakistan, and
India. Within the NATO alliance and amongst U.S. allies

a consensus has been underway to legitimize and normalize the

idea of using nuclear weapons. This consenus aims at paving the way for a nuclear strike against Iran and/or other countries in the
future.This groundwork also includes the normalization of Israeli nukes. Towards the end of 2006, Robert Gates stated that Israel has nuclear
weapons, which was soon followed by a conveniently-timed slip of the tongue by Ehud Olmert stating that Tel Aviv possessed nuclear weapons.
[99] Within this framework, Fumio Kyuma, a former Japanese defence minister, during a speech at Reitaku University in 2007 that followed the
statements of Gates and Olmert, tried to publicly legitimize the dropping of atom bombs by the U.S. on Japanese civilians. [100] Because of the
massive public outrage in Japanese society, Kyuma was forced to resign his post as defence minister. [101] The Uncertain Road Ahead:
Armageddon at Our Doorstep? The March into the Unknown Horizon... According to theChristian Science Monitor, Beijing is a barometre on
whether Iran will be attacked and it seems unlikely by the acceleration in trade between China and Iran. [102] Still a

major war in the

Middle East and an even more dangerous global war with the use of nuclear weapons should not be ruled out. The globe is facing

a state of worldwide military escalation. What

is looming in front of humanity is the possibility of an all-out nuclear war and the

extinction of most life on this planet as we know it.

Israel strikes 2nc

Sanction bill signals US backing of Israel encourages strikes
Perr 12/24/13 B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University; technology marketing consultant based in Portland,
Oregon. Jon has long been active in Democratic politics and public policy as an organizer and advisor in California and
Massachusetts. His past roles include field staffer for Gary Hart for President (1984), organizer of Silicon Valley tech executives
backing President Clinton's call for national education standards (1997), recruiter of tech executives for Al Gore's and John
Kerry's presidential campaigns, and co-coordinator of MassTech for Robert Reich (2002). (Jon, Senate sanctions bill could let
Israel take U.S. to war against Iran Daily Kos, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/24/1265184/-Senate-sanctions-billcould-let-Israel-take-U-S-to-war-against-Iran#

As 2013 draws to close, the negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program have entered a delicate stage. But in 2014, the tensions will escalate dramatically as a
bipartisan group of Senators brings a

new Iran sanctions bill to the floor for a vote. As many others have warned, that promise of new measures

against Tehran will almost certainly blow up the interim deal reached by the Obama administration and its UN/EU partners in Geneva. But Congress' highly unusual
intervention into the President's domain of foreign policy doesn't just make the prospect of an American conflict with Iran more likely. As it turns out, the Nuclear
Weapon Free Iran Act essentially empowers

Israel to decide whether the United States will go to war against Tehran. On

their own, the tough new sanctions imposed automatically if a final deal isn't completed in six months pose a daunting enough challenge for President Obama and
Secretary of State Kerry. But it

is the legislation's commitment to support an Israeli preventive strike against Iranian nuclear
the U.S. and Iran will come to blows. As Section 2b, part 5 of the draft mandates: If the Government of

facilities that almost ensures

Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel
and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic,
military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence. Now, the legislation being pushed by Senators Mark
Kirk (R-IL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) does not automatically give the President an authorization to use force should Israel attack the
Iranians. (The draft language above explicitly states that the U.S. government must act "in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional
responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force.") But there should be little doubt that an AUMF would be forthcoming from Congressmen on both
sides of the aisle. As Lindsey Graham, who with Menendez co-sponsored a similar, non-binding "stand with Israel" resolution in March told a Christians United for
Israel (CUFI) conference in July: "If nothing changes in Iran, come September, October, I will present a resolution that will authorize the use of military force to
prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb." Graham would have plenty of company from the hardest of hard liners in his party. In August 2012, Romney national
security adviser and pardoned Iran-Contra architect Elliott Abrams called for a war authorization in the pages of the Weekly Standard. And just two weeks ago,
Norman Podhoretz used his Wall Street Journal op-ed to urge the Obama administration to "strike Iran now" to avoid "the nuclear war sure to come." But at the
end of the day, the

lack of an explicit AUMF in the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act doesn't mean its supporters aren't giving
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu de facto carte blanche to hit Iranian nuclear facilities. The ensuing Iranian
retaliation against to Israeli and American interests would almost certainly trigger the commitment of U.S. forces anyway. Even if
the Israelis alone launched a strike against Iran's atomic sites, Tehran will almost certainly hit back against U.S. targets in the Straits of Hormuz, in the region,
possibly in Europe and even potentially in the American homeland. Israel would face certain retaliation from Hezbollah rockets launched from Lebanon and Hamas
missiles raining down from Gaza. That's why former Bush Defense Secretary Bob Gates and CIA head Michael Hayden raising the alarms about the "disastrous"
impact of the supposedly surgical strikes against the Ayatollah's nuclear infrastructure. As the New York Times reported in March 2012, "A classified war simulation
held this month to assess the repercussions of an

Israeli attack on Iran forecasts that the strike would lead to a wider regional war,

which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials." And that September, a bipartisan group of U.S.
foreign policy leaders including Brent Scowcroft, retired Admiral William Fallon, former Republican Senator (now Obama Pentagon chief) Chuck Hagel, retired
General Anthony Zinni and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering concluded that American attacks with the objective of "ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear
bomb" would "need to conduct a significantly expanded air and sea war over a prolonged period of time, likely several years." (Accomplishing regime change, the
authors noted, would mean an occupation of Iran requiring a "commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10
years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.") The anticipated blowback? Serious costs to U.S. interests would also be felt over the longer term, we believe,
with problematic consequences for global and regional stability, including economic stability. A

dynamic of escalation, action, and

counteraction could produce serious unintended consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and
lead, potentially, to all-out regional war.

Strikes impact overview

Prefer our impact:
a.) Speed aff impacts are long-term and can be resolved by future policymakers
1NC internal link indicates sanctions would be quick once negotiations failed here is
more ev
Klass, 12/31/13 retired USAF Colonel; Lt. General (USA Ret.) Robert Gard, the chairman of the
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, contributed to this piece (Richard, Huffington Post, The
Road to Wars http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-klass/the-road-to-wars_b_4524280.html)
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has introduced

legislation that sets

the United States on the road to war with Iran and the road to an internal war within the Democratic Party. The bill (S.1881), which
has many Democratic co-sponsors, increases the chances for war in two major ways. First, it undercuts ongoing negotiations to
build on the first-step nuclear agreement with Iran by adding additional sanctions before the current six
month negotiating period plays out. Iran has threatened to withdraw from these negotiations if a bad
faith act, such as adding new sanctions, transpires. The U.S. would do the same if, for example, Iran's parliament passed
legislation to open a new nuclear production facility. If the first-step deal collapses, there will be no problem in quickly
instituting new sanctions. And there will certainly be calls for military action, no matter how short-term
the results would be. But if the collapse is triggered by a U.S. unilateral action, the coalition now
enforcing those sanctions could well collapse. This undermining of the president's negotiating authority and international
cooperation is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. The second danger in this bill is that it encourages an Israeli attack on Iran.
The bill states that "... if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapon
program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide ..., diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government
of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence...." While the language

is "should," not "must," and there are

bows to the Constitution and congressional authority, this is a clear signal to Israel that it can count on
U.S. support for a "unilateral" air strike. And Iran cannot be blamed if it takes it that way. No one should doubt who will
determine if the Iranian program provides an existential threat to Israel. The Israeli government's position is that any enrichment in Iran is such
a threat. Yet reaching any agreement with Iran will undoubtedly require some residual domestic enrichment capability. Military experts agree
that Israel would need substantial U.S. help for any effective attack. This would include not only intelligence and aerial refueling, but also
combat search and rescue for downed Israeli pilots, possible suppression of enemy air defenses and other direct combat missions. In short,
war. This

language, while not requiring that the U.S. support an Israeli attack, certainly will be taken that
way in Israel and Iran. Also, it just might be enough to doom a diplomatic settlement and unleash the dogs
of war.

b.) Scope uncontrollable escalation enhanced by economic turmoil draws-in the

US, Russia, and China only extinction scenario
Reuveny, 10 professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University
(Rafael, Unilateral strike could trigger World War III, global depression Gazette Xtra, 8/7, - See more
at: http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/aug/07/con-unilateral-strike-could-trigger-world-war-iii/#sthash.ec4zqu8o.dpuf) CMR

A unilateral Israeli strike on Irans nuclear facilities would likely have dire consequences, including a
regional war, global economic collapse and a major power clash. For an Israeli campaign to succeed, it must be quick
and decisive. This requires an attack that would be so overwhelming that Iran would not dare to respond in full force. Such an outcome is

extremely unlikely since the

locations of some of Irans nuclear facilities are not fully known and known
facilities are buried deep underground. All of these widely spread facilities are shielded by elaborate air defense systems
constructed not only by the Iranians but also the Chinese and, likely, the Russians as well. By now, Iran has also built redundant
command and control systems and nuclear facilities, developed early warning systems, acquired ballistic and cruise missiles
and upgraded and enlarged its armed forces. Because Iran is well-prepared, a single, conventional Israeli strikeor even numerous
strikescould not destroy all of its capabilities, giving Iran time to respond. Unlike Iraq, whose nuclear program Israel
destroyed in 1981, Iran has a second-strike capability comprised of a coalition of Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Hezbollah, Hamas, and,
perhaps, Turkish forces. Internal pressure might compel Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to join the assault, turning a bad situation
into a regional war. During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, at the apex of its power, Israel was saved from defeat by President Nixons shipment of
weapons and planes. Today, Israels numerical inferiority is greater, and it faces more determined and better-equipped opponents. After years
of futilely fighting Palestinian irregular armies, Israel has lost some of its perceived superioritybolstering its enemies resolve. Despite Israels
touted defense systems, Iranian coalition missiles, armed forces, and terrorist attacks would likely wreak havoc on its enemy, leading to a
prolonged tit-for-tat. In the absence of massive U.S. assistance, Israels military

resources may quickly dwindle, forcing it

to use its alleged nuclear weapons, as it had reportedly almost done in 1973. An Israeli nuclear attack would likely destroy most of
Irans capabilities, but a crippled Iran and its coalition could still attack neighboring oil facilities, unleash global terrorism, plant mines in the
Persian Gulf and impair maritime trade in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Middle Eastern oil

shipments would likely

slow to a trickle as production declines due to the war and insurance companies decide to drop their risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and
Venezuela would likely stop selling oil to the United States and Europe. From there, things could deteriorate as they did in the 1930s. The
world economy would head into a tailspin; international acrimony would rise; and Iraqi and Afghani citizens might
fully turn on the United States, immediately requiring the deployment of more American troops. Russia, China, Venezuela, and
maybe Brazil and Turkeyall of which essentially support Irancould be tempted to form an alliance and openly
challenge the U.S. hegemony. Russia and China might rearm their injured Iranian protege overnight, just as Nixon rearmed Israel,
and threaten to intervene, just as the U.S.S.R. threatened to join Egypt and Syria in 1973. President Obamas response would likely
put U.S. forces on nuclear alert, replaying Nixons nightmarish scenario. Iran may well feel duty-bound to respond to a unilateral
attack by its Israeli archenemy, but it knows that it could not take on the United States head-to-head. In contrast, if the United States leads the
attack, Irans response would likely be muted. If Iran chooses to absorb an American-led strike, its allies would likely protest and send weapons
but would probably not risk using force. While no one has a crystal ball, leaders should be risk-averse when choosing war as a foreign policy
tool. If attacking Iran is deemed necessary, Israel must wait for an American green light. A

spark World War III.

unilateral Israeli strike could ultimately

MPX global war

Global war
Reuveny, 10 professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University (Rafael,
Unilateral strike could trigger World War III, global depression Gazette Xtra, 8/7, - See more at:
http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/aug/07/con-unilateral-strike-could-trigger-world-war-iii/#sthash.ec4zqu8o.dpuf)

A unilateral Israeli strike on Irans nuclear facilities would likely have dire consequences, including a
regional war, global economic collapse and a major power clash. For an Israeli campaign to succeed, it must be quick and
decisive. This requires an attack that would be so overwhelming that Iran would not dare to respond in full force. Such an outcome is extremely unlikely since the

locations of some of Irans nuclear facilities are not fully known and known facilities are buried deep
underground. All of these widely spread facilities are shielded by elaborate air defense systems constructed not only by the Iranians but also the Chinese
and, likely, the Russians as well. By now, Iran has also built redundant command and control systems and nuclear
facilities, developed early warning systems, acquired ballistic and cruise missiles and upgraded and enlarged its armed forces. Because Iran is well-prepared, a
single, conventional Israeli strikeor even numerous strikescould not destroy all of its capabilities, giving Iran time to respond.
Unlike Iraq, whose nuclear program Israel destroyed in 1981, Iran has a second-strike capability comprised of a coalition of Iranian, Syrian,
Lebanese, Hezbollah, Hamas, and, perhaps, Turkish forces. Internal pressure might compel Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to join the assault, turning a
bad situation into a regional war. During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, at the apex of its power, Israel was saved from defeat by President Nixons shipment of weapons
and planes. Today, Israels numerical inferiority is greater, and it faces more determined and better-equipped opponents. After years of futilely fighting Palestinian
irregular armies, Israel has lost some of its perceived superioritybolstering its enemies resolve. Despite Israels touted defense systems, Iranian coalition missiles,
armed forces, and terrorist attacks would likely wreak havoc on its enemy, leading to a prolonged tit-for-tat. In the absence of massive U.S. assistance, Israels

military resources may quickly dwindle, forcing it to use its alleged nuclear weapons, as it had reportedly
almost done in 1973. An Israeli nuclear attack would likely destroy most of Irans capabilities, but a crippled Iran and its coalition could still attack
neighboring oil facilities, unleash global terrorism, plant mines in the Persian Gulf and impair maritime trade in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean.
Middle Eastern oil

shipments would likely slow to a trickle as production declines due to the war and insurance companies decide to drop their

risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and Venezuela would likely stop selling oil to the United States and Europe. From there, things could deteriorate as they did in the
1930s. The

world economy would head into a tailspin; international acrimony would rise; and Iraqi and Afghani
citizens might fully turn on the United States, immediately requiring the deployment of more American troops. Russia, China, Venezuela, and
maybe Brazil and Turkeyall of which essentially support Irancould be tempted to form an alliance and openly challenge
the U.S. hegemony. Russia and China might rearm their injured Iranian protege overnight, just as Nixon rearmed Israel, and threaten to intervene, just as
the U.S.S.R. threatened to join Egypt and Syria in 1973. President Obamas response would likely put U.S. forces on nuclear alert,
replaying Nixons nightmarish scenario. Iran may well feel duty-bound to respond to a unilateral attack by its Israeli archenemy, but it knows that it could not take
on the United States head-to-head. In contrast, if the United States leads the attack, Irans response would likely be muted. If Iran chooses to absorb an Americanled strike, its allies would likely protest and send weapons but would probably not risk using force. While no one has a crystal ball, leaders should be risk-averse
when choosing war as a foreign policy tool. If attacking Iran is deemed necessary, Israel must wait for an American green light. A

unilateral Israeli

strike could ultimately spark World War III.

Extinction
Pack & Creveld 3/20/12 researches Middle Eastern History at Cambridge University, AND military
historian of Israel (Jason & Martin, Solve Syria, leave Iran alone,
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/03/201231981332612423.html, CMR)

The Israeli government has vastly exaggerated the threat that a nuclear Iran poses to its security , as
well as its own capacity to halt it. Disabling the Iranian nuclear program by aerial bombardment is probably impossible due to its
size, dispersion, lack of actionable intelligence, and, above all, the fact that the element of surprise has long

since been lost. Iran's potential acquisition of the bomb, on the other hand, could bring increased stability to the region, as the doctrine
of Mutual Assured Destruction demonstrated in the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Understood in this light, the real
threat is not Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, but Israel's attempts to halt it, which would surely incur Iranian
retaliation via the Strait of Hormuz. This would cause the price of oil to skyrocket to more than $200 a
barrel and send the world's major economies into sustained free fall. In fact, despite the faux solidarity that US President Barack
Obama expressed at the conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in early March, Israel's sabre-rattling appears to be galvanising a US modus vivendi with Iran in order to
avert an Israeli attack. This reading of events is amplified by recent statements made by British Prime Minister David Cameron during his recent visit to the US. The subtext is that while jetting
in Air Force One and watching college basketball, Cameron and Obama have agreed in identifying Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and not the Ayatollahs, as the primary wildcard.
Netanyahu threatens to upend Obama's carefully constructed international consensus concerning sanctions and containment of Iran. This consensus averts regional mayhem. Most sane

attack on Iran could have catastrophic consequences. It would push the Arab Spring
movements in a decidedly anti-Western direction, unifying Islamists and secularists in a renewed
hatred for Israel and provoking a spate of terror attacks both inside Israel and on Western interests in Arab countries with Shia populations.
Avoiding cataclysm and depression Acknowledging the virtual armageddon that could flow from an ill-conceived attack on Iran is
not appeasement. It is simply recognition of the reality that Israel and the West have little to fear from Iran - even an Iran with limited nuclear capacity. The ascending powers in
people - even inside Israel itself - grasp that an unprovoked Israeli

the Middle East are Turkey and Qatar. These Sunni powers, along with Saudi Arabia, should join with their international allies and initiate a regional solution to Syria's crisis. Admittedly,
international intervention in Libya was a striking success and the overwhelming majority of the Libyan people are grateful to be without Gaddafi. Even so, the Libyan rebels have been unable
to effectively congeal into a united movement.

UQ Israel will
Israel preparing for a strike but still restrained- most recent evidence
AP 3/21 (Associated Press, Israel steps up warnings of military strike on Iran to return attention to its
nuclear program, 3/21/14, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/21/israel-steps-up-warningsmilitary-strike-on-iran-to-return-attention-to-its/)

A rising chorus of Israeli voices is again raising the possibility of carrying out a military strike on Iran's
nuclear facilities in what appears to be an attempt to draw renewed attention to Tehran's atomic
program and Israel's unhappiness with international negotiations with the Iranians. In recent days, a
series of newspaper reports and comments by top defense officials have signaled that the military
option remains very much on the table. While Israeli officials say Israel never shelved the possibility of
attacking, the heightened rhetoric marks a departure from Israel's subdued approach since six world
powers opened negotiations with Iran last November.

More evidence- increased defense spending and plans prove

AP 3/21 (Associated Press, Israel steps up warnings of military strike on Iran to return attention to its
nuclear program, 3/21/14, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/21/israel-steps-up-warningsmilitary-strike-on-iran-to-return-attention-to-its/)

A front-page headline in the daily Haaretz on Thursday proclaimed that Netanyahu has ordered "to prep
for strike on Iran in 2014" and has allocated 10 billion shekels (2.87 billion dollars) for the groundwork.
Earlier this week, Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon hinted that Israel would have to pursue a military
strike on its own, with the U.S. having chosen the path of negotiations. And the military chief, Lt. Gen.
Benny Gantz, said this week that Iran "is not in an area that is out of the military's range."

A2 Israeli strikes inevitable

Empirically disproven Israel frequently threatens strikes, the current threat is
contextualized by American signals vis--vis the current diplomatic track
Israeli strikes only happen in a world of the link
Robert Parry 11/14 (investigative reporter, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s) A showdown for war or peace, The Arab American,
http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=commentary&article=7821

The battle lines of this high-stakes diplomatic conflict are forming with Netanyahu, Bandar and American
neoconservatives on one side and Obama, Putin and foreign-policy realists on the other. Besides the
future direction of the Middle East, the political fortunes of individual leaders are at stake, with either Obama or
Netanyahu potentially emerging as the biggest loser. Netanyahus strategy calls for rallying Israels
staunch supporters in Congress and the U.S. news media to criticize Obama for showing weakness in trying to resolve disputes with
Iran and Syria through constructive diplomacy rather than military force or coercive economic warfare. On Thursday, Netanyahu called the
tentative agreement with Iran a grievous historic error that would not eliminate Irans potential for eventually moving to build a nuclear
bomb. If the news that I am receiving of the impending proposal by the p-5-plus-1 is true, this is the deal of the century, for Iran, said
Netanyahu, referring to the five permanent Security Council members, plus Germany, which have been negotiating with Iran over constraints
on its nuclear program. Trying

to head off the deal, some of Netanyahus backers called for more economic

sanctions on Iran, even as its new government under President Hassan Rouhani signals a desire for a diplomatic settlement that would
include new limits and more supervision on its nuclear program. Torpedoing the talks by enacting more sanctions would
likely increase the prospects of an eventual U.S.-Israel air assault on Irans nuclear facilities, a move that
Netanyahu has advocated in the past. Even if we get this de minimus interim deal *with Iran+, we could be in serious trouble, said Mark
Dubowitz, executive director of the neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The Israelis and the Saudis are already freaking out about
the dangers of any interim deal. This would demonstrate to them and Congress that the Obama administration has entered the Persian nuclear
bazaar and gotten totally outnegotiated. Similarly, Israeli and Saudi hardliners are furious with Obama for scrapping a planned military strike
against Syria last August in favor of having the Syrian government give up its chemical weapons in response to a U.S.-Russian initiative. Obama
also was chafing under the rough-riding style of Netanyahu, who has frequently brought his whip down on Obama, scolding him in the Oval
Office, going over Obamas head to Congress and the U.S. news media, and essentially endorsing Republican Mitt Romney for president in
2012. Netanyahu also has sought to corner Obama into military conflicts with Iran and Syria, challenging the Presidents goal of rebalancing U.S.
geopolitical interests away from the Middle East. Now the

stakes have been raised. Either Obamas regional strategy of

diplomacy will prevail with the support of Russian President Putin or Netanyahu and Bandar will manage to rally their
supporters, especially in U.S. political and media circles, to push the region deeper into conflict.

Qualified opinions support our internal link story

Joseff Federman 10/2 US-Iran Diplomacy Neutralizes Israel's Threat Of Attack
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-iran-diplomacy-neutralizes-israels-threat-of-attack-2013-10
US dialogue with Iran neutralizes Israeli threat to take military action JERUSALEM (AP) President Barack
Obama's decision to open a dialogue with Iran's new president appears to have robbed Israel of a key asset in its
campaign to prevent the Islamic Republic from developing a nuclear weapon: the threat of unilaterally attacking Iranian nuclear
facilities. Despite some tough rhetoric in a speech to the U.N. by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it will
be all but impossible for Israel to take military action once negotiations between Iran and world powers
resume. As a result, Israel could find itself sidelined in the international debate over how to handle the suspect Iranian nuclear program
over the coming months and reliant on the United States at a time when American credibility in the region is in question. For years, Netanyahu
has warned that Iran is steadily marching toward the development of nuclear weapons, an assessment widely shared by the West. While

welcoming international sanctions and diplomacy to engage Iran, Netanyahu has repeatedly said these efforts must be backed by a "credible"
military threat. Iran says its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. Addressing the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, Netanyahu
repeated his mantra that Israel is prepared to act alone if it determines diplomacy has failed. "Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the
hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map. Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself,"
he said. "I want there to be no confusion on this point. Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel
will stand alone." Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran a threat to its very survival, given repeated Iranian assertions that the Jewish state
should not exist. Israel has a long list of other grievances against Iran, citing its support for hostile Arab militant groups, its development of longrange missiles and alleged Iranian involvement in attacks on Israeli targets around the world. Yet behind Netanyahu's rhetoric, his

options appear to be limited as a consequence of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's outreach to the
West. At the U.N. last week, Rouhani delivered a conciliatory speech in which he said Iran has no intention of building a nuclear weapon and
declared his readiness for new negotiations with world powers. Capping off the visit, Rouhani and Obama held a 15-minute phone call as the
Iranian leader was traveling to the airport. It was the first conversation between the nations' leaders in 34 years and raised hopes that a
breakthrough on the nuclear issue could portend even deeper ties between the U.S. and Iran. Netanyahu has greeted Rouhani's outreach with
deep skepticism, expressing fears that Iran will use upcoming nuclear talks as a ploy to get the world to ease painful economic sanctions while
secretly pressing forward with its nuclear program. In his address Tuesday, Netanyahu urged the world to step up the pressure on Iran until its
nuclear weapons program is dismantled. At a White House meeting on Monday, Obama sought to calm the visiting Israeli leader, saying the
U.S. will never allow Iran to produce a nuclear weapon. "Our hope is that we can resolve this diplomatically," Obama said. "But as president of
the United States, as I've said before and I will repeat, that we take no options off the table, including military options." Such words may
provide little comfort in Israel, where many are questioning Obama's willingness to take military action following his recent handling of the
Syrian chemical weapons crisis. After threatening to attack Syria over its apparent use of chemical weapons against civilians, Obama backed
down in exchange for pledges to dismantle Syria's chemical arsenal. Netanyahu has greeted the Russia-brokered deal on the Syrian chemical
weapons with only lukewarm support. Danny Yatom, a former director of Israel's Mossad intelligence service, said the about-face tarnished
U.S. credibility in the region. "I think in the eyes of the Syrians and the Iranians, and the rivals of the United States, it was a signal of weakness,
and credibility was deteriorated," he said. Now, as

Iran and world powers move toward talks, Israel will likely be
forced to watch from a distance for fear of being considered a spoiler. The U.S. has pledged to keep Israel updated on
progress. "There is no way that Israel could strike while the U.S. and Iran are engaging. That would be a disaster,"
said Reuven Pedatzur, a prominent Israeli military affairs analyst. "Israel would only consider an attack if intelligence
pointed to Iran being just a few weeks from having an actual bomb." Many analysts have long questioned whether Israel could realistically
attack Irans nuclear facilities. Such a mission would be extremely complicated, requiring long-distance flights and the refueling of warplanes
above potentially hostile airspace. Iran also possesses sophisticated anti-aircraft systems, and its nuclear facilities are scattered throughout the
country, in some places deep below ground, raising questions over how much damage Israel could inflict. Yet Israel

has a long history

of daring air raids over enemy airspace. In 1981, Israeli warplanes destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, and
in 2007, Israel is believed to have attacked a nascent nuclear reactor being built in neighboring Syria. More recently,
Israel is believed to have bombed arms shipments in Sudan and Syria. Amos Yadlin, a former Israeli military intelligence
chief and one of the pilots in the 1981 Iraqi bombing, wrote in a policy paper this week that Netanyahu faces a tough mission as he seeks to
maintain the pressure on Iran without being seen as the obstacle to an agreement. Preserving the military option will be key, he said. It is
important to understand, influence, and if possible reach a conclusion on what Americas policy will be if the negotiations fail or the agreement
is violated in the future, and how effective levers of influence on Iran sanctions and a credible military option can be preserved, as only
they are capable of changing the Iranian behavior, Yadlin wrote. Yatom,

the ex-Mossad chief, concurred that it would be

extremely difficult for Israel to attack while negotiations are ongoing. But he said Israels capability to
strike remains intact, and there should be little risk of Iran progressing toward weapons capability as
long as the talks proceed quickly. It is vital that the negotiations start as soon as possible, and we will see
immediately if the Iranians mean business or they continue to drag their feet, Yatom said. I dont think the world is that stupid to negotiate
for years and at the same time will allow the Iranians to proceed with a nuclear program.

A2 Israel cant strike

Israel has the technical capability to attack. The only question is will and political
calculation
Raas & Long 07- Research Analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses & Adjunct Researcher at the RAND
Corporation. [Whitney Raas

and Austin Long (Doctoral candidate in political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the MIT
Security Studies Program) Osirak Redux?: Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities, International Security, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Spring 2007), pp.
733]

The foregoing assessment is far from definitive in its evaluation of Israels military capability to destroy
Iranian nuclear facilities. It does seem to indicate, however, that the IAF, after years of modernization,
now possesses the capability to destroy even well-hardened targets in Iran with some degree of
confidence. Leaving open the question of whether an attack is worth the resulting diplomatic
consequences and Iranian response, it appears that the Israelis have three possible routes for an air
strike against three of the critical nodes of the Iranian nuclear program. Although each of these routes
presents political and operational difficulties, this article argues that the IAF could nevertheless attempt
to use them.
The operation would appear to be no more risky than Israels 1981 attack on Iraqs Osirak reactor, and it
would provide at least as much benefit in terms of delaying Iranian development of nuclear weapons.
This benefit might not be worth the operational risk and political cost. Nonetheless, this analysis
demonstrates that Israeli leaders have access to the technical capability to carry out the attack with a
reasonable chance of success. The question then becomes one of will and individual calculation.

Israel has the long range bombers and bunker busters to strike Iran.
Scarborough 06 *Rowan Scarborough, Israel capable of air strike on Iran, The Washitngon Times July 18, 2006, pg.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060718-israel-iran.htm]

Israel is in the best position militarily in its history to mount air strikes against Iran, after a
decade of buying U.S.-produced long-range aircraft, penetrating bombs and aerial refueling
tankers.
Tel Aviv has ratcheted up the volume in attacking the hard-line Islamic regime as it fights the
Iranian-backed Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. In the past, Israeli politicians have talked openly
of attacking Iranian nuclear sites to prevent the U.S.-designated terror state from building
atomic warheads.
Israel has purchased 25 $84 million F-15I (I for Israel) Ra'am, a special version of the U.S. F-15E
long-range interdiction bomber. It also is buying 102 of another long-range tactical jet, the $45
million F-16I Sufa. About 60 have been delivered.

The Jewish state also is buying 500 U.S. BLU-109 "bunker buster" bombs that could penetrate
the concrete protection around some of Iran's underground facilities, such as the uranium
enrichment site at Natanz. The final piece of the enterprise is a fleet of B-707 air-to-air refuelers
that could nurse strike aircraft as they made the 900-mile-plus trip inside Iran, dropped their
bombs and returned to Israel.
"They have the capability to strike Iran," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a
former fighter pilot who has trained with Israelis. "It would be limited, though. They could do
30 to 40 'aim points' in the array. I'm not worried about them hitting the targets. They will
suffer losses, but they are capable of doing it."

Sanctions strikes
Perceived failure next week ensures Israeli strike
NST, 325-14 New Straits Times, Iran nuclear deal proves elusive
http://www.nst.com.my/world/iran-nuclear-deal-proves-elusive-1.531104

Foreign ministers from world powers struggled Saturday to nail down a landmark nuclear deal with Iran, with US
Secretary of State John Kerry announcing his imminent departure and Iran's chief negotiator downbeat. As talks in Geneva went late into an
unscheduled fourth day, Kerry's spokesman said Washington's top diplomat would be flying to London on Sunday morning -- presumably with
or without a deal. Iranian chief negotiator Abbas Araqchi said he doubted that Tehran and the P5+1 world powers -- the United States, Britain,
France, China, Russia and Germany -- could reach an accord by the end of Saturday. "Intense and difficult negotiations are under way and it is
not clear whether we can reach an agreement tonight," Fars news agency quoted Araqchi as saying. The talks, mostly between Iranian Foreign
Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and P5+1 chief negotiator Catherine Ashton, are aimed at securing a freeze on parts of Iran's nuclear
programme in return for limited sanctions relief. The

arrival of Kerry and other P5+1 foreign ministers late Friday and
on Saturday had raised hopes, after three long days of intense negotiations among lower-level officials, that a breakthrough
was in sight. However the talks continued to drag on inside the smart Geneva hotel late Saturday. "We have now
entered a very difficult stage," Zarif told state television. He insisted he would not bow to "excessive demands", without detailing
the obstacles. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said on his arrival that the talks "remain very difficult" and that "we are not here because
things are necessarily finished". Late on Saturday, Kerry went into a three-way meeting with Ashton and Zarif for the second time, a US official
said following a meeting among the powers' foreign ministers. Two weeks ago, the ministers had jetted in seeking to sign on the dotted line,
only to fail as cracks appeared among the P5+1 nations -- fissures that officials say are now repaired. But

a second fruitless effort in

Geneva in as many weeks would not only be diplomatically embarrassing. If there is no deal, or at least an
agreement to meet again soon and keep the diplomatic momentum going, the standoff could enter a new, potentially
dangerous phase. Since being elected in June, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has raised big hopes that, after a decade of rising
tensions over Tehran's nuclear programme, a solution might be within reach. Devil in the detail But if his diplomatic push fails to bear fruit,

Tehran could resume its expansion of nuclear activities, leading to ever more painful sanctions -- and
possible military action by Israel or the United States. Mark Hibbs, an analyst from the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, said Kerry's imminent departure might not necessarily be a bad sign, however. Kerry
leaving "might set a deadline and focus people's minds, especially if things this afternoon are bogging
down in the details," Hibbs told AFP. Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful, but has failed to allay the international community's
suspicions it is aimed at acquiring atomic weapons. The six powers want Iran to stop enriching uranium to a fissile purity of 20 percent, close to
weapons-grade, but while allowing it to continue enrichment to lower levels. That would be a step back from successive UN Security Council
resolutions that have called for Iran to halt all uranium enrichment. The powers also want Tehran to stop construction on a new reactor at Arak
and to grant the International Atomic Energy Agency more intrusive inspection rights. A hard sell In return they are offering Iran minor and
"reversible" relief from painful sanctions, including unlocking several billion dollars in oil revenues and easing some trade restrictions. This

"first phase" interim deal is meant to build trust and ease tensions while negotiators push on for a final
accord to end once and for all fears that Tehran will acquire an atomic bomb. A major sticking point has been Iran's demand -- again
expressed by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei this week -- that the powers formally recognise it has a "right" to enrich uranium.

Getting an agreement palatable to hardliners in the United States and in the Islamic republic -- as well as in Israel, which is not
party to the talks -- is tough. Israel's Haaretz daily reported that over the last three days, Intelligence Affairs Minister Yuval
Steinitz spoke by phone with two of the P5+1's foreign ministers to press Israel's concerns. In Washington
there is a push by lawmakers to ignore President Barack Obama's pleas and pass yet more sanctions on Iran if there is no deal -- or one seen as
too soft.

Talks are critical to neutralize Israeli air strikes, they have motivation and capability prefer this evidence it cites a prominent Israeli military affairs analyst
Joseff Federman 10/2 US-Iran Diplomacy Neutralizes Israel's Threat Of Attack
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-iran-diplomacy-neutralizes-israels-threat-of-attack-2013-10

US dialogue with Iran neutralizes Israeli threat to take military action JERUSALEM (AP) President Barack
Obama's decision to open a dialogue with Iran's new president appears to have robbed Israel of a key asset in its
campaign to prevent the Islamic Republic from developing a nuclear weapon: the threat of unilaterally attacking Iranian nuclear
facilities. Despite some tough rhetoric in a speech to the U.N. by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it will
be all but impossible for Israel to take military action once negotiations between Iran and world powers
resume. As a result, Israel could find itself sidelined in the international debate over how to handle the suspect Iranian nuclear program
over the coming months and reliant on the United States at a time when American credibility in the region is in question. For years, Netanyahu
has warned that Iran is steadily marching toward the development of nuclear weapons, an assessment widely shared by the West. While
welcoming international sanctions and diplomacy to engage Iran, Netanyahu has repeatedly said these efforts must be backed by a "credible"
military threat. Iran says its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. Addressing the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, Netanyahu
repeated his mantra that Israel is prepared to act alone if it determines diplomacy has failed. "Israel will never acquiesce to nuclear arms in the
hands of a rogue regime that repeatedly promises to wipe us off the map. Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself,"
he said. "I want there to be no confusion on this point. Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel
will stand alone." Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran a threat to its very survival, given repeated Iranian assertions that the Jewish state
should not exist. Israel has a long list of other grievances against Iran, citing its support for hostile Arab militant groups, its development of longrange missiles and alleged Iranian involvement in attacks on Israeli targets around the world. Yet behind Netanyahu's rhetoric, his

options appear to be limited as a consequence of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's outreach to the
West. At the U.N. last week, Rouhani delivered a conciliatory speech in which he said Iran has no intention of building a nuclear weapon and
declared his readiness for new negotiations with world powers. Capping off the visit, Rouhani and Obama held a 15-minute phone call as the
Iranian leader was traveling to the airport. It was the first conversation between the nations' leaders in 34 years and raised hopes that a
breakthrough on the nuclear issue could portend even deeper ties between the U.S. and Iran. Netanyahu has greeted Rouhani's outreach with
deep skepticism, expressing fears that Iran will use upcoming nuclear talks as a ploy to get the world to ease painful economic sanctions while
secretly pressing forward with its nuclear program. In his address Tuesday, Netanyahu urged the world to step up the pressure on Iran until its
nuclear weapons program is dismantled. At a White House meeting on Monday, Obama sought to calm the visiting Israeli leader, saying the
U.S. will never allow Iran to produce a nuclear weapon. "Our hope is that we can resolve this diplomatically," Obama said. "But as president of
the United States, as I've said before and I will repeat, that we take no options off the table, including military options." Such words may
provide little comfort in Israel, where many are questioning Obama's willingness to take military action following his recent handling of the
Syrian chemical weapons crisis. After threatening to attack Syria over its apparent use of chemical weapons against civilians, Obama backed
down in exchange for pledges to dismantle Syria's chemical arsenal. Netanyahu has greeted the Russia-brokered deal on the Syrian chemical
weapons with only lukewarm support. Danny Yatom, a former director of Israel's Mossad intelligence service, said the about-face tarnished
U.S. credibility in the region. "I think in the eyes of the Syrians and the Iranians, and the rivals of the United States, it was a signal of weakness,
and credibility was deteriorated," he said. Now, as

Iran and world powers move toward talks, Israel will likely be
forced to watch from a distance for fear of being considered a spoiler. The U.S. has pledged to keep Israel updated on
progress. "There is no way that Israel could strike while the U.S. and Iran are engaging. That would be a disaster,"
said Reuven Pedatzur, a prominent Israeli military affairs analyst. "Israel would only consider an attack if intelligence
pointed to Iran being just a few weeks from having an actual bomb." Many analysts have long questioned whether Israel could realistically
attack Irans nuclear facilities. Such a mission would be extremely complicated, requiring long-distance flights and the refueling of warplanes
above potentially hostile airspace. Iran also possesses sophisticated anti-aircraft systems, and its nuclear facilities are scattered throughout the
country, in some places deep below ground, raising questions over how much damage Israel could inflict. Yet Israel

has a long history

of daring air raids over enemy airspace. In 1981, Israeli warplanes destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor, and
in 2007, Israel is believed to have attacked a nascent nuclear reactor being built in neighboring Syria. More recently,
Israel is believed to have bombed arms shipments in Sudan and Syria. Amos Yadlin, a former Israeli military intelligence
chief and one of the pilots in the 1981 Iraqi bombing, wrote in a policy paper this week that Netanyahu faces a tough mission as he seeks to
maintain the pressure on Iran without being seen as the obstacle to an agreement. Preserving the military option will be key, he said. It is
important to understand, influence, and if possible reach a conclusion on what Americas policy will be if the negotiations fail or the agreement
is violated in the future, and how effective levers of influence on Iran sanctions and a credible military option can be preserved, as only
they are capable of changing the Iranian behavior, Yadlin wrote. Yatom,

the ex-Mossad chief, concurred that it would be

extremely difficult for Israel to attack while negotiations are ongoing. But he said Israels capability to
strike remains intact, and there should be little risk of Iran progressing toward weapons capability as
long as the talks proceed quickly. It is vital that the negotiations start as soon as possible, and we will see

immediately if the Iranians mean business or they continue to drag their feet, Yatom said. I dont think the world is that stupid to negotiate
for years and at the same time will allow the Iranians to proceed with a nuclear program.

Sanctions will collapse talks and jumpstart an Israeli air strike

Gharib, 12/18/13 (Ali, The Cable a Foreign Policy blog, Exclusive: Top Senate Democrats Break with
White House and Circulate New Iran Sanctions Bill
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/18/exclusive_top_senate_democrats_break_with_wh
ite_house_and_circulate_new_iran_sancti)

Critics of imposing new sanctions fear that the bill will violate either the spirit or the letter of the Joint
Plan of Action signed in Geneva. The interim deal allows some flexibility, mandating that "the U.S. administration, acting
consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions."

Administration officials have mounted a so-far successful effort to stall new sanctions in the Senate. (The
House overwhelmingly passed new sanctions in the summer.) Previous rumors of a bill in the Senate were said to contain a six-month delay
that would prevent the legislation from taking effect while talks continued, but this iteration of the legislation doesn't contain that kind of failsafe. Asked this month by Time what would happen if a bill, even with a delay, passed Congress, Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said, "The
entire deal is dead." "The law as written comes close to violating the letter [of the Geneva agreement] since the sanctions go into effect
immediately unless the administration immediately waives them," said Colin Kahl, who stepped down in 2011* as the Pentagon's top Mideast
policy official. "There is no question the legislation violates the spirit of the Geneva agreement and it would undoubtedly be seen by the
Iranians that way, giving ammunition to hard-liners and other spoilers looking to derail further progress." Though a fact-sheet circulating with
the new bill says it "does not violate the Joint Plan of Action," critics allege it would mark a defeat for the administration and the broader push
for a diplomatic solution to the Iran crisis. "It

would kill the talks, invalidate the interim deal to freeze Iran's nuclear
program, and pledge U.S. military and economic support for an Israel-led war on Iran," said Jamal Abdi,
the policy director for the Washington-based National Iranian American Council, a group that supports diplomatic
efforts to head off the Iranian nuclear crisis. "There is no better way to cut Iranian moderates down, empower
hardliners who want to kill the talks, and ensure that this standoff ends with war instead of a deal."

Sanctions = US support for Israel

Sanctions bill commits US support for Israeli air strike
Merry 1/1/14 - Robert W. Merry, political editor of the National Interest, is the author of books on
American history and foreign policy (Robert, Obama may buck the Israel lobby on Iran Washington
Times, factiva)

Presidential press secretary Jay Carney uttered 10 words the other day that represent a major presidential
challenge to the American Israel lobby and its friends on Capitol Hill. Referring to Senate legislation designed
to force President Obama to expand economic sanctions on Iran under conditions the president opposes, Mr.
Carney said: If it were to pass, the president would veto it. For years, there has been an assumption in
Washington that you cant buck the powerful Israel lobby, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, or AIPAC, whose positions are nearly identical with the stated aims of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. Mr. Netanyahu doesnt like Mr. Obamas recent overture to Iran, and neither does AIPAC. The result is
the Senate legislation, which is similar to a measure already passed by the House. With the veto threat, Mr.
Obama has announced that he is prepared to buck the Israel lobby and may even welcome the
opportunity. It isnt fair to suggest that everyone who thinks Mr. Obamas overtures to Iran are ill-conceived or
counterproductive is simply following the Israeli lobbys talking points, but Israels supporters in this country are

a major reason for the viability of the sanctions legislation the president is threatening to veto. It is
nearly impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Senate legislation is designed to sabotage Mr.
Obamas delicate negotiations with Iran (with the involvement also of the five permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council and Germany) over Irans nuclear program. The aim is to get Iran to forswear any acquisition of
nuclear weapons in exchange for the reduction or elimination of current sanctions. Iran insists it has a right to
enrich uranium at very small amounts, for peaceful purposes, and Mr. Obama seems willing to accept that Iranian
position in the interest of a comprehensive agreement. However, the Senate measure, sponsored by Sens.
Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat; Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat; and Mark Kirk, Illinois
Republican, would impose potent new sanctions if the final agreement accords Iran the right of peaceful
enrichment. That probably would destroy Mr. Obamas ability to reach an agreement. Iranian President
Hasan Rouhani already is under pressure from his countrys hard-liners to abandon his own willingness to

seek a deal. The Menendez-Schumer-Kirk measure would undercut him and put the hard-liners back in
control. Further, the legislation contains language that would commit the United States to military
action on behalf of Israel if Israel initiates action against Iran. This language is cleverly worded, suggesting
U.S. action should be triggered only if Israel acted in its legitimate self-defense and acknowledging the law of
the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, but the
language is stunning in its brazenness and represents, in the view of Andrew Sullivan, the prominent blogger, an
appalling new low in the Israeli governments grip on the U.S. Congress. While noting the language would seem to
be nonbinding, Mr. Sullivan adds that its basically endorsing the principle of handing over American
foreign policy on a matter as grave as war and peace to a foreign government, acting against international law,
thousands of miles away. That brings us back to Mr. Obamas veto threat. The American people have made clear
through q`polls and abundant expression (especially during Mr. Obamas flirtation earlier this year with military
action against Bashar Assads Syrian regime) that they are sick and weary of American military adventures in the
Middle East. They dont think the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been worth the price, and they dont want their
country to engage in any other such wars. Thats what the brewing confrontation between Mr. Obama and
the Israel lobby comes down to war and peace. Mr. Obamas delicate negotiations with Iran, whatever
their outcome, are designed to avert another U.S. war in the Middle East. The Menendez-Schumer-Kirk

initiative is designed to kill that effort and cedes to Israel Americas war-making decision in matters
involving Iran, which further increases the prospects for war. Its not even an argument about whether
the United States should come to Israels aid if our ally is under attack, but whether the decision to do so
and when that might be necessary should be made in Jerusalem or Washington.

A2 Keck Israel will strike

Impact does not require Israeli strike to happen first, they will be dragged in post a US
response
Perceived failure next week ensures Israeli strike
NST, 325-14 New Straits Times, Iran nuclear deal proves elusive
http://www.nst.com.my/world/iran-nuclear-deal-proves-elusive-1.531104

Foreign ministers from world powers struggled Saturday to nail down a landmark nuclear deal with Iran, with US
Secretary of State John Kerry announcing his imminent departure and Iran's chief negotiator downbeat. As talks in Geneva went late into an
unscheduled fourth day, Kerry's spokesman said Washington's top diplomat would be flying to London on Sunday morning -- presumably with
or without a deal. Iranian chief negotiator Abbas Araqchi said he doubted that Tehran and the P5+1 world powers -- the United States, Britain,
France, China, Russia and Germany -- could reach an accord by the end of Saturday. "Intense and difficult negotiations are under way and it is
not clear whether we can reach an agreement tonight," Fars news agency quoted Araqchi as saying. The talks, mostly between Iranian Foreign
Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and P5+1 chief negotiator Catherine Ashton, are aimed at securing a freeze on parts of Iran's nuclear
programme in return for limited sanctions relief. The

arrival of Kerry and other P5+1 foreign ministers late Friday and
on Saturday had raised hopes, after three long days of intense negotiations among lower-level officials, that a breakthrough
was in sight. However the talks continued to drag on inside the smart Geneva hotel late Saturday. "We have now
entered a very difficult stage," Zarif told state television. He insisted he would not bow to "excessive demands", without detailing
the obstacles. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said on his arrival that the talks "remain very difficult" and that "we are not here because
things are necessarily finished". Late on Saturday, Kerry went into a three-way meeting with Ashton and Zarif for the second time, a US official
said following a meeting among the powers' foreign ministers. Two weeks ago, the ministers had jetted in seeking to sign on the dotted line,
only to fail as cracks appeared among the P5+1 nations -- fissures that officials say are now repaired. But

a second fruitless effort in

Geneva in as many weeks would not only be diplomatically embarrassing. If there is no deal, or at least an
agreement to meet again soon and keep the diplomatic momentum going, the standoff could enter a new, potentially
dangerous phase. Since being elected in June, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has raised big hopes that, after a decade of rising
tensions over Tehran's nuclear programme, a solution might be within reach. Devil in the detail But if his diplomatic push fails to bear fruit,

Tehran could resume its expansion of nuclear activities, leading to ever more painful sanctions -- and
possible military action by Israel or the United States. Mark Hibbs, an analyst from the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, said Kerry's imminent departure might not necessarily be a bad sign, however. Kerry
leaving "might set a deadline and focus people's minds, especially if things this afternoon are bogging
down in the details," Hibbs told AFP. Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful, but has failed to allay the international community's
suspicions it is aimed at acquiring atomic weapons. The six powers want Iran to stop enriching uranium to a fissile purity of 20 percent, close to
weapons-grade, but while allowing it to continue enrichment to lower levels. That would be a step back from successive UN Security Council
resolutions that have called for Iran to halt all uranium enrichment. The powers also want Tehran to stop construction on a new reactor at Arak
and to grant the International Atomic Energy Agency more intrusive inspection rights. A hard sell In return they are offering Iran minor and
"reversible" relief from painful sanctions, including unlocking several billion dollars in oil revenues and easing some trade restrictions. This

"first phase" interim deal is meant to build trust and ease tensions while negotiators push on for a final
accord to end once and for all fears that Tehran will acquire an atomic bomb. A major sticking point has been Iran's demand -- again
expressed by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei this week -- that the powers formally recognise it has a "right" to enrich uranium.

Getting an agreement palatable to hardliners in the United States and in the Islamic republic -- as well as in Israel, which is not
party to the talks -- is tough. Israel's Haaretz daily reported that over the last three days, Intelligence Affairs Minister Yuval
Steinitz spoke by phone with two of the P5+1's foreign ministers to press Israel's concerns. In Washington
there is a push by lawmakers to ignore President Barack Obama's pleas and pass yet more sanctions on Iran if there is no deal -- or one seen as
too soft.

Sanction bill signals US backing of Israel encourages strikes

Perr 12/24/13 B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University; technology marketing consultant based in Portland,
Oregon. Jon has long been active in Democratic politics and public policy as an organizer and advisor in California and
Massachusetts. His past roles include field staffer for Gary Hart for President (1984), organizer of Silicon Valley tech executives
backing President Clinton's call for national education standards (1997), recruiter of tech executives for Al Gore's and John
Kerry's presidential campaigns, and co-coordinator of MassTech for Robert Reich (2002). (Jon, Senate sanctions bill could let
Israel take U.S. to war against Iran Daily Kos, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/24/1265184/-Senate-sanctions-billcould-let-Israel-take-U-S-to-war-against-Iran#

As 2013 draws to close, the negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program have entered a delicate stage. But in 2014, the tensions will escalate dramatically as a
bipartisan group of Senators brings a

new Iran sanctions bill to the floor for a vote. As many others have warned, that promise of new measures

against Tehran will almost certainly blow up the interim deal reached by the Obama administration and its UN/EU partners in Geneva. But Congress' highly unusual
intervention into the President's domain of foreign policy doesn't just make the prospect of an American conflict with Iran more likely. As it turns out, the Nuclear
Weapon Free Iran Act essentially empowers

Israel to decide whether the United States will go to war against Tehran. On

their own, the tough new sanctions imposed automatically if a final deal isn't completed in six months pose a daunting enough challenge for President Obama and
Secretary of State Kerry. But it

is the legislation's commitment to support an Israeli preventive strike against Iranian nuclear
the U.S. and Iran will come to blows. As Section 2b, part 5 of the draft mandates: If the Government of

facilities that almost ensures

Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel
and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic,
military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence. Now, the legislation being pushed by Senators Mark
Kirk (R-IL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) does not automatically give the President an authorization to use force should Israel attack the
Iranians. (The draft language above explicitly states that the U.S. government must act "in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional
responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force.") But there should be little doubt that an AUMF would be forthcoming from Congressmen on both
sides of the aisle. As Lindsey Graham, who with Menendez co-sponsored a similar, non-binding "stand with Israel" resolution in March told a Christians United for
Israel (CUFI) conference in July: "If nothing changes in Iran, come September, October, I will present a resolution that will authorize the use of military force to
prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb." Graham would have plenty of company from the hardest of hard liners in his party. In August 2012, Romney national
security adviser and pardoned Iran-Contra architect Elliott Abrams called for a war authorization in the pages of the Weekly Standard. And just two weeks ago,
Norman Podhoretz used his Wall Street Journal op-ed to urge the Obama administration to "strike Iran now" to avoid "the nuclear war sure to come." But at the
end of the day, the

lack of an explicit AUMF in the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act doesn't mean its supporters aren't giving
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu de facto carte blanche to hit Iranian nuclear facilities. The ensuing Iranian
retaliation against to Israeli and American interests would almost certainly trigger the commitment of U.S. forces anyway. Even if
the Israelis alone launched a strike against Iran's atomic sites, Tehran will almost certainly hit back against U.S. targets in the Straits of Hormuz, in the region,
possibly in Europe and even potentially in the American homeland. Israel would face certain retaliation from Hezbollah rockets launched from Lebanon and Hamas
missiles raining down from Gaza. That's why former Bush Defense Secretary Bob Gates and CIA head Michael Hayden raising the alarms about the "disastrous"
impact of the supposedly surgical strikes against the Ayatollah's nuclear infrastructure. As the New York Times reported in March 2012, "A classified war simulation
held this month to assess the repercussions of an

Israeli attack on Iran forecasts that the strike would lead to a wider regional war,

which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials." And that September, a bipartisan group of U.S.
foreign policy leaders including Brent Scowcroft, retired Admiral William Fallon, former Republican Senator (now Obama Pentagon chief) Chuck Hagel, retired
General Anthony Zinni and former Ambassador Thomas Pickering concluded that American attacks with the objective of "ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear
bomb" would "need to conduct a significantly expanded air and sea war over a prolonged period of time, likely several years." (Accomplishing regime change, the
authors noted, would mean an occupation of Iran requiring a "commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10
years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.") The anticipated blowback? Serious costs to U.S. interests would also be felt over the longer term, we believe,
with problematic consequences for global and regional stability, including economic stability. A

dynamic of escalation, action, and

counteraction could produce serious unintended consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and
lead, potentially, to all-out regional war.

A2 strikes good

Strikes Fail***
Strikes fail, cement Irans nuclear program, links to all their offense
Kahl 3/2/12Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security Dr. Colin, Before Attacking Iran, Israel Should Learn from Its 1981 Strike on Iraq,
http://www.cnas.org/node/7838

For Israelis considering a strike on Iran, Osirak seems like a model for effective preventive war. After all, Hussein never got the
bomb, and if Israel was able to brush back one enemy hell-bent on its destruction, it can do so again. But
a closer look at the Osirak episode, drawing on recent academic research and memoirs of individuals involved with Iraqs program, argues powerfully
against an Israeli strike on Iran today. To begin with, Hussein was not on the brink of a bomb in 1981. By the late 1970s, he thought Iraq should develop nuclear
weapons at some point, and he hoped to use the Osirak reactor to further that goal. But new evidence suggests that Hussein had not decided to launch a full-fledged weapons program prior to the
Israeli strike. According to Norwegian scholar Mlfrid Braut-Hegghammer, a leading authority on the Iraqi program, on the eve of the attack on Osirak ... Iraqs pursuit of a nuclear weapons
capability was both directionless and disorganized. Moreover, as Emory University political scientist Dan Reiter details in a 2005 study, the Osirak reactor was not well designed to efficiently
produce weapons-grade plutonium. If Hussein had decided to use Osirak to develop nuclear weapons and Iraqi scientists somehow evaded detection, it would still have taken several years
perhaps well into the 1990s to produce enough plutonium for a single bomb. And even with sufficient fissile material, Iraq would have had to design and construct the weapon itself, a process
that hadnt started before Israel attacked. The risks of a near-term Iraqi breakthrough were further undercut by the presence of French technicians at Osirak, as well as regular inspections by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. As a result, any significant diversion of highly enriched uranium fuel or attempts to produce fissionable plutonium would probably have been detected. By
demonstrating Iraqs vulnerability, the attack on Osirak actually increased Husseins determination to develop a nuclear deterrent and provided Iraqs scientists an opportunity to better organize
the program. The Iraqi leader devoted significantly more resources toward pursuing nuclear weapons after the Israeli assault. As Reiter notes, the Iraqi nuclear program increased from a
program of 400 scientists and $400 million to one of 7,000 scientists and $10 billion. Iraqs nuclear efforts also went underground. Hussein allowed the IAEA to verify Osiraks destruction, but
then he shifted from a plutonium strategy to a more dispersed and ambitious uranium-enrichment strategy. This approach relied on undeclared sites, away from the prying eyes of inspectors, and
aimed to develop local technology and expertise to reduce the reliance on foreign suppliers of sensitive technologies. When inspectors finally gained access after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, they
were shocked by the extent of Iraqs nuclear infrastructure and how close Hussein had gotten to a bomb. Ultimately,

Israels 1981 raid didnt end Iraqs

drive to develop nuclear weapons. It took the destruction of the Gulf War, followed by more than a decade of sanctions, containment, inspections, no-fly zones
and periodic bombing not to mention the 2003 U.S. invasion to eliminate the program. The international community got lucky: Had Hussein not been dumb enough to invade Kuwait in

Irans nuclear program is more advanced than Husseins

was in 1981. But the Islamic republic is still not on the cusp of entering the nuclear club. As the IAEA has
1990, he probably would have gotten the bomb sometime by the mid-1990s.

documented, Iran is putting all the pieces in place to have the option to develop nuclear weapons at some point. Were Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to decide tomorrow to go for a
bomb, Iran probably has the technical capability to produce a testable nuclear device in about a year and a missile-capable device in several years. But as Director of National Intelligence James

it does not appear that Khamenei has made this decision. Moreover,
Khamenei is unlikely to dash for a bomb in the near future because IAEA inspectors would
probably detect Iranian efforts to divert low-enriched uranium and enrich it to weapons-grade
level at declared facilities. Such brazen acts would trigger a draconian international response.
Until Iran can pursue such efforts more quickly or in secret which could be years from now Khamenei is unlikely to act. Also, an Israeli strike on Irans
nuclear infrastructure would be more risky and less effective than the Osirak raid. In 1981, a relatively small number of
Israeli aircraft flew 600 miles across Jordanian, Saudi and Iraqi airspace to hit a single, vulnerable, above-ground target. This was no easy feat, but it is
nothing compared with the complexity of a strike on Irans nuclear infrastructure. Such an attack
would probably require dozens of aircraft to travel at least 1,000 miles over Arab airspace to reach their
targets, stretching the limits of Israeli refueling capabilities. Israeli jets would then have to circumvent Iranian air defenses and drop
Clapper told the Senate Arms Services Committee on Feb. 16,

hundreds of precision-guided munitions on the hardened Natanz enrichment facility, the Fordow enrichment site deep in a mountain near Qom, the Isfahan uranium-conversion facility, the

These
same aircraft would not be able to reengage any missed targets they would need to race back to
defend Israel against retaliation by Iran and its proxies, including Lebanese Hezbollah and possibly Hamas. Unlike an
attack by the U.S. military, which has much more powerful munitions and the ability to sustain a large-scale bombing campaign, an Israeli assault
would probably be a one-off strike with more limited effects. No wonder that Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of
the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told CNN that an Israeli attack would set the program back only
a couple of years and wouldnt achieve their long-term objectives. (Because a U.S. strike would potentially be more
effective, the administration has kept that option on the table even as it has cautioned against an Israeli attack.) Should Israel rush to war, Iran might follow Husseins
example and rebuild its nuclear program in a way that is harder to detect and more costly to stop.
heavy-water production plant and plutonium reactor under construction at Arak, and multiple centrifuge production facilities in and around populated areas of Tehran and Natanz.

And while there seems to be consensus among Iranians that the country has a right to a robust civilian nuclear program, there is no domestic agreement yet on the pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Even the supreme leader has hedged his bets, insisting that Iran has the right to pursue technological advances with possible military applications, while repeatedly declaring that possession or
use of nuclear weapons would be a grave sin against Islam.

After an Israeli strike, that internal debate would be settled hard-

line arguments would win the day. Short of invasion and regime change outcomes beyond Israels capabilities it would be nearly
impossible to prevent Iran from rebuilding its program. Irans nuclear infrastructure is much more advanced, dispersed and
protected, and is less reliant on foreign supplies of key technology, than was the case with Iraqs program in 1981. Although Barak often warns that Israel must strike before Irans facilities are so

Iran would be likely to reconstitute its program in the very

sites and probably new clandestine ones that are invulnerable to Israeli attack. An Israeli
strike would also end any prospect of Iran cooperating with the IAEA, seriously undermining the
international communitys ability to detect rebuilding efforts. Barely a week after the Osirak raid, Begin told CBS News that the
attack will be a precedent for every future government in Israel. Yet, if history repeats itself, an Israeli attack would result in a wounded
adversary more determined than ever to get a nuclear bomb. And then the world would face the
same terrible choices it ultimately faced with Iraq: decades of containment to stall nuclear
rebuilding efforts, invasion and occupation or acquiescence to an implacable nuclear-armed
foe.
protected that they enter a zone of immunity from Israeli military action,

Strikes faillack of intelligence and redundanciesmakes prolif inevitable

Katz 11 (YAAKOV, 'Israeli strike on Iran won't end nuclear program', http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=226377, CMR)

Israel could cause extensive damage to Irans nuclear program but would not succeed in eradicating it in a future
military strike, leading American defense analyst Anthony Cordesman said on Thursday. Speaking to The Jerusalem Post on the sidelines of the Israeli
Presidential Conference in Jerusalem, Cordesman also said that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was alienating Israel from the rest of the world and was a liability for Israel and the United

Cordesman is a senior researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington
and served in the past as director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense. You can achieve short-term gains but the basic structure of the Iranian efforts would remain and such a strike
would do more to catalyze support of the program in Iran than undermine it, Cordesman said of a possible Israeli
strike against Irans nuclear facilities. It would not threaten the regime and while Israel might achieve some gains, it would not be
able to restrike [if it is rebuilt]. There is a very hard target mix and the problem is that there is a lot we dont know about
the system and there is not a lot of unclassified reporting on Irans program, he said. If they [the Iranians] had any willingness to consider this, they would have
enough redundancy and reconstitution capability so that a single strike would not have long term
effects.
States.

Strikes fail, ensure prolif, and cause retaliation

Ullman 3/15/12 (Harlan, Chairman of the Killowen Group that advises leaders of government and business and Senior Advisor at Washington DCs Atlantic Council,
ANALYSIS: Dr Strangelove, Israel and Iran Harlan Ullman, http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\03\15\story_15-3-2012_pg3_5, CMR)

Senior US military officers agree that, at best, Israel can only delay and not prevent Iran from
producing a bomb. Israel lacks the aerial tankers and the load capacity of its F-15 and F-16 jets to impose
more than temporary damage. Given geography and logistics, an Israeli pre-emptive strike would most likely come in from the
west, overflying Iraq with its minimal air defences, and assuming that the US will not engage. The result of an Israeli attack
will almost certainly convince Iran to build nuclear weapons as well as retaliate in a variety of
asymmetric ways, from oil blockades to the use of terror to unleashing Hezbollah against Israel.

Strikes BadOne-Shot
Strikes fail and backfiretriggers retaliation and proliferation
Edelman, et al. 11
[ERIC S. EDELMAN is a Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments; he was U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in 2005-9, ANDREW F.
KREPINEVICH is President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, EVAN
BRADEN MONTGOMERY is a Research Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, The Dangers of a Nuclear Iran, Foreign Affairs, 00157120, Jan/Feb2011, Vol.
90, Issue 1, EBSCO, CMR]

Not surprisingly, when it comes to addressing the dangers posed by Iran's nuclear program, there simply are no good options. Thus far, diplomacy and economic sanctions only seem to have

efforts to disrupt Iran's nuclear program might delay its progress, they are unlikely to
prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. An Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure might set the program
back but, given Israel's limited long-range strike capability, only for a short period of time. Even though the United States could bring more capabilities to
bear, and a U.S. military campaign against Iran's nuclear program might stand a greater chance of retarding its progress, the operational military challenges
would be daunting. Moreover, an attack could backfire: it might enhance popular support for a regime that
has grown increasingly unpopular at home, further strengthen Iran's determination to go nuclear, and trigger a
costly retaliation against the United States and U.S. allies in the Middle East. Yet the alternative -- trying to deter a nuclear-armed Iran from aggressive behavior against the
hardened Iran's resolve to develop a nuclear capability. Although clandestine

United States, its allies, or its interests in the region -- would almost certainly be prohibitively expensive, difficult to implement successfully, and challenging to sustain over time.

Israel lacks targeting intelligencebut attack increases development speed and causes
withdraw from the NPTcauses Israel to show off their nukes, causing regional prolif
Sokolski 5 (Henry, Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center) GETTING READY FOR A NUCLEAR-READY IRAN: REPORT OF THE NPEC
WORKING GROUP October, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub629.pdf

As for eliminating Irans nuclear capabilities militarily, the United States and Israel lack sufficient
targeting intelligence to do this. In fact, Iran long has had considerable success in concealing its
nuclear activities from U.S. intelligence analysts and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. (The latter recently warned against
assuming the IAEA could find all of Irans illicit uranium enrichment activities). As it is, Iran already could have hidden all it needs to reconstitute a bomb program, assuming its known

Compounding these difficulties is what Iran might do in response to such an

attack. After being struck, Tehran could declare that it must acquire nuclear weapons as a matter of self-defense, withdraw from the NPT, and
accelerate its nuclear endeavors. This would increase pressure on Israel (which has long insisted that it will not be
second in possessing nuclear arms in the Middle East) to confirm its possession of nuclear weapons publicly, and thus set
off a chain of possible nuclear policy reactions in Cairo, Damascus, Riyadh, Algiers, and Ankara.
declared nuclear plants were hit.

Strikes BadLaundry List

Israel strike causes great power war, collapses the economy, U.S. heg, and causes a
Russia-Chinese alliance
Reuveny, 10 - professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University (Rafeal, 2010, "Guest Opinion: Unilateral strike on Iran could trigger world
depression", http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/news/speaking_out/reuveny_on_unilateral_strike_Iran.shtml)

A unilateral Israeli strike on Irans nuclear facilities would likely have dire
consequences, including a regional war, global economic collapse and a major power
clash. For an Israeli campaign to succeed, it must be quick and decisive. This requires an
attack that would be so overwhelming that Iran would not dare to respond in full force. Such
an outcome is extremely unlikely since the locations of some of Irans nuclear facilities are
not fully known and known facilities are buried deep underground. All of these widely spread facilities are shielded by
elaborate air defense systems constructed not only by the Iranians, but also the Chinese and, likely, the Russians as well. By now, Iran has also built
redundant command and control systems and nuclear facilities, developed early-warning
systems, acquired ballistic and cruise missiles and upgraded and enlarged its armed forces.
Because Iran is well-prepared, a single, conventional Israeli strike or even numerous
strikes could not destroy all of its capabilities, giving Iran time to respond. A regional war Unlike Iraq,
whose nuclear program Israel destroyed in 1981, Iran has a second-strike capability comprised of a coalition of Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Hezbollah,
Hamas, and, perhaps, Turkish forces. Internal pressure might compel Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian
Authority to join the assault, turning a bad situation into a regional war. During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, at
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. --

the apex of its power, Israel was saved from defeat by President Nixons shipment of weapons and planes. Today, Israels numerical inferiority is greater, and it faces more determined

Despite Israels touted defense systems, Iranian coalition missiles, armed

forces, and terrorist attacks would likely wreak havoc on its enemy, leading to a prolonged
tit-for-tat. In the absence of massive U.S. assistance, Israels military resources may quickly dwindle, forcing it
to use its alleged nuclear weapons , as it had reportedly almost done in 1973. An Israeli nuclear attack would likely destroy most of Irans capabilities, but a
crippled Iran and its coalition could still attack neighboring oil facilities, unleash global terrorism, plant
mines in the Persian Gulf and impair maritime trade in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and
Indian Ocean. Middle Eastern oil shipments would likely slow to a trickle as production declines
due to the war and insurance companies decide to drop their risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and Venezuela would likely stop selling oil to the United States and Europe.
The world economy would head into a tailspin ; international acrimony would rise; and Iraqi and Afghani citizens might fully turn on
the United States, immediately requiring the deployment of more American troops. Russia, China, Venezuela, and maybe Brazil and
Turkey all of which essentially support Iran could be tempted to form an alliance and
openly challenge the U.S. hegemony. Replaying Nixons nightmare Russia and China might rearm their injured
Iranian protege overnight, just as Nixon rearmed Israel, and threaten to intervene, just as the U.S.S.R. threatened to
join Egypt and Syria in 1973. President Obamas response would likely put U.S. forces on nuclear alert, replaying Nixons
and better-equipped opponents.

nightmarish scenario. Iran may well feel duty-bound to respond to a unilateral attack by its Israeli archenemy, but it knows that it could not take on the United States head-to-head. In

If Iran chooses to absorb an American-led strike,

its allies would likely protest and send weapons, but would probably not risk using force. While no one has a crystal ball, leaders should be riskaverse when choosing war as a foreign policy tool. If attacking Iran is deemed necessary, Israel must wait for an American green light. A unilateral Israeli strike
could ultimately spark World War III.
contrast, if the United States leads the attack, Irans response would likely be muted.

Russia-China alliance causes nuclear, biological and chemical waralso crushes US

hegemony
Lunev, 1 Former Soviet Union Military Officer and Worked for the CIA and FBI (Stanislav, 6/19/01, Sino-Russian Treaty Challenges US,
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/18/194633.shtml)

China considers as its own sovereign territory not only Taiwan, but most of the
international waters of the South China Sea and practically all islands in that sea as well. Beijing
also is already involved in territorial disputes with a dozen neighboring countries including Japan, the
Philippines, Vietnam, India, and others that have the bad luck to be near neighbors of Communist China. There is no doubt that, by using
a treaty with "democratic" Russia, Beijing will dramatically increase its political and military
pressure over not only Taiwan but also its neighboring countries, especially in the favorable
resolution of territorial disputes. As a result of this development, the danger of military conflict with U.S.
involvement will grow very quickly, and escalation of tension in the Western Pacific could
become a reality in the near future. As another result of this treaty, Russia and China will increase their
collaboration against American and allied interests by continuing the proliferation of nuclear,
biological and chemical warfare technologies, especially nuclear missile weapons. There is
no doubt that Moscow and Beijing have determined that despite their international obligations, they will support proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction in an effort to challenge and restrict America's abilities to
project U.S. power and deploy a forward presence abroad . Increased weapons sales to
North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba and other rogue states will provide these
countries with new capabilities to undermine American interests worldwide. Russia and
China are heavily involved in proliferation efforts not only for the money involved, but also
and mostly because they know that when many rogue nations have nuclear and missile
weapons, the U.S. military, limited by arms control agreements, will not be able to exercise
its policy of nuclear deterrence.
It is known that Red

Strikes BadProlif/Instability
Israel strikes accelerate militarization and regional instabilityturns their offense
Gearan, 12 (Anne, AP National Security Writer, West Making Case to Israel: Don't Attack Iran, Feb 3, http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/03/panetta-says-israel-may-attack-iranthis-spring-report.html [CMR])

a
strike would do more harm than good and would endanger Israel and every nation perceived to be allied with it. Western officials offered
The US and its allies hope to hold off an Israeli strike at least until the latest round of sanctions, the first to hit Irans lifeblood oil sector directly, take effect later this year. They argue that

several of the arguments being laid out to Israel by the US, Britain, France and others. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to outline the sensitive diplomacy. A senior Obama
administration official said the US and Israel have similar views of the risk of an Iranian bomb and the timeframe in which the world could act. The US, however, sees a clear breakout to
nuclear capability by Iran as necessary before military action could be justified, the official said. The official said the US is making its case publicly and privately but that the ultimate decision
will be Israels. The West is appealing to Israels self-interest, arguing that a military strike on known Iranian nuclear sites would not completely destroy Irans nuclear capabilit y. The US and

it would not be effective except in the very short term, and ultimately would strengthen the Iranian
regime by rallying Iranian national pride under attack and drawing sympathetic support from other
Israeli enemies. Some of the arguments are well-known, including that widespread and unpredictable Iranian retaliation
would seed more violence in the Mideast and make Israel less secure. That has been a US conclusion for
several years. A newer argument holds that the Iranian regime is weakened by years of sanctions and the implosion of its nearest ally, Syria, so it
makes little sense to do something that would build it back up. Some nations also are warning Israel that it would lose
others say

international backing if it should act outside international law. European nations, especially, are wary of unilateral Israeli action. US officials are careful on that point, saying the US bond with
Israel is unbreakable. As a practical matter,

the United States would be bound to defend Israel in a full war with Iran.

Israel strikes cause US being dragged into regional war, shut-down of the Strait of
Hormuz, and proliferation
AP 2/25 (Israeli attack on Iran could pull US into new war, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/25/israeli-attack-on-iran-could-pull-us-into-new-war/, CMR)

WASHINGTON An

Israeli pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear sites could draw the U.S. into a new Middle East

conflict, a prospect dreaded by a war-weary Pentagon wary of new entanglements. That could mean pressing into service the top tier of American firepower -- warplanes, warships,
special operations forces and possibly airborne infantry -- with unpredictable outcomes in one of the world's most volatile regions. "Israel can commence a war with Iran, but it may well take
U.S. involvement to conclude it," says Karim Sadjadpour, a Middle East specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. An armed clash with Iran is far from certain. Diplomacy
backed by increasingly tough economic penalties is still seen by the United States and much of the rest of the world as worth pursuing for now, not least because the other options -- going to war
or simply doing nothing -- are considered more risky. Israel, however, worries that Iran soon could enter a "zone of immunity" in which enough of its nuclear materials are beyond the reach of
Israeli air power so that Iran could not be stopped, or perhaps could be stopped only by superior American firepower. If Israel's American-made strike planes managed to penetrate Iranian air
space and bomb Iran's main nuclear facilities, some of which are underground, then Iran would be expected to retaliate in any number of ways. That possibly could include the firing of Shahab-3

Iran might take a less direct approach, relying on its Hezbollah allies in Lebanon or Hamas militants in
to hit Israel with missiles from closer range. Iran also might block the Strait of Hormuz, a key transit route for the world's oil tankers. It
could attack nearby Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet. In either of these scenarios, the U.S. military almost certainly would hit
back, possibly with strikes against the Iranian navy or land targets. Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, sees a chance that the U.S. could largely stay out of the
ballistic missiles at Tel Aviv or other Israeli targets.
Gaza

fight if Israel struck first. If Iran's air defenses managed to knock down an Israeli fighter pilot, however, U.S. special operations forces might be sent to rescue him, he said. If the U.S. spotted Iran
preparing to fire a ballistic missile at Israel in a retaliatory act, "it's possible we would decide to take that missile out," O'Hanlon said. "I would bet against most other direct American
involvement."

Iran's response to an Israeli pre-emptive strike is unpredictable. Iran's defense minister, in a warning broadcast Saturday on state-run television, said

a strike by "the Zionist regime will undoubtedly lead to the collapse of this regime." Gen. Ahmad Vahidi did not say what type of action Iran would take should Israel attack. Uncertainty about
Iranian retaliation, as well as the cascade of potential consequences if the U.S. got drawn into the conflict, is at the core of U.S. officials' rationale for publicly casting doubt on the wisdom of
Israeli military action now. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, bluntly made the point last weekend. He told CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" that the retaliation equation is
"the reason that we think that it's not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran" and "that's been our counsel to our allies, the Israelis, well-known, well-documented." He said he doubts Israel
has been persuaded by Washington's pleadings. Depending on the type and scale of the Iranian reaction to an Israeli strike, and whether it included attacks on U.S. forces or bases, President

Obama as
insufficiently loyal to Israel and overly tolerant of Iran. Obama could decide to provide Israel with extra missile defense systems, such as the Patriot, to help defend its cities. He could
choose a more aggressive course, ordering follow-up air strikes on Iranian targets such as military bases and its remaining
nuclear facilities. "That's kind of the nightmare scenario," says Charles Wald, a retired Air Force general who argues nonetheless that the best hope for stopping
Barack Obama would be under enormous domestic political pressure to come to Israel's aid. His prospective Republican challengers for the White House have tried to portray

Iran from getting the bomb is to strengthen the credibility of threats to use U.S. or Israeli military force. Such threats, he argues, could change Iran's course. The U.S. has two aircraft carriers, the

USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Carl Vinson, and other warships near Iran's shores, as well as a wide array of warplanes at land bases on the Arabian Peninsula, and thousands of troops in
Kuwait. It also has special operations forces near Iran's eastern border, in Afghanistan. Wald is co-leader of the Bipartisan Policy Center, which warned in a Feb. 8 report that Iran is "fast
approaching the nuclear threshold." While not advocating an Israeli pre-emptive strike, Wald's group said the U.S. should provide Israel with 200 advanced GBU-31 bombs capable of reaching
targets buried deep underground and three KC-135 refueling planes to extend the range of Israel's strike jets. The US has no immediate plans to provide Israel with new military aid. The
consensus view among U.S. intelligence agencies is that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb now but is developing a capability to do so in the future. A critical quest ion is how long it would take
Iran to assemble a bomb, once a decision was made to proceed, and how much additional time it would need to affix the bomb to a missile or other means of delivering it beyond its own borders.
Obama has not ruled out using force to stop Iran from building a bomb. But his administration, joined by many allied nations, has counseled Israel to hold off. Several senior administration
officials have been to Israel in recent days to emphasize caution, including Obama's national security adviser, Tom Donilon. Obama is due to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu at the White House on March 5. The Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, is meeting Wednesday at the Pentagon with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Iran insists that its nuclear
program is for peaceful purposes and has invited the U.S. and four other powers to sit down for nuclear talks. But in recent weeks tensions have grown amid Iranian threats to close the Strait of
Hormuz in retaliation for Western penalties and debate in Israel about a pre-emptive strike. Adding to a sense of urgency was a Feb. 2 Washington Post report that Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will attack Iran in April, May or June. Panetta has not disputed the report but has said he doesn't think Israel has yet decided to act. In the

any Israeli attack could set back the Iranian nuclear program a few of years at most, while giving
Iranian leaders extra incentive and domestic support for rebuilding a clandestine program out of reach of
U.S. view,

U.N. inspectors.

Strikes BadInstability
War games provestrike causes escalation to regional war
Mazzeetti 3/19 (MARK MAZZETTI, commands American forces in the Middle East, and THOM SHANKER, U.S. War Game Sees Perils of Israeli Strike Against Iran,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/world/middleeast/united-states-war-game-sees-dire-results-of-an-israeli-attack-on-iran.html?pagewanted=all, CMR)

A classified war simulation held this month to assess the repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran
forecasts that the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave
WASHINGTON

hundreds of Americans dead, according to American officials. The officials said the so-called war game was not designed as a rehearsal for American military action and they emphasized that
the exercises results were not the only possible outcome of a real-world conflict. But the game has raised fears among top American planners that it may be impossible to preclude American
involvement in any escalating confrontation with Iran, the officials said. In the debate among policy makers over the consequences of any Israeli attack, that reaction may give stronger voice to
those in the White House, Pentagon and intelligence community who have warned that a strike could prove perilous for the United States. The results of the war game were particularly troubling
to Gen. James N. Mattis, who commands all American forces in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia, according to officials who either participated in the Central Command
exercise or who were briefed on the results and spoke on condition of anonymity because of its classified nature. When the exercise had concluded earlier this month, according to the officials,
General Mattis told aides that

an Israeli first strike would be likely to have dire consequences across the region and for United

States forces there. The two-week war game, called Internal Look, played out a narrative in which the United States found it was pulled into the conflict after Iranian missiles struck a Navy
warship in the Persian Gulf, killing about 200 Americans, according to officials with knowledge of the exercise. The United States then retaliated by carrying out its own strikes on Iranian
nuclear facilities. The initial Israeli attack was assessed to have set back the Iranian nuclear program by roughly a year, and the subsequent American strikes did not slow the Iranian nuclear
program by more than an additional two years. However, other Pentagon planners have said that Americas arsenal of long-range bombers, refueling aircraft and precision missiles could do far
more damage to the Iranian nuclear program if President Obama were to decide on a full-scale retaliation. The exercise was designed specifically to test internal military communications and
coordination among battle staffs in the Pentagon; in Tampa, Fla., where the headquarters of the Central Command is located; and in the Persian Gulf in the aftermath of an Israeli strike. But the
exercise was written to assess a pressing, potential, real-world situation. In the end, the war game reinforced to military officials the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of a strike by Israel,
and a counterstrike by Iran, the officials said. American and Israeli intelligence services broadly agree on the progress Iran has made to enrich uranium. But they disagree on how much time there
would be to prevent Iran from building a weapon if leaders in Tehran decided to go ahead with one. With the Israelis saying publicly that the window to prevent Iran from building a nuclear
bomb is closing, American officials see an Israeli attack on Iran within the next year as a possibility. They have said privately that they believe that Israel would probably give the United States
little or no warning should Israeli officials make the decision to strike Iranian nuclear sites. Officials said that, under the chain of events in the war game, Iran believed that Israel and the United
States were partners in any strike against Iranian nuclear sites and therefore considered American military forces in the Persian Gulf as complicit in the attack. Iranian jets chased Israeli
warplanes after the attack, and Iranians launched missiles at an American warship in the Persian Gulf, viewed as an act of war that allowed an American retaliation. Internal Look has long been
one of Central Commands most significant planning exercises, and is carried out about twice a year to assess how the headquarters, its staff and command posts in the region would respond to
various real-world situations. Over the years, it has been used to prepare for various wars in the Middle East. According to the defense Web site GlobalSecurity.org, military planners during the
cold war used Internal Look to prepare for a move by the Soviet Union to seize Iranian oil fields. The American war plan at the time called for the Pentagon to march nearly six Army divisions
north from the Persian Gulf to the Zagros Mountains of Iran to blunt a Soviet attack. In December 2002, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who was the top officer at Central Command, used Internal
Look to test the readiness of his units for the coming invasion of Iraq.

Many experts have predicted that Iran would try to carefully manage the escalation
might use proxies to set off car bombs in world

after an Israeli first strike in order to avoid giving the United States a rationale for attacking with its far superior forces. Thus, it

capitals or funnel high explosives to insurgents in Afghanistan to attack American and NATO troops. While using surrogates might, in the end, not be enough to hide Irans instigation of these
attacks, the government in

Tehran could at least publicly deny all responsibility. Some military specialists in the United States and in Israel who have assessed the

potential ramifications of an Israeli attack believe that the last thing Iran would want is a full-scale war on its territory. Thus, they argue that Iran would not directly strike American military

it is impossible to know the

internal thinking of the senior Iranian leadership, and is informed by the awareness that even the most detailed war games
cannot predict how nations and their leaders will react in the heat of conflict.
targets, whether warships in the Persian Gulf or bases in the region. Their analysis, however, also includes the broad caveat that

Unilateral Israeli strikes cause regional escalation

Haddick 3-2
(Robert, managing editor of Small War Journal, Persian Poker,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/02/persian_poker?page=full, CMR)

Obama will thus hope to keep the United States out of the conflict and minimize damage to the U.S.
economy. But subsequent events may complicate this aspiration. For example, it is highly likely that Israeli
strike aircraft would fly through undefended Iraqi airspace en route to their targets in Iran. Israeli
pilots may even conduct aerial refueling over Iraq in order to maximize their range and time over
Iran. Indeed, the Israeli air force may need several nights over Iran to complete mission objectives
and respond to Iranian retaliation against Israel. White House officials will need to plan for a request from Baghdad for assistance defending Iraqi

Obama will naturally be highly reluctant to send U.S. forces back into Iraq or set up a
confrontation with Israeli jets. Then there's the possibility that Iran might volunteer or be invited to defend Iraq
against Israeli encroachment. Should the United States still decline to get involved, Saudi or Turkish
intervention into Iraq, in response to an Iranian move, would then seem possible. At that point, the
likelihood of regional conflict would increase, with unpredictable consequences for U.S.
interests.
air space.

Israel strikes cause Iranian retaliation and regional war

Windrem 2/28 (Robert, Fears grow of Israel-Iran missile shootout, http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/28/10534518-fears-grow-of-israel-iran-missileshootout?chromedomain=worldnews, CMR)

With tensions between Israel and Iran running sky high over the latter's nuclear program, U.S. officials and military analysts are growing increasingly concerned that Israel will launch a multi-

attack that could trigger waves of retaliatory missile strikes from Tehran. Such a shootout could
quickly spiral into a regional conflict that would potentially force the U.S. to intervene to protect its interests. The
phase air and missile

emerging consensus among current and former U.S. officials and other experts interviewed by NBC News is that that an Israeli attack would be a multi-faceted assault on key Iranian nuclear
installations, involving strikes by both warplanes and missiles. It could also include targeted attacks by Israeli special operations forces and possibly even the use of massive explosives-laden

Iranian response to such an attack is uncertain, but many experts and officials believe it is likely to include retaliatory missile
strikes. Iran has more missiles in its arsenal than Israel, according to some estimates, and has the capability of striking targets in most Israeli population centers. "I think that it
would strike Iran as a reasonable response, an eye for an eye," said Christopher J Ferrero, a professor of
diplomacy at Seton Hall University in New Jersey and an expert on Middle East missile forces. He
also said Iran would likely attack major cities with its Shahab 3 missiles, which he said are not as accurate as the Israeli missiles,
but would be an effective "instrument of terror that could certainly cause significant damage to heavily populated suburban and urban areas.
drones, they say. The

AT: Strikes Good

Strikes cause global nuclear/biological war
Morgan 9 (Dennis Ray Morgan, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies at the Yongin Campus in South Korea, 2009, Futures, World on fire: two scenarios of the destruction of human
civilization and possible extinction of the human race, CMR)

Given the present day predicament regarding Irans attempt to become a nuclear power, particular
attention should be given to one of Moores scenarios depicting nuclear war that begins through an attack on
Irans supposed nuclear facilities. According to Seymour Hersh the nuclear option against Iran has, in fact, been discussed by sources in the Pentagon as a viable
option. As Hersh reports, according to a former intelligence officer, the lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to
consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap, the former senior intelligence official said. Decisive is the key
word of the Air Forces planning. Its a tough decision. But we made it in Japan. The official continues to explain how White House and Pentagon officials are considering the nuclear option for
Iran, Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout - were talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and
contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians dont have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out
remove the nuclear option theyre shouted down. Understandably, some members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not comfortable about consideration of the nuclear option in a first
strike, and some officers have even discussed resigning. Hersh quotes the former intelligence officer as saying, Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option

This scenario has gained

even more plausibility since a January 2007 Sunday Times report of an Israeli intelligence leak that
Israel was considering a strike against Iran, using low-yield bunker busting nukes to destroy Irans
supposedly secret underground nuclear facilities. In Moores scenario, non-nuclear neighboring countries would
then respond with conventional rockets and chemical, biological and radiological weapons. Israel then
would retaliate with nuclear strikes on several countries, including a pre-emptive strike against
Pakistan, who then retaliates with an attack not only on Israel but pre-emptively striking India as well.
Israel then initiates the Samson option with attacks on other Muslim countries, Russia, and possibly
the anti-Semitic cities of Europe. At that point, all-out nuclear war ensues as the U.S. retaliates with
nuclear attacks on Russia and possibly on China as well. Out of the four interrelated factors that could precipitate a nuclear strike and subsequent escalation
from the evolving war plans for Iran - without success. The White House said, Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.

into nuclear war, probably the accidental factor is one that deserves particular attention since its likelihood is much greater than commonly perceived. In an article, 20 Mishaps that Might
Have Started a Nuclear War, Phillips cites the historical record to illustrate how an accident, misinterpretation, or false alarm could ignite a nuclear war. Most of these incidents occurred
during a time of intense tension between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but other mishaps occurred during other times, with the most recent one in 1995. Close
inspection of each of these incidents reveals how likely it is that an accident or misinterpretation of phenomena or data (glitch) can lead to nuclear confrontation and war. In his overall
analysis, Phillips writes: The probability of actual progression to nuclear war on any one of the occasions listed may have been small, due to planned failsafe features in the warning and

the accumulation of small

probabilities of disaster from a long sequence of risks adds up to serious danger. There is no way of
telling what the actual level of risk was in these mishaps but if the chance of disaster in every one of the
20 incidents had been only 1 in 100, it is a mathematical fact that the chance of surviving all 20 would
have been 82%, i.e. about the same as the chance of surviving a single pull of the trigger at Russian roulette
played with a 6-shooter. With a similar series of mishaps on the Soviet side: another pull of the trigger. If the risk in some of the events had been as high as 1 in 10, then
the chance of surviving just seven such events would have been less than 50:50. Aggression in the Middle East along with the willingness to use low-yield bunker
busting nukes by the U.S. only increases the likelihood of nuclear war and catastrophe in the future. White House and
launch systems, and to responsible action by those in the chain of command when the failsafe features had failed. However,

Pentagon policymakers are seriously considering the use of strategic nuclear weapons against Iran. As Ryan McMaken explains, someone at the Pentagon who had . . .not yet completed the
transformation into a complete sociopath leaked the Nuclear Posture Review which outlined plans for a nuclear end game with Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Syria, none of which
possess nuclear weapons. The report also outlined plans to let the missiles fly on Russia and China as well, even though virtually everyone on the face of the Earth thought we had actually
normalized relations with them. It turns out, much to the surprise of

the Chinese and the Russians, that they are still potential enemies in a

nuclear holocaust.

Strait of Hormuz closurecauses WW3

Flores 1/16 *Jamil Maidan, Jamil Maidan Flores: World War III?,
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/columns/jamil-maidan-flores-world-war-iii/491396, CMR]

the Strait of Hormuz. Thats not just another waterway. Its the most important
strait in the world. Some 35 percent of global seaborne oil exports pass through that sea lane. Close it and the global economy becomes a
hospital case. Can Iran do it? Like drinking a glass of water, says its naval commander, Habibollah Sayyari. If that happened, says
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, America would have to reopen it. That means minesweepers, battleships, aircraft carriers
and everything the US Navy can throw at the Iranians, including the kitchen sink. UK Prime Minister David Cameron says if that happened, the whole
Thats when Iran threatened to close

world would come together to make sure the Strait stayed open. He also talks of an embargo on Iranian oil. One of the few remaining cooler heads in the international community is Indonesia.

Most predict that if Iran closes

the Strait, its navy will get acquainted with the bottom of the ocean, but that the US will also suffer heavy
losses in the ensuing asymmetrical warfare. Irans Revolutionary Guards can launch kamikaze attacks with their speedboats. Some cite the
ghastly possibility of Israel firing its nukes, while Russia and China join the radioactive fray on the side of
Iran. Still I do not worry. Not until Indonesian ambassadors in the Middle East start making frantic calls to the Foreign Ministry to quickly send in planes to bring home the migrant workers.
In that event, World War III may have begun .
It has appealed for calm and restraint on the part of all concerned. Meanwhile, pundits are constructing all sorts of grim scenarios.

AT: Strikes GoodProlif/Aggression

Strikes are badlocks-in Iranian prolif and guarantee retaliation
Cordesman 3/6Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the CSIS where Stephanie Spies, Fisher, Kallymyer, and other policy debate legends live (Anthony H, Iran: The Waiting
Option, http://csis.org/publication/iran-waiting-option, CMR)

We do not need another economic crisis triggered by the shock of a massive rise in oil prices or what in the worst
case could be several weeks in which the Gulf could not export oil through the Strait of Hormuz. We do not need a slow battle of attrition in the
Gulf, and we need to be truly careful about what Iran might do if Israel or the United States launches a preventive
attack. Irans options are scarcely good for Iran. It would almost certainly end in escalating its way into even more trouble, but it
could hurt us, our Arab allies, Israel, and the world economy a great deal in the process. In broad terms, Iran could
choose to: Withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and increase its long-term resolve to develop a nuclear
deterrent program. Create an all-out nuclear weapons program with its surviving equipment and
technology base, using Israels strike and aggression as an excuse to openly pursue a nuclear program. Shift
to genetically engineered biological weapons if such a program does not already exist. Immediately retaliate on Israel using its
ballistic missile: multiple launches of Shahab-3 missiles, including the possibility of chemical, biological, or radiological (CBR) warheads, against Tel Aviv, Israeli military and civilian
centers, and Israeli suspected nuclear weapons sites. Accuse the United States of green lighting the Israeli strike and being the real cause of the attacks. Launch political
attacks on Arab regimes friendly to the United States, on the grounds they did nothing to prevent an attack on Israels greatest enemy. Use allied
or proxy groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas to attack Israel proper with suicide bombings, covert CBR attacks, and rocket
attacks from southern Lebanon. Launch asymmetric attacks against U.S. interests and allies in the Arabian Gulf. Target U.S. and Western
shipping in the Gulf and possibly attempt to interrupt the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Attack U.S. forces,
ships, or facilities in the Gulf or anywhere in the world as a way of showing that Iran could attack Israels closest ally, the great Satan. Strike at Israeli or Jewish
targets anywhere in the world using Iranian agents or anti-Israeli proxies. Try to use the United Nations and/or World Court to attack Israel for aggression and war crimes. Transfer
high-tech air-to-surface and guided anti-armor weapons to Hamas, Hezbollah, or other extreme antiIsraeli groups, and/or provide them with more lethal rockets, unmanned combat air vehicles, and chemical weapons. Seek to use its
leverage with Iraq, Syria, and Hezbollah to create an actual Shiite crescent to create a more intense range of threats to Israel. Try to use
the transfer of funds and arms, its Ministry of Intelligence and Security, and other covert means to influence the new regimes coming
out of unrest in the Arab world to be far more aggressively anti-Israel. At the same time, the risks and pressures
that could lead to the use of force are growing. U.S. and Iranian competition over Irans nuclear programs has spilled over into the entire Middle East,
and the world, and is nearing the crisis point. Given the importance of the Gulf in global energy security, Irans goals of becoming a regional power, and
sociopolitical instability in the Middle East, military competition between the United States and Iran will either force some form of negotiation or
continue to intensify to the point where some form of conflict becomes more and more likely. If the latter
occurs, there are no good options. The choice becomes preventive strikes of the kind where consequences are at best unpredictable, or
containment and living with what could be a steadily growing regional nuclear arms race. As has just been discussed, a preventive attack could push
Iran toward negotiations. But it could also push it into a major new acceleration of its nuclear programs and the ongoing
regional arms race and/or toward asymmetric warfare in the Gulf or against Israel. Such a nuclear arms race might lead to the creation of some form of military
containment that creates a successful mix of deterrence and defense on the part of all the nations involved, but it might equally lead to Iran and Israel targeting
their respective populations at a potentially catastrophic level, which would inevitably involve the United States
and the Arab states in an ongoing race to find suitable forms of defense, deterrence, and containment. A
failed preventive attack would almost certainly lead Iran to be far more aggressive. A partially successful Israeli
attack might do little better. A truly successful preventive attack would have to be carried out by the United States. At least briefly, it would have to be a major air and
missile war, and it would probably have to be followed by years of constant patrolling, threats to use force, and occasional re-strikes. If not, even a relatively successful
preventive strike could be a temporary solution at best. The current level of maturity in Irans program
nearly guarantees that Iran could rebuild its program without such a military overwatch and the willingness to use additional force. Moreover, without

a strike on Irans nuclear infrastructure might provide the Iranian regime with a justification to
pursue nuclear weapons and drive the program deeper underground.
such follow-up,

Iran will arm proxiescauses extinction

London 10 (Herbert, president of Hudson Institute, June 28, 2010, http://www.hudson-ny.org/1387/coming-crisis-in-the-middle-east)

The coming storm in the Middle East is gaining momentum; like conditions prior to World War I, all it takes for
explosive action to commence is a trigger. Turkey's provocative flotilla, often described in Orwellian terms as a humanitarian mission, has set in motion a gust of diplomatic activity:
if the Iranians send escort vessels for the next round of Turkish ships, which they have apparently decided not to do in favor of land
operations, it could have presented a casus belli. [cause for war] Syria, too, has been playing a dangerous game, with both missile
deployment and rearming Hezbollah. According to most public accounts, Hezbollah is sitting on 40,000 long-, medium- and short-range
missiles, and Syrian territory has been serving as a conduit for military materiel from Iran since the end of the 2006 Lebanon War. Should Syria move its own scuds to Lebanon or deploy
its troops as reinforcement for Hezbollah, a wider regional war with Israel could not be contained. In the backdrop is an
Iran, with sufficient fissionable material to produce a couple of nuclear weapons. It will take some time to weaponize the missiles, but the road
to that goal is synchronized in green lights since neither diplomacy nor diluted sanctions can convince Iran to change course. From
Qatar to Afghanistan all political eyes are on Iran, poised to be "the hegemon" in the Middle East; it is increasingly considered the "strong horse" as
American forces incrementally retreat from the region. Even Iraq, ironically, may depend on Iranian ties in order to maintain internal stability. For Sunni nations like Egypt and
Saudi Arabia, regional strategic vision is a combination of deal-making to offset the Iranian Shia advantage, and attempting to buy or
develop nuclear weapons as a counterweight to Iranian ambition. However, both of these governments are in a
precarious state; should either fall, all bets are off in the Middle East neighborhood. It has long been said that the Sunni "tent" must stand on two
legs: if one, falls, the tent collapses. Should this tent collapse, and should Iran take advantage of that calamity, it could incite a Sunni-Shia war.
Or feeling empowered, and no longer dissuaded by an escalation scenario, Iran, with nuclear weapons in tow, might decide that a war against Israel is a distinct possibility. However
implausible it may seem at the moment,

the possible annihilation of Israel and the prospect of a second holocaust could lead to a

nuclear exchange.

No Iran prolif, no impact

Innocent & Owen 3/8 foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, former Marine infantry officer (Malou & Jonathon, Nuclear Iran is an exaggerated threat,
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/nuclear-iran-exaggerated-threat-article-1.1035003#ixzz1oZQVzjhu, CMR)

Many of those pushing for immediate action ignore these realities, focusing on the claim that Iran is on the verge of acquiring enough fissile material to produce a nuclear weapon. But

according to the U.S. intelligence community, Iranian leaders have not actually decided to build a
weapon. As nuclear expert Joseph Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund has argued, Iran might decide, like Japan and other countries,
to have only the ability to produce a nuclear weapon fast in short, a rapid breakout option. Even with a bomb , Iran is
not an imminent threat to Americas security. If it ever became one, the U.S. could quickly ensure Irans
absolute destruction, potentially through a nuclear strike. As for the oft-cited question of Israels security, our staunch
allys second-strike capability remains robust and can deter Iran. Variously over the course of the past 60 years, the U.S. government
has overthrown Irans democratically elected government, supported its Western-oriented dictator, covertly backed militants and regional actors against it, sternly enjoined other countries to
not trade with it, encircled the country with its armed forces and declared its intention to bomb it. Unless Americans are willing to fight Iranians to the death possibly every few years

Washington must stop polarizing the situation. Aggressive policies and rhetoric do not benefit our security.