It's better to bomb Iran than risk Iran getting the bomb

It's better to bomb Iran than risk Iran getting the bomb

22 Jan 2008

The possibility that the Islamic Republic of Iran could have nuclear weapons is one of the most discussed and controversial topics of recent years. In this debate, proponents of the motion argue that the risk of Iran obtaining, and possibly using, nuclear warheads, justifies pre-emptive strikes by the West; its detractors say that only diplomacy should be used in international disputes and that the risk of Iran having nuclear warheads is not sufficient to justify a preventative strike. The panel, chaired by Richard Lindley, share their views.

Arguing in favour of the motion are Emanuele Ottolenghi, Reuel Marc Gerecht and Bruno Tertrais.

Emanuele Ottolenghi begins the debate by praising the European Union as a wonderful achievement: after centuries of wars the European countries have learnt to overcome their differences through negotiation and diplomacy. Today, however, a war could be necessary to protect Europe against the possible nuclear threat represented by Iran.

Reuel Marc Gerecht moves the focus to two particular Iranian leaders: the former President Rafsanjani and the Supreme Leader Khamenei. He argues that Iran is a country with terrorism in its DNA, and with strong ties to Al-Qaeda. Gerecht concludes his speech by stating that there is only one option: taking preventative measures against this country.

Bruno Tertrais admits that the motion is a classic example of choice between two evils: all the attempts to negotiate with this Iranian regime have been failures, and a new regime is necessary. He concludes by provoking the audience, asking them to vote against the motion if they want to live in a world where a revolutionary regime that hates the West has nuclear weapons.

Arguing against the motion are Professor Ali Ansari, Sir Richard Dalton and Simon Jenkins.

Ali Ansari explains how Iran is still a Republic and not a state run by a dictator: today’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is bound in his decisions by his political opponents and he is not able to take every decision he would like to. Ansari argues that whilst Ahmadinejad represents a threat to Iranian society and the civil liberties of its citizens, he poses no threat to the West.

Sir Richard Dalton Sir Richard Dalton underlines the weaknesses of previous speeches for the motion and argues that diplomacy is the only tool to solve international disputes; force should be used only when strictly necessary and for legitimate defence purposes only.

Simon Jenkins concludes the debate by providing a comparison between Iran and Pakistan. He uses Sir Richard Dalton's speech earlier in the debate to remark how preventative strikes in international law are illegal; the only legal exceptions are not present in the Iran case because even if the regime obtains a nuclear arsenal it does not necessarily follow that it will use it in the future.

First vote: 118 For, 483 Against, 195 Don't know

Final vote: 154 For, 606 Against, 53 Don't know

The motion is defeated by 452 votes.

BUY THE DVD