Panelists Debate U.S. Response to Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

UNKNOWN MALE:

From the early 1940s through the late 1970s, Iran was an ally of the United States. That changed dramatically in 1979 with the overthrown of Shah Reza Pahlavi and the installation of an Islamic theocracy.

When the shah was admitted to the United States for treatment for cancer, militant student in Tehran responded by seizing the U.S. Embassy, taking 52 American citizens hostage. The crisis lasted 444 days, ending with the release of the hostages just minutes after the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan.

The United States and Iran have been at odds ever since, but relations hit new lows when it was revealed that Iran was engaged in a covert nuclear program. Most troubling for the U.S. was the revelation Iran was enriching uranium, a technology that can be used to develop weapons.

That possibility led President Bush to include Iran in his administration's anti-terrorist rhetoric.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President, United States:

(1/29/2002 State of the Union): States like these and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the world by seeking weapons of mass destruction.

UNKNOWN MALE:

Since 2002 the United States has tried working with European powers Russia, China and the United Nations to get Iran to give up its enrichment program, but to date U.N. resolutions and economic sanctions have been met with defiance.

UNKNOWN MALE:

Abusing the Security Council, the arrogant powers have repeatedly accused Iran and even made military threats and imposed illegal sanctions against it.

UNKNOWN MALE:

What to do about Iran became one of the more divisive issues of the presidential election campaign when then-Sen. Barack Obama offered direct negotiations without preconditions.

Sen. John McCain called the offer reckless and claimed it showed a lack of understanding of the threat posed by Iran. Despite criticism, the administration is moving ahead to try to engage the Iranians.

BARACK OBAMA, President, United States:

We will be looking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table, face-to-face, diplomatic overtures that will allow us to move our policy in a new direction.

UNKNOWN MALE:

The response from Iran has been mixed, demanding sweeping changes in U.S. foreign policy without rejecting the possibility of talks.

UNKNOWN MALE:

It's quite clear a real change should be fundamental and not tactical. It's obvious that the Iranian nation welcomes real changes. Iran's ready to talk, but in a fair atmosphere of mutual respect.

UNKNOWN MALE:

If negotiations fail, the administration says it will continue to work with the international community and the United Nations to punish Iran through sanctions. Others favor military action, which the administration has not ruled out.

Hence, our debate resolution; America cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran and must go to any lengths to prevent it.

(END VIDEO)

MARGARET WARNER:

Recently President Obama sent a video taped message to the Iranian people and leadership. In it he said he was committed to diplomacy on the full range of issues and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community.

In response, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, responded by calling Mr. Obama's offer a slogan. He said Tehran was awaiting changes in U.S. actions before it committed to any changes of its own.

Now to our debate. Each participant will give a three minute opening statement beginning with Mr. Abrams and alternating teams. Then we will move to rebuttals and responses and that will be followed by a question and answer session which I will moderate.

Up first arguing that the U.S. cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran and should go to any lengths to prevent it, Elliott Abrams.

ELLIOTT ABRAMS, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, D.C.: Thank you Margaret. Good evening. Far more often than any of us would like, questions of foreign policy and national security come down to the choosing the lesser of evils.

The question posed here tonight is not whether we will be able to convince the Iranian regime to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons. We all hope so. We're not here to discuss how best to prevent the regime from developing nuclear weapons using carrot sticks, diplomatic pressures. That is a different debate.

What we are here to discuss is what should be done if and when all that fails. What do we do when one day perhaps not all that far in the future, the director of national intelligence walks in to the Oval Office and tells the president that there is now persuasive evidence that Iran has or is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons?

On that day a lot of things change, questions of the regime's hostility toward America and our allies gain a new significance. Today, statements issued by the Iranian regime calling for Israel to be wiped off the map are disgusting. But we all can be comforted by the fact that the regime cannot follow through on its threats.

The world of a nuclear Iran however, will carry with it the possibility of a true Holocaust. Quote, "We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region."

Iran's supreme leader has said, quote, "There's no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel," he's also said. We will no longer be able to write off such threats as vile but empty.

The Iranian regime is currently the largest state sponsor of terror. It has already through its own actions and through its proxies, expanded its influence throughout the Middle East in a serious effort to become the regional henchman.

It's responsible for countless deaths in Iraq and it threatens the stability of the entire Middle East. We must ask ourselves if we are really prepared to live with the Iranian regime possessing nuclear weapons.

What if their apocalyptic rhetoric does reflect and predict their actions? What if they don't themselves launch an attack, but rather proliferate nuclear weapons to a terrorist group? What if the regime's control of its weapons is less than perfect as we've all long feared in Pakistan?

How many other countries in the region would seek and develop nuclear weapons if Iran does so? Responsible leadership cannot allow this to happen. We should seek to avoid it through sanctions, carrot sticks, diplomacy but in the end the decision we may face is whether if all those efforts have failed, we will permit it to happen.

Preventing it through military action perhaps is the second worst decision we could make. The only worse one being to say it's all right now, it's acceptable, we will not act. We all understand that the risks of acting are great. The risks of inaction are greater.

MARGARET WARNER:

Thank you.

Now the lead-off opening statement opposing the resolution from Martin Indyk.

MARTIN INDYK, Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution: Thank you Margaret and thank you to Miller Center for sponsoring this important discussion. The United States has at least 2,000 nuclear weapons. We call it a nuclear deterrent.

It enables us to tolerate a lot of nuclear weapon states. We tolerate nukes in the hands of the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Indians, even the French. The case of Pakistani nukes is particularly egregious if we're talking about tolerating nukes.

They've probably got between 60 to 100 nukes. They've sold the technology to Iran, to Libya, to North Korea and they happen to harbor more terrorist groups, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Lashkar e-Taiba than any other country, and yet we tolerate Pakistani nukes. What's so different about Iran?

Elliot says it's a crazy messianic regime. But the fact is it's always exercised great caution when it comes to using military force.

Elliot says it threatens to destroy Israel. I can well understand why Israel could not tolerate a nuclear Iran. It's a small country with a unique history.

Its leaders are tasked with the solemn duty to ensure that the Jewish state is never again destroyed. And Iran's leaders have threatened to do just that. The United States has a special responsibility to ensure the Jewish states survival.

But that's precisely why we have tolerated Israel having nuclear bombs in its basement, and helped Israel acquire submarines and long range bombers, so as to enhance its deterrent against a potential nuclear strike by another country.

Not enough of a deterrent? Then let's extend our nuclear deterrent to Israel so that Iran will understand that if it dares to strike Israel it will face, in the words of Secretary of State Clinton, "Obliteration from the United States."

And in the meantime let's build up Israel's missile defenses so that it can effectively defend against Iranian missiles as well as deter their use. I am not advocating that we should tolerate Iranian nukes. On the contrary we should make every effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Because an Iran with nukes will threaten our national security interests and those of our middle eastern allies and put the Israelis on a hair trigger. It will ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It will make a mockery of the nonproliferation regime and give cover for the Iranians to throw their weight around in the vital, oil-rich Arabian Peninsula and beyond.

But there are ways short of military preventive action by the United States to deal with these serious problems. With oil at $40 to $50 a barrel, economic sanctions can have a powerful impact.

If we work vigorously to bring Russia and China on board so as to demonstrate to Iran that it will be isolated in the region and if we seek to make peace between Israel and Syria to enhance that isolation we may be able to convince the Iranians that they are better off of taking our offer of a secure nuclear energy program and security guarantees than having nuclear weapons.

That's the kind of vigorous, aggressive, sustained diplomacy that might just work, but if it fails then we should move to contain, to deter, to isolate, and punish Iran, not attack it.

MARGARET WARNER:

All right we're going to have to go to the other team for the resolution Joshua Muravchik.