Debate on Iran Nuclear Ambitions

PRO: Amos Yadlin and Charles Krauthammer v. CON: Fareed Zakaria and Vali Nasr It has been rightly characterized as the toughest foreign policy challenge in a generation: how should the world respond to Iran’s nuclear ambitions? For some, the case for a preemptive strike on Iran is ironclad. An Iranian bomb would flood the volatile Middle East with nuclear weapons and trap Israel in a state of perilous insecurity—along with much of the world’s oil supply. Others argue that a nuclear Iran could be the very stabilizing force that the region needs, as the threat of nuclear war makes conventional conflicts more risky. These same voices also ask: can the West and Israel afford to attack Iran when doing so could rollback the Arab Spring and re-entrench reactionary forces throughout the Middle East? The tenth Munk Debate will tackle these game-changing issues by moving the motion: Be it resolved the world cannot tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons capability.