Nuclear Power in Iran

Today my partner and I stand in firm negation to the United States pursuing military options against Iran. Our contentions are as followed; one, that politically, the US is not justified in pursuing military options against Iran. Two, that morally the US is not justified in pursuing military options against Iran and three, that Iran does not pose as an imminent threat to the United States. To begin with, a few key terms need to be defined. According to the Encarta World Dictionary, Justified: is serving as an acceptable reason or excuse for something and giving someone an acceptable reason for taking a particular action. Option: is a choice that is or can be taken, especially a course of action that remains open for somebody to choose. Pursue: is to work at something or carry it out. Finally, Military Options: are a range of military force responses that can be projected to accomplish assigned tasks.
      This leads to my first point, that politically, the US is not justified in pursuing military options against Iran. Article 2 of the United Nations charter, which establishes the basic conduct of every nation, bans the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state," with Article 51 allowing the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." Daniel Webster, the Secretary of State said “preemptive attack is only considered self-defense if the threat is imminent. This is only true when the threat is instant and leaving no other choice of means.” In the case of Iran, these qualifications are not met. As of February 10th, 2009 the New York Times reported that “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran took up President Obama’s invitation for direct talks between the United States and Iran on Tuesday. Mr. Ahmadinejad promised that if the United States was truly serious about changing the countries’ relations, then Iran was ready to respond in...