Clay Stewart

Debate Team

LD Debate Case January/ February 2010 (Affirmative)

Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Overview: Parametrics

The resolution is not a statement to be proven absolutely true or false. I

counterinterpret the resolution as a division of ground. This interpretation allows both
the Negative and the Affirmative to specify. This is preferred for three reasons:

1) Fairness

Under a traditional framework, the affirmative has to prove all instances of the
resolution true, while the negative only has to prove one instance of the resolution false.
This skews ground, causing the activity to become unfair.

2) Competition

Debate is essentially a competitive activity. When ground is skewed, debate

becomes meaningless, because one side has an unfair advantage over the other.

3) Education

Parametrics allows the affirmative and the negative to research specific instances
in which the resolution can be proven true or false, increasing the educational value of the
activity.
Observation One: The Evaluative Standard Is Impact Calculus

The resolution is asking us to evaluate a policy, and whether or not it ought to be

used. As a result, the best way to evaluate the round is impact calculus, because it allows
us to take into account every facet of a policy. Foreign policy is incredibly complex and
three dimensional, and how we evaluate the round must reflect this.

A. Definitions

Economic sanctions- restrictions on finance or trade with a country in order to

influence its political situation. Ought- advisability. Use- to employ for some
purpose. Foreign policy objectives- General goals that guide the activities and
relationships of one state in its interactions with other states.

"You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the
wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then
the entire world should start worrying”. Because I agree with the Prime Minister of
Israel, I affirm.

B. The Plan

“The post-presidential election protests in Iran have done more to rock the
foundation of [Iran] than three decades of sanctions.” That was Dr. Mahmood
Monshipouri in 2009. These protests, led by opposition leader Mousavi, were the birth of
the Green Movement, a civil rights movement whose goal is to democratize Iran.
Because economic sanctions hamstring this movement, I affirm. Further economic
sanctions should not be imposed on Iran, and current sanctions should be lifted.

Observation Two: Economic Sanctions Hamstring the Green Movement

1) Sanctions Shift Iranian Focus to the West

Monshipouri explains, “As with many other regimes, [Iran] owes its political
survival to constructing enemies and imagining an external threat. Indeed, the suspicion
of meddling by outside powers... is deeply ingrained in the minds of many Iranians.”
Sanctions allow the Iranian government to demonize the West. Jenkins explains, “A
policy of confrontation… confirms the view of Iranian extremists, that the Christian west
is set on a path to intervention and that everyone… is part of the struggle”. Sanctions
allow the West to be blamed for the failed policies of the Iranian government, and
provide an enemy against which to unify. As long as Iranians are focused externally, not
on Iran’s failed policies, the Green Movement cannot be effective.

2) Sanctions Harm the Iranian Middle Class

Sanctions cause shortages in Iran, forcing Iranians to rely on the extremely costly
black market. This hamstrings the ability of the populace to change Iranian policy. A
populace impoverished by sanctions is too dependent on Ahmadinejad’s administration
and too easily fooled by government propaganda to significantly attempt to change the
policies of an authoritarian regime.

Observation Three: Solvency

1) Iranian Focus Will Shift Inward

By removing sanctions, the current regime will be without an enemy to demonize, or

an external threat to unify against. Iranians will be forced to focus on their government’s
oppressive and failed economic policies. Iran will implode from within as the Green
Movement is empowered, and Iranians force their government to change its aggressive
authoritarian policies.

2) Iranians Will be Empowered

Removing sanctions ends the Western isolation of Iran, allowing Iran to increase both
economic and diplomatic relations with the West. Monshipouri explains the benefits.
“The present travails of the United States in Iraq have…demonstrated the absurdity of
establishing democracy through conquest. By contrast, greater economic interaction
and engagement with Iran as well as its integration into the global economy and
communication networks can help foster a propertied middle class. This middle class…
can empower the modernist segments of the Iranian civil society and…set the stage for a
transition to liberal democracy.”

The negative cannot achieve regime change in Iran. For that reason you will always
vote affirmative.

Advantage One: Terrorism

Iran is a major sponsor of terrorist groups. Dr. Daniel Byman1 explains, “Since
the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has been one of the world’s most active sponsors of
terrorism. Tehran has armed, trained, financed, inspired, organized, and... supported
dozens of violent groups over the years. Iran has backed not only groups in its Persian
Gulf neighborhood, but also terrorists and radicals in Lebanon, the Palestinian
territories, Bosnia, the Philippines, and elsewhere”. Iran gives an estimated
$106,000,000 a year to Hezbollah alone, and allows senior Al-Qaeda leaders such as Saif
al-Adel and Saad bin Ladin to remain in Iran. Iran, by supporting terrorist groups, is
indirectly responsible for hundreds of attacks and the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Democratizing Iran ends this support, decreasing the effectiveness of terrorist
organizations worldwide.

Advantage Two: Israel

1
Center for Peace and Security Studies, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA,Saban Center for
Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, USA
 Israel is being backed into a corner. James Phillips, a Senior Research Fellow at
the Heritage Foundation, explains, “The Iranian regime's drive for nuclear weapons,
rapid progress in building up its ballistic missile arsenal, ominous rhetoric about
destroying Israel, and the failure of international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclear
weapons program have potentially created a[n]…explosive situation.” An Israeli
preemptive attack is forced. Morris2 explains, “ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s
nuclear sites in the next four to seven months.” Such an attack is doomed to fail.
Phillips3, explains “Israel does not have enough warplanes and refueling capabilities to
sustain such an intensive campaign against such distant targets over a prolonged period
of time”. Iran’s counterattack would be catastrophic. Phillips explains, “Iran is likely to
bombard Israel with its… ballistic missiles, possibly armed with chemical, biological, or
radiological warheads. Such a missile barrage would amount to a terror campaign…
[S]uicidal air attacks, perhaps launched from bases in Syria, or attacks by Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles… based in Lebanon, Syria, or ships off Israel's coast, could not be ruled
out.” As Iran’s nuclear program continues, Morris furthers, “the Middle East will
almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli
nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.” Millions will die
through conventional, biological, chemical, or nuclear warfare, as both sides fight an
ideological war to the death. We have less than seven months prevents this complete
obliteration of Iran and Israel. Regime change solves; the Green Movement holds no
animosity towards Israel

Even if you discount the plan and its benefits, you are still forced to vote
affirmative.

C. Off-Case: Sanctions Will Cause War with Iran

The more we sanction, the smaller economic relations with Iran are, and the less
influence we have. Simon Jenkins, a prominent British journalist, explains “Sanctions
are idiot diplomacy. They are the last gasp of the "something must be done" brigade,
before… going to war”. Examine the relationship between sanctions and Iranian
defiance. As the U.S. prepares new sanctions targeting Iran’s oil and gasoline, Iranian
defiance has escalated as Iran gives the West deadlines on its nuclear proposals. America
is backing itself into a corner where the only option is military intervention. Remember
Iraq and Afghanistan, our current conflicts. Jenkins4 furthers, “The casus belli is the
same. There is a declared ongoing threat and this is inextricably linked to a
"humanitarian" need for regime change. In Afghanistan the trigger was the harbouring
of Osama bin Laden. In Iraq it was a tenuous claim that Saddam possessed a nuclear
capability and was preparing to use missiles… In Iran similar claims are being made
about nuclear enrichment. There is the same stumbling UN involvement, the same
histrionic spin and the same regime abuse. There are the same threats to increase
economic sanctions and the same sabre-rattling”. The endpoint of this process, in both
cases, Jenkins explains, was “a pretext was drummed up for military intervention, for
bombing, invasion, occupation and appalling destruction.”.
2
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html
3
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/bg2361.cfm
4
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/01/sanctions-iran-nuclear-ahmadinejad-war