Select Another Debate
November 26, 2012
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.
CON gains 18%. CON wins
“There is no hotline between Tel Aviv and Tehran, and no other
stabilizing mechanisms between us and the Iranians, so the
danger of an unplanned nuclear confrontation is significant.
“Deterring Iran is fundamentally different from deterring the Soviet Union. You could rely on the latter but not on the former.”
“Iran has not surrendered, and Israel seems to view any other scenario as unacceptable. ”
“As for attempting to rein in Iran, that could prove both counterproductive and unnecessary.”
Munk Debate members have access to past debate media downloads. Premium and Basic members have access to all VIDEO, TRANSCRIPTS and PODCAST downloads.
Can the world tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons? Respondents in the Toronto audience initially believed it could not, and this belief held following the debate. Download Press Release
Charles Krauthammer, Fareed Zakaria, Vali Nasr and Amos Yadlin convene in Toronto, Canada to debate the global response to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Download Press Release