Tournament: Texas Open | Round: 2 | Opponent: Houston BE | Judge: Logan Gramzinski
Contention 1 – Proliferation

Iran will reach critical capacity by 2014 – Now is key to stop proliferation

Albright Et Al 2013, David Albright President, Institute for Science and International Security Mark Dubowitz Executive Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Orde Kittrie Professor of Law, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University Leonard Spector Deputy Director, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies Michael Yaffe Professor, Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University, U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the changing Middle East, The Project on U.S. Middle East Nonproliferation Strategy January 2013, Washington, D.C. isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/FinalReport.pdf

Based on the current plan on the basis, that Iran  is likely to reach critical capability in mid-2014. Given these uncertainties and recognizing Prime Minister Netanyahu’s more accelerated timeline, we believe that the intensification of sanctions we recommend needs to  begin as rapidly as possible. 

Iranian proliferation ensures a rapid destabilization of the Middle East and Saudi proliferation

Edelman Et Al 2011, Edelman, Eric S., Krepinevich, Andrew F., Montgomery, Evan Braden, Foreign Affairs, 00157120, Jan/Feb2011, Vol. 90, Issue 1  “The Dangers of a Nuclear Iran” Ebsco

The reports of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States and the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, as well as other analyses, have highlighted the risk that a nuclear-armed Iran against its chief rival, India.

Most likely scenario for escalation

Horowitz 2009, Michael, Department of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons and International Conflict”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 53, No. 2, April

Learning as preferences of the adopter.

Their deterrence evidence doesn’t assume the Middle East – Saudi proliferation would escalate to full-scale nuclear war

Edelman Krepinevich and Montgomery 2011, Eric, Andrew, and Evan, Foreign Affairs, “The Dangers of NATO a Nuclear Iran Subtitle: The Limits of Containment”, Lexis

Were Saudi Arabia with unpredictable consequences. 

Iranian proliferation causes conflict with Israel

Edelman Et Al 2011, Edelman, Eric S., Krepinevich, Andrew F., Montgomery, Evan Braden, Foreign Affairs, 00157120, Jan/Feb2011, Vol. 90, Issue 1  “The Dangers of a Nuclear Iran” Ebsco

Given Israel's competition would be unstable.

That escalates to full scale war

Adamsky 2011, Dima Adamsky is an Assistant Professor at the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy, and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya and the author of The Culture of Military Innovation. The scenarios discussed here are speculative and do not represent the views of any official in the Israeli government, Foreign affairs, march – april 2011, lexis

The insecurity generated by a nuclear current deterrence models

Extinction

Moore 2009, Carole, author, activist, leader of Libertarians for Peace, “Israeli Nuclear Threats and Blackmail”, http://www.carolmoore.net/nuclearwar/israelithreats.html

The phrase the “Samson Option” is used to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?"39 

Contention 2 – SOP

Statutory restriction on executive war-making toward Iran solves separation of powers. The constitution gives congress war-making authority

Bandow 2012, Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington, Attack Iran? Ask Congress to Declare War, The American Spector, It is time to end the era of executive war-making, spectator.org/archives/2012/01/04/attack-iran-ask-congress-to-de

Declarations of war executive war-making.

Congress is key – Only statuary limitations restrict the president’s authority and redistribute power

Capito 2007, Charles L., Wash and Lee L. Reve. 297, 2007, Inadequate Checks and Balances: Critiquing the Imbalance of Power in Arms Export Regulation?, flaw.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law20Review/64-120Capito20Note.pdf

B. A Congressional Solution authority in foreign relations.25 

Separation of Powers is essential to Hegemony – Democratic institutions produce credibility better

Ikenberry 2001, John G. Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.  He is also Co-Director of Princeton’s Center for International Security Studies. Ikenberry is also a Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University in Seoul, Korea. In 2013-2014 Ikenberry will be the 72nd Eastman Visiting Professor at Balliol College, Oxford. The National Interest, Getting Hegemon Right, www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/U6800/readings-sm/Ikenberry_Hegemony.pdf

First, America's mature political interests of the United States.

U.S. withdrawal would leave behind a power vacuum, spurring terrorism, economic turmoil and multiple nuclear wars.

Ferguson  2004, Niall, July/August , “A World Without Power,” Foreign Policy, Issue 143

So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. -new world disorder

Even small violations of separation of powers must be avoided like nuclear war risks

Redish and Cisar 1991, Professor of law at Northwestern and Law Clerk to Chief Judge William Bauer, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Martin H. and Elizabeth J., December 1991, IF ANGELS WERE TO GOVERN" *: the Need for Pragmatic Formalism in Separation of Powers Theory ,1992 Duke Law Journal, 41 Duke L.J. 449, p. 474

In summary, no defender of separation of powers can prove with certitude that, but for the existence of separation of powers, tyranny would be the inevitable outcome. But the question is whether we wish to take that risk, given the obvious severity of the harm that might result. Given both the relatively limited cost imposed by use of separation of powers and the great severity of the harm sought to be avoided, one should not demand a great showing of the likelihood that the feared harm would result. For just as in the case of the threat of nuclear war, no one wants to be forced into the position of saying, “I told you so.”

Congress checking Obamas war-making authority in Iran is essential to check a presidential monopoly of power

Kalb and and OHanlon 2013, Marvin Kalb, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Marvin Kalb focuses on the impact of media on public policy and politics. He is also an expert in national security, with a focus on U.S. relations with Russia, Europe and the Middle East. His most recent book is The Road to War: Presidential Commitments Honored and Betrayed, available May 10, 2013 from Brookings Institution Press, Director of Research, Foreign Policy, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, Michael OHanlon specializes in national security and defense policy and is senior author of the Iraq and Afghanistan Index, projects. Before joining Brookings, O'Hanlon worked as a national security analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. His current research agenda includes military strategy and technology, Northeast Asia, U.S. Central Command, and defense budgets, among other defense/security issues, an opportunity for Congress on the Road to War with Iran, States News Service, WASHINGTON, DC, and Brookings Institution

Editor's Note: Our Brookings colleagues Marvin Kalb and Michael O'Hanlon published an oped on the role of Congress to be a presidential monopoly.

Contention 4 – Solvency

Plan: The United States federal government should increase statutory restrictions on the war powers authority of the President in the area of introducing Armed Forces into hostilities with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The plan nullifies the authority to attack Iran, established broadly by statutes in 2001 and 2002

Ritter 2007, Scott Ritter, a former Marine intelligence officer, served as a chief weapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, 27 December 2007. “Stop The Iran War Before It Starts,” http://www.countercurrents.org/iran-ritter270107.htm

If hearings show no case for war with Iran, then Congress President through command.

Removing the president’s threat of force strengthens the diplomatic track toward Iran – The threat of force only damages diplomacy 

Luers Et All 2013, William Luers, Director of the Iran Project; Iris Beiri, The iran Project Coordinator, and Priscilla Lewis, editor for the Iran Project, Thomas R. Pickering, Jim Walsh of MIR and Stephen Hentz of Rockefeller Brother Fund, The Iran Project is a Non-Government Organization that seeks to Improve Official Contacts between the United States and Iranian Governments, Founded in 2002 b the United Nations Association of the USA, The Iran Project, strategic Options for Iran: Balancing Pressure with Dipomacy, pg 41-42, http://www.scribd.com/doc/136389836/Strategic-Options-for-Iran-Balancing-Pressure-with-Diplomacy#fullscreen

IV. Strengthening The Diplomatic consider any offer, and more the President will be under pressure to use military force. 

Strengthened diplomacy is critical to prevent Iranian proliferation. Rapprochement is essential

Mahfouz 2009, Melissa March 25 2009 “Iran and Obama Rapprochement”, http://www.ivorytowerz.com/2009/03/iran-obamas-rapprochement.html

President Barack Obama’s reinvigorated diplomatic efforts with Iran are leading to a much-needed restoration of U.S. credibility. Despite the criticism that the Obama administration is reaching out to a belligerent and fundamentalist regime, the fact remains together” comes to a political fruition.

The plan spurs future diplomacy – This ensures no more proliferation

Al-Ahram 2013, Al-Ahram Weekly, “Negotiating with Iran”, August 22,  http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/2171/19/Negotiating-with-Iran.aspx

The sanctions have guarantee, and this cannot be gained unless 

The plan would work best – prevents proliferation and encourages peaceful integration into the multilateral system

Dobbins 2012, James, former Assistant Secretary of State and now directs the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the Rand Corporation, “Coping with a Nuclearising Iran”, Survival, Vol 53, No 6

By contrast, a policy of pure containment escalation is high.
it sits down with the US, however painful that may be.

Failure to engage Iran in diplomacy motivates Iran’s nuclear policy and makes war inevitable – Current US policy is the driving force behind Iran proliferation efforts

Parsi 2006, Trita the co-founder and current president of the National Iranian American Council, a non-profit educational organization) May 8 2006 “The United States Double vision in Iran”, Open Democracy, http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-iran_war/double-vision_3518.jsp

For the last five years, tantamount to choosing war.