Has the threat posed by Iran been grossly exaggerated?
The majority of people at a debate organised by intelligencesquared thought so.
The majority of people at a debate organised by intelligencesquared thought so.
Does Iran have nuclear ambitions? What is the evidence? What is the threat? The BBC has been accused of exaggerating the threat from Iran www.medialens.org/alerts/05/050121_BBC_Iran_Propaganda.php , while Seymour Hersh has reported US plans for an attack on Iran in the New Yorker magazine, suggesting the threat to peace actually comes from America.
So has the threat posed by Iran been grossly exaggerated? This was the question posed to 750 people during a debate staged by intelligence2 last night (25/04/06)in London. Before the debate roughly a third of the audience agreed with the motion, a third disagreed and a third were undecided, but after hearing the arguments the majority voted for the motion - they thought the threat posed by Iran has been exaggerated.
So what were the arguments that shifted opinion? No one argument, that is for sure. It was hard to tell from the applause whether any particular points one the day, it was more the accumulation of argument during the debate.
Arguments such as the fact that the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has firmly circumscribed powers, whatever he may say to please a crowd. The fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might feel the need to make some of the statements he does because Iran is surrounded by and feels threatened by the American military forces in Turkey, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The fact that although Iran is a regional power, and should be recognised as such, culturally and ethnic differences between Iran and its neighbours constrain Iran's ability to extend its influence over its neighbours. Ironically, the invasion of Iraq is allowing a limited extension of that influence, in a way that would otherwise have been very unlikely.
Iran has sought a 'grand settlement' with the US on and off ever since the revolution, the last offer by the Iranians was in 2003. So why does the stand off continue? Because of the very closeness of the past relationship between the US and Iran? Is the US still feeling the betrayal and hurt from the events of the revolution? What is certain is that the rhetoric surrounding the relationship between Iran and the wider world is preventing the reintegration of Iran into the world community, and making it harder for the peacemakers on all sides to work together.
After the meeting, members of the Campaign against sanctions and military intervention in Iran (CASMII), gave out leaflets to the departing audience. Most took one, but as I waited to talk to them, I heard three people curtly refuse a leaflet, one said, 'I want Iran attacked'.
The debate is not over yet.
The vote in full
Has the threat posed by Iran been grossly exaggerated?
Before the debate: For 253, against 268, undecided 214 After the debate: For 387, against 293, undecided 77
Campaign against sanctions and military intervention in Iran: www.campaigniran.org Debate organised by www.intelligencesquared.com
So has the threat posed by Iran been grossly exaggerated? This was the question posed to 750 people during a debate staged by intelligence2 last night (25/04/06)in London. Before the debate roughly a third of the audience agreed with the motion, a third disagreed and a third were undecided, but after hearing the arguments the majority voted for the motion - they thought the threat posed by Iran has been exaggerated.
So what were the arguments that shifted opinion? No one argument, that is for sure. It was hard to tell from the applause whether any particular points one the day, it was more the accumulation of argument during the debate.
Arguments such as the fact that the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has firmly circumscribed powers, whatever he may say to please a crowd. The fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might feel the need to make some of the statements he does because Iran is surrounded by and feels threatened by the American military forces in Turkey, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The fact that although Iran is a regional power, and should be recognised as such, culturally and ethnic differences between Iran and its neighbours constrain Iran's ability to extend its influence over its neighbours. Ironically, the invasion of Iraq is allowing a limited extension of that influence, in a way that would otherwise have been very unlikely.
Iran has sought a 'grand settlement' with the US on and off ever since the revolution, the last offer by the Iranians was in 2003. So why does the stand off continue? Because of the very closeness of the past relationship between the US and Iran? Is the US still feeling the betrayal and hurt from the events of the revolution? What is certain is that the rhetoric surrounding the relationship between Iran and the wider world is preventing the reintegration of Iran into the world community, and making it harder for the peacemakers on all sides to work together.
After the meeting, members of the Campaign against sanctions and military intervention in Iran (CASMII), gave out leaflets to the departing audience. Most took one, but as I waited to talk to them, I heard three people curtly refuse a leaflet, one said, 'I want Iran attacked'.
The debate is not over yet.
The vote in full
Has the threat posed by Iran been grossly exaggerated?
Before the debate: For 253, against 268, undecided 214 After the debate: For 387, against 293, undecided 77
Campaign against sanctions and military intervention in Iran: www.campaigniran.org Debate organised by www.intelligencesquared.com
e-mail:
Homepage:
