Elections DA Answers UD



Elections DA Answers UD ***Impacts***US/Iran War: Iran Won’t Withdraw: 2AC Iran’s leadership knows Trump is looking for any justification to start a war and they won’t provide him one Dreyfuss, contributing editor for The Nation, 8-13-20(Bob, “Would Trump Go to War With Iran to Get Reelected?,” accessed 9-11-20, ) JFN NCC Packet 2020But the Iranian leadership can read a calendar, too. Like voters in the United States, they know that the Trump administration is probably going to be voted out of office in three months. And they know that, in the event of war, it’s more likely than not that many Americans—including, sadly, some hawkish Democrats in Congress, and influential analysts at middle-of-the-road Washington think tanks—will rally to the White House. So unless the campaign of covert warfare against targets in Iran were to intensify dramatically, the Iranian leadership isn’t likely to give Trump, Pompeo, and crew the excuse they’re looking for.US/Iran War: Iran Won’t Withdraw: Extensions Iran won’t take the bait and give Trump a pre-text for war Rasmus, 1-11-20(Jack, “Trump’s Iran ‘Punching Bag’: US Provocations to Continue,” accessed 9-11-20, ) JFN NCC Packet 2020Trump’s assassination of Iran’s general and senior diplomat, Soleimani, was a clear provocation by the U.S., designed to produce a further escalated military response by Iran. That did not happen. Iran did not take the bait. It responded minimally and appears to have done so in a way to avoid US deaths or even major U.S. asset destruction. If Iran had escalated militarily, which it was capable of doing, it would have fallen into Trump’s trap. Trump was prepared to unleash a greater military response on Iran. He would have had his ‘war’, i.e. his great distraction from his pending impeachment trial, as well as a major boost to his political base in the current election year. Had Iran taken the bait, Trump would also have been able to bypass the War Powers Act before militarily escalating. The Act allows an unlimited and immediate U.S. attack on an adversary that has attacked U.S. forces. Up to now, Trump has had to explain to Congress, especially the U.S. House of Representatives, why he had assassinated Soleimani in the first place. That was clearly an ‘act or war’ according to international law. And Trump had bypassed Congress before doing so, which the Act and prior precedents have required. A major Iran counterattack on the U.S. would have put the issue of Trump’s bypassing the Act by assassinating Soleimani without discussing with Congress to bed. The new escalation and conflict would have become the center of debate in the U.S.–not the assassination and how Congress was bypassed and ignored. Iran’s missile launch yesterday against two Iraqi bases, one of which reportedly had no U.S. forces, was clearly a measured and minimal response. It appears the missile launch may have been purposely designed to do minimal damage even to U.S. military assets. That no photos of any damage have been released by the U.S. suggests there wasn’t much. And no U.S. forces were killed. Either Iran’s missiles and targeting are worthless; or Iran purposely intended minimal, or even no, effective damage. Without physical evidence of extensive damage, and no American deaths from the missiles, it was, and remains, difficult for Trump to escalate military action further thereafter. Moreover, Iran’s statement after the launch that it had “concluded” its response made it further difficult for Trump to escalate a U.S. military response after the launch. Trump therefore trotted out before the cameras and declared a ‘victory’ in the exchange: a successful assassination in exchange for a dozen missiles that largely missed their targets and did no damage. In other words, Iran had done little in response to the U.S. assassinating it leading general. Trump got to look tough to his political base at home after engaging in a foreign policy adventure, as the 2020 election takes off. But the Trump/U.S./Neocon assault on Iran is not over. As neocon John Bolton has recently tweeted, the U.S. was planning to assassinate Soleimani for some months now and had its plan ready to go. It just now pulled the trigger. Trump and the U.S. were escalating the conflict steadily throughout December, as the U.S. launched attacks on Iranian militia bases in Iraq, provoking the desired response of the militias assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Trump in turn escalated the confrontation by assassinating Soleimani. Time will reveal what happened between the period of the U.S. successful provocation of the militias and the subsequent assassination. As the 2020 election year in the U.S. continues, Trump will almost certainly replay this Iran provocation card again. It’s proved successful thus far. Iran is in a box: if it responds minimally, Trump declares a short term victory and looks good to his base in the election year; if it responds in kind militarily, Trump gets an even bigger distraction–both from the impeachment and all the growing concerns about his personal instability coming to the fore in the election season. A major war with Iran will rally support by the American people and push all other issues and Trump policy failures to the background. Trump will therefore undoubtedly resort once more to a major provocation, or even several, before the election. Iran knows it is Trump’s foreign policy punching bag. It has been since Trump came to office. More blows against Iran are yet to come in this election year. Iran has responded minimally to date. No doubt it will publicize and declare domestically that its missiles did great damage and more is to come to drive the U.S. out of the middle east. But that’s for domestic consumption. Iran’s strategy is to wait out the Trump presidency. And to continue to use its refusal to escalate as evidence to the Europeans that it is the sane party in the U.S.-Iran confrontation. Why? Iran wants Europe to continue to trade with it, to buy its oil. More importantly, it wants Europe to implement what it had suggested with regard to establishing a more independent international payments system.Iran will continue to comply with the nuclear dealPriddy, Geopolitical Analyst and Consultant, 8-19-20(Greg, “Trump’s New Iran Sanctions Might Not Kill the Nuclear Deal, But They Will Hurt the U.N.,” accessed 9-11-20, ) JFN NCC Packet 2020That leads to the second complication. While the administration seems to want to end the nuclear deal definitively, Iran may nonetheless continue to comply with it in part, keeping it on life support. To be sure, many observers worry that Iran will respond by definitively ending its own status as a participant in the JCPOA. To date Iran has continued to abide by most of its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which allow enhanced inspections and remote monitoring. That could end. Iran could go further and repudiate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty entirely, though that is less likely as it could trigger escalation with the U.S. or Israel. Or Iran could choose to stick with a phased and reversible reduction in its compliance with the JCPOA.US/Iran War: No Escalation: 2AC Iran has overwhelming economic incentives to not escalate a confrontation with the US, even if the US strikes first Rasmus, 1-11-20(Jack, “Trump’s Iran ‘Punching Bag’: US Provocations to Continue,” accessed 9-11-20, ) JFN NCC Packet 2020Iran has responded minimally to date. No doubt it will publicize and declare domestically that its missiles did great damage and more is to come to drive the U.S. out of the middle east. But that’s for domestic consumption. Iran’s strategy is to wait out the Trump presidency. And to continue to use its refusal to escalate as evidence to the Europeans that it is the sane party in the U.S.-Iran confrontation. Why? Iran wants Europe to continue to trade with it, to buy its oil. More importantly, it wants Europe to implement what it had suggested with regard to establishing a more independent international payments system. The current system is called SWIFT, and is controlled by the U.S. and U.S. banks. With SWIFT the U.S. can see who is complying with its sanctions on Iran (or sanctions on any other country). SWIFT is a key institution for U.S. imperialism globally–along with the dollar, the global trading currency, U.S. control of the IMF, dominance of the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve, influencing global money flows and interest rates, and so on. Europe and Iran had been discussing setting up an independent international payments system, called INSTEX. The Europeans have been balking, however. Trump has been threatening them with sanctions should they do so. (Or should they install 5G wireless systems by China’s Huawei company. Or should they go forward with new Russian gas pipelines in the Baltic sea. And so on.) In the 21st century, especially since 2008-09, the USA has been acting increasingly aggressive against allies and adversaries alike as U.S. global economic hegemony begins to weaken. Thus we see tariffs as a more frequent foreign policy tool, economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. increasingly the rule, U.S. actions to destroy adversary economies’ currencies (e.g. Venezuela) as central to U.S. goals of regime change, U.S. direct assistance to indigenous capitalists to overturn democratic governments (Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia), and use of the SWIFT as a means to enforce sanctions and deny dollar access to targeted adversaries. Should Europe and Iran establish an alternate INSTEX payment system it would mark a major blow to the U.S. global economic empire and hegemony. Such an alternative payments system would likely be joined quickly by Russia, China, and others. Iran therefore is keeping an eye on a possible agreement with Europe on such an alternative payment system that would enable it to avoid U.S. sanctions. The U.S. would then have no alternative but to blockade Iranian shipments physically. And that would be another act of war by Trump per international law. Iran had much to lose, in other words, by escalating the conflict militarily with the U.S. And it didn’t fall for the Trump-Neocon provocation. Not yet. Its minimal response in recent days has made it impossible for Trump to escalate further, in turn, and unleash a greater U.S. military conflict with Iran. Trump may have gained a propaganda victory in the election year with his base, but Trump’s inability to escalate still further means he won’t get his big distraction from his upcoming impeachment trial. Nor will he be able now to bypass the War Powers Act or smother the charge he has already ignored the Act’s limits by unilaterally assassinating a foreign government representative without consulting Congress first. Iran will continue to avoid an all out war with the U.S., which Trump’s neocon advisers would prefer to see before the U.S. November 2020 election. Iran leaves the door open to the Europeans. That door would have closed had it, Iran, escalated the conflict.US/Iran War: Trump Won’t Attack: 2AC Trump won’t start a war with IranLake, Bloomberg News Opinion Columnist, 1-8-20(Eli, “Trump Doesn’t Want War With Iran,” accessed 9-11-20, ) JFN NCC Packet 2020What is clear, though, is that President Donald Trump is not seeking to invade Iran. To start, he put a positive spin on Iran’s retaliation, saying in a speech Wednesday that the regime “appears to be standing down.” If Trump were really the warmonger that his opponents claim, he would not have described the Iranian attack as a de-escalation. More to the point, as president Trump has demonstrated that he is uninterested in the lofty goals of nation-building and regime change that once characterized his party. He threatened North Korea with “fire and fury” only to enter negotiations with its tyrant a few months later. He recognized the head of Venezuela’s legislature as the country’s interim president, but has yet to send U.S. forces into Venezuela to oust its dictator. With Iran, Trump boasted of his decision to end the life of Qassem Soleimani and then threatened to bomb 52 Iranian sites, including cultural ones. On Wednesday, he vowed that Iran would not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon “as long as I am president.” And yet in that same speech, Trump extended a hand of cooperation to Iran. “The destruction of ISIS is good for Iran,” he said. “We should work together on this and other shared priorities.” This doesn’t sound like a man bent on regime change by military force. They are the words of a president who seeks to deter Iran from targeting Americans and building nuclear weapons. Trump’s strategy so far has flummoxed most of his opposition. This week House Democrats will vote on a war powers resolution aimed at limiting the president’s authority to attack Iran. This move would make sense if it were 2002, George W. Bush were president, and an invasion force of more than 100,000 troops were being positioned in the Middle East. But Trump won his party’s nomination partly by sounding like an anti-war activist, with his attacks on Bush’s legacy in Iraq and accusations that he lied the country into war. Just as defeated generals are often accused of fighting the last war, Democrats are now legislating against the last war.Warming: Biden Doesn’t Solve: 2AC Biden will be unable to substantially reduce emissions Goldwyn, chairman of the Energy Advisory Group, 1-9-20(David, “Regardless of who is president in 2020, climate change will be at the bottom of the US agenda,” accessed 4-14-20, ) JFN NCC Packet 2020A new Democratic president, on the other hand, will likely face a Republican Senate and a conservative Supreme Court. Both will act as limits on new legislation and expansive interpretation of existing authorities (such as those under the Clean Air and Water Acts). For these reasons, the major overarching challenges facing the US (and indeed global) energy markets will, regrettably, remain unresolved. Whichever administration takes office in January 2021, it will not be able to solve the systemic energy transition puzzle that has bedevilled policy makers (and their increasingly angry constituents) the world over.Warming: Inevitable: 2AC Reducing emissions enough to avoid worst case scenarios is impossible Graff, director of cyber initiatives at The Aspen Institute, 5-7-20(Garrett, “Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next,” accessed 5-8-20, ) JFN NCC Packet 2020Averting the worst-case scenarios of climate change appears increasingly unlikely, especially given the U.S.’s ongoing unwillingness to engage seriously on the subject globally and China’s continued, environment-be-damned growth. Scientists calculate that the world needs to decrease carbon emissions by 7 percent a year—compounding year over year—for roughly the next decade to avert the worst-case warming scenarios. What will that take? Consider this: Covid-19 has brought much of the globe’s economy to a standstill and emptied the skies of aircraft and roads of cars, and this hiatus will only decrease carbon emissions in 2020 by around 8 percent. Even the highly ambitious, much-vaunted and much-controversial “Green New Deal” is dwarfed by the reality of change necessary ahead; even a proposed $119 billion sea wall for New York City may not be enough to protect Manhattan. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download