On September 27, 2006, Intelligence Squared U.S. (IQ2US) held its inaugural debate, proposing the motion “We must tolerate a nuclear Iran.” Panelists George Perkovich, Karim Sadjadpour, Sanam Vakil, Patrick Clawson, Reuel Marc Gerecht, and William Kristol debated the pros and cons of allowing Iran to continue its nuclear development unrestricted. This matter continues to be a point of international contention, as Iran recently met with six global powers in Lausanne, Switzerland to discuss the lifting of current sanctions in exchange for newly established limitations on its nuclear programs.

1. The Debate Continues:
Should We Tolerate a
Nuclear Iran?
By: Robert Rosenkranz

2. Introduction
• On September 27, 2006, Intelligence Squared U.S.
(IQ2US) held its inaugural debate, proposing the
motion “We must tolerate a nuclear Iran.” Panelists
George Perkovich, Karim Sadjadpour, Sanam Vakil,
Patrick Clawson, Reuel Marc Gerecht, and William
Kristol debated the pros and cons of allowing Iran to
continue its nuclear development unrestricted.
• This matter continues to be a point of international
contention, as Iran recently met with six global powers
in Lausanne, Switzerland to discuss the lifting of
current sanctions in exchange for newly established
limitations on its nuclear programs.

3. Overview
Arguing against the motion in the 2006 IQ2US debate, Patrick Clawson, deputy
director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, noted that the
matter of Iran’s nuclear development:
“is a very gray case.” He continued, “We in fact do not have a smoking gun to show
that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. It’s unlikely that we’re going to wake up
some morning to find that Iran has exploded a nuclear weapon. What we have to deal
with instead, is what Iran openly declares that it is doing—namely building this
complicated thing called a nuclear fuel cycle, to make the materials for having a
nuclear weapon. The Iranians themselves have described well why they’re doing this.
In a remarkable speech, their chief negotiator for their nuclear weapons program
wrote that having a fuel-cycle capability almost means the country that possesses this
capability is able to produce nuclear weapons, should that country have the political
will to do so. Now that’s the judgment of the Iranian government. The Nobel Peace
Prize-winning head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed Al
Baradei—who you may recall was no friend of George Bush on the Iraq matter—says
that if Iran does what Iran announces it’s intending to do, that Iran will be, quote, ‘a
few months’ end quote, away from having a nuclear weapon.
So our real question is, do we want to see Iran have that kind of a capability, on the
edge of having a nuclear weapon but not quite there.”

4. Conclusion
• The international community remains highly divided on
whether Iran has the right to pursue nuclear research
and development, and to what extent the International
Atomic Energy Agency should monitor these activities.
• IQ2US audience members weighed in on this matter
back in 2006, and the online poll is still accepting
votes.
• Cast yours here:
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-
debates/item/543-we-must-tolerate-a-nuclear-
iran&tab=2