Would Iran REALLY Use Nuclear Weapons? | Student Debate | Let's Do Something On Campus

Added: 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]If Iran were to wake up and like, you know, a genie came down and like gave them a nuke, I don't think they would immediately throw it at America tomorrow and be like, "Have fun." Even if they could.

[00:00:07]>> Are you sure you want to take that risk?

[00:00:09]>> I think the risk is incredibly small.

[00:00:11]>> Hold on. But have they called directly for Death to America?

[00:00:13]>> Sure.

[00:00:14]>> Okay. We're here on campus having hard-hitting conversations with college students over the most divisive topics in the world. Let's do something.

[00:00:21]>> We do both agree though that there have been direct attacks from Iran and its proxies on US forces that have killed US soldiers.

[00:00:28]>> Sure. And I and I guess and maybe this is the more the juicier part of the discussion is like you know they have killed US forces but then did those US forces have the authorization to be in those places originally and that that like and who knows and like >> America has how many bases around the world? Yeah, I mean I think we have a base on 158 different countries which is a whole question of you know do you think that America should be that you know that widely you know military forces should be that widely distributed and that's probably outside the scope of this conversation >> but I think from the reality perspective meaning America has a base let's say in South Korea right if a soldier is killed from a North Korean attack America would be able to do some sort of war over there that would happen >> and so in that instance and just I guess maybe to explain the mechanics a little bit more you know Trump would have or any president would have 60 days just be like boom go do what you want then he has to go to Congress presumably if America were to be bombed by Iran or North Korea or whoever Congress would say yes but they also could say no and they could say no actually we're done here there is no more like we've either achieved our objectives or we don't think you know whatever so even in a world where Iran you know did preemptively attack America in a much more direct and observable way which I don't you know I I at least haven't seen being the case Congress would have the ability to actually say no and then there's also questions about does like does Congress even have the ability to do that and maybe outside this conversation but some people think including one Supreme Court justice that Congress can't even give away its own powers that only Congress can do these things and anytime another that Congress is like hey president or hey whoever do this they they can't do that. Um so in this situation I'd say because Congress hasn't authorized this war which is not new and because America wasn't attacked in a way that I think would you know bring the war powers resolution into effect uh this is a I guess you know and you know maybe in real politic there is no such thing as an illegal war but this is an illegal war I think for the strength of our institutions it's important that we follow the procedures that we have um and the entire idea of all these things was to make sure we don't have a president who can just activate military engagements wherever he sees fit. and then just give a vague this is for national security uh justification.

[00:02:30]>> So, and I think we'll move on to the next point from there, but essentially we do agree that there are situations where >> the president could go to war. Now, we get into the situation of does this or does this not fit that legal situation.

[00:02:43]Now, we get into kind of the details from there of did these attacks happen, what were the the amount of time you could do and all of that. But I think you could definitely say that there could be a legal basis on that happening. There have been known and documented as of two years ago where three service members were killed, American service members. Maybe they shouldn't have been in Iraq. Maybe they should have been in Iraq. They were there and they were killed directly by Iran and its proxies. So that does happen and Iran has a long historical president pre president since 1979 of directly killing, kidnapping, holding hostage Americans on many fronts. And when Trump said that he is going to war, that is what he cited. Now given the fact that that is what he cited, he may have gone a bunch of things. Given the fact that we're now in this war, that is the reality of the situation, the real politic of this situation. What I'm saying is we need to make sure that Iran does not have nukes. The institutions that you think are so important uh will not be able to exist in a world where America doesn't keep stability, where Iran can't attack us with nuclear weapons. We have held that since World War II. We try to make sure that as few countries, especially radical countries like Iran, get nukes, and we should hold to that for the betterment of America and the world.

[00:03:48]>> Sure. But the question is like should America be in the in this war, right?

[00:03:51]And so if we're going to say this is an illegal war, >> yeah, >> that means it shouldn't be in the war.

[00:03:56]Um, and I think that, you know, all of these things may be important, but I think that that that the reason that like the war powers resolution exist is is because Congress got together and I think rightly so, and said, you know, in a defensive situation, like we don't want to slow down the process. But initiatives are here's what we're trying to achieve.

[00:04:23]And as as we talked about earlier, the Trump administration has completely failed on that front. Every day it's well, we need to destroy their navy. Oh, we need to take out their nuclear capabilities, but now it's about the straight of Hormuz. But remember these military guys from the street of Hormuz was something that happened afterwards.

[00:04:39]obviously but America did make it clear and I agree Trump's tweets have been this and that and all crazy things but America said it was to make sure that they can never enrich uranium it was to destroy their navy it was to get rid of their missile capabilities >> all the bluster and everything around that that people are doing those are its actual goals and is working towards achieving those goals will it win will it not win and I think also going to when is America starting the war and is it offense or defense why didn't America start this war on February 27th and why didn't it started on March 1st >> yeah and and So I think and also you know what I think is that and just briefly back to your point about you know the soldiers and these conflicts being in the past this isn't this is not legal advice um but and and so and I don't know but I would imagine that like the idea of these kind of defensive actions it's supposed to be much more immediate you know like what I don't what I what I don't like at all whether it's from like you know law students like lawyers in the real world people out in in in the world is trying to get crafty and like throw in like these kind of late justifications or being cute with words. Um, and I think that if we're going to ground like if the idea of this is fine because these soldiers were killed a few years ago, that just seems too far away in time. If we're going to say, well, you know, Iran, you know, is inching that much closer to getting um, you know, a nuclear weapon.

[00:05:52]I I think that that goes against a lot of the things that Trump administration had said up until just a month or two ago. I mean, if you remember, we were involved. We last summer, we had the bunker the the bunker busters or whatever >> with the bunker busters. Why did we attack that facility? Stop. We've seen that 75.86% of you who watch our videos don't subscribe to our channel.

[00:06:13]>> Let's fix that. If you enjoy open dialogue just like this, subscribe now.

[00:06:17]>> Now, back to the video.

[00:06:18]>> I mean, presumably to stop nuclear activity, but I also think >> specifically they had about 1,000 lb of uranium that was enriched to 60%. Right.

[00:06:28]>> What is the purpose of having uranium to that? I think of course I mean we can be we can be real and say that pro probably a big reason that Iran like wants the nuclear not only for their like the civil reasons they want to be engaged but also because it acts as a good >> situation any civil or medical purpose you would ever need that much uranium at that enrichment level >> I have no idea >> the answer is no >> maybe >> no I don't know I'll let you know I'm a big nuclear power guy right nuclear power the answer is just no you don't need it for that level which means and this goes back to and what they did at Fortto and these things was they attacked. Yes. To get rid of all this.

[00:07:02]And what happened was it was now buried.

[00:07:04]And I think Trump, again, going back to his political purposes, and I'm going to agree with everything he says, he wanted that to look like a greater success than it was. The reality of the situation is uranium like that can only be used, its only purpose is for nuclear weapons.

[00:07:16]This goes back to my original claim. We need to make sure that a radical regime, which this is, which had an Islamic revolution in 1979, does not get nuclear weapons. And going back to the prior question of why not February 27th, why not March 1st? And going back to legally can we do this? We had clear intelligence saying that the Ayatollah and all of his top leaders were together in one place at one time. That is a military ability to now take them out.

[00:07:42]>> So I think and the legal question is a very different one than like the you know should right and so just on that point like there has to be at least in my understanding and I could be wrong. I don't I think my understanding is right.

[00:07:55]There has to be like an attack and so the military guys getting together at the same time, you know, that that obviously wouldn't qualify again, but I guess I'm saying already in a in a state of reduced war, which I'm saying it was because there have been attacks and people's killed. Frankly, it's been a reduced war for 40 years. It's been a very low simmering war. Holding American hostages for 400 days starts it. Killing people in bunker barracks over 200 marines in Beirut continues it.

[00:08:22]continuing to murder Americans means it's ongoing and that's a situation where now you have essentially a once in a lifetime opportunity to take out a host of the leadership and of the military and of the government at once and that's why it happened on that debt >> and and I but I think like if we're kind of living to should >> you know it's like should for whom should for America should world do you think I would talk to this for America >> right and so it's like do you think that this >> America would be less safe if Iran had nuclear weapons Do you >> do you agree with that?

[00:08:54]>> I don't know. I don't know if I disagree, but I don't know if I agree because I I I'm like again, as I mentioned this before, I think generally Yeah.

[00:09:02]>> Um I think that most countries in the world, even from the most, you know, however radical or evil a regime that you think that it is, um they're interested in surviving and they're interested in stability. And I don't think that Iran actually is particularly interested.

[00:09:14]>> If Iran was simply interested in survival and stability exclusively, right, why would they do so? like going back to let's say the bombing attacks in Beirut or taking the hostages for 400 days. How is that possibly good for their stability?

[00:09:29]>> Because they think that America's presence in the region is is is like contributes to instability which it has.

[00:09:36]America has Saudi Arabia stable.

[00:09:38]>> Sure. But I mean I act well I mean I don't I can't pull off every you know Middle Eastern country off the top of my head. But what I'm saying is that you know America has been involved in regime change war in Iraq. America has been involved in regime change war in Syria, in Kuwait.

[00:09:50]>> They they don't want the regime change.

[00:09:52]I agree with you. They're in power. They want to hold on to power. There's a difference to that and being what they want is stability. Meaning, if they were an economy and a country working to the betterment of the 90 million people that live there, then great. The decisions they would have made is not to fund proxies all around the Middle East, not to put billions of dollars, which they barely have, into enriching uranium to only for nuclear purposes.

[00:10:12]>> So, I think that depends what you mean by betterment, right? because I mean uh health, wealth, prosperity for their people, >> right? And I and I'd say that I would >> which America does for its people, which is why America could have nukes and Iran shouldn't by the way.

[00:10:26]>> I would imagine if Iran had you know uh to the audience there's a famous Ron Paul ad that kind of runs through this and I think it's really important to view whether you know you agree with him or not. Um if if Iran had a military base in we won't say Texas because we don't have military bases in Iran but in Mexico I think we would be very concerned about whatever Iran was doing in Mexico. Are you now drawing an equivalence between Iran and America? I don't think you would do that. There is a difference between Iran's desires which we agree is a theocratic dictatorship and America's desires which is a representative democracy that has values that it ascribes to that Iran ascribes to very different values.

[00:11:05]>> I don't think that a regime a you know a government of any kind >> would you know bring itself to like suicide based on its principles.

[00:11:18]>> Do you think there's a difference hold on between democracies and dictatorships?

[00:11:22]>> Absolutely. Okay, when have democracies ever gone to war with each other?

[00:11:26]>> This is getting interesting.

[00:11:28]>> This is getting interesting and we'd love to hear what you think in the comment section below. Now, back to the video.

[00:11:33]>> There has never been an example in modern history.

[00:11:34]>> I mean, I guess like >> there's never been one.

[00:11:37]>> I'm sure there has been one that we can't recall.

[00:11:39]>> I I not that I know of. Maybe there was and I I've looked into this before, but since World War II, if we look at them and the point is because democracies represent their people, dictatorships represent individuals. The Iranian regime does not care when one of their soldiers die. Americans, which you have yourself, I think you believe you do not want an American soldier to die because that's another one of you and that is an amazing thing. So I do think it's important when you make those claims that you understand that there is a huge difference between a dictatorship at its core from a democracy and on top of that a theological radical dictatorship.

[00:12:13]>> Sure. So then what's the difference between what Trump has done by unilaterally going to war without congressional approval uh from a democracy from a dictatorship where they unilaterally go to war without having any you know democratic approval because that doesn't exist. The answer is no difference which it goes back to my concern about why we you know why why where there's a problem here is that we have a leader who is acting well there's not no difference like versus like democracy versus you know uh dictatorship of course in this particular instance where the president has gone to war with taking no consideration into the democratic taking you know no democratic input into his decision. mentioned the war powers effort and and we agree it may be seven years it may not but we can say and there is a lot of legal basis behind again this going that Iran has been attacking America for about 40 years >> so and I guess >> so that would be the difference >> sure but also I mean if you just toss up the popular vote and you can get you know plenty of polls even among Republicans this war is deeply unpopular I think it's somewhere maybe like 25% of of people are >> in the polling this is a very unpopular war I agree with that Republicans have slightly more support for this war, meaning it's above 50%. Democrats and independents are deeply deeply against it. I think that goes to a larger divide in America where people disagree on everything. I also think it goes to something in America, which is unfortunate, which Trump has been incredibly divisive as a person, >> which is horrible and not good. And the way he tweets and talks is not good.

[00:13:35]Does that take away from the fact that Iran is a radical theocratic regime that should not have nuclear weapons?

[00:13:40]>> No. But what it does, >> can Trump still make good decisions?

[00:13:43]Yes. But what it does, it softens the blow that Iran is some uniquely harm like unique like like them being a dictatorship makes them uniquely harmful because in this in this instance we the president is also acting as a dictator.

[00:13:56]That doesn't mean the dictatorships on a whole are obviously worse. I think that republic >> saying Trump is acting on a dictator >> by unilaterally taking military action without cons without consulting democratic approval. Yes. And even if you make the claim sure you know um he was elected whereas you the Ayatollah at least in their view of you know as a theocratically appointed person the point of bringing up a polling numbers was to show that I think that that America even as a whole >> does not support this. So even if we were to like if you were to rerun an election just based on this issue he would lose. Um and so there is no democratic accountability here which means that so that he is acting no different you know from an Iranian from from like an Iranian leader >> other point but then to say that say any decision in a in a in a representative democracy that is made where majority of people don't pull in agreement with that is now a dictatorship >> but this is not but this is also so I'm not I'm not saying that >> you wouldn't stand by that >> I'm not saying that what I'm saying is that the like if the problem with dictatorships is that at least we think is that there's no democratic input that a person can act unilaterally without taking into consideration the interests of their people. That's what's happened here because the president has circumvented Congress and in my view declared and declared war you know against the constitution and the war powers act which puts him on similar footing at least in this regard very narrowly in this regard with like a dictator you know like like the the the Ayatollah of Iran but that's also you know maybe a different question I don't think >> even on that you're getting into the legal and I think you have a compelling argument why that's not true but I I think you would agree that no matter how much one agrees or disagrees with Trump, you could say that there is a huge difference in the American system and how the American system works. Maybe it systems have eroded a little bit between that and the dictatorship that exists.

[00:15:36]>> Yeah. And also, I don't want to just like drag you into legal waters. Like that's not fair. Like, you know, I don't want to do that.

[00:15:42]>> That's the side of it where where I'm okay with saying that on the legal perspective that should be done differently. I think it's a bad idea.

[00:15:48]>> But I also think draw the equivalence between Trump and the Ayatollah or between America's systems and Iranian systems.

[00:15:55]That's why I'm only drawing the equivalence on this narrow point. I can't get into the mind of the Ayatollah. I don't know, you know, what he's going to do or what he thinks. But I'd imagine that if America hadn't been trumping around, trumping around the Middle East for the last 40 years doing all the things that they've done with their interventionism, we probably wouldn't have an enemy uh in Iran. And so I think that if we if Iran had a military base, you know, back to where this all started, if Iran had a military base in Mexico, I think we would be deeply concerned. And if and if Iran came and said, "Hey, you know, we have this military base in Mexico for our own protection, and we actually don't want you to be able to protect ourselves against this at all." We'd be like, "That's crazy." Like, we would never agree to that. And so that and so for Iran, this is existential. And I don't think that >> if Iran were to wake up and like, you know, a genie came down and like gave them a nuke. I don't think they would immediately throw it at America tomorrow and be like, "Have fun." Even if they could, because technologically they don't have the missile range yet.

[00:16:46]>> Are you sure you want to take that risk?

[00:16:48]Um, I think >> as someone who lives here, >> I I I think it depends, I guess, what you think the risk actually is. I think the risk is incredibly small.

[00:16:56]>> Hold on. But have they called directly for death to America?

[00:16:59]>> Sure.

[00:17:00]>> Okay. So now you you would hypothetically in that situation be dealing with a regime which we know and I think could agree on is a radical Islamic dictatorship.

[00:17:08]>> Agreed. We know they called for death to America. Now we know they have nukes.

[00:17:11]>> Sure. But >> that's not a combo that I think anyone in this park wants or in the world.

[00:17:15]>> But would you then say that for America, right? Because if we're going to go based on that because America is a democracy >> and I think America is a force for good.

[00:17:23]>> Consider the factors you've combined.

[00:17:24]You've combined um uh uh >> radical Islamist regime with a threat with what wasn't the Islamic regime necessarily because as we had talked about earlier Pakistan is an Islamic regime and we don't view them nearly as the nuclear threat that we view >> levels of Islamic differentiator that you picked out.

[00:17:40]>> This is probably the most radical Islamist regime in the world. The main differentiator that you picked out was Iran has said death to America like we want to destroy America, >> right?

[00:17:49]>> Also, >> and they've pursued that by funding proxies to the tune of billions of dollars that have directly attacked American interest and killed American service members.

[00:17:57]>> Last week, Donald Trump like said that he was going to like like I don't remember the exact words, extinguish an entire civilization and bomb civilian bridges and and um uh uh electric power plants. So we have nukes. We have a guy who said hey I want to wipe out this civilization if you if you touch me too much. The only difference that you're able to like the only difference left is well one of them is Islamic and one and an Islamic dictatorship and one of them is not. Do you think that there is something fundamental about Islamic dictatorships that makes them uniquely more of a threat to America than other groups? I would say no because I can look at another is and I don't know if I don't know the structure of Pakistan's government. And by the way, I would say a radical Islamic dictatorship is uniquely dangerous to America and Western values 100%.

[00:18:43]>> Right. And so and so and I don't and again because Pakistan exists and because Pakistan has nukes and maybe they're not as radical and I'm not an Islamic theologian. I don't know.

[00:18:52]>> When was the last time Pakistan killed hundreds of American troops?

[00:18:57]>> When was the last time hundreds of American troops were in or around Pakistan? Not >> what do you There there are American bases all around the world.

[00:19:04]>> Sure. But also consider the fact they maybe haven't killed them because they have they have a deterrence mechanism of a nuke that would prevent any massive >> conflict and the hundreds of Americans that were killed were in Lebanon. How far is Lebanon from Iran?

[00:19:17]>> I mean not particularly far.

[00:19:19]>> You have to go no you have to go through the entire point is if we're picking out things in Iran that we find to be particularly concerning and then we map them on to America. The only fundamental difference that we have is an Islamic regime. And maybe >> No, we have the fundamental difference, the Islamic regime and the values that come with that. Absolutely.

[00:19:36]>> But you've been proxying those values onto statements that that that that like leaders and governments have made and we have a government that's made similar statements.

[00:19:44]>> Do you believe that American government, Donald Trump's government, has radically different views around the world that are much better for the world than the Islamic regime? I I think Trump is a like that's a different question. I think America through its history has generally been a force for good. We don't disagree with that. But what I'm saying is that >> has the Islamic since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 has Iran been a force for good?

[00:20:09]>> Well, but also I mean this is like the should is asking me but also the question is who's good? What's good? you know, but on my view is the betterment of your people, their health, their enrichment, and then the world via that.

[00:20:24]>> I'm not and I'm not disputing that, but I think that if you were to like, >> you know, put and again, this is like somewhat of like an impossible thing to do, but like put the Iran hat on for a moment.

[00:20:33]>> You know, I would guess that they that the regime believes they're fighting a war for survival. Um, I obviously there are differences between America and Iran. I just don't know first but I just one sure I think that matters but I just also don't know I think we just perceive the threat of an Islamic regime that is not being like potat for decades on decades on decades you know I don't see that as they are actually going to you know use everything they have to destroy America because America is the strongest military if if Iran dropped the nuke if Pakistan whatever they wouldn't lose they would get wiped I mean like let's be honest um you know maybe Vietnam is the you know exception they're not examples of regimes and people in history who have been willing and are a lot more willing to get themselves wiped out because they are dictators.

[00:21:21]>> But then you think that Iran would have done that already if you thought that they were so radical.

[00:21:25]>> That's the entire point. They don't have nukes, which is the basis of my argument. Do not let them get nukes so they can't do that.

[00:21:29]>> But they also don't need nukes to kill way more people than they have. They like if they were like I think if they were so hellbent on killing as many Americans as possible, they've done a really really bad job at that. Um and so you know like >> or or and maybe this is very possible that the best way to do that is to get nukes. So working towards that >> also possible >> and what if that is the reality and then you don't do this you don't prevent them from getting nukes and then they get nukes and now they can't do that >> and so I think ultimately like logic is great but what really matters is emotions and I have a feel like I just feel that Iran isn't no like isn't such a significant threat that would require the level of engagement that we've had >> when weighed against all of the harms that has happened to the American like all of the like the the the harms that happened to America because of our involvement in this war. Whereas you do like you just see Iran and like you're like, "Yeah, this is clearly like a dangerous regime that shouldn't have a weapon. They will like do everything they can to like harm and kill Americans." And I only think they they do that and I could be wrong, but I only think they do that because America has been poking and poking and poking in and around Iran for 50 or 60 years and longer because America was part of the reason why the Sha got overthrown and why the Iranian revolution happened. Um, I think Iran thinks they're acting in in self-defense and I think in this instance they're right. And I think overall Iran probably has been acting in self-defense. I don't know the whole factual, you know, situation.

[00:22:53]>> I think by the way that comes down to and we got to wrap it up, but the core of the argument is you do not believe in the end of the day that if they use weapons like this or if they get weapons like this, they will actually use them.

[00:23:03]>> Yes.

[00:23:04]>> The only issue is if you're wrong, >> the whole world could be screwed.

[00:23:08]>> Sure. If I'm wrong, the risk and the damage there is a lot lower. And I will say my feeling on that is based on 40 years of history of attacks on Americans being killed is based on the fact, and you cannot counter that out, that it is the most radical Islamist regime in the world and they have called for death to America.

[00:23:25]>> And I think that my response is there's only been one country ever to drop a nuke and that's America. Um, and I also think just briefly, >> and by the way, Japan, which is a great example, how did that war start? Japan, Pearl Harbor. It's >> America didn't wake up one day and decide and you know that.

[00:23:39]>> Yeah. Last I guess brief it's just worth noting like like all the other harms that have come from this war and yes you know don't judge a war until it's over but uh we're $39 trillion in debt.

[00:23:49]America's spending what $2 billion a day on this war you know I think from what I last saw printing money to fund this thing.

[00:23:55]>> Okay.

[00:23:55]>> That's okay.

[00:23:58]>> That was a great conversation.

[00:23:59]>> That was a great conversation. And if you enjoy great conversations just like this subscribe now. Let's do something.