A new Pew poll finds that a solid majority (61 percent) of Americans would support the use of force if that is necessary to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Just 24 percent say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with iran, even if that means Iran gets the bomb.
I find this troubling. What do you think?
Most Americans, including most Republicans, approve of the Pres. Obama’s new policy of direct engagement with Iran to try to prevent the larger confrontation, but, other than Democrats, Repubs and independents are pessimistic that the talks will do the job.
Here’s the full text of the email from Pew chief Andrew Kohut announcing the poll result:
The public approves of direct negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, although most Americans are not hopeful the talks will succeed. And a strong majority – 61% – says that it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action. Far fewer (24%) say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, if it means that the country may develop nuclear weapons.
There is broad willingness across the political spectrum to use military force to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Seven-in-ten Republicans (71%) and two-thirds of independents (66%) say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action. Fewer Democrats (51%) express this view; still, only about three-in-ten Democrats (31%) say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, if it means Tehran may develop nuclear weapons.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds substantial public support for non-military strategies aimed at persuading Iran from going ahead with its nuclear program. Yet there is considerable skepticism that these efforts – tougher international sanctions as well as direct talks with Iran – would succeed in getting Iran to drop its nuclear program.
More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) approve of the United States negotiating directly with Iran over the issue of its nuclear program, while 28% oppose such talks. Yet a clear majority (64%) says they will not work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program, compared with just 22% who say they will work.
The public also overwhelmingly approves of tougher economic sanctions against Iran; fully 78% approve, while just 12% disapprove. But again, most Americans (56%) say that tougher economic sanctions would not work in getting Iran to drop its nuclear program.
And here’s a link to the full poll writeup.
Polls, while significant, change to fit the facts on hand.
It seems to me that these results reflect the present state of concern about Iran’s plans and possible intentions, as well as concern about Russia and China allowing meaningful sanctions. I share this concern.
Presently open questions, however, focus on whether Iran will do what it said and allow truly open inspections of its nuclear facilities. If it does, I suspect the numbers here will change, and perhaps reverse.
Also open to question would be the nature of the military intervention, and the likelihood that Israel would act unilaterally if we did not intervene.
What do I think? I think the steady stream of anti-Iran propaganda fueled by Israel’s fear (not knowledge)that Iran might SOMEDAY develop a bomb and use it on Israel bears a frightening similarity to the anti-Iraq hysteria that arose when its weapons-of-mass-destruction-that-did-not-exist fooled not just the Congress and many citizens, but even Colin Powell.
Our 2007 NIE agreed with the IAEA’s inspectors that Iran had no weapons development program. That intelligence seems never to have been contradicted until information from “a foreign intelligence source” showed up recently. Fishy, I’d say.
Iran’s government might be repressive, but it has not attacked or invaded another country for well over 200 years. Why would it commit suicide by using a bomb (IF it had one) on Israel and then wait for the retaliatory bombs to fall on Tehran?
The media do not spend enough time talking to the IAEA, to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, and scholars like William Beeman, head of the U’s Dept. of Anthropology and expert on Iran.
And of course the question that they did not ask was:
What percentage of the respondents thought that Iran was or would be capable of attacking the United
States with nuclear weapons.
I just don’t see how Israel could physically do it as long as the Americans are in Iraq. Hitting Iran is a tough mission to begin with for Israeli aircraft. It would probably be impossible for Israeli aircraft to hit Iran without passing through Iraqi airspace — and they could not do that without the Americans knowing and being able to stop them. Thus the U.S. government would be seen by Iraqis and others as an accomplice of the Israeli attack. The fallout of such a bombing would make life in Iraq very difficult for more than 130,000 U.S. troops, even before the Iranians embarked upon a course of retaliation that probably would include stepping up roadside bombings of U.S. forces.
Rather, I think the real danger time for Iran is when, if ever, we get U.S. troops out of Iraq. Then the coast will be clear for those Israeli refueling tankers and F-15s. What’s more, we no longer will have 130,000 U.S. hostages in Iraq susceptible to Iranian violence, so the U.S. could join Israel in stepping up the pressure.
Thanks for so artfully illustrating the irrelevance of polls in the conduct of foreign affairs.
Everyone, please read the October 6 article by Gareth Porter (historian/journalist) entitled, “Leaked Iran Paper Based on Intel That Split IAEA,” at either ipsnews.net or commondreams.org.
In part: “Contrary to sensational stories by the Associated Press and The New York Times, the excerpts on the website of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) reveal that the IAEA’s Safeguards Department, which wrote the report, only has suspicions — not real evidence — that Iran has been working on nuclear weapons in recent years.
“The newly published excerpts make it clear, morever, that the so-called “Alleged Studies” documents brought to the attention of the agency by the United States five years ago are central to its assertion that Iran had such a program in 2002-2003.
Whether these documents are genuine or were fabricated has been the subject of a fierce struggle behind the scens for many months between two departments of the IAEA.”
WHICH MAKES ME THINK THE DARK-SIDE QUESTION TO ASK DICK CHENEY ET AL. IS:
Did PNAP dream up and deliver to the IAEA what it hoped would “justify” an invasion of Iran just as the phony WMD “justified” our invasion of Iraq?
I note from a couple of sources that the Pentagon has requested funding for the accelerated development of giant “blockbuster” bombs that can destroy facilities up to 200 feet below ground. I further understand that the funding has received authorization from the Obama administration.
I wonder what use they might have in mind…
John–
I seem to recall that the Pentagon claimed to use that sort of weapon in the first invasion of Iraq. I suppose this is a new and improved one. And there are many possible uses, including Bin Laden in a cave with a candlestick.
BTW — who are your sources in the Pentagon?
Paul,
I have no sources in the Pentagon, and did not claim any. Please read my post again.
Within the past week I have spotted a reference to this funding request and approval in, I believe, the Pioneer Press, and then in an article in the November Popular Mechanics, of all places.
There seems no reason to believe either source is lying or spinning. It’s just factual reporting.