Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Iranians Losing Confidence in U.S. Compliance with JCPOA

Polls Indicate that Iranian public is losing confidence that the United States will abide by the terms of the landmark nuclear deal.

Print Friendly

LobeLog

The Iranian public is losing confidence that the United States will abide by the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), according to the latest in a series of polls undertaken by the Center for International and Security Studies (CISSM) at the University of Maryland.

The new poll, the first taken by CISSM since last month’s parliamentary elections, found widespread and broad-based support for President Hassan Rouhani. Sixty-three percent of respondents said that they voted for candidates who support Rouhani, while only 22% said that they voted for his critics.

The survey was conducted among a representative sample of 1,005 Iranians contacted by telephone between March 3 and March 13. It followed an earlier poll conducted February 15-24 on the eve of the first round of election. The telephone calls, which included some 30 questions, were placed from Toronto. They both had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2%.

Perhaps the most worrisome finding was a decline in enthusiasm for the JCPOA and in public confidence that Washington will live up to its commitments. Although overall approval of the JCPOA remains strong at 71%, the percentage of respondents who said that they “strongly” approved of the deal has fallen steadily from a high of 43% in August (a few weeks after the JCPOA between the P5+1 and Iran was concluded) to 27% in the latest survey.

Confidence that the U.S. will abide by the deal has also slipped—from 45% in a September survey by the Gallup organizations to 29%, according to CISSM. Although 41% of respondents said in September that they were either “not very” or “not at all” confident about Washington’s compliance, the new poll found that figure had risen to 66%. The pollsters did not probe the reasons for the increase in skepticism, although it may relate either to the continuing imposition of sanctions as well as coverage of the election campaign here.

Nonetheless, both the decline in support for the JCPOA and the skepticism about U.S. compliance may account for a decline in enthusiasm for Rouhani, according to CISSM. Although his favorability rating remains extraordinarily high—84% in the current poll—those respondents who say they have a “very favorable” view of the president have fallen from 61% last August to 40% this month.

This decline may also be related to views of the economy, according to CISSM’s analysis. In a poll taken last May, 54% agreed with the proposition that the country’s economic situation was good. Only 46% say that now. At the same time, 52% are optimistic that the economy is improving, as opposed to a third who said it is it is getting worse.

Consistent with Rouhani’s view, a large majority (64%) said that they favored increasing economic engagement with western countries. That included 54% of self-described critics of Rouhani. Nonetheless, a larger number (58%) continue to put a higher priority on achieving economic self-sufficiency—a quest repeatedly stressed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—than increasing trade with other countries, which is seen as a priority by only 36% of Iranians.

Many of the questions directed at respondents were designed to probe their identification with various political tendencies that will be represented in the new parliament. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said that they actually cast ballots in the election.

As expected, support for Rouhani was concentrated mainly among those who voted for Reformist and independent candidates, although 50% of respondents who voted for candidates from the conservative Principlist group said that they supported the president. Thirty-three percent of respondents said that they voted for candidates they believed were Reformist, 35% said that they voted for those they believed were Principlists, and 24% said that they voted for independents.

Sixty-one percent of pro-Principlist voters, 81% of pro-Reformist voters, and 71% of voters for independents said that they supported the JCPOA.

As to the election itself, 44% said that they considered it “very free and fair,” while another 39% said that they were “somewhat” free and fair. Asked about their satisfaction with the range of candidates they were able to vote for— the Guardian Council disqualified about 45% of the 12,000 candidates who filed to run for office—31% said that they were “very satisfied,” 39% said they were “somewhat satisfied,” and 17% expressed dissatisfaction.

The survey found majority support for Iran’s increasing its assistance to groups fighting the Islamic State (63%) and to the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (51%). The poll also found strong support (86.5%) for collaborating with other countries to end the civil war in Syria, although only 46% said that they approved of Iran’s collaborating with the U.S. in helping the Iraqi government in fighting the Islamic State. In August, 58% favored such cooperation.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share