Right Web

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

Survey Shows Strong Majority Support for Obama Approach on Iran

According to a new poll, a strong majority of the U.S. public supports a nuclear agreement with Iran in line with what the Obama administration has been negotiating for.

Print Friendly

LobeLog

According to a new poll, a strong majority of the U.S. public supports an agreement that would limit Iran’s enrichment capacity and impose highly intrusive inspections on Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. The survey was released Tuesday as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to persuade Congress to derail such a deal.

The poll, conducted by the Program for Public Consultation and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland during the third week in February, gave its more than 700 respondents pro and con arguments for various positions surrounding the P5+1 negotiations. Then it posed a series of questions about the opinions.

After receiving all of the arguments and answering the preliminary questions, the respondents were given a final policy option and asked which they considered more persuasive.

[1.] Continue to pursue a long-term agreement that limits Iran’s enrichment of uranium. Iran would accept intrusive inspections of their program, while the US would accept Iran enriching to the low level necessary for nuclear energy, and would gradually ease some sanctions provided that Iran sticks to the agreement.

[2.] Do not negotiate an agreement that includes Iran having limited enrichment, but rather impose new sanctions on other countries to get them to cut their economic relations with Iran to pressure Iran to agree to completely stop all uranium enrichment.

Overall, 61% of respondents chose the first option, while 36% favored the second. Interestingly, self-described independents were more inclined to choose the second option than were Republicans. Thus, 61% of Republicans opted for the first approach, while only 54% of independents agreed. Two-thirds of Democrats took the first approach.

Conversely, 32% of Democrats chose the second option as did only 35% of Republicans. Forty-two percent of independents opted for the second approach.

Among other demographic details, respondents who watched Christian cable channels tended to be much more supportive of the second option than the first. That was also applied, albeit to a much lesser extent, to people who watched Fox News.

The arguments made in the poll are very well presented, having been vetted in advance by both advocates and foes of a deal.

The survey also covers attitudes toward Netanyahu over the last three months, finding that he himself has become an increasingly partisan figure in U.S. politics.

The analysis and methodology of the survey are available on-line, as are the actual questions and answers as given by various demographic groups.

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