Right Web

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

U.S. Public Sceptical and Hawkish on Iran

Despite strong support for diplomatic engagement with Iran, most U.S. citizens believe such efforts will ultimately fail.

Print Friendly

Despite strong support for diplomatic engagement with Iran, most U.S. citizens believe such efforts will ultimately fail and that Washington should be prepared to use military force to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to a new poll released here Tuesday by the Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press.

Sixty-one percent of the 1,500 respondents interviewed by Pew said it was “more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action” than to “avoid military conflict”, according to the survey, which was conducted over a five-day period ending Monday.

At the same time, 63 percent of respondents – an increase of nine percent since last time Pew posed the question, in 2006 – said they approved of Washington negotiating directly with Iran over the future of its nuclear programme, as it began doing last Thursday in Geneva where the two countries held their highest-level public talks in 30 years.

But the poll also found great scepticism that either talks or, for that matter, increased economic sanctions will succeed in dissuading Iran from giving up its nuclear programme.

Sixty-four percent of respondents said they did not believe direct negotiations would work, while a somewhat smaller 56 percent doubted that tougher economic sanctions would have the desired effect.

The survey comes amid a growing debate here over the results of the Oct. 1 Geneva talks between Iran and the so-called P5+1 – the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, including the U.S., and Germany.

Those talks, which included an unprecedented 45-minute tete-a-tete between the Iranian envoy, Saeed Jalili, and U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, produced two key agreements in principle: that Iran will promptly open a recently disclosed nuclear facility near Qom to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); and that it will send most of its growing stockpile of low-enriched uranium that it has developed at its Natanz enrichment facility to Russia and France to be further enriched to produce isotopes for medical purposes.

Most Iran specialists here have praised the results as potential breakthroughs that, if quickly implemented, could defuse growing tensions over Iran’s nuclear programme and repeated threats by Israeli officials to take pre-emptive military action against key facilities to prevent or delay its acquisition of a weapon.

Indeed, the fact that Tehran is willing to export most of its stockpile – which western intelligence agencies believe has grown large enough to theoretically make one bomb – is seen as a major confidence-building measure that would buy more time for the diplomatic track to bear fruit.

The IAEA is supposed to work out the technicalities of the transfer later this month.

But neo-conservatives and other hawks have tried to depict the talks as meaningless, arguing that Tehran is unlikely to comply with any “agreement in principle” and that, in any event, it continues to produce enriched uranium in defiance of Security Council demands dating back three years that it cease.

“Once again, Washington has entered the morass of negotiations with Tehran, giving Iran precious time to refine and expand its nuclear program,” wrote George W. Bush’s far-right U.N. ambassador, John Bolton, in the Wall Street Journal Monday. “We are now even further from eliminating Iran’s threat than before Geneva.”

The hawks, who are concentrated in the so-called “Israel Lobby”, have long argued that Iran is bound and determined to acquire nuclear weapons and thus that negotiations are a waste of time.

They have instead called for Washington to immediately impose “crippling sanctions” against Tehran – some of which are now being considered actively by Congress – as a last resort before taking pre-emptive military action or giving a “green light” to Israel to do so.

The new poll offers ammunition to both sides in the ongoing debate.

On the one hand, it suggests that a strong majority supports Obama’s strategy of diplomatic engagement and that that support is bipartisan. Nearly two out of every three self-identified Democrats and Republicans believe Washington should engage in direct talks with Iran.

But Democrats are more hopeful than Republicans that Washington and its allies will be successful in getting Iran to curb its nuclear programme. Just one out of 10 Republicans believes talks alone will work; the comparable percentage for Democrats is one out of three.

At the same time, nearly eight out of 10 respondents favour tougher economic sanctions against Iran as a source of leverage. Again, the pollsters found little partisan difference either on support for sanctions – 72 percent of Democrats and 81 percent of Republican – or on their likely effectiveness – 57 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats said they doubted that sanctions would work.

The biggest partisan difference was found over the willingness to take military action if neither talks nor sanctions produce the desired effect.

Seventy-one percent of Republicans agreed that it was “more important” to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, “even if it means taking military action”, while 51 percent of Democrats took that position.

Indeed, only three out of 10 Democrats said it was “more important to avoid military conflict, even if Iran may develop nuclear weapons”.

The majority’s willingness to use force to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon stands in marked contrast to survey results during the last years of George W. Bush’s presidency. Pluralities of nearly 50 percent told NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls in 2007 and 2008 that the U.S. “should not initiate military action… if Iran continues with its nuclear research and is close to developing a nuclear weapon.”

In late 2007, a majority of 55 percent of respondents told a Gallup Poll that Washington “should not take military action against Iran… (if) U.S. economic and diplomatic efforts do not work”. Only 34 percent said they thought military action would be appropriate.

The increased public hawkishness toward Iran was also reflected in a the latest in a series of annual surveys of U.S. Jewish opinion released last week by the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

Its survey, which was conducted during the first half of September, found that 56 percent of Jews would support, and 36 percent would oppose, U.S. military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

In its 2008 survey, the AJC found that 47 percent of U.S. Jews were opposed to military action, while 42 percent supported it.

Two-thirds of the 800 Jewish respondents who took part in the latest poll said they would support Israel’s taking military action against Iran, while 28 said they would oppose it.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to PRA’s Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Established in Baltimore in 1897, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) is the oldest Zionist organization in the United States—and also among the most aggressively anti-Arab ones.


U.S. Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Mike Pompeo (R-KS) is a conservative Republican congressman who was voted into office as part of the “tea party” surge in 2011 and chosen by Donald Trump to be director of the CIA.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a 2016 Republican presidential candidate.


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.


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.”


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

President Trump and his Iranophobe supporters are itching for a war with Iran, without any consideration of the disastrous consequences that will ensue.


Print Friendly

The war of words and nuclear threats between the United States and North Korea make a peaceful resolution to the escalating crisis more difficult than ever to achieve.


Print Friendly

The new White House chief of staff, retired Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, is anything but non-partisan or apolitical. For the deeply conservative Kelly, the United States is endangered not only by foreign enemies but by domestic forces that either purposely, or unwittingly, support them.


Print Friendly

The prospects of Benjamin Netanyahu continuing as Israel’s prime minister are growing dim. But for those of us outside of Israel who support the rights of Palestinians as well as Israelis and wish for all of those in the troubled region to enjoy equal rights, the fall of Netanyahu comes too late to make much difference.


Print Friendly

Rich Higgins, the recently fired director for strategic planning at the National Security Council, once said in an interview on Sean Hannity’s radio program, that “more Muslim Americans have been killed fighting for ISIS than have been killed fighting for the United States since 9/11.”


Print Friendly

This is how the Trump administration could try to use the IAEA to spur Iran to back out of the JCPOA.


Print Friendly

President Trump seems determined to go forward with a very hostile program toward Iran, and, although a baseless US pullout from the JCPOA seems unlikely, even the so-called “adults” are pushing for a pretext for a pullout. Such an act does not seem likely to attract European support. Instead, it will leave the United States isolated, break the nuclear arrangement and provide a very reasonable basis for Iran to restart the pursuit of a nuclear deterrent in earnest.


RightWeb
share