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.

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

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share