Right Web

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

Survey Shows Strong Majority Support for Obama Approach on Iran

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

The brainchild of Sears-Roebuck heiress Nina Rosenwald, the Gatestone Institute is a New York-based advocacy organization formerly chaired by John Bolton that is notorious for spreading misinformation about Muslims and advocating extremely hawkish views on everything from Middle East policy to immigration.


Conrad Black is a former media mogul closely connected to rightist political factions in the United States who was convicted in July 2007 for fraud and obstruction of justice and later pardoned by his friend President Trump.


David Friedman is U.S. Ambassador to Israel under Donald Trump. He is known for his extreme views on Israel, which include opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state and support for Israeli settlements.


Jason Greenblatt is the Special Representative for International Negotiations for President Donald Trump primarily working on the Israel-Palestine conflict.


The neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies has re-established itself as a primary driver of hawkish foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, during the Trump administration.


Rupert Murdoch is the head of News Corp, the parent company of Fox News, and a long-time supporter of neoconservative campaigns to influence U.S. foreign policy.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

A series of escalations in both word and deed have raised fears of U.S.-Iranian military confrontation, either direct or by proxy. It is urgent that cooler heads prevail – in European capitals as in Tehran and Washington – to head off the threat of a disastrous war.


Vladimir Putin excels at taking advantage of mistakes made by Russia’s adversaries to further his country’s interests. Donald Trump’s Iran policy has given Putin plenty of opportunity to do that.


The Trump administration’s claims about purported Iranian threats have been repeated by credulous reporters and TV news programs far and wide.


This is the cartoon that the international edition of the New York Times should have run, at least as regards U.S. policy toward Iran.


The assault on Tripoli by Khalifa Haftar, Libya’s renegade general and leader of the self-anointed Libyan National Army (LNA), has forced an indefinite postponement of key UN peace efforts in the country even as the Trump White House announced that the president recognized Haftar’s “important” role in fighting terrorists.


With all eyes focused these days on Donald Trump and his myriad crimes, John Bolton’s speeches are a reminder that even worse options are waiting in the wings.


Advocates of cutting U.S. aid to Israel rather than using it as leverage must understand how this aid works, how big a challenge it represents for advocacy, and how to make a potentially successful argument against it.


RightWeb
share