Via Zogby: Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran
A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.
It is utterly stunning that, after the great difficulties we have clearly faced in Iraq (a situation far from finished, by the way), that an absolute majority would favor a strike on Iran at this time. Even if we assume that the die-hard 25%-30% who still approve of the way the President is doing his job also are in favor of such a strike, where do the other 27%-22% come from to get the pro-strike total to 52%?
Clearly much of this is driven by simple fear and by the clear war-mongering over Iranian nuclear ambitions by the administration and several of the presidential candidates. Still, one would think that the WMD-that-failed-to-be, amongst other issues in Iraq, would given the public more pause on this topic.
Sphere: Related Content
October 30th, 2007 at 7:38 am
The rest of the poll says:
/* Democrats (63%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%).
*/
So the people who believe a strike against Iran is likely would not support it. And the ones who would support it, don’t think it will really happen. It’s easy to support something you don’t think will happen. I would support drastically reducing the size of government and passing a balanced budget amendment; but I don’t think either will happen in my lifetime.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Remember, most people think of a “strike” as a missle hitting a base somewhere - like Israel hitting Syria. No one minds the quick and dirty “Nintendo war” - they just don’t want to hear about any deaths.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Dr. Taylor,
With out endorsing the idea we should bomb Iran I would like to point out that just because something could be difficult doesn’t mean it is still not the right thing to do. Hostile action against Iran could be very messy but how messy would it be for Iran to possess nuclear weapons? The American people may just see it that way.
I hardly see this as “war-mongering”. Iran has been and continues to be a de-stabilizing force in the region and will be even more so given the power of such weapons.
I must also take issue with “WMD-that-failed-to-be” statement. The Clinton administration stated those weapons existed and most western intelligence agencies accepted they existed. If a child will not show you what’s in his hand behind his back you can logically assume he is hiding something. If there is a history of hiding illicit materials you can be even more sure. The WMD justification for war stands the test of logic.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:43 am
I agree it would be a bad idea at this time, but the international community has to step up. We all know that Israel will not stand for Iran with a nuke and most likely will be the first to strike. I pray this is not the case.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Steve,
When the President says things like it will lead to WWIII if the Iran gets a nuke, I would consider that “war-mongering” as well as numerous things the Veep has said.
The issue is not whether or not it would be “difficult” but rather that it would be an unmitigated disaster.
In re: the WMDs, it wasn’t just Clinton, I fully believed he had them. However that doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t.
October 30th, 2007 at 11:15 am
[...] Some hand-picked favorite blogger reactions, H/T to MemeOrandum: The Van Der Galiën Gazette; The Moderate Voice; Don Surber (Right); PoliBlog (TM) [...]
October 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
The only thing this proves is how brainwashed “A majority of likely voters” are by corporate media.
The question is when will the focus of protests shift from protesting in Washington DC, to protesting at your local TV stations, networks.
I wonder if they would answer the same way, if they were constantly told that bombing Iran, would bring nukes from Russia and China upon the United States?
I wonder if they would still poll the same if they knew who would profit from a conventional war in Iran?
The only things that have come from this “Fake war on terror” are profits for corporations, the destruction of the constitution, corruption at the highest level of government, and death.
What we really need is for oath breakers who swore an oath of office to be jailed for life. The Constitution to be restored.
For electronics to be removed from counting votes. The Federal Reserve to be de-activated. For campaigns to be public financed. For media a fairness doctrine. For corporations to not have the same rights as people. Our military brought home. The Cafta, Nafta, and North American Security and Prosperity Partnership dissolved.
And what’s with all these polls? Most are rigged, nobody asked my opinion, or my neighbors, most of the people that answer these polls are either brainwashed by propaganda, or bots hidden behind proxies to rig the results.
Already polls are controlling the next election.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
The imperialist consensus hasn’t been seriously eroded by Iraq. This is a sick country.
And I still do not understand how smart people could have thought there was a “WMD” threat from Iraq.
No one should take offense from that. I mean it literally. I just honestly do not understand.
October 30th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
We are a sorry country that so many of us can be manipulated so easy (not that i wasn’t the first time around with iraq). Its not just human blood, we are bleeding money like crazy in Iraq. Its a terrible investment, BTW.
whoever “Steve Plunk” is above me is also hopeless. the lack-of-WMDs snafu was utter idiocy on the part of our government. we are smarter and can do better than that.
if this iran-war-mongering continues, its going to be the last ditch attempt to get another republican elected president.
if reagan were alive, he would personally take down all these idiots in office.
October 30th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
[...] Speaking of bombing Iran, Norman Podhoretz argued on the Newshour last night that opposing such an attack is to be equated with appeasing Hitler (indeed, towards the end of the clip, he specifically cites Munich). [...]
October 30th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
[...] Speaking of bombing Iran, Norman Podhoretz argued on the Newshour last night that opposing such an attack is to be equated with appeasing Hitler (indeed, towards the end of the clip, he specifically cites Munich). [...]
October 30th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
[...] Zogby poll - Bomb Iran! Does this scare the crap out of anyone but me? Bomb Iran, majority of Americans says in new poll Despite President Bush’s perpetually abysmal approval ratings, it appears his increasingly hostile rhetoric against Iran has drummed up enough fear of a "nuclear holocaust" or a World War III that a majority of Americans are in favor of a US strike against the country aimed a curtailing its apparent nuclear ambitions, a new poll shows. The Zogby International survey shows 52 percent of Americans would support a strike on Iran, while 53 percent expect President Bush to launch such an attack before the end of his second term. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is voters’ No. 1 choice to deal with Iran, with 21 percent saying they would like to see her take on Tehran from the White House. Republican Rudy Giuliani was voters’ second choice, with 15 percent. Just 29 percent of Americans think the US should not attack Iran, with one in five people unsure about military action. Of those who would support a strike, 28 percent believe military action should wait until the next president is in office, while 23 percent want to see Bush let lose US missiles against Iran. The poll results were viewed with a "Here we go again" attitude from bloggers chagrined at the apparent lack of lessons learned by Americans as the war launched against another hostile Middle Eastern regime stretches towards its fifth year. "It is utterly stunning that, after the great difficulties we have clearly faced in Iraq (a situation far from finished, by the way), that an absolute majority would favor a strike on Iran at this time," writes Dr. Steven Taylor at PoliBlog. "Even if we assume that the die-hard 25%-30% who still approve of the way the President is doing his job also are in favor of such a strike, where do the other 27%-22% come from to get the pro-strike total to 52%?" The support for an Iranian strike coincides with substantial fears of further terrorist attacks demonstrated in the Zogby poll. More than two-thirds of Americans (68 percent) believe another terrorist attack is likely on US soil and nearly one-in three believe such a strike will come before 2010. Polls conducted prior to the invasion of Iraq showed larger majorities of Americans in favor of military action, and around 80 percent of Americans believed Iraq posed a threat to the United States in late 2002 and early 2003. Don Surber, blogging for West Virginia’s Charleston Daily Mail compared the speculation over a strike on Iran to another showdown over nuclear proliferation nearly half a century ago. "I was in grade school when the Cuban Missile Crisis happened 45 Octobers ago. I was gung-ho for taking Castro out. Wiser heads prevailed — in the Soviet Union as well as the United States," he writes. "The security of the world rests on American shoulders. I’d bet against a military strike. There are enough wiser heads on both sides." __________________ "I fully understand those who say you can’t win this thing militarily. That’s exactly what the United States military says, that you can’t win this military." –George W. Bush, on Iraq, Washington, D.C., Oct. 17, 2007 [...]
November 1st, 2007 at 2:01 am
[...] “It is utterly stunning that, after the great difficulties we have clearly faced in Iraq (a situation far from finished, by the way), that an absolute majority would favor a strike on Iran at this time,” writes Dr. Steven Taylor at PoliBlog. “Even if we assume that the die-hard 25%-30% who still approve of the way the President is doing his job also are in favor of such a strike, where do the other 27%-22% come from to get the pro-strike total to 52%?” [...]
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Look again, people. The question isn’t “Do you support a military strike on Iran?” The question is “Would you support a strike on Iran TO PREVENT THEM ACQUIRING NUCLEAR WEAPONS?” To quote: “A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran FROM BUILDING A NUCLEAR WEAPON.” (Emphasis mine.) That casts the poll in a whole different light. To rephrase: Would you prefer that Iran got the bomb, or that the US bombed Iran to stop it happening? I’m frankly surprised that only 52% of people would prefer a US strike on Iran to nuclear warheads under the control of Ahmadinejad and his ilk, who don’t really care about mutually assured destruction and want to “wipe Israel off the map” according to Ahmadinejad. If Zogby had said that “52% of voters support a U.S. military strike on Iran at this time” then your complaints would be valid, but right now you’re twisting the poll results despite having taken the effort to quote them.
Myself, I’m not sure about bombing Iran - I don’t know enough to determine for myself whether Iran is developing nukes, or just nuclear energy, or what. But I would support a strike on Iran to prevent their acquisition of a nuke. THAT’S where the dissonance appears.
Max Lybbert: If you thought it was likely that a balanced budget and a smaller government would happen, would you oppose it? Your analogy is inapplicable, sad to say.