Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran
Bush still has it when he wants it, at least on foreign affairs:
Most see Clinton as the presidential candidate best equipped to deal with Iran, followed by Giuliani and McCain—but many express uncertainty
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.
The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.
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%). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58%) are more likely than men (48%) to say the same – but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.
American war policy post-World War 2 has been consistent: early hopes of a complete victory, then moving on to a successful spoiling of our enemies. North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq I, Kosovo, Iraq II all end with a primary enemy identified and forced to take enormous losses such that further expansion is impossible. This sets up the field for what comes next. If we decide to go to war with Iran, what happens next probably won't be a liberal democracy, but it will also be enormously costly for their Islamic Revolution.
Hat-tip to Democratic Underground.
Used to be 57% in Feb. http://www.shloky.com/?p=514
Posted by: SV | Wednesday, October 31, 2007
The poll you links to refers to another question -- those who believe an attack will happen. The 52% I referred to refers to those who believe an attack should happen.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Color me surprised.
Posted by: Adrian | Wednesday, October 31, 2007
An attack by us may be costly to the Iranians, but what would the cost be to us? The Iranian government gets to play heros and martyrs, the perception of an American crusade against Islam grows stronger and our troops in Iraq and Afganistan find themselves dealing with Iranian Irregulars as well as Iranian weapons.
We're better off supporting the smaller governments in the ME, drawing them into our orbit as opposed to that of the Saudis or Iranians. Combine that with elimination or co-option of Iran's and Saudi's non-state puppets and policies of economic and cultural openness to both states to gradually force their energies inward and speed reform.
Posted by: Michael | Wednesday, October 31, 2007
While I disagree with some the course that the Administration has taken since the war, we face reality as it is: Iran wants a nuclear bomb, and if the Persian state gets one, every Arab countries will feel the need to defend itself... hence the rumblings about programs in Saudi Arabia, Egypt (and even Syria!).
Abandoning our alliance with Saudi Arabia, whatever its merits immediately after 9/11, now is impractical. Unable to defend herself from Iran, her only option would be an alliance between the Kingdom and the Islamic Republic.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Dan, your view of reality may very well be true. The question is, will a preventive attack on Iran's nuclear sites do anything other than inflame the Middle East and cement the Muslim community (1.5 billion people) opinion against the United States, drive oil prices above $120/barrel, and increase the loss of troops and material in Iraq? And then, since we're not going to invade Iran (unless we've got very seriously disturbed leaders), Iran can restart its nuclear weapons program and redouble its efforts, since it won't have to worry about pesky nonproliferation inspectors.
Abizaid was right - we can deal with a nuclear Iran, just as we've dealt with nuclear Russia, China, India, and Pakistan. Leaping to the Israeli solution is not the best course of action nor is it the only one.
Posted by: J. | Thursday, November 01, 2007
"The question is, will a preventive attack on Iran's nuclear sites do anything"
Yes: turn the regional correlation of forces further from the Islamic Republic. 
We've done the same, over and over again.
The time where it makes sense from an American perspective to support a truly Persian gulf region is past.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, November 01, 2007
I though it was going to be a while until a Military strike took place again in Iraq, within that 52 percent is Americans like me whom relatives were maybe killed in Iraq.
Posted by: Viagra Online Without prescription | Thursday, July 29, 2010