« India’s US Ambassador & ‘Headless Chickens’
If Kurds Turn Backs On Iraqi Unity, Turks Will Be Only the First to Invade »
Zogby: 52 Percent Would Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran
As we noted here, Iran is becoming a huge political campaign issue — and a Zogby poll now suggests that public support for a military strike against it is growing.
And the candidate voters polled seem to feel is best equipped to deal with Iran? New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
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 develop 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.
So once again, with splits among other segments, largely-cohesive Republican support in essence helps create a coalition that outnumbers the others.
When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran – regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran – 21% would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15% would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14% would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge.
Another 10% said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5%), Democrat John Edwards (4%) and Republican Mitt Romney (3%) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran. The telephone poll of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted Oct. 24-27, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.
Clinton leads strongly among Democrats on the issue, with 35% saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17% would prefer Obama and 7% view John Edwards as the best choice. Giuliani is the top choice of Republicans (28%), followed by McCain (21%) and Fred Thompson (9%). One in five independents chose Clinton (21%) over McCain (16%) and Giuliani (11%).
Clinton was the top choice among women (24%), while 14% would be more confident with Giuliani in the White House and 11% would prefer McCain. Men slightly prefer McCain (18%) to Clinton (17%) on this issue, while 15% said Giuliani is best equipped to deal with Iran. The survey also shows there is a significant amount of uncertainty if any of the long list of declared candidates would be best equipped to deal the Iran – 19% overall said they weren’t sure which candidate to choose.
The bottom line: Iran will continue to be an issue that will likely grow not necessarily because of candidates’ pronouncements or even the attitude in the White House but by the statements and behavior of the government of Iran. Which — if past behavior and statements are any indication — means it could be a major issue by Election Day…with or without a military strike.
10 Responses to “Zogby: 52 Percent Would Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran”
[...] Clark Zogby: 52 Percent Would Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
Let me take this further into the future, hypothetically.
Let’s consider the fact that the majority of Americans (much greater, as I recall, than 52%) supported the initial invasion of Iraq, but that over 60% now think it was a “mistake” (oopsie daisy, sorry about your lost loved ones!). If we consider the fact that Iraq is a joy ride compared to the kind of hell Iran would be, and the fact that our military is in much worse conditions now than before the Iraq war, what do you suppose the proportion of Americans would think that the IRAN war was a “mistake” when we’re 4 years in and no end in sight…with many more thousands dead and our ability to defend ourselves shot to hell and beyond?
Unless we literally found nuclear warheads nearly ready to be launched, I wouldn’t put the “oopsie!” opinion below 75%. I leave 25% in doubt as there are still people who actually think we found WMDs in Iraq.
If this poll is true, the American people are woefully ignorant. Do people not know the consequences of a military strike against Iran? I assume this is a matter of wording, because there’s no way as many as 41% of Democrats WANT a military strike against Iran. If it’s mentioned as a last resort then i could see support creeping this high.
pfft, thinking what things would be like 4 years from now, are you some sorta queer, Lynx, you frenchie? I can smell your cheese and sodomy from over here! Don’t question!
Seriously, I was opposed to Iraq when we thought we were going to win, not just when things turned bad. I’m opposed to Iran now for the same reasons. But looking at Iraq, so many of the problems go back to dissolving their army, a decision that makes me really think the Bushies wanted to create a huge mess (oil, guns, profit, duh).
The mismanagement of Iraq does not prove to me that our forces are incapable to fighting the Iranians, especially the Iranians that come across the Iraq border in a counter-attack to our bombing. That doesn’t mean we could handle it, either, just that a guerrilla rebellion and “normal” troops are two different ball-games. On the other hand (again), it’s fair to say the Iranians probably know that, and will fight accordingly. So it probably comes down to a question of Iran’s ability to fight a guerrilla war.
What are the criteria for “success” in Iran? Are we just going to try to kill a bunch of people and destroy their infrastructure? The Israelis mauled Lebanon two summers ago, but Hezbollah was basically intact, psychologically heros. Assuming a similar result, an attack on Iran would do little to decrease insurgent attacks on our troops in Iraq (not to imply that Iran’s responsible for the insurgency), but it may well cripple their economy and nuclear program.
The result Dick Cheney would mostly hope for, I believe, is that a war on Iran would force the Ayatollah to open up his country on our terms, and use his oil money to buy reconstruction services from Western multinationals, consolidating our influence in the heart of Eurasia, in addition to making a bunch of money for Dick’s buddies.
How things would actually turn out is anybody’s guess. As Jello Biafra observed, regime change is a game of russian roulette. The real problem is that most Americans think this sort of murderous, greedy, power-hungry bullshit is A-OK.
People have stopped talking about it, but a huge reason we were in Iraq before we realized it was because we were angry. We wanted revenge. That’s a horrible reason to start a war, but looking at this poll, a douche-bag like Ahmadi-Nejad talking shit is also enough for us to support another war! This is a problem with the moral constitution of the American people, our leaders are a reflection of that.
All this bloodshed is a stupid game played by the rich, for the rich, devouring our boys, their hands and eyes and brains, and causing untold grief to victim civilians, who grow up twisted and violent. We’ve been trying for millennia to end war by winning wars. Peace is the only answer. I’m not naive, I understand the need for self defense, but what’s going on is nothing of the sort. We’re going to pay for being so bloodthirsty, either here, or in the hereafter.
Interesting, alarming or controversial poll results are an advertisement for the pollster. I’m not suggesting it’s done on purpose, but the way many polls are set up, the results are guaranteed to be eye-catching and ambiguous at the same time.
If there is such eagerness to attack Iran, why is Clinton ahead of Giuliani as the best able to deal with Iran? Giuliani sounds like he’s ready to attaack yesterday, while Clinton is tough, but more equivocating. That suggests to me that supporit for an air-strikes includes at least some element of caution.
Most glaringly, the poll didn’t specify the conditions for an air strike. Now? When Iran has produced a bomb? Without an all out diplomatic effort, first?
These polls are a bad business, because they give the impression of providing factual information when, in fact, they are providing very ambiguous information.
Yet the results influence people’s thinking – and the results of the next poll.
I
I hope those 52% are willing to send their children to do the fighting.
[...] hand-picked favorite blogger reactions, H/T to MemeOrandum: The Van Der Galiën Gazette; The Moderate Voice; Don Surber (Right); PoliBlog [...]
why do people want to go to war so much. could the people that support war will never go and fight?
The thing to remember is that a similar margin supported Operation Iraqi Freedom before they realized that
there was no plan for the post-invasion
there was no mushroom cloud
we weren’t greeted as liberators
Iraqi oil was never going to pay for reconstruction
the war was always more about Iraqi oil than Iraqi freedom
there was no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein
[...] add a few more goodies like this, this, this and that. Then, let’s shake it [...]