http://hotair.com/archives/ 2015/03/06/poll-majority-want- to-use-force-to-prevent-iran- from-getting-the-bomb/
Poll: Majority want to use force to prevent Iran from getting the bomb
POSTED AT 10:41 AM ON MARCH 6, 2015 BY NOAH ROTHMAN
The
term “shock poll” is thrown around so often that it has lost its meaning. It has
become more commonly applied to revelations in public opinion surveys that are
anything but shocking. A recent Fox News survey, however, certainly deserves to
be dubbed a “shock poll.” The revelations contained within its release were
positively stunning.
According
to the latest
Fox News survey, Americans do not believe that the administration has been
aggressive enough in its effort to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear bomb.
More than eight in ten Americans say that the prospective deal that the Obama
administration is pursuing with Iran is a bad one. Most think President Barack
Obama is a weak negotiator and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s
speech before a joint session of Congress was a blessing. Finally, a majority –
nearly two-thirds – think that the United States should be willing to use
military force in order to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Some 55 percent think it would be “a disaster” if Iran were to obtain the capability to use nuclear weapons, while 40 percent sees it as “a problem that can be managed.” Those sentiments are unchanged from 2010.There’s a huge gap between Democrats and Republicans on how worrisome an Iran with nukes would be. By a 10 percentage-point margin, Democrats are more likely to say it’s a problem that could be managed (51 percent) over a disaster (41 percent). Republicans, by a 42-point margin, say a nuclear Iran would be a disaster (70-28 percent).Overall, two-thirds of voters (65 percent) favor the U.S. using military action, if necessary, to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Just 28 percent are opposed.To varying degrees, majorities of Republicans (81 percent), Democrats (54 percent) and independents (53 percent) agree on using force to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
That
level of consensus is surprising primarily because it is not reflected in the
political press. The center-left media is allergic to the notion that military
force against Iran would ever be justified, not to mention the fact that most
appear to believe that strikes on Iran would not prevent it from achieving
breakout status. In fact, the left’s prominent voices are more apt to side with
Obama over members of their own party in Congress on the issue of renewed
sanctions on Iran. Many in the center-left media agree with Obama’s contention
that the imposition of a tripwire consisting of new sanctions should nuclear
negotiations fail would only hasten the collapse of those talks.
Can
the political press and the liberal intelligentsia really be that out of touch
with their constituency? Well, those on the left would argue that this survey’s
question wording was designed to elicit the responses that it generated.
“Do
you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran if
that were the only way to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?” pollsters
with Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) asked
respondents. Some would say that this question is poorly worded and it is
not surprising that it generated a hawkish response from respondents. There will
always be options short of force which the left will claim might still prevent
Iran’s nuclearization, and they will make that contention right up until the
seismographs spike and an Iranian peak on the outskirts of Qom rumbles to life
with nuclear fire.
That’s
not the only poorly worded question from the left’s point of view. “Do you think
it’s a good idea or a bad idea to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons 10 years
from now in return for it agreeing that it won’t obtain nuclear weapons before
then?” respondents were asked. Even the Obama administration would agree that
this is a suboptimal proposition. According to the terms the public has been
privy to, a sunset clause would allow Iran to again begin
enriching Uranium gradually over the course of the final five years of a
prospective deal. Critics of the proposed accord would contend that this is
a distinction without a difference, but that concedes that there is a
distinction.
Moreover,
critics of this poll will argue that survey respondents are inconsistent. Only
55 percent say that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a “disaster” while 40 percent
say that is an issue that can be managed. That’s not consistent with the 65
percent who say force would be needed to prevent a nuclear breakout.
So,
maybe the public isn’t as hawkish as they are portrayed by this survey when it
comes to Iran, but they are not pacifists either. Taken in conjunction with the
new revelation that a majority of the public wants to send
ground forces back to the Middle East to combat ISIS, it is clear that the
public is favoring a more proactive approach to confronting geopolitical
threats.
No comments:
Post a Comment