Zcom_simple

Finkelstein

Why Israel Won’t Attack Iran




Change Text Size a- | A+


If Israel and Iran Have Military Conflict, Americans Say US Should Stay Out

A new poll finds that only one in four Americans favors Israel conducting a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program. Seven in ten (69%) favor the US and other major powers continuing to pursue negotiations with Iran, a position that is supported by majorities of Republicans (58%), Democrats (79%) and Independents (67%).

 

Consistent with this emphasis on a diplomatic approach, three in four say that the US should primarily act through the UN Security Council rather than acting by itself in dealing with the problem of Iran’s nuclear program.

 

If Israel goes ahead with a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program and Iran retaliates, but not against American targets, only 25% favor the US providing military forces if Israel requests them (though support is a bit higher among Republicans at 41%). Another 14% favors the US providing diplomatic support only.

 

However, few would support open opposition.  The most popular position is for the US to take a neutral stance, which is supported by 49%.

 

Asked what they think the US government would do if Israel strikes, a slight majority (54%) thinks that the US would at least provide diplomatic support, including 32% who think that it would join the conflict militarily.

 

These are some of the findings of a new poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland. The polling project was directed by Steven Kull, Director of PIPA, and Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor at the University of Maryland and Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

The poll of 727 Americans has a margin of error of +/-4.5% and was fielded March 3-7 by Knowledge Networks.

 

Only 14% of respondents said the US should encourage Israel to strike Iran’s program, but views are mixed as to whether the US should openly discourage Israel or stay neutral.
 

Steven Kull, Director of PIPA, comments, “One of the reasons Americans are so cool toward the idea of Israel attacking Iran’s nuclear program is that most believe that it is not likely to produce much benefit.”

 

Only 18% believe that a military strike would delay Iran’s abilities to develop a nuclear weapon for more than five years–with no partisan differences.   As Shibley Telhami points out: “Interestingly, this result is barely different from the view of Israelis who were asked the same question in a February poll I conducted among Israelis, which was fielded by the Dahaf Institute.”

 

A majority believes that a strike would delay Iran just 1-2 years (20%), will have no effect (9%), or will even have the effect of accelerating Iran’s program (22%).   One in five believes that it would delay Iran’s program 3-5 years.

 

Less than half (42%) believe that a strike would weaken the Iranian government–again, Israelis were similar, with 45% holding this view.  A slight majority believe that it would either have no effect (21%) or that the government would even be strengthened (31%).
 

Also, few Americans believe that a strike will involve a short exchange. A large majority believes an Israeli strike would lead to at armed conflict between Israel and Iran that would last months (26%) or even years (48%).   A small number have the more optimistic view that it would last just weeks (12%) or days (9%). Israelis are a bit more optimistic, but still only a minority believes that a conflict would last weeks (19%) or days (18%).

 

Americans’ reluctance to support a military strike does not appear to arise from a sanguine attitude about Iran’s nuclear program.  Americans show substantial pessimism about Iran and its nuclear program.
 

Fifty-eight percent believe that Iran has decided to try to produce nuclear weapons and is actively working to do so.  Only 30 percent agree with the view of US intelligence services that Iran “is developing some of the technical ability necessary to produce nuclear weapons, but has not decided whether to produce them.”  Even fewer (6%) believe Iran’s stated position that it is producing nuclear fuel strictly for its energy needs.

 

Nine in ten believe it at least somewhat likely that Iran will eventually develop nuclear weapons.  If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, 62% believe it likely that Iran would use them against Israel, while just 32% believe that Iran would be deterred for fear of being destroyed in a retaliatory strike.

 

If Iran develops nuclear weapons the largest concerns are that Iran would either use nuclear weapons (44%) or that Iran would feel emboldened to pursue aggressive policies toward the US and its allies (24%).  A lesser concern (19%) is that it would engender a nuclear arms race in the region.

 

This study was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. Spanish only speakers are provided with Spanish questionnaires. Additional technical information is available athttp://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/712.php?nid=&id=&pnt=712&lb=

  

Bio_pic

Hold up there, folks...

By Guimond, Andre at Mar 15, 2012 18:21 PM

I think there's a bit of confusion here I can hopefully clear up. This article wasn't written by Norman Finkelstein, but is re-post by Finkelstein (on his own website and here on ZNet) of the article announcing the poll, as far as I can tell. The title that he gave to the re-post, "Why Israel Won't Attack Iran", is a sarcastic jab at the poll results and how power actually works--e.g. without considering public opinion unless forced to--rather than an expression of his belief that Israel actually won't attack Iran because the American and Israeli public oppose such action.

Here's the original article, "American Public Opposes Israel Striking Iran": http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/712.php?nid=&id=&pnt=712&lb

In other words, lighten up a bit... having to explain a joke is the worst. ;)

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Hold up there, folks...

By V.p., Haris at Mar 17, 2012 12:38 PM

Thank you Andre, I see this now....However, regardless of that the point is irrevelant here, there just are too many articles attaching so much to the Ameriican Public opinion..............

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Bio_pic

Re: Re: Hold up there, folks...

By Guimond, Andre at Mar 18, 2012 02:30 AM

Sorry, Haris, but it's not irrelevant--the point is that this particular article isn't one of the "articles attaching so much to the American public opinion" that you're taking issue with. It's a useful summary of US public opinion that can be used to oppose a US/Israel war with Iran (and stop it before it starts, if that's actually what elites are planning). I really don't see the problem here: people are against a war and for a diplomatic solution. Isn't that a good thing?

Reply this comment


Person

Opinions That Matter

By Bluhm, Richard at Mar 15, 2012 13:43 PM

Since nothing happens in America and throughout most of the globe without corporate approval, I would suggest that polling should be undertaken amongst those who really wield power and influence.  Of course, the Bilderbergs won't let us into their conclaves, and the Council of Foreign Relations may have some privacy issues as will the Trilaterals and a few other cabals of the !%, but those are the opinions that really matter.   American public opinion is affectively controlled by a military/industrial/congressional/media/education etc complex that has had 50 years since Eisenhower's 1961 warning to refine itself.  It's had all the money in the world as well.  I think this superclass has a high level of confidence that it can control Democrats and Republicans and Inderpendents.  It's the Occupiers who are the wild cards, but the jackboots have managed them pretty well so far.  There are the Cheney/Halliburton camps built for just this purpose.  Obama's Defense Authorization Act has just paved the way.  

This dog and pony show leading up to the November grand finale is so mind-numbingly vacuous as to shout "There is a sucker born every minute!"  As far as I can tell, most of the ones polled above are probably still watching and listening to the mainstream consolidated media and taking it seriously.   At least the ones I know are.  It seems we'll go to great lengths to defend our world view.  

I like Paul Street's message of taking two minutes to figure out who you'll vote for and then take actions that stand more of a chance of affecting the system than voting in a rigged system.  Take to the streets.  OCCUPY! 

Be mindful that the superclass doesn't care about you or your kids.  They care only about profit and its incumbent power.  That means big trouble for posterity.  Where's the outrage?

Reply this comment


Person

By V.p., Haris at Mar 15, 2012 11:42 AM

Sir, Am I the only one who wonders what is the point here? These surveys are so misleading that it more or less suggests if the majority of Americans support an aggression or a an act of war, there wouldn't be anuthing wrong with that! Well-meaning people seem to, in effect, support this notion, not caring to take a step back and realize that the public opinion in the US (As it has been proved for the umpteenth time, is so easily swayed and prone so much so that it is very often formed based on plain stupidity) shouldn't mean anything at all, contextually speaking or not. Positions as the one the writer has, as implied here, is sadly more dangerous at times than the belligerence of the warmongers

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Dsc05889

Re: In agreement

By Rissler, Michael at Mar 15, 2012 12:30 PM

We have learned repeatedly that public opinion as surveyed by these kinds of polls can be changed by concerted effort of those who have the means and the purpose of doing so.  It may take a while, sometimes, but opinion can be swayed, shaped, changed.  This largely has to do, of course, with a lack of deep understanding or lasting care about what happens outside one's own personal interests and life. 

Hopefully, ZNet is a community that can continue to work to develop the knowledge base that is necessary to a legitimate and effective caring community.  But, ofcourse, much more is needed.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Re: In agreement

By V.p., Haris at Mar 15, 2012 13:47 PM

I agree Mr. Rissler but in effect, those who vehemently oppose the rotten system as we see it, also seem to somehow attach a lot of importnace to these polls and in the run to the "American Public Opinion" which is as unreliable an opinion as it can be...............

Reply this comment

Loading_border