New poll: Majority of Americans oppose military strike on Iran

[RFS_Br]

New poll: Majority of Americans oppose military strike on Iran


Despite labeling Iran’s nuclear program as a “critical threat” to U.S. interests, a clear majority of Americans oppose a military strike against Tehran and support a policy of UN sanctions and diplomatic dialogue.

The new annual poll published this week by the Chicago Council for Global Affairs on American attitudes towards foreign affairs – dubbed “Foreign Policy in the New Millennium” - found that 70% of Americans oppose a strike on Iran that is not authorized by the UN Security Council, and 51% are opposed even if the UN body does sanction the attack. In addition, 59% of Americans are opposed to US intervention on behalf of Israel in case of Iranian retaliation for a preemptive Israeli attack.

On the other hand, 79% of Americans believe that further sanctions should be applied on Tehran through the UN Security Council, and 67% believe that the U.S. government should engage in direct diplomacy with the regime in Tehran.

The poll shows solid support of close to 60% for maintaining or increasing current aid levels to Israel. On the other hand, when asked what position the U.S. should take in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 30% said that Washington should side with Israel, but 65% said that it should remain neutral.

The poll also confirms a growing partisan divide between Republicans, Democrats and Independents concerning Israel and the Middle East, with the former showing increasing support for Israeli positions. Thus, 51% of Republicans want America to support Israeli positions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, compared to 78% of Democrats and 69% of independents that prefer to remain neutral. Similarly, 54% of Republicans want to see America intervene militarily in an Israeli-Iranian confrontation, compared to 66% of Democrats and 65% of independents who would prefer that America stay out.

In general, the poll shows a shift in American attitudes towards global affairs in the 11 years that have passed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. While still viewing the Middle East, international terrorism and rogue nuclear powers as the greatest threats to U.S. interests around the world, Americans are less inclined than before to support military intervention in order to counter the threat.

In broad strokes, the poll seems to indicate general support for many of President Barack Obama’s foreign policies, and may be viewed as indirect confirmation of the advantage that Obama holds over Republican Mitt Romney in most polls in handling foreign policy and national security affairs.

Thus, while a majority of Americans support diplomatic sanctions (63%) and imposing a no-fly zone against Syria, 67% oppose sending arms to Syrian rebels, 72% oppose aerial attacks and 81% oppose sending ground troops. 67% of Americans think that the war in Iraq “was not worth it” and only 30% believe that the war in Afghanistan made America “more safe from terrorism”. 70% believe that the wars worsened America’s relations with the Muslim world.

The full report of the poll, which encompassed 1877 interviewees, can be found at Chicago Council poll.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

The new annual poll published this week by the Chicago Council for Global Affairs on American attitudes towards foreign affairs – dubbed “Foreign Policy in the New Millennium” - found that 70% of Americans oppose a strike on Iran that is not authorized by the UN Security Council, and 51% are opposed even if the UN body does sanction the attack.

The Security Council is never going to authorize a strike on Iran, since China and Russia are veto members.

So 70% of Americans are opposed to a strike on Iran.

In addition, 59% of Americans are opposed to US intervention on behalf of Israel in case of Iranian retaliation for a preemptive Israeli attack.

That is very surprising. Though in hindsight maybe not.

 

[Kompromat]

Only a false flag can turn around the views of American public.

Americans are opposed to strike on Iran doesn't mean there would be no strike, American neocons and its policy making elite never gives a crap about what people think [Vietnam,Iraq] because they have their own agenda to worry about which is more important than what public thinks.

 

[Serpentine]

The Security Council is never going to authorize a strike on Iran, since China and Russia are veto members.

So 70% of Americans are opposed to a strike on Iran.

Do you really think Israeli and US need security council for war?

I don't know about Iraq,was it permitted by UNSC?

 

[RFS_Br]

Do you really think Israeli and US need security council for war?

I don't know about Iraq,was it permitted by UNSC?

But in the Iraq War, things backfired badly on the US. US influence declined quite a bit in the 2000s, and this isn't only because of the financial crisis -- it was also because, due to the neocons' uniletaralism, it became increasingly common (and popular among their constituencies) for world leaders to publicly express serious disagreement with the US and denounce its foreign policy. Even in western Europe criticism against the US became common.

I think Americans have learned their lesson. Not only because the Iraq War was so unpopular in the world, but also because it was far from a military success. You can see by yourself in the poll that Americans are now very weary of engaging in more wars -- in the eve of the Iraq War, they were the opposite; they were cheering very hard for an invasion. And because of the US military's so-so performance in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are now so averse to taking more military risks.

I think it would perhaps be political suicide for a prominent US politician to commit to an attack on Iran now. Don't forget that the US economy isn't prepared to take on such an expensive enterprise as an Iran war would be.

Not even in Syria are they willing to make military commitments. It's very unlikely that they would take on as big a fish such as Iran, specially if the attack lacks UN endorsement, considering how things turned out the last time they acted unilaterally.

 

[Serpentine]

But in the Iraq War, things backfired badly on the US. US influence declined quite a bit in the 2000s, and this isn't only because of the financial crisis -- it was also because, due to the neocons' uniletaralism, it became increasingly common (and popular among their constituencies) for world leaders to publicly express serious disagreement with the US and denounce its foreign policy. Even in western Europe criticism against the US became common.

I think Americans have learned their lesson. Not only because the Iraq War was so unpopular in the world, but also because it was far from a military success. You can see by yourself in the poll that Americans are now very weary of engaging in more wars -- in the eve of the Iraq War, they were the opposite; they were cheering very hard for an invasion. And because of the US military's so-so performance in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are now so averse to taking more military risks.

I think it would perhaps be political suicide for a prominent US politician to commit to an attack on Iran now. Don't forget that the US economy isn't prepared to take on such an expensive enterprise as an Iran war would be.

Not even in Syria are they willing to make military commitments. It's very unlikely that they would take on as big a fish such as Iran, specially if the attack lacks UN endorsement, considering how things turned out the last time they acted unilaterally.

I know getting in war is not in their interests right now,but when they feel the need,I think doing a false flag operation won't be that hard.They may want to suddenly 'lose' a ship or jet fighter near Iran borders or waters if you know what I mean.

 

[shuttler]

Do you really think Israeli and US need security council for war?

I don't know about Iraq,was it permitted by UNSC?

I think CD did make his point! Think about Syria and the UN vetoes! Syria would have fallen into NATO's hands by now. It is still fighting against the rebels albeit the later is armed by the allies.

But in the Iraq War, things backfired badly on the US. US influence declined quite a bit in the 2000s, and this isn't only because of the financial crisis -- it was also because, due to the neocons' uniletaralism, it became increasingly common (and popular among their constituencies) for world leaders to publicly express serious disagreement with the US and denounce its foreign policy. Even in western Europe criticism against the US became common......

Generally agreed. But usa's learing is not to get direct intrevention but through its proxies! Turkey seems to be the candidate this time against Syria; and next Israel against Iran.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Do you really think Israeli and US need security council for war?

I don't know about Iraq,was it permitted by UNSC?

That wasn't my point. Check which paragraph I was responding to.

I was saying that the second hypothetical question on the survey was pointless.

And no, the USA does not need the Security Council to start a war, they always like to do things unilaterally. Same with Israel, if they want to go to war, they will do it unilaterally, neither one cares about international authorization via the UN.

 

[Harry_Thomason]

And no, the USA does not need the Security Council to start a war, they always like to do things unilaterally. Same with Israel, if they want to go to war, they will do it unilaterally, neither one cares about international authorization via the UN.

Thats correct, however wars costs, and US (or Israel) unilaterally attacks only when they know they'll accomplish their goal easy. Like exhausted Iraq, weak Serbia, etc. For harder targets they prefer company to share the load, i.e. NATO strike. US doesnt want another Vietnam, Israel doesnt even want another Hezbollah '06.

Thats why we see proxy wars, sanctions and sabotage, only then followed by full NATO attack on a weakened target. US wont unilaterally attack Syria, what to speak of Iran, and Israel is excluded altogether. All Nutjobyahoo is trying to get with his hysteria is to force US hand, Israel wont even dream facing Iran alone.

 

[Mercenary]

Its just the right wing Likud Government in Israel that wants to strike Iran.

Israeli Military, Mossad, are totally against this strike.

 

[Azatavrear]

In general, the poll shows a shift in American attitudes towards global affairs in the 11 years that have passed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. While still viewing the Middle East, international terrorism and rogue nuclear powers as the greatest threats to U.S. interests around the world, Americans are less inclined than before to support military intervention in order to counter the threat.
.

When the American people start joking about...."If you have oil we will bring you democracy".....you know its over and the old ways of neo-conservatives is finished.

I am not sure about the validity of these polls (they seem exaggerated) but it is clear here in US that people don't want another war, the economy is the biggest concern....unless Romney wins the presidential election, then war is likely, no matter if Americans like it or not.