A Huge Majority of Americans Would Support Military Action Against Iran

"Military action" is a broad term. I wish the pollsters had queried about a few specifics.

We seem to like our Predators, darting hither and yon like large versions of those balsa-wood airplanes some of us assembled and flew as kids. Remember those? With the wind-up propellers, powered by rubber bands? Fly, little Predator, fly! I read recently that we're developing nanodrones that can dart through an open window. Look, a hummingbird! Oh wait...

We don't like our GI Joes and Josies crawling into Kevlar and riding around in big steel boxes with "Bomb me!" taped to the tailgate by some Islamist wiseacre. So support for "military action" may go a little soft when our brave, selfless troops are part of the deal.

Cruise missiles--what's not to like? Pop a cap from a destroyer in the PG. We'll watch it all on Google Earth. Best to get the intel tight as a drum beforehand, though. It's all well and good to incinerate one of Iran's (difficult to locate?) nuke joints--less groovy to, say, torch a school playground at recess. Our bad!

Manned bombers? Hmm--tough call. Seems like a good idea at the time. But since the days of Francis Gary Powers they've been problematic. One downed and captured pilot and Americans will trade England for his release. We're just sentimental saps. Shock and awe morphs into awe, shucks.

Me, I like the old fashioned spook-as-assassin Cold War stuff. A swan-diving Mahmoud elevator shaft, maybe--dude, the first step's a big one! Helluva lot cheaper than launching bombers et al. And paying somebody else to do the job is even better. Is Iraq busy? I heard they were collecting unemployment. Maybe they'd dig some contract work, off the books? For old times' sake?

Maybe the pollsters might try rephrasing the question:

"Having lost thousands of soldiers in Iraq, and being well on the way to losing thousands more in Afghanistan, should America open yet a third front and launch an invasion of Iran too?"

I suspect put that way support for military action in Tehran might take a tumble.

No doubt about it: American citizens are easily duped into following the ruling class [and the war profiteers] blindly into whatever quagmire is cooked up in the name of "national security". But with 9/11 fading more and more with each passing week it will get harder and harder to broker their profound ignorance of how the world really works into even more and more body bags.

No, what they need is a fresh terrorist attack, right? Will it come in time?

But the Obami aside, what in particular is Marty doing [you know, personally] to back the mission? What is he sacrificing for the cause? How is he getting the word out to his family and loved ones to join him?

For example, they could join the military themselves, couldn't they?

Keep us posted on that, okay, Mr. Peretz.

Same with all the rest of you who back the missles and the bombs. Keep us apprised as to what you yourself are doing to beat back the terrorists over there.

Again, you have always struck me as "tough guys" here in The Spine. Bullies, even.

You are, aren't you?

So, keep us duly informed of your own personal commitment to spreading the American Dream across the globe, okay?

george walton

I know it is misguided to make policy based on public opinion, but alot of Americans want to bomb Iran, so maybe we should bomb Iran? Is that the point your making, I think Im missing something.

Marty, does the The New Republic employ you solely to wait for Iran related news and then write round about columns criticising B Obama?

Do you really believe Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel? I find that very hard to believe. I also find it very hard to believe that attacking Iran's nuclear complexes would be a good idea for too many reasons to mention here.

Exactly so Jnordlander. Polls show that Americans think the US should bomb Iran if negotiations and/or sanctions don't work, and that they don't believe negotiations or sanctions will work. Therefore, if the US does not bomb Iran, there wlll be a clamor among the American people to bomb Iran. Consequently, the US should bomb Iran, and quickly. It is the apex of insightful analysis.

"Polls show that Americans think the US should bomb Iran if negotiations and/or sanctions don't work, and that they don't believe negotiations or sanctions will work. Therefore, if the US does not bomb Iran, there wlll be a clamor among the American people to bomb Iran. Consequently, the US should bomb Iran, and quickly. It is the apex of insightful analysis."

This is pretty shallow irony, Hurtado.

I agree that we shouldn't make policy on issues of war and peace based solely on polls.

However, these polls can have a beneficial effect if they will scare the Iranian government into giving up its nuclear ambitions.

The threat of force, especially if the enemy knows we are serious, is an important aid in negotiations.

As in a poker game the bluff is as important as the actual hand you are holding.

Humm, now the faux bellicose peretz reverts to populism to gird his fetish for his never ending call for military action at every possible turn. Funny how the guys who never fought seem to be the ones who always advocate fighting (with someone else doing it of course). How brave. How tough. How comical.

How predictable. I am so glad that Obama is not taking his foreign policy cues from marty's cabal of wanna be tough guys.

It is very likely that the bombing of Iran would achieve three things:

1. The recognition of the difficulties of identifying and destroying all relevant plant and facilities
2. The deaths of innocent civilians
3. The destruction of the opposition movement as injured national pride becomes the first tool in the hands of the regime.

The moment, however, in which the Iranians take a clear step toward operating a nuclear device on a functional delivery system, they run the danger of their country becoming an ashtray overnight. I don't believe that anyone beyond a relatively small number of regime fanatics really want that situation.

Speculative questions in polls are meaningless, especially in foreign policy issues where the foreigners get a vote too, ultimately.

"Polls show that Americans think...."

george:

What would be rather revealing of course is a poll in which these self-same Americans were asked questions about Iran.

For example:

What do they know about the history of U.S. involvment in Iran?

What do they know about the current government? the role religion plays in it? the Presidency? the recent protests? the Revolutionary Guards? the Sunni-Shia conflict? Irani-Iraqi relationships? the broader struggles in the Middle East? the atempt to impose new UN sanctions?

Or what do they know about Israel's nuclear arsenal? AIPAC? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

But who gives a fuck, right?

Okay, okay, sure, they are pretty much ignorant of all those things. But so what? They want to bomb and invade and occupy---something, someone over there. Like sheep to the slaughter as it were.

How pathetic is that.

george

Another 4 am pathetic and bigoted George Walty rant.

The ignorant putz wold be better off taking his meds and getting some sleep.

"However, these polls can have a beneficial effect if they will scare the Iranian government into giving up its nuclear ambitions."

I suppose so Jackson, but that is not Marty's point, at least as far as I can tell. Rather, he implies not that the polls should have some effect on Tehran, but that they should have an effect on the Obama administration:

"I believe that if the administration continues with its self-deception there will emerge an unprecedented popular clamor for missiles and bombs, and the Obami will be left virtually alone with its illusions."

I don't see any way to read that other than that if Obama does not abandon a commitment to negotiation or even sanctions, and does not instead bomb Iran, or at least threaten to, there will be a great domestic clamor for bombing Iran.

Putting Marty's argument aside, do you really think that polls showing a majority of Americans favoring military action against Iran would "scare the Iranian government into giving up its nuclear ambitions"? There has been much debate in the TNR blogs about whether the Iranian government is essentially rational and could be kept in check by mutual nuclear deterrence, or whether it is controlled by apocalyptic fanatics. If you believe the latter, then you could hardly believe that the Iranian government would be intimidated by American opinion polls. But even if you believe the former, I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that American opinion polls would outweigh the considerations that compel the Iranian government to pursue a nuclear weapons capability.

Ironyroad raised some valid concerns. In response, I would say that it is not necessary to identify "all relevant plan and facilities" to disable the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Yes, tragically, innocent civilians would be killed, especially since some nuclear facilities are located in heavily populated areas. "injured national pride" depends on the extent of the destruction, continued viability of the Islamic regime, and the clarity of our message (our target is the govt, not the people/nation). We can limit the extent of collateral destruction and damage the ability of the regime to maintain its kind of coercive order, thus impeding its ability to rally Iranian nationalism. We would give the opposition more space and opportunity to challenge and replace the Islamic Republic. Our actions should be as surgical as possible, not Armageddon.

We need to keep Iran as a viable counterweight to Sunni imperialism, especially as manifested by Egypt, Turkey, and Wahabi Saudi Arabia. Iran is a sophisticated old nation with a long pre-Islamic past. Another reason to keep our military actions as surgical as possible.

Aside from Israel's legitimate concerns, Nuclear Islamic Iran would inspire more Sunni states (after Pakistan) to go nuclear, threaten Europe with its missiles, continue to support both Shia (Hezbollah) and Sunni (Hamas - Muslim Brotherhood) terrorism, collaborate with North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela, destabilize Iraq, and undermine the West's will to resist Islamic intimidation (military, political, and cultural). Venezuela has already become an Iranian base in our hemisphere.

dhurtado "I suppose so Jackson, but that is not Marty's point, at least as far as I can tell. Rather, he implies not that the polls should have some effect on Tehran, but that they should have an effect on the Obama administration"

Marty had more than one point in mind in his post. He usually does. (He uses his blog to ruminate freely on many issues.)

He began by saying that:

"I know that we don't (and we shouldn't) make our foreign policy by public opinion polls."

etc.

Any way, your side question is more interesting to me:

"Putting Marty's argument aside, do you really think that polls showing a majority of Americans favoring military action against Iran would "scare the Iranian government into giving up its nuclear ambitions"?"

In itself no, however, if the administration uses these polls to tell Iran that if it doesn't play ball they have the backing of the American people to use force than the Mullahs will take notice.

They really believe that the West especially the US is incapable of defending itself:

This is from the Associated Press:

"Ahmadinejad: Iran's enemies a 'mosquito'"

"TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is comparing the power of Iran's enemies to a "mosquito," saying Iran now deals with the West over its nuclear activities from a position of power."

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/11/01/general-ml-iran-nuclear_707146...

Until we can convince them otherwise they will not give up their nuclear ambitions.

interesting comment, amidut.

I wouldn't put much stock in Ahmadinejad's public statements. He is like the squeaking mouse that is relying on the lion's self-restraint to get away with his provocations. But he knows, or at least the mullahs know, that the West's patience is not limitless. Indeed, we have soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, and we are bombing parts of Pakistan, right? It is not as though there is no recent precedent for US military action.

Amidut, I think it non-controversial the the objectives in any military action in Iran would include surgical strikes, minimizing civilian casualties and doing what we can to minimize a nationalist backlash. But the question is whether it is realistic to think we can accomplish any of that. And as far as I know, the opposition leaders -- e.g. Mousavi and Khatami -- have never sworn off a nuclear-armed Iran. So if we engaged in an action strictly to de-fang Iran's nuclear ambitions, and not also to topple the current regime, then it is not clear at all that the opposition would rally to our side.

Both the issues and the methods of fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan are very different from that of Iran.

If we are going to go after the Iranian nuclear program militarily, it will take 2-3 weeks of 24/7 bombing of all sites we have identified or suspect. There will, of course, be some collateral damage, though not an overwhelming amount, as I suspect most of the sites are not in heavily populated areas, though I could be wrong.

Amidut makes some good points, especially about the possible ramifications of an Iranian bomb. I beleive Iran can be deterred, as was the USSR, but perhaps that is not so. if not, how many Iranians, indeed, understand that their civilization they like to go on about, will cease to exist? We mus make it very clear to them. I hope this administration is up to the task.

Finally, irony, foreigners should most emphatically NOT get a vote on US foreign policy. Advice is welcome, consent is immaterial.

butchie, I didn't mean that literally. The turn of phrase means that other parties (friendly, neutral and hostile), whose actions we do not control, get to have input into the situation and change the game. Here, I mean that several parties, the Iranian regime being one, have the potential to alter the situation in a way that makes a poll of Americans' attitudes next to irrelevant.

Our best plans can be enabled or stymied by some particular measure taken by others that we don't foresee or control. President Obama may, for example, want to move toward a better relationship between the U.S. and muslim countries, but there are forces there who don't want that and they may take measures to sabotage or block that objective -- hence "get a vote."

dhurtado cautions that the opposition leaders -- e.g. Mousavi and Khatami -- have never sworn off a nuclear-armed Iran. True, but they are the only permissable opposition to the Ahmadinejad-Khamenei regime. There are other players (secular, Arabs, Kurds, Baluchis, non-Muslim religious groups, Sunnis) in Iran, although their relative strength and potential unity are not certain to me. Islamic Republican Iran has no nuclear-armed enemies (unless you count Israel), so nuclear armament could be seen by rational Iranians as expensive and dangerous because it would invite nuclear-armed enemies.

"There has been much debate in the TNR blogs about whether the Iranian government is essentially rational and could be kept in check by mutual nuclear deterrence, or whether it is controlled by apocalyptic fanatics." I think with Iran right now it is a little bit of both, there are some very rational elements and some apocalyptic ones. Ahmed obviously belongs in the latter, but I am not sure about Khameni, who wields the real power. His son is one of the wealthiest people in Iran and when people choose to amass great wealth like him they aren't exactly thinking about the other world. I think Khameni and his corrupt oligarchy are content to use the crazies to maintain control.

Amidut: Turkey? I don't disagree with anything else you wrote. I am not sure your inclusion of Turkey with Saudi Arabia, or for that matter any Arab country. Turkey is a NATO ally with secularism pretty deeply embedded in their society.

Amidut, are you saying that Mousavi and Khatami are NOT the only permissable opposition? In any event, my point is that that it is not clear to me that the Iranian people could be convinced that a military action against Iranian nuclear facilities was aimed at the Iranian government and not Iran itself.

Blackton, your view of Khameni regime strikes me as probably true, though I am no expert in that regard. If so, I think that is an argument for not being overly trigger happy.

dhurtado
" In any event, my point is that that it is not clear to me that the Iranian people could be convinced that a military action against Iranian nuclear facilities was aimed at the Iranian government and not Iran itself."

What evidence do you have for such a belief?

For what belief Jackson? I did not assert a belief. To the contrary, I asserted an agnosticism.

blackton, I am pessimist about Turkey because it has had a "moderate" Islamist government lead by Tayyip Recip Erdogan of the AK (Justice and Development Party) for the past few years. This government has been replacing secular leaders at different levels of government with more reliable Islamic ones. Recently, there was an indictment of 56 military officers accused of a plot to overthrow the government. There was a huge $3.3 billion tax fraud case brought against a major opposition newspaper chain. The Erdogan government has concluded a high level strategic cooperation agreement with Syria, favored Hamas leadership for the Palestinians, and invited Admadinejad to Ankara.

Thanks, irony, for clarifiying your statement. You are correct - the enemy always gets a vote.

Amidut, I reluctantly agree with you. I used to be a big Turkey fan, but lately their conduct has given me pause. The Islamicization of the country continues apace. Pity.

Test