« Feminist Bloggers People Read For Edwards | Main | In Search of a Better Apology »

February 04, 2007

And The Polling Says: No War With Iran!

By Neil the Ethical Werewolf

Here's the latest poll on military action against Iran:

"If the U.S. government decides to take military action in Iran, would you favor or oppose it?"

Favor - 26%
Oppose - 68%
Unsure - 6%

According to an October poll, you can get 38% to support military action if you just talk about air strikes, with 54% against. Only 18% are crazy enough to go for a ground war, with a whopping 76% opposed.

The upshot of this is that Democrats don't need to be afraid of opposing military action against Iran. This is an issue where we have the advantage. Of course, if the Bush Administration successfully foments some kind of crisis, these numbers could change. But there's something that Democrats can do to head off that sort of possibility. If the case is made powerfully to the American people that this is a situation where good diplomacy will be successful, that war won't solve the major problems, and that any crisis will represent an abject failure of diplomacy by the Bush administration, the path through crisis to war becomes much more difficult. I'd really like to see John Edwards say what he said to Ezra more often. Let me post the portion of Edwards' first answer that Ezra didn't quote in his post here:


Number one, you have a radical leader, Ahmadinejad, who is politically unstable in his own country. The political elite have begun to leave him, the religious leaders have begun to leave him, the people aren’t happy with him, for at least two reasons: one, they don’t like his sort of bellicose rhetoric, and second, he was elected on a platform of economic reform and helping the poor and the middle class, and he hasn’t done anything. In fact, while he was traveling, the leaders of the legislature sent him a letter saying, ‘when are you gonna pay attention to the economic problems of our country.’ So, I think we have an opportunity here that we need to be taking advantage of.

First, America should be negotiating directly with Iran, which Bush won’t do. Second, we need to get our European friends, not just the banking system, but the governments themselves, to help us do two things -- put a group, a system of carrots and sticks on the table. The carrots are, we’ll make nuclear fuel available to you, we’ll control the cycle, but you can use it for any civilian purpose. Second, an economic package, which I don’t think has been seriously proposed up until now. Because there economy is already struggling, and it would be very attractive to them. And then on the flip side, the stick side, to say if you don’t do that, there are going to be more serious economic sanctions than you’ve seen up until now. Now of course we need the Europeans for this, cause they’re the ones with the economic relationship with Iran, but the whole purpose of this is number one to get an agreement. Number two, to isolate this radical leader so that the moderates and those within the country who want to see Iran succeed economically, can take advantage of it.

February 4, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

The upshot of this is that Democrats don't need to be afraid of opposing military action against Iran.

It's very safe to say that military action should be the last resort, not called for by present circumstances, stuff like that. But candidates do need to be afraid of ruling out military action, and the main ones, including Edwards, won't.

Very safe and sage to call for talks with Iran. I think all the Democratic candidates agree on that. The economic package is a good idea, which I imagine they'd all agree on too.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 4, 2007 3:50:05 PM

Neil, what Edwards said to Ezra was class-A meandering.

First, he didn't mention the most important thing about the issue, namely that Iran is so many years away from being able to use nuclear weapons that the situation is not urgent at all. If Bernard Lewis can point out that by the time Iran gets nuclear weapons it's likelier to be a liberal democracy than a theocracy, so can Edwards.

And second, he waffled on a lot of answers. The "The President has an immense responsibility" answer was a classic dodge.

Posted by: Alon Levy | Feb 4, 2007 4:19:06 PM

The political wisdom of opposing war with Iran may be true, but only to a point. For a paper I wrote in college, I found this quote from Roots of War by Richard Barnet:

On the eve of the Cambodian invasion of April 1970, only 7 per cent of the respondents said that they would favor sending American boys into Cambodia. Immediately after President Nixon announced the invasion, 50 per cent approved the action even though 53 per cent believed that the invasion would widen the war instead of shortening it.
Now, there is a difference between Americans' desire to trust their President prior to Watergate and their desire to do so after. And there's also the fact that Iran will come on the heels of a disastrous engagement with Iraq.

But here's the truth: most of us don't really know the ins and outs of a war with Iran. People may oppose it, but that's what might be termed a weakly held opinion. When the President decides to do so, people are likely to trust his "wisdom" both because he is the President and because we know he probably has access to better information than we do. So weak opposition will become weak support. The numbers you cite, though valuable, don't discuss the depth of public opposition, only its breadth.

In the case of Cambodia, a majority supported the invasion when it was announced. This despite the fact that only 7 percent had supported it just a few days earlier! And it wasn't because they suddenly believed it would be successful; a majority still thought it would be counterproductive. It's just that in spite of their own misgivings, many people were willing to trust the President because he's the President.

None of this is to say that we shouldn't stridently oppose action with Iran. It's wrong, it would be counterproductive, most of our justifications reek of fabrication or exaggeration, and this administration in particular has lost any credibility in war. But we can't pretend that there won't be a political downside to opposing war with Iran. The opposition is heavy enough that it's not a problem yet. But it's not possible to dismiss the potential political downside to opposing the President on foreign policy. We don't need to acquiesce, but we do need to be prepared to meet that downside head-on.

Posted by: jhupp | Feb 4, 2007 6:09:50 PM

What jhupp said, double, because I definitely expect causualties and consequences from Iran. Iran will shoot back.

I do not knowe what the American people's attitudes will be a few weeks into the Iranian War, which at some estimates will begin in 2-6 weeks. So I can't say yet what Democratic politicians will see as in their interests and the interests of the country.

Honestly after the Iranian War begins, withdrawal from Iraq will be surrender to Iran. I would surrender.

Remember a 2nd aggressive unprovoked attack will put most of the US military into the War Criminal column.

My position, which is not advice, is that Bush should have been impeached long ago, and that after an attack on Iran, Democrats should insist on handing the President over to the Hague, either with or without impeachment. Does George Soros have a plane and armed contractors? Just kidding. Really.

Positions a little more moderate than that might be acceptable.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Feb 4, 2007 7:20:36 PM

According to an October poll, you can get 38% to support military action if you just talk about air strikes, with 54% against. Only 18% are crazy enough to go for a ground war, with a whopping 76% opposed.

This is why the 'One Man, With Jesus, IS A Majority' bumper stickers are selling like hotcakes. Put one next to your Bush Fish

Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Feb 4, 2007 8:56:50 PM

To expand on jhupp's point, I think you'll also see a change in those poll numbers once the "incident" provoking hostilities has been invented/staged.

As for stopping this administration, impeaching Bush is not only politically unfeasible, it's unadvisable. The way to clip their wings? Impeach Cheney.

Posted by: Headline Junky | Feb 5, 2007 3:32:21 AM

Hy,

This is the Internet Freedom desk at Reporters without borders in Paris. We have created a blog called "RSFblog.org" which included a news site called "The World seen through Blogs." The site's aim is simple: to publish the viewpoints of bloggers from different countries on the same event. Rsfblog will showcase content produced by Internet users of very different origins and cultures.

This week the topic is : Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad under pressure from all sides


Check this out ! and forward this message !
www.rsfblog.org

Best regards,
Reporters without borders

Posted by: Reporters without borders | Feb 5, 2007 4:26:26 AM

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘


托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Posted by: judy | Sep 26, 2007 11:04:27 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.