Majority of Americans favor attacking Iran, is that so?

Question

Zogby: Majority Favor Strikes on Iran

Monday, October 29, 2007 9:47 PM

Article Font Size




A majority of likely voters - 52 percent - would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53 percent believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.


The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.


Democrats (63 percent) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51 percent) and Republicans (44 percent) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71 percent), than Democrats (41 percent) or independents (44 percent). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58 percent) are more likely than men (48 percent) to say the same – but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.


When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran – regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran – 21 percent would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15 percent would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14 percent would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10 percent said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5 percent), Democrat John Edwards (4 percent) and Republican Mitt Romney (3 percent) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran. The telephone poll of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted Oct. 24-27, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.


Clinton leads strongly among Democrats on the issue, with 35 percent saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17 percent would prefer Obama and 7 percent view John Edwards as the best choice. Giuliani is the top choice of Republicans (28 percent), followed by McCain (21 percent) and Fred Thompson (9 percent). One in five independents chose Clinton (21 percent) over McCain (16 percent) and Giuliani (11 percent). Clinton was the top choice among women (24 percent), while 14 percent would be more confident with Giuliani in the White House and 11 percent would prefer McCain. Men slightly prefer McCain (18 percent) to Clinton (17 percent) on this issue, while 15 percent said Giuliani is best equipped to deal with Iran. The survey also shows there is a significant amount of uncertainty if any of the long list of declared candidates would be best equipped to deal the Iran – 19 percent overall said they weren’t sure which candidate to choose.


There is considerable division about when a strike on Iran should take place – if at all. Twenty-eight percent believe the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office while 23 percent would favor a strike before the end of President Bush’s term. Another 29 percent said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20 percent were unsure. The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37 percent) and independents, but fewer than half as many Republicans (15 percent) feel the same. But Republicans are also more likely to be uncertain on the issue (28 percent).


As the possibility the U.S. my strike Iran captures headlines around the world, many have given thought to the possibility of an attack at home. Two in three (68 percent) believe it is likely that the U.S. will suffer another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil comparable to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 – of those, 27 percent believe such an attack is very likely. Nearly one in three (31 percent) believe the next significant attack will occur between one and three years from now, 22 percent said they believe the next attack is between three and five years away, and 15 percent said they don’t think the U.S. will be attacked on U.S. soil for at least five years or longer. Just 9 percent believe a significant terrorist attack will take place in the U.S. before the next presidential election.

It seems to me that likely those who would approve attacking Iran , would have Iran being nuked rather than using ground forces such as in Irak or Aphganistyan. Teheran may become another Hiroshima or Nagasaki, ; with a H bomb nobody would remain alive there. If the disappearance of Teheran would still not be decisive another H-bomnb would need to be used or maybe several to erase Iran once and for all d from being hostile to the rest of the world. I do not believe Americans would support the like as Irak or Afghanistan. The use of H-bombs would save a lot of non-Iranian lives. Bear i n mind that in the war between Irak and Iran which lasted 10 years the Iranian mullahs claim that they lost one million Iranian lives. So it seems that the regime there does not value lives., am anotherreasn that it is a H-bomb attack which seemes to be the favorite tool to use against the Iranians. So, they will lose another million people . it seems they f do not care about their lives.

Answer 1

The majority of sheeple more like -- no surprise there.

Answer 2

That's such a huge swing in such a short time that I wouldn't consider it reliable.

In a CNN poll from Oct 12 to 14, 68% of Americans opposed a military strike against Iran and only 29% approved of a military strike. This was in spite of the fact that 77% believed Iran was attempting to build nuclear weapons and 82% believed Iran was supplying weaons to Iraqi insurgents. The percentage opposing a military strike stayed in the 60's for for the first 9 1/2 months of the year. It's hard to fathom what would cause a 23% swing in opinion for a military strike in just two weeks.

In a Fox news poll at the end of Sep, 29% approved of taking military action now, while 54% approved of letting Bush's successor deal with Iran.

Answer 3

There is a range of informed opinion and a wider range of uninformed opinion. Most Americans bought into the domestic propaganda that led to the latest Iraq invasion, but we were at war with them since their invasion of Kuwait, it was just a little quieter during the intervening years. The reason many Americans oppose attacking Iran is because it is hard to figure out what is true and what is not. Iran and Arabs have had troubles, too, and even without the threat to Israel the US might start a war. Watch for what Obama says; if the guy who voted against the second Gulf War says that we must use military measures against Iran he will have alot more credibility than any one named Bush.

Answer 4

I support, but I really doubt the majority are with me on this. I would have to see other polls. Most Americans pay no regard or mind to neither history nor current events.

The truth is that Iran declared war on us in 1979 when they stormed our embassy and took our hostages, called us the Great Satan have backed and financed terrorists attacks against our fellow citizens and currently our soldiers in Iraq. They have declared war on us whether we have acknowledged it or not.

And now they are a only a year or two from acquiring a nuclear weapon. . .

GO GET 'EM!!!!!

Answer 5

I think a percentage of Americans are finally realizing that Iran is the bedrock and main supporter of radical Islam and we'll never be successful unless we deal with the Iranian problem. Considering we occupy two countries on either side of Iran, I think the powers that be have always known that.

Answer 6

I can't speak for everyone, but I am utterly and totally against attacking Iran. We can't even handle Iraq and Afghanistan as it is. How are we going to be able to handle adding Iran into the mix? It would be a military, political, and economic nightmare.

Considering that the % of people who still support the Iraqi war is so small now, I find this hard to believe. Who did this poll? What were their methods? What kind of sample did they use? I'm willing to bet that it was inaccurate. In fact, I'd almost guarantee it.

Answer 7

It won't happen because of all the vitriol against this president by liberals and democrats we have basically been neutered in taking any pre-emptive strikes against anyone. Love the thinking and answer from Subprime reminds me of the media reporter statement during president Nixon election she was astonish that he won ,because no one she spoke to voted for him.

Answer 8

One cannot answer this question because the meaning of 'American' isn't clear:

- A person or attribute of South or North America
- A person or attribute of the indigenous peoples of South or North America
- A citizen or attribute of the ’United States of America’: the political correct term
is 'US-American'

Answer 9

If America consists of only Fox news and CNN employees, then your answer is yes.

If you are talking about real American's - the obvious answer is no.

You have to be a crazed Christian extremist waiting for the Rapture to want war with Iran (Russia)

Answer 10

Is this coming from the same sources that led us to rally behind the current invasion?

Ir_n would be foolish to set off a bomb and get bombed--they are not stupid. We or let's say certain big-wigs want their territory.

Answer 11

I don't want to attack Iran. But I do want them to be compliant with nuclear inspectors and I don't want a religious zealot state to have a nuclear weapon. I hate war, but I hate psychotic regimes more.