According to the latest poll by The Hill, nearly half of Americans favor U.S. military action against Iran in order to prevent the regime from building nuclear weapons:
Nearly half of likely voters think the United States should be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to this week’s The Hill Poll.
Forty-nine percent said military force should be used, while 31 percent said it should not and 20 percent were not sure.
Sixty-two percent of likely voters said they were somewhat or very concerned about Iran making a terrorist strike on the United States, while 37 percent said they were not very concerned or not at all concerned about it.
Nearly 70 percent of Republicans back the idea, along with 41 percent (a narrow plurality) of Democrats. The political complications for Obama stem from the fact that 42 percent of liberals oppose a military attack on Iran, while just 32 support it. But while liberals would be up in arms if Obama okayed an attack, they don’t really have any alternative candidates to vote for (unless you count Roseanne Barr). When it comes down to it, Obama may be less constrained by his base than previously thought.
Save your breath and bytes, Obama is not going to launch any attack. Here's why: n n1 – Gas prices would go up sharply, at least in the short term, and Obama fears the domestic fallout from that more than he fears Iran having nuclear weapons. Note that while the public backs the use of force, I bet the response would be different if they were told the tradeoff was $6 gallon gasoline and an increased risk of recession. n n2 – Like any good egotist, Obama believes in himself, that he will be able to persuade Iran to back down. n n3 – Like any good liberal, Obama hates using military force and especially in a 'war of choice'. (note his use of drones is consistent with this as they represent 'less' force than boots on the ground). He hates the idea that more and more diplomacy isn't the cure-all. n n4 – Like any good internationalist, Obama judges the merits of a situation by the list of which countries join in. Since there would be less international support and approval than with the Iraq invasion, Obama would look at this as proof that force wasn't justified. n n5 – He knows that Israel won't rely on him, so they'll attack themselves, saving him from looking like the bad guy (yes, he'll get some blame for not stepping on the Israelis' neck, but that won't be as bad as if US forces attacked).
Pssst,FYI, it's your relatives in Israel doing all the Sabar rattling. Actually Obama's 'marching orders' from Jerusalem have been put into file 13, by deeper thinking members of the US government – sans the US AIPAC heavily bribed pro-Israel harlots and pimps of the US Congress.
When Nazi fanboys circle jerk do you guys flip coins to separate the hummers from the hummed?
1. "Gas prices would go up sharply" – am I to understand that such thing is bad for Wall Street? n n2. This makes perfect sense and is in lockstep with the rest of the assertions. n n3. "Like any good liberal, Obama hates using military force and especially in a 'war of choice'. " – Well that explains why he's fought (3) open wars, is droning the entire Horn of Africa and has caused more civilians deaths with the drones than Bush did in his 8 years combined. n n4. WTF? n n5. Like Israel would invade Iran without the US. Ha! Yeah, Israel is great at dropping bombs over defenseless civilians populations, however, when it comes to a meeting a match…well, let's just say that they send in the US to do the bidding for them. n n
If you will excuse a comment from an interfering Brit the idea that Iran would launch an attack against the mainland USA is not credible. It would take many years before they could make and stockpile sufficient nuclear warheads to deter a retaliatory attack that could obliterate Iran entirely. They surely know that.
You know the lying liar Jewish 'schmucks' are trying 'everything' to get the Great Satan to take out 'yet another' of Israel's endless enemies.
Oh look the cockroach knows a few words of Yiddish. Well, that also applies to English. Pants on fire. etc.
Please remember that Islamophobia is not rooted in common sense and reality.
You forget that more and more of the world's citizens, Americans included (#OccupyWallStreet, et. al.) are beginning to think that it's easier to destroy that 1/2 acre of Zionist hell than dealing with all of the United Snakes (US/Israel) victims.
FYNQ
Doubt very much the accuracy of this poll. Even in my country (Israel), most are opposed to an attack on Iran. The risks outweigh the rewards. Does the U.S. really need another War On Islam? And, Iran's main beef with Israel is its abominable treatment of the Palestinians. Iran is not an "existential threat" to Israel. That's just an hysteria-fueled LIE similar to the neocon concoction that IRAQ had WMDS. Americans are waking up to the fact that the only people who want this war is The Israel Lobby.
So, Americans support strike on Iran, eh? Well, that explains the protests across the US over the weekend and the scores of protesters chanting "No war, no sanctions, no assassinations, and no intervention." For a moment there, I got confused and thought that they were against striking Iran but this article clarified all that for me.
The Hilll, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AIPAC. If Americans don't want us to bomb, we'll make 'em believe that they really, really do. And if that doesn't work, heck, we'll invade anyway, after all, it's not as if we need the approval of the American people or anything.
Yeah yeah yeahk, Americans will support a bombing maybe on paper, up to the moment that things go sideways. Then they'll look for people to blame. Too early.
I don't think this poll is accurate either, but think it could be if it was strongly urged in discourse.
Iraq had WMD. We gave them to Saddam. n nAnd we had some of our soldiers injured destroying them.