Posted on 10/29/2007 6:48:53 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% 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%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%). 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%) are more likely than men (48%) 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% would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15% would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14% would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10% said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5%), Democrat John Edwards (4%) and Republican Mitt Romney (3%) 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% saying she is best equipped to deal with Iran, while 17% would prefer Obama and 7% view John Edwards as the best choice. Giuliani is the top choice of Republicans (28%), followed by McCain (21%) and Fred Thompson (9%). One in five independents chose Clinton (21%) over McCain (16%) and Giuliani (11%). Clinton was the top choice among women (24%), while 14% would be more confident with Giuliani in the White House and 11% would prefer McCain. Men slightly prefer McCain (18%) to Clinton (17%) on this issue, while 15% 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% 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% would favor a strike before the end of President Bush’s term. Another 29% said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20% were unsure. The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37%) and independents, but fewer than half as many Republicans (15%) feel the same. But Republicans are also more likely to be uncertain on the issue (28%).
As the possibility the U.S. may strike Iran captures headlines around the world, many have given thought to the possibility of an attack at home. Two in three (68%) 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% believe such an attack is very likely. Nearly one in three (31%) believe the next significant attack will occur between one and three years from now, 22% said they believe the next attack is between three and five years away, and 15% said they don’t think the U.S. will be attacked on U.S. soil for at least five years or longer. Just 9% believe a significant terrorist attack will take place in the U.S. before the next presidential election.
Then just sit back and wait for a provocation from the dinner jacket.
BUMP
Point well taken and I do believe their rulers would allow their people to be killed to do just that. The key would be for our surveillance to be able to detect the movement of their leaders at all times,that would be a giveaway if we could do it.Also what kind of risk would it pose for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The biggest mistake we made in Iraq was that kind of thinking.I would rather over estimate than under estimate the situation.
They just called Ted Kennedy and that way they could count it as only 10% of the 48% disagreeing.
An attack on Iran will not be any sort of ground presence (except for short duration special forces reconnaissance, removal of evidence, etc.). It’s going to be a bombing campaign.
‘Bush may strike before the end of his term. Glenn Beck and
Charles Krauthammer have said they think he will.’
Somehow, Krauthammer and Beck in the same sentence doesn’t seem quite right.
Do it.
To: taildragger
You got to read in the article that this report of the Pentagon needing the money came out in July.... Hmmmmmmmm ? now let’s see ? that was 3 months ago, and we might as well at this that, about 2 or 3 weeks for the time for this report leaking out.
So ? in our best estimates, Pentagon requested this back in June, 4 months ago ( I could be wrong, just guessing here ) .... 4 months to get the money and maybe retrofit let’s say 5 B-2 bombers....
I have a feeling the Pentagon got the money, of only 88 million, yeah, that got the money some how even if Boeing and Northrop Grumman gave credit to the US government to retrofit this on the B-2s,,, ( Boeing, Northrop Grumman “ pay us later, just get the job done pronto “ ).
I have a feeling those B-2s are already ready to go... just waiting on President Bush to give the word GO !!
19 posted on 10/30/2007 7:12:37 AM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM .53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart, there is no GOD.)
If you read the paragraph on which future president should be in charge, it will reinforce my belief.
I believe President Bush will take out Iran before leaving office, as he should.
reinforce my belief = reinforce taking action now
Sorru, bad editing to start with.
Sorru = Sorry
Sorry, once more!
You got it: the scale still tips towards Whack-A-Nut though Zogby hangs onto the other side with desperate grip.
Much more difficult? Few things can be more difficult than a 4+ year nation-building exerise in a Muslim country filled to the brim with suicide-bombing terrorists (Iraq), and conducting air strikes against a few dozen sites in Iran certainly is not of them. The entire operation will be over long before you and your buds on the other side of the aisle can screech "quagmire."
Prepare yourself for the inevitable -- The U.S. isn't going to allow a hostile Muslim nation to manufacture nukes and initiate a nuke arms race throughout the entire region. A Middle East filled with Muslim nations armed to the teeth with nukes is not an option.
You say such a strike would only set the Iranians back a few years in their nuclear quest? Even if true, a few years can make all the difference in this crisis. They could easily have their long-awaited revolution by then and by governed by sane people who have no interest in starting a nuke arms race with their neighbors.
“You say such a strike would only set the Iranians back a few years in their nuclear quest? Even if true, a few years can make all the difference in this crisis. They could easily have their long-awaited revolution by then and by governed by sane people who have no interest in starting a nuke arms race with their neighbors.”
That is the only argument FOR a military strike which is even close to making any sense whatsoever. But what it comes down to is whether the resulting costs, risks, and fallout justify taking military action to delay their nuke program for a couple of years. I’m betting that Bush will not make that determination. I bet he passes the decision onto his successor. And I bet that his successor will do nothing except exert diplomatic pressure. All of these “hints” at a military strike are intended only to ramp up pressure on Iran to come to heel. And that ain’t gonna happen.
To me, it looks like another Cold War brewing. We’re going to spend the next 40 years or so reliving the 1940s and 1950s, except with Iran instead of the Soviets.
A successful operation would set them back far more than just two years. 5 to 10 is more like it.
To me, it looks like another Cold War brewing
Not even close. For another Cold War to take place our enemy would necessarily have to be heavily armed with nukes. ...like the Soviets. The whole idea of taking out the Iranian nuke facilities is to prevent this state of affairs.
In addition, the doctrime of mutually assured destruction (MAD) that prevented the Cold War from becoming hot only works if all the nations involved are run by sane people who value national survival. Needless to say, nutballs who believe in returning 12th Imams and a heaven filled with virgins as a reward for killing "infidels" don't qualify.
If the civilized allows the entire Middle East to go nuclear (which is precisely what would happen if we did nothing about Iran) we'll be looking at WW3 in short order.
“If the civilized allows the entire Middle East to go nuclear (which is precisely what would happen if we did nothing about Iran) we’ll be looking at WW3 in short order.”
You may be right. In any event, I think we will have the opportunity to test your hypothesis because I don’t think the US is going to do anything about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.