LobeLog on Facebook LobeLog on Facebook

Iran no image

Published on October 9th, 2012 | by Jim Lobe

6

U.S. Public Sees Israeli Strike on Iran As Harmful

Print Friendly and PDF

A majority of the U.S public believes that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be harmful to Washington’s military and stratetic position in the Middle East, according to a new poll released yesterday by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). The poll of more than 700 respondents, conducted between Sep 27 and Oct 2, asked several Middle East and Iran policy-related questions. The questionnaire and results — broken down by party affiliation — can be found here. Questions 10-15 in the latter are on Iran and include a level of detail that I won’t get into below. As in previous PIPA polls, however, the questions included a series of pro and con arguments and/or options that respondents were asked to assess. The kind of texture and context normally provided to respondents in PIPA surveys, in my view, tends to be much more helpful in teasing out the public’s views than most polling done on this and similar subjects.

As noted by PIPA, Americans are very pessimistic about the benefits of an Israeli strike. Asked how long such a strike might delay Iran’s capability for developing a nuclear weapons, only 15 percent said more than five years, down from 18% when the same question was asked in another PIPA survey taken in March. Twenty percent said an attack could delay Iran by 3-5 years, and another 20% said only 1-2 years, which was the same estimate made by the Iran Project. Twenty-two percent said an attack was more likely to accelerate Iran’s nuclear program, while 14 percent predicted it would have no effect — up five percentage points from last March.

Asked whether an Israeli attack would improve or worsen the U.S.’s military and strategic position in the Middle East, only eight percent of respondents said Washington’s position would be better, while 55 percent said it would be worse. Another 32 percent said Washington’s position would be about the same.

Asked what the U.S. position should be on an Israeli strike, respondents were given three choices and a series of arguments in favor of each. (You can read them in the topline. Twenty-nine percent said the Washington should discourage Israel from carrying out an attack. That was down from 34% who took that position in March. Twelve percent said Washington should encourage an attack; that was also down from last March when 14 percent took that position. Finally, 53 percent said Washington should take a neutral stance; that was up by seven points from earlier this year.

Asked what they thought Iran’s reaction would be to an Israeli attack, 70% of respondents said it was either “very” (28%) or “somewhat likely” (42%) that Iran would attack U.S. bases and forces in the region and draw the U.S. into war with Iran. Eighty-six percent said it was either “very” (59%) or “somewhat likely” (27%) that the price of oil would increase drastically.

The survey also found evidence of a rise in Islamophobia since 9/11, and even since just a year ago. Asked whether they believe “violent conflict” is inevitable “because Islamic religious and social traditions are intolerant and fundamentally incompatible with Western culture, 42% of respondents said that was closer to their view than the statement, “Though there are some fanatics in the Islamic world, most people there have needs and wants like those people everywhere, so it is possible for us to find common ground.” A 53% majority agreed with the latter option over the former. But the comparable figures for the same options were 37% and 59%, respectively, in an August 2011 poll, and 26% and 68% in November 2001, two months after 9/11. In other words, the percentage of people who believe that conflict with the Islamic world is inevitable has risen by more than 50% over the past 11 years.

Print Friendly and PDF

About the Author

avatar

The Washington Bureau Chief of the international news agency, Inter Press Service, Jim Lobe is best known for his coverage of U.S. foreign policy.



6 Responses to U.S. Public Sees Israeli Strike on Iran As Harmful

  1. avatar Jeff says:

    When do you think we’ll ever see a poll question like this:

    Israel is by far the largest recipient of US foreign aid at $3.5 billion a year, though Israel has a developed economy and a European-level standard of living.

    Do you favor keeping aid to Israel at this level, reducing it, or increasing it?

  2. avatar DORNA says:

    Jeff,

    Not in our lifetime.

  3. avatar Miriam says:

    This may seem overly optimistic but the fact that a number of church leaders submitted a letter to the Congress urging them to review Israel military aid last Friday, October 5th. Lutheran, Methodist UCC and National Council of Churches united action certainly presented a hopeful and courageous voice for change when their letter was released to the public today.

  4. avatar Gandapurt says:

    There should be a survey in the Islamic Countries and the QUESTION should be. WOULD YOU BE ANTI AMERICAN IF THE USA ADOPTED AN EVENHANDED POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND DID NOT SUPPORT ISRAEL RIGHT OR WRONG> You will be surprised at how many people are ANTI american Political Policies and not inherently Anti American

  5. avatar shuaib says:

    Israel has used US to its advantage and will continue to do so. When the People of America will ultimately wake up to see the negative fall out on their lives on account of their country’s misguided foreign policy, it will already be too late to reverse the effects.

  6. avatar ahsan shah UK says:

    UK citizens too are of the same opinion

Back to Top ↑