Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

    Commentary Magazine
    Contentions
    The American People Don’t Like the Terms of the Iran Deal
    John Podhoretz | @jpodhoretz 03.04.2015 - 8:54 PM

    A new poll signals more trouble for Barack Obama with voters and the Senate if indeed he and Iran come to terms on a nuke deal. (One-third of the interviews for the poll were conducted after the Netanyahu speech.) Specifically, as Dana Blanton, Fox News’s pollster, reports,

    In a Monday interview with Reuters, President Obama said, “If, in fact, Iran is willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their program where it is right now and, in fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist … if we’ve got that, and we’ve got a way of verifying that, there’s no other steps we can take that would give us such assurance that they don’t have a nuclear weapon.”

    Voters overwhelmingly reject that deal: 84 percent—including 80 percent of Democrats—think it’s a bad idea to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons 10 years from now in return for agreeing it won’t obtain nukes before then.

    The poll of 1,001 registered voters must be taken seriously because its results show real consistency over time.

    For example, “Some 55 percent think it would be ‘a disaster’ if Iran were to obtain the capability to use nuclear weapons, while 40 percent sees it as ‘a problem that can be managed.’ Those sentiments are unchanged from 2010 [emphasis added].” It shows a sharp partisan divide, which clearly reflects the reality of the present moment. But here is the most remarkable finding, to my mind:

    Overall, two-thirds of voters (65 percent) favor the U.S. using military action, if necessary, to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Just 28 percent are opposed.

    To varying degrees, majorities of Republicans (81 percent), Democrats (54 percent) and independents (53 percent) agree on using force to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

    Here’s how the question was worded: “Do you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran if that were the only way to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?” Exclude Republicans from the equation and it’s still the case that a majority of Democrats and independents would support military action. That number has risen sharply since October 2013, a month before the “interim accord” between the United States (and five other nations) and Iran was announced. At the time, it was 51-39 in support of military action if there were no other way to deny Iran the bomb. (The question then was worded more capaciously: “Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?”) This suggests the drawn-out negotiations and the leaks about American concessions have done the opposite of easing the concerns of voters.

    All this matters not simply because it tells us the American electorate is deeply skeptical of the deal the administration seems determined to strike if Iran will allow it. It matters because of the Senate. Next week, it appears, the Senate will take up a bill requiring the administration to submit the Iran deal for its consideration (using the power of the purse to threaten to withhold funds required to implement it). The bill will certainly pass, and the president will certainly veto it. So the question then becomes whether that veto can be overriden. It will take 13 Democratic senators for an override. Poll numbers like these make that possibility far more likely.

  • #2
    Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

    Originally posted by vt View Post
    Commentary Magazine
    Contentions
    The American People Don’t Like the Terms of the Iran Deal
    John Podhoretz | @jpodhoretz 03.04.2015 - 8:54 PM

    A new poll signals more trouble for Barack Obama with voters and the Senate if indeed he and Iran come to terms on a nuke deal. (One-third of the interviews for the poll were conducted after the Netanyahu speech.) Specifically, as Dana Blanton, Fox News’s pollster, reports,

    In a Monday interview with Reuters, President Obama said, “If, in fact, Iran is willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their program where it is right now and, in fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist … if we’ve got that, and we’ve got a way of verifying that, there’s no other steps we can take that would give us such assurance that they don’t have a nuclear weapon.”

    Voters overwhelmingly reject that deal: 84 percent—including 80 percent of Democrats—think it’s a bad idea to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons 10 years from now in return for agreeing it won’t obtain nukes before then.

    The poll of 1,001 registered voters must be taken seriously because its results show real consistency over time.

    For example, “Some 55 percent think it would be ‘a disaster’ if Iran were to obtain the capability to use nuclear weapons, while 40 percent sees it as ‘a problem that can be managed.’ Those sentiments are unchanged from 2010 [emphasis added].” It shows a sharp partisan divide, which clearly reflects the reality of the present moment. But here is the most remarkable finding, to my mind:

    Overall, two-thirds of voters (65 percent) favor the U.S. using military action, if necessary, to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Just 28 percent are opposed.

    To varying degrees, majorities of Republicans (81 percent), Democrats (54 percent) and independents (53 percent) agree on using force to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

    Here’s how the question was worded: “Do you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran if that were the only way to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?” Exclude Republicans from the equation and it’s still the case that a majority of Democrats and independents would support military action. That number has risen sharply since October 2013, a month before the “interim accord” between the United States (and five other nations) and Iran was announced. At the time, it was 51-39 in support of military action if there were no other way to deny Iran the bomb. (The question then was worded more capaciously: “Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?”) This suggests the drawn-out negotiations and the leaks about American concessions have done the opposite of easing the concerns of voters.

    All this matters not simply because it tells us the American electorate is deeply skeptical of the deal the administration seems determined to strike if Iran will allow it. It matters because of the Senate. Next week, it appears, the Senate will take up a bill requiring the administration to submit the Iran deal for its consideration (using the power of the purse to threaten to withhold funds required to implement it). The bill will certainly pass, and the president will certainly veto it. So the question then becomes whether that veto can be overriden. It will take 13 Democratic senators for an override. Poll numbers like these make that possibility far more likely.
    Does anyone really believe Iran is going to drop a nuclear bomb on anyone, much less the city of Jerusalem? Do you really think a predominately Muslim country is going to drop a nuclear bomb on the third most holiest site in all of Islam. the Dome of the Rock, in Jerusalem? All other Muslim countries would unite and annihilate Iran.

    The Persian empire has been politically and military insignificant since about 330 B.C.E and it will stay that way.

    This is reductio ad absurdum. "If Iran obtains the ability to create a nuclear weapon then they will drop it on Israel, because they threatened to do so!"

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

      Originally posted by ProdigyofZen View Post
      Does anyone really believe Iran is going to drop a nuclear bomb on anyone, much less the city of Jerusalem? Do you really think a predominately Muslim country is going to drop a nuclear bomb on the third most holiest site in all of Islam. the Dome of the Rock, in Jerusalem? All other Muslim countries would unite and annihilate Iran.

      The Persian empire has been politically and military insignificant since about 330 B.C.E and it will stay that way.

      This is reductio ad absurdum. "If Iran obtains the ability to create a nuclear weapon then they will drop it on Israel, because they threatened to do so!"

      But what's the alternative, Pro? Israel and Iran, arguably the two strongest regional powers in the ME, both of whom have to go through contortions in their state policies to meet the interests of the hegemon, itself under substantial stress. Seeing it in that light wouldn't do - too much Realpolitiks . . . .

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

        Originally posted by vt View Post
        Commentary Magazine
        Contentions
        The American People Don’t Like the Terms of the Iran Deal
        John Podhoretz ...
        Well, Podhoretz doesn't like it. The neocons at Commentary and the American Jewish Committee/AIPAC don't like it. Bibi and the Likudniks, they don't like it either.

        None of them speak for the American people or have the slightest concern for their interest. Unfortunately, that matters not one whit and the Likudniks and their vassals in Congress will have their way, by hook or crook.

        We've already endured the humiliation of Sheldon Aldelson and the GOP renting out the Chamber of the House of Representatives for a Likud election rally. Here in violation of all known protocol, a sitting executive of a foreign state uninvited by our Secretary takes to the House chamber to denounce the program of the sitting United States President. Unprecedented, but not a peep from the media or the pundits.

        It seems as if we have become the banana republic of the Likud and the State of Israel. It is what it is, but do you have to rub our faces in it?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

          Well, this was a poll of a sample of Americans; no better or worse than any other poll. So the action has popular support.

          There may be enough Democrats in the Senate to override any veto by the President. The action Obama has taken by not taking this nuclear agreement to the Senate has not been done by any President for a long time. Perhaps the Senate has had enough of a President not paying attention to the duty of the Congress to govern also.

          Yes the source is neocon, but the popular view is against this particular agreement. There is no conspiracy.

          It seems the left is getting as paranoid as the right with the conspiracy theories that seem to be growing with it's base.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

            Are this pollsters to be trusted?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

              Originally posted by vt View Post
              Well, this was a poll of a sample of Americans; ...It seems the left is getting as paranoid as the right with the conspiracy theories that seem to be growing with it's base.
              One can buy any outcome for any poll they want.

              And enough of the conspiracy theory crap, the armchair psychology and insinuations of mental disturbance. It's cheap and debasing. It's not an argument, but a bullying attempt to shut down unpopular ideas.

              So stop trying to bludgeon people here with that. They don't deserve it and it's beneath you.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

                If anyone is curious, this is the wording on one key Fox News poll question:

                "Do you think it's a good idea or a bad idea to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons 10 years from now in return for it agreeing that it won't obtain nuclear weapons before then?"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

                  The key is not a poll; the point is that 13 Democratic Senators are about to vote to override Obama's veto of a Senate bill in this area. The Senate should be able to vote on any nuclear agreement.

                  I've seen all sorts of conspiracy theories here about the Ukraine shooting down MH-17, the death of the Russian opposition leader, and the U.S. being a stepchild of Israel. They are our ally.

                  It is not on Israel that is concerned about Iran, but also Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States. If Iran gets the bomb, then the Saudis will follow. A Mideast nuclear arms race will be very dangerous.

                  No one has questioned anyone's mental health. Shut down unpopular ideas? No one is denying free expression of ideas.
                  Last edited by vt; March 06, 2015, 04:24 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

                    Guess I was wrong, it's not beneath you after all.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

                      Related to this thread:

                      When you criticize the Emperor, he retaliates.

                      http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...an_824204.html

                      http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...on_877687.html


                      Of course Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, and Boxer are just as corrupt or more so; however they are team players so they get a pass.

                      Republicans are just as corrupt. McDonnell of Virginia and Grimm of Staten Island come to mind, but they have nothing to do with Iran.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

                        Originally posted by ProdigyofZen View Post
                        Does anyone really believe Iran is going to drop a nuclear bomb on anyone, much less the city of Jerusalem? Do you really think a predominately Muslim country is going to drop a nuclear bomb on the third most holiest site in all of Islam. the Dome of the Rock, in Jerusalem? All other Muslim countries would unite and annihilate Iran.

                        The Persian empire has been politically and military insignificant since about 330 B.C.E and it will stay that way.

                        This is reductio ad absurdum. "If Iran obtains the ability to create a nuclear weapon then they will drop it on Israel, because they threatened to do so!"
                        The Parthians were tough guys until 224 AD.

                        The Persian empire was considerable far longer than the USA has been in existence.

                        Further, if you divide the amount of oil they have by the cost of one nuclear war head, you end up with very large number.

                        There is more to Israel than Jerusalem. There is Tel Aviv, Haifa, etc. Secondly, Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. That means the government, and possibly the military, have links to terrorists. There is also the issue that Iran would give the bomb (or the know how) to other nations.

                        What the US, or the world should do, is a very tough question. We did nothing while Pakistan developed nukes, and they almost got into a war with India. I don't think we can single out Iran as the one country that can't have nukes. We need some kind of coherent policy worked out with other countries.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

                          That's the problem; if Iran get its, the other major Mideast players follow. The more unstable regimes that have a nuke the better the chance one will use it.

                          That's very concerning.

                          http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...-proliferation
                          Last edited by vt; March 06, 2015, 10:09 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

                            Originally posted by thriftyandboringinohio View Post
                            If anyone is curious, this is the wording on one key Fox News poll question:

                            "Do you think it's a good idea or a bad idea to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons 10 years from now in return for it agreeing that it won't obtain nuclear weapons before then?"
                            By the standards of the region Iran is a nation that actually works.

                            In contrast, there are two essentially failed states that already possess nuclear weapon capability...one of them an alleged USA ally.

                            The Iran nuclear debate is a sideshow. Don't narrow your scan. From a post on another thread back in 2008:

                            Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                            ...The really big problems always seem to come from unexpected sources. While Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan have been hogging the headlines from the Middle East for years, it's chaotic Pakistan, not Iran, that already has nuclear weapon capability and it's Egypt, not Iraq, that poses a great risk of change to a regime inimitably hostile to western interests in a populous Islamic nation.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

                              Originally posted by Polish_Silver View Post
                              Secondly, Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. That means the government, and possibly the military, have links to terrorists.
                              I try to work from the premise that the US runs the world pretty much the way we want to. If we didn't want instability in the Middle East, there wouldn't be any instability. We don't care about ISIS in Iraq, we care about ISIS in New York or Boston.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X