Whatever you might think about the administration’s policy towards Iran, the American people support it. And only one in five Americans want to go to war with Iran if the strategy doesn’t work.
Americans back a newly brokered nuclear deal with Iran by a 2-to-1 margin and are very wary of the United States resorting to military action against Tehran even if the historic diplomatic effort falls through, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday.
The findings were rare good news in the polls for President Barack Obama, whose approval ratings have dropped in recent weeks because of the botched rollout of his signature healthcare reform law.
According to the Reuters/Ipsos survey, 44 percent of Americans support the interim deal reached between Iran and six world powers in Geneva last weekend, and 22 percent oppose it.
While indicating little trust among Americans toward Iranian intentions, the survey also underscored a strong desire to avoid new U.S. military entanglements after long, costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if the Iran deal fails, 49 percent want the United States to then increase sanctions and 31 percent think it should launch further diplomacy. But only 20 percent want U.S. military force to be used against Iran.
The survey’s results suggest that a U.S. public weary of war could help bolster Obama’s push to keep Congress from approving new sanctions that would complicate the next round of negotiations for a final agreement with Iran.
Obama was elected to pursue diplomatic approaches to our foreign policy challenges rather than resorting to war. That is what he has been doing.
Aren’t we supposed to just do what President Bolton wants, no matter who gets elected? Just what does that Obama fellow think he’s doing? How are the military contractors supposed to loot the Treasury if we don’t launch invasions and occupations every few years?
Okay, snark off. It’s good to see the President actually going ahead with policies that the people who voted him into office want him to pursue.
Dat 38-56% approval. Ouch.
Well thankfully it appears that unlike most politicians Americans are capable of holding 2 thoughts in their heads at once.
The war hawks’ biggest problem is that the Republican base pays the highest cost for war. Few progressives serve in the military or encourage their children to serve. Those in the lower middle class see the price of war first hand because either they themselves have served or they know others who have. They see the cost of war and its stupidity.
I’ve strongly disagreed with some of the president’s decisions (the surge in Afghanistan, which was a pointless waste of lives and money), but I’ve never been prouder that he is our president.
Our world desperately needs cooperation and diplomacy if it is to have any chance.
20% support an attack –
We’ve seen that 20% number before.
– It’s called the Republican Base.
Of the 20% who want to attack Iran, how many can find it on a map?
Obama only seeks a reduction of tensions with Iran so he can do Syria.
(Everybody on here three months ago was absolutely sure Obama was hell-bent bombing Syria.)
Ever since the initial rumblings of a possible deal with Iran a month or so ago became know, I’ve really been wondering if the harshly mocked chemical weapons deal in Syria actually turned out to be the long-game for an Iran nuclear deal. Obama suggested that he was prepared to go ahead and bomb Syria, even with the American public opposed to it and even with the tacit acknowledgement that bombing Syria wouldn’t address the underlying problem (the chemical weapons). BUT he also proved, in deed, that he was completely willing to take YES for answer. The US government still has an official policy of regime change in Syria, but the President said that bombing Syria was solely about the chemical weapons. When Russia and Syria came forward with an offer to remove the chemical weapons and prevent their further use during the civil war, the President proved that it really was about the chemical weapons, not a pretext for fulfilling regime change.
This made the “everything remains on the table” threat to Iran perhaps more credible, but also the possibility of coming to an agreement more credible as well – when Obama says it’s about making sure Iran doesn’t build nuclear weapons, that’s what he means; for him, it’s not a pretext for just beating up on Iran. That communicates to Iran that if they really aren’t interested in nuclear weapons (as they state), a deal is possible with Obama; he WILL take yes for an answer.
We’ll see how all of this turns out, in both Syria and Iran, but the President was 100% right when he responded to critics of the Syria agreement thus: “Folks here in Washington like to grade on style. … I’m less concerned about style points. I’m much more concerned about getting the policy right.” No one (outside of the Village) cares (or really remembers) now about the messiness in the lead up to the Syria agreement, but getting that policy right may have opened this door, or at least ensured that it didn’t close.
Count the words in that paragraph.
Now count the words in “He’s a warmonger. He’s worse than Bush. He sold us out.”
People on the left are no less resistant to arguments that don’t fit on a bumper sticker than people on the right.
There’s the problem right there.
Obama was elected to pursue diplomatic approaches to our foreign policy challenges rather than resorting to war. That is what he has been doing.
I’d be embarrassed for you if I still gave a crap, but you really haven’t a remote interest in honest accounting, so I simply give an occasional click out of morbid curiosity, in the same way “liberals” used to click on, say, Redstate. It really is that damned close to being that damned bad. It’s damnable.
To be successful, America’s Iran strategy must learn from the mistakes made with Iraq. In Iraq, the absence of serious diplomacy put the United States on a path to an unnecessary and avoidable war. The international community imposed indiscriminate sanctions that failed to advance key interests but devastated the civilian population, weakened civil society, and cemented the country’s dictatorial rule. Three decades of Iran policy have put the US on a similar path, and it is one that the United States can ill-afford to continue following.
Unsecured Business Loans