Two thirds of Americans oppose Iranian nuclear sellout
A new Quinnipiac poll shows that
two thirds of the American people oppose the Obama-Kerry sellout to a nuclear Iran.
“American voters oppose 57 – 28 percent, with only lukewarm support
from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and
independent voters, the nuclear pact negotiated with Iran,” the release from
Quinnipiac states. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose the deal by an 86%
to 3% margin, and only a slim majority of Democrats support it. The
poll of 1,644 registered voters has a margin of error of 2.4%.
Opposition to the Iran deal has widened as Congress has probed the
details of the agreement in televised hearings on Capitol Hill. One
major issue is the existence of secret side deals between the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran governing nuclear
inspections, which the administration has not read or provided to
Congress, in violation of the Iran Nuclear Review Agreement Act (the
Corker bill).
Congress is
starting to get it.
At least 218 Republican lawmakers have signed on to support a
resolution expressing “firm disapproval” of the nuclear deal, which
would provide Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief while
enabling it to continue work on ballistic missiles and other nuclear
research.
The measure, which is being led by Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill) and was first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, comes as Congress takes 60 days to review the deal before voting on it.
Many lawmakers, including a growing number of Democrats, have come
out against the deal, citing concerns it does not do enough to limit
Iran’s nuclear program.
Critics remain most concerned about portions of the deal that will
ban U.S. inspectors from Iran’s nuclear sites and remove restrictions on
the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile program.
...
At least three members of the House leadership, as well as 18 of 22
House committee chairmen and 23 of the 25 GOP members of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, have already signed on to back the
resolution, according to figures provided by congressional sources.
House Freedom Caucus Chair Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) and Republican Study
Committee Chair Bill Flores (R., Texas) also back the measure.
I'm not so impressed by this. Aren't the Republicans the majority party in Congress? Don't they chair all the committees? Who are the four chairmen who have not come out against the deal? Who are the two GOP members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who have not come out against the deal? These people need to be named and shamed.
A senior congressional aide familiar with the effort said the administration is failing to convince lawmakers to back the deal.
“It appears the administration’s sales pitch for this deal is falling
on deaf ears. Closed-door briefings and public hearings have apparently
left Members with more questions than answers, and the administration’s
decision to circumvent Congress by first bringing the deal to the UN
infuriated key Democrats who are otherwise loyal to the president,” the
source said.
“This level of opposition so early in the review period indicates
that Congress really has a chance of killing the agreement. What
Congressman Roskam has done—securing 218 commitments from Members vote
against the deal in just two weeks—is a rather remarkable feat. He still
has more work to do, but this is an impressive start,” the source
added.
Remarkable? Look, I love Roskam - he's one of Israel's strongest supporters. But he shouldn't have to work this hard to defeat a deal that is so obviously and blatantly a disaster.
I also don't get why Congress has not claimed the Senate's power to advise and consent to treaties - if not by
classifying this agreement as a treaty (which is what it really is) then at least by classifying it as an
amendment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would require a two thirds affirmative vote in the Senate which will never happen.
Labels: Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, Peter Roskam, polls, Senate's treaty powers, United States Senate, US House of Representatives
How to read a poll
A Pew Research poll finds that of the 79% of Americans (surprised it's so low) who have heard about President Hussein Obama's sellout to a nuclear Iran,
most are opposed to the deal, don't trust Iran to abide by it, and have limited confidence in the West's ability to monitor it (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
Among the 79% of Americans who have heard about the agreement, just
38% approve, while 48% disapprove (14% do not offer an opinion).
There is widespread skepticism about aspects of the agreement,
particularly the Iranian leadership’s commitment to the terms of the
deal: Most of those familiar with the agreement say they have not too
much (35%) or no confidence at all (38%) that Iran’s leaders will uphold
their side of the agreement. And while there is greater confidence in
the U.S. and international agencies’ ability to monitor Iran’s
compliance, 54% are not too (33%) or not at all (21%) confident, while a
smaller share (45%) express at least a fair amount of confidence in
their ability.
I'm sure many of you saw the Obama administration claiming that most Americans support the Iran deal, as shown by
polls like this one. So what's the difference? Why the gap in the results? Pew explains:
The different findings on public views of the Iran nuclear agreement
in the Washington Post/ABC News and Pew Research Center surveys
highlight how question wording – and the information provided in a
question – can impact public opinion, particularly on issues where
public views are still being shaped and information levels are
relatively low. The Pew Research question, which does not describe the
agreement, finds lower levels of support than the Post/ABC News
question, which details the intention to monitor Iran’s facilities and
raises the possibility of re-imposition of sanctions if Iran does not
comply.
In other questions, both the Washington Post/ABC survey and the Pew
Research Center survey find substantial public skepticism about the
agreement. The Pew Research Center survey asks about confidence
in Iran’s leadership to uphold their end of the deal and the ability of
the U.S. and international agencies to monitor compliance, finding that
majorities are not confident about either. And the Washington Post/ABC
News poll asks people how confident they are “that this agreement will
prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – very confident, somewhat
confident, not so confident or not confident at all,” finding that 64%
are not confident in this.
Though levels of support for the agreement differ depending on how
the question is asked, both questions find large divides between
Democrats and Republicans in approval of the deal, although that
division is more pronounced in the Pew Research question than in the
Washington Post/ABC News question.
In other words, it's all in how you ask the question (and what results you choose to highlight), which is why large political campaigns all hire their own pollsters.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, IAEA, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry, Pew poll, polls
Boehner: Congress doesn't have the votes to stop Iran deal
Despite polls showing that the American people overwhelmingly favor Congressional oversight (more on those in a minute), House Speaker John Boehner (R-In) reports that
Congress does not have the votes to stop President Hussein Obama from allowing Iran to become a nuclear power. This is from Eli Lake.
Speaking at an off-the-record event Saturday at the Republican Jewish
Coalition's meeting in Las Vegas, House Speaker John Boehner told the
audience that he didn't expect that more than two-thirds of Congress
would vote to overturn a veto from Obama if Congress voted against
a nuclear deal, according to four people who were inside the room for
the private talk.
The resolution of disapproval is provided for in legislation before
the Senate this week, known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review
Act. The deadline for reaching a final nuclear accord between Iran, the
U.S. and five other world powers is June 30.
Proponents of the legislation, such as Republican co-author Senator
Bob Corker, say the bill gives Congress a chance to review an Iran
agreement and could stop Obama from lifting sanctions during the review
process. Critics, however, want to strengthen the bill's mechanisms and
lower the threshold necessary for Congress to disapprove the deal. Their
hope is to be able to ultimately stop Obama from at least lifting those
sanctions created by Congress, as opposed to the ones created through
executive order or the United Nations Security Council. Boehner's
comments this weekend confirm their suspicions that Corker's bill is too
weak to stop Obama from implementing a bad Iran deal.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, confirmed that the speaker
said he did not expect Congress to have the votes to overturn a veto of a
resolution to disapprove the Iran deal. "Obviously, it takes only a
fraction of the House and Senate Democrats to sustain a veto," Steel
told me. "But it is impossible to say whether they will or not until we
know what the final 'deal' looks like."
But here's the weird part: Lake goes on to report on several Republican Senators who plan to offer amendments to toughen the bill so that Obama can't win the game by having a veto sustained. Look who's opposed to that.
Corker and Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has
hinted he may also run for president, are expected to oppose all those
amendments. As Josh Rogin and I reported last week, the amendments are also opposed by Washington's largest pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Debate on the Corker bill starts on Tuesday.
In the meantime, The Israel Project's Omri Ceren reports via email that most Americans want Congressional oversight over any deal with Iran.
Now the poll...
Iran questions - Note though how the debate has shifted. Just two weeks the conversation was between passing or voting down Corker-Menendez. Now the debate is "pass it without amendments" vs. "strengthen it" The White House's original position against oversight is not even in the discussion. There's a reason for that:
60. Would you support or oppose legislation that would make any Iran agreement subject to congressional approval?
AGE IN YRS.......
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom 18-34 35-54 55+
Support 65% 88% 49% 66% 70% 61% 63% 64% 69%
Oppose 24 6 40 25 23 25 25 29 20
DK/NA 10 7 11 9 6 14 13 7 11
It mostly gets worse from there for the administration. A majority of voters disapprove of President Obama's overall handling of Iran (37 approve / 52 disapprove) and an even larger majority doesn't think the agreement announced at Lausanne will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons (35 confident / 62 not confident).
The one dim bright spot for the White House is that a majority of voters say they approve of the announced framework (58/33), even though a majority also doesn't think it will work. That's what you'll hear from supporters of the administration's diplomacy, though it might be half-hearted. They know just like everyone else does, that support craters when voters are asked about the specifics of a deal: sunset clause, no shuttering facilities, no Iran coming clear, etc. Polling converges on this point, but if you need something recent McLaughlin just wrapped up a survey (http://mclaughlinonline.com/2015/04/17/san-national-survey-results-american-attitudes-towards-obamairan-nuclear-negotiations/).
I guess when you're in the 'fourth quarter' you don't worry about what the people want. I wish Obama were constitutionally allowed to run for a third term. It might keep him honest and avoid a dictatorship for the next 20 months.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bob Corker, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, P 5+1, polls, United States Senate
Poll: 'Even if Netanyahu has seen his relationship with the White House deteriorate ... no impact on his standing with the American people'
A Gallup poll shows that Prime Minister
Netanyahu is viewed favorably by 45% of Americans and unfavorably by 24%. That's a statistical tie with his 1998 favorable rating of 46% (which was around the time that he signed the Wye Agreement), and a significant improvement over his 2012 rating of 35% positive and 23% negative.
While Netanyahu's favorable score has varied slightly over the years,
his unfavorable score has been relatively stable, ranging from 20% to
28%. Notably, even while his favorable score increased since 2012, his
unfavorable score stayed about the same. Meanwhile, fewer Americans have
no opinion of Netanyahu today than did so in 2012, with 31% vs. 41%,
respectively, either saying they are unsure or have never heard of him.
...
[E]ven if Netanyahu has seen his relationship with the White House
deteriorate, it appears to have had no impact on his standing with the
American people.
Perhaps it should go without saying that Netanyahu does better among Republicans than among Democrats.
Though the American public in general views Netanyahu more favorably
than unfavorably, there are sharp party differences in these views.
Republicans are much more likely to view Netanyahu positively (60%) than
negatively (18%), while Democrats are evenly divided in their views of
him: 31% favorable and 31% unfavorable. Independents' favorable ratings
of Netanyahu are twice as high as their unfavorable ratings.
And his ratings have improved since 2012 among all parties.
Despite White House and other prominent Democratic officials' criticism
of Netanyahu's visit, his favorable rating has improved among all major
party groups since 2012. The increase has been slightly higher among
independents (+13 points) and Republicans (+10 points) than Democrats
(+6 points). Democrats are slightly more likely now to see Netanyahu
favorably compared with 2012 -- the well-broadcast break with the Obama
administration in recent weeks notwithstanding.
Maybe it pays to pick a fight with Obama.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, polls
How the media is spinning Netanyahu's speech
American President Hussein Obama is trying to counter Prime Minister Netanyahu's upcoming visit to Washington
in any way possible.
In what is becoming an increasingly nasty grudge match, the White
House is mulling ways to undercut Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu's upcoming trip to Washington and blunt his message that a
potential nuclear deal with Iran is bad for Israel and the world.
There
are limits. Administration officials have discarded the idea of
President Barack Obama himself giving an Iran-related address to rebut
the two speeches Netanyahu is to deliver during his early March visit.
But other options remain on the table.
Among them: a presidential
interview with a prominent journalist known for coverage of the rift
between Obama and Netanyahu, multiple Sunday show television appearances
by senior national security aides and a pointed snub of America's
leading pro-Israel lobby, which is holding its annual meeting while
Netanyahu is in Washington, according to the officials.
The
administration has already ruled out meetings between Netanyahu and
Obama, saying it would be inappropriate for the two to meet so close to
Israel's March 17 elections. But the White House is now doubling down on
a cold-shoulder strategy, including dispatching Cabinet members out of
the country and sending a lower-ranking official than normal to
represent the administration at the annual policy conference of the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the officials said.
And Obama's allies in the media are trying to help him. Here's an example from
CNN.
A
large majority of Americans believe that Republican congressional
leaders should not have invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to
speak to Congress without consulting the White House, according to a new
CNN/ORC survey.
The nationwide poll,
released Tuesday, shows 63% of Americans say it was a bad move for
congressional leadership to extend the invitation without giving
President Barack Obama a heads up that it was coming. Only 33% say it
was the right thing to do.
But what's missing here is the key point. While many Americans feel uncomfortable with the seeming end-run around the White House to invite Netanyahu, most Americans would like to hear what Netanyahu has to say about Iran. This is from
Josh Rogin at Bloomberg.
While it may be true that most Americans don't like Boehner's
tactics, it's not the case that they don't want Netanyahu to go through
with it. According to the TIP data, 25 percent of 1,563 respondents to
the new poll said they agreed more with the statement:
Some people say Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is in the middle of
an election at home, and it is inappropriate for the U.S. to host him
for a speech only two weeks before the election is being held. They say
this is a Republican attempt to make Netanyahu look stronger before his
election.
While 43 percent of respondents said they agreed more with the following statement:
Other people say Iran is getting closer to building a nuclear weapon.
As one of the world's most knowledgeable leaders on the Middle East and
the Iranian nuclear program, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should
address Congress before the March 31st deadline for a political
framework with Iran.
Those are detailed questions for a news survey, which was conducted
by Paragon Insights, and one can debate whether the reference to
Netanyahu's credentials was relevant. (The full methodology and text of
all questions can be found here.)
Nonetheless, the responses make clear that more Americans than not now
believe it’s a good idea to let Netanyahu make his case.
And a plurality of Americans are unhappy with the way the Obama administration has reacted to the speech.
Also, more respondents than not (47 percent to 32 percent) disapprove of
the way the administration has reacted to the coming speech. Obama,
Vice President Joseph Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry have all
said they won't meet with Netanyahu while he is in Washington, citing
a desire not to interfere in the Israeli elections coming March 17.
A report in Politico shows even larger majorities of
Americans want Netanyahu to speak.
The poll — conducted by McLaughlin & Associates, a pollster that
worked for former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) — found that
59 percent of Americans support Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and only
23 percent oppose, according to results obtained by POLITICO. McLaughlin & Associates CEO John McLaughlin has also advised Netanyahu during his current reelection campaign.
...
[T]he poll concluded that 36 percent of people strongly support the March 3 address, while just 11 percent strongly oppose it.
The
survey also found that 79 percent want to require both Obama and
Congress to vet a deal that would ratchet down Iran’s nuclear program in
exchange for further loosening of some sanctions. Congressional
Republicans are increasingly shifting their stance on the Iran toward
requiring congressional approval for a deal, as opposed to imposing new
sanctions. The White House opposes both options.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Iranian nuclear threat, John Boehner, joint session of Congress, Knesset elections 2015, polls, V-2015
The American people are much smarter than you think
US chief negotiator bottle washer Martin Indyk may be
blaming Israel for the collapse of the 'peace talks,' but the overwhelming majority of the American people
don't buy it.
Over twice as many Americans agree with Israel’s claim that they are not
primarily to blame for the failure of the Middle East peace process
than those who agree with the Palestinian claim that moving toward a
unity government with Hamas is a step toward peace, according to a new poll by The Israel Project.
The poll was conducted May 2-4, 2014, among a national sample of 1595
likely voters in the 2014 midterm election. The interviews were
conducted online by Survey Sampling International.
The poll focused Palestinian announcement of progress toward a unity
government with Hamas, which came just as the nine month
American-mediated negotiations neared an end late last month.
46
percent of respondents agreed with the statement: “Israel says that it
cannot be expected to negotiate with a government or party that does not
recognize its right to exist and seeks to destroy it.”
In
contrast, only 18 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: “The
Palestinians say that a unity government of all Palestinians is the
first step to lasting peace.”
Seniors and Republicans were the
strongest supporters of the Israeli position. When the question of who
is to blame for the breakdown of the talks was posed, 48 percent of
respondents agreed with the Israeli explanation while 20 percent agreed
with the Palestinian position.
...
"Americans simply don't buy efforts being made by some to blame the
impasse on Israel,” said Block. “It doesn't matter how old they are, or
what party they belong to, voters understand that Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas turned his back on peace when he abandoned
negotiations, turned to the international community to attack Israel,
and announced a unity agreement with the Iran-backed terror group Hamas
in the middle of Secretary Kerry's effort to keep talks going.”
Overall,
49 percent of Americans responding to the poll had a generally
favorable view of Israel while 27 percent had an unfavorable view. In
contrast, only 5 percent of respondents had a favorable view of Hamas
while 57 percent had an unfavorable view. Only Syria (68%), Iraq (70%),
and Iran (73%) had higher levels of unfavorability according to the
poll.
Even Obama and Kerry can't fool all of the people all of the time. Israel can sleep easier at night.
Labels: Martin Indyk, Middle East peace process, Palestinians, polls
Kerry: More mistrust than ever between Israel and 'Palestinians' but there WILL be peace
Has anyone certified John Kerry yet? He's definitely nuts....
Kerry told a hearing on the State Department's 2015 budget on Wednesday that there is
more mistrust than ever between Israel and the 'Palestinians,' but rather than admit his obvious failure, Kerry continues to claim that there will be a 'peace agreement'... someday.
The secretary of state admitted that while there are still major
issues in the progress of the negotiations, such issues are part of the
bigger picture.
"You have to see those gaps in the context of the
negotiations," he said. "I do believe both parties are serious and want
to find a way forward."
Kerry said that despite this, neither
side believes the other is serious and that the level of mistrust
between the two sides is higher than ever.
On whether or not
reaching an agreement was still an option, Kerry told the US lawmakers
"I still believe its possible... but difficult."
It's not just the 'Palestinians' whom the Israelis mistrust. A poll released earlier this week shows that
two thirds of Israeli Jews don't trust Kerry either. What a surprise....
Sixty-six percent of Israeli Jews and 53% of Israeli Arabs do not trust
US Secretary of State John Kerry to take the country’s security into
account in the American negotiating framework agreement he intends to
reveal next month.
This according to the monthly Peace Index poll sponsored by the Israel
Democracy Institute and Tel Aviv University, which was published on
Tuesday.
But wait for it - that's not even the most devastating item in the poll.
Sixty-one percent of Jews and 56% of Arabs believe that Kerry’s main
motivation for reaching a framework agreement is a personal interest in
making history as a statesman where others have failed. Only 22% of
Jewis and 16% of Arabs believe he is motivated by honest concern for
the future of the two parties. Eight percent of Jewish Israelis and 14%
of Arab Israelis believe he is equally motivated by the chance to make
history and concern for the parties.
Ouch.
Labels: Israel's security, John Kerry, Middle East peace process, polls
Wow! Most Americans support Israel, oppose Obama
A new poll published by the Zionist Organization of America shows that
overwhelming majorities of Americans (NOTE - NOT American Jews) back Israel against President Obama on every major issue of the day involving the Jewish state.
The National Omnibus Poll, conducted by McLaughlin Associates and published
on January 17, 2014, surveyed a large, nationwide cross-section of 1000
Americans, consisting of Protestants (46%), Catholics (30%), Jews (3.6%),
African Americans (13%), Hispanics (12%), Asians (3%) and Whites (70%).
Politically, the respondents were 42% Democratic supporters and 41%
Republican supporters.
The poll found that:
To the question, “Do you think that if a Palestinian Arab state were
established, it would live peacefully with Israel or would it be hostile to
Israel and support terrorism?,” 58% of Americans reply that a future
Palestinian state would be hostile and support terrorism, whereas only 17%
think it would live in peace with Israel.
To the question, “Iran continues to call for Israel’s destruction and calls
America the Great Satan. Do you believe that President Obama has done all he
can to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons?,” a majority of 51% of
Americans believe that President Obama has not done all he can to prevent
Iran developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to a mere 28% who believe that
he has (almost a 2 ––1 ratio).
To the question, “Should the United States pass stronger sanctions against
Iran or should they weaken sanctions in order to convince Iran to stop
developing nuclear weapons?,” a large majority of 59% of Americans reply
that the U.S. should impose stronger sanctions, as opposed to a mere 17% who
believe the U.S. should weaken sanctions on Iran (almost a 3.5 –– 1 ratio).
To the question, “Do you believe that Israeli Jews should have the right to
live in settlements in the West Bank, in part to self-defend Israel’s
borders, or should only Palestinian Arabs have the right to live there?,”
47% of Americans believe that Israeli Jews should have the right to live
there, whereas only 14% of Americans believe only Palestinian Arabs should
have the right to live there (over a 3 –– 1 ratio).
To the question, “Do you support President Obama’s plan to give the
Palestinian Authority $440 in American taxpayer dollars in financial aid?,”
an overwhelming majority of 72% Americans oppose President Obama’s planned
funding to the Palestinian Authority, as opposed to a mere 15% who are in
favor of it (almost a 5 –– 1 ratio).
To the question, “Do you believe that Jerusalem should remain the undivided
capital of Israel?,” a clear majority of 55% of Americans reply that
Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel, as opposed to a
mere 13% who believe it should not (over a 4 –– 1 ratio).
To the question, “As part of the current negotiations, should the
Palestinian Authority publicly recognize that Israel is the sovereign state
of the Jewish people?,” a large majority 63% of Americans believe that the
PA should, whereas only 11% believe it should not (almost a 6 –– 1 ratio).
To the question, “Do you believe that President Obama is a close and
reliable friend of Israel?,” only 31% of Americans believe that he is a
close and reliable friend, whereas 38% believe that he is not. (This is a
surprising result, given that the U.S. has always been known as Israel’s
closest and most reliable friend).
The numbers for American Jews are probably much more pro-Obama. But the real silver lining in the cloud for Obama is this: He doesn't have to stand for reelection.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Judea and Samaria, Palestinian state RIGHT NOW syndrome, polls
Smart diplomacy: Poll names US the greatest threat to world peace
He was going to remake US foreign relations and boy has he ever done that. A newly released Gallup poll finds that the United States under Obama is deemed
the greatest threat to world peace by other countries in the world. And the country in second place trails by a factor of 3:1.
Not
only did the U.S. top the list with an aggregate of 24 percent, but
the runner-up threat country, Pakistan, was way behind at eight
percent. China was third at six percent, followed by North Korea, Iran
and Israel at five percent each.
The survey of opinions across 65 countries by pollster Win/Gallup
International recorded some of the strongest anti-American sentiment,
predictably, in countries widely regarded as rivals, led by Russia
(where 54 percent of respondents said the U.S. was the greatest threat
to peace) and China (49 percent).
But the view that the U.S. poses the greatest threat to peace was
also strongly held in some purported U.S. allies – such as NATO partners
Greece and Turkey (45 percent each), and Pakistan (44 percent), which
is also a top recipient of U.S. aid.
Two other countries where strongly negative opinion of the U.S. was
found were Bosnia, a candidate for European Union membership (49
percent), and, closer to home, Argentina (46 percent).
Elsewhere in Latin America the U.S. topped the list of threats to
peace for a significant number of respondents in Mexico (37 percent),
Brazil (26 percent) and Peru (24 percent).
I guess that smart diplomacy is really going well, isn't it?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, polls, smart diplomacy, United States
Who says Americans favor Iran deal?
On Wednesday, I posted a Reuters/Ipsos poll that had
Americans favoring their country's deal with Iran by a 2-1 margin.
Not so says Rasmussen.
Voters are almost evenly divided over a treaty the United States has
reached with Iran to slow that country’s nuclear weapons program and
tend to think the arrangement is likely to make things worse in the
Middle East.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41%
favor the short-term deal than ends some economic sanctions on Iran in
exchange for verifiable cutbacks in the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Forty-three percent (43%) oppose that deal. Sixteen percent (16%) are
undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
...
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on November 25-26, 2013
by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage
points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen
Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Hmmm.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, P 5+1, polls
The Brits favored Chamberlain's Czech policy in 1938 too
A newly-released poll shows that
Americans favor the P 5+1 agreement with Iran by a 2-1 margin.
According to the Reuters/Ipsos survey, 44 percent of Americans
support the interim deal reached between Iran and six world powers in
Geneva, and 22 percent oppose it.
While indicating little trust
among Americans toward Iranian intentions, the survey also underscored a
strong desire to avoid new US military entanglements after long, costly
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if the Iran deal fails, 49
percent want the United States to increase sanctions and 31 percent
think it should launch further diplomacy. But only 20 percent want US
military force to be used against Iran.
The survey's results suggest that a US 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.
The poll's conclusions are
startlingly similar to British polls taken around the time of Neville Chamberlain's September 1938 agreement with Adolph Hitler over Czechoslovakia.
Public opinion in 1938 seemed reasonably in favour of Neville Chamberlain and what was later to be termed appeasement when he returned with "peace in our time" after the September 1938 Munich Agreement. Opinion polls appear to show that the majority of the nation was in support of the stance taken by Chamberlain.
"Should Britain promise assistance to Czechoslovakia if Germany acts as it did towards Austria?" (Asked March 1938)
Yes: 33%
No: 43%
No opinion: 24%
"Hitler says that he has no more territorial ambitions in Europe. Do you believe him?" (Asked October 1938)
Yes: 7%
No: 93%
"Which of these views comes closest to your views of Chamberlain's policy of appeasement?" (Asked February 1939)
1. It is a policy that will ultimately lead to a lasting peace in Europe: 28%
2. It will keep us out of war until we have time to rearm: 46%
3. It is bringing war nearer by whetting the appetite of the dictators: 24%
4. No opinion: 2%
On March 16, 1939, Hitler invaded the half of Czechoslovakia that was not ceded to him. That (finally) changed British public opinion:
Is the British government right in following a policy giving guarantees to preserve the independence of small European states? (Asked April 1939)
Yes: 83%
No: 17%
Here in Israel we have no delusions (from the first link).
In Israel, a Channel 2 poll conducted Tuesday night showed that a
majority of Israelis backed Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent criticism
of the Obama administration’s Iranian policy, with 58% saying the
criticism was justified, and 28% saying it was not.
In addition, most Israelis – 60% – said that the agreement endangered Israel, while 25% said it did not.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Adolph Hitler, Barack Hussein Obama, Czech Republic, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli polls, Neville Chamberlain, P 5+1, polls
