Americans are concerned about Iran’s nuclear program but split on whether military action should be undertaken if diplomacy and economic sanctions fail to stop it, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.
The findings underscore public concern about an Iranian threat and a partisan divide over how to respond. Iran has emerged as a key issue in the presidential race, especially among Democrats.
While 46% of those surveyed say military action should be taken either now or if diplomacy fails, 45% rule it out in any case. Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to endorse taking military steps.
“If you had more follow-on questions ”” on what if the military action was unilateral, (for instance) ”” then support would tend to diminish,” says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. “But it does indicate that approximately half of Americans are concerned enough that they would at least seriously consider it, and that’s worth noting.”
Personally, I think using military force would be a mistake in Iran and would drive those at the political margins from being friendly with the US to against us. The mullocracy in Teheran is not popular and we need to do everything we can to see that it is toppled using peaceful means.
The mullocracy in Iran holds a monopoly on force in that country and will not be driven out of power by “peaceful” means. Does that mean we should engage in overt military force? No. But we should provide the same support to those Iranians who oppose the government in Iran as the Iranians are providing for those who oppose the government in Iraq. We should be providing the dissident with training and weapons and logistical support (all with plausible deniability). This will have two benefits. First, it will force Iran to focus its efforts inwardly and, thus, lessen their ability to support terrorists in other countries. Second, it could lead to an opening of the society there and the eventual downfall of the mullocracy.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder