As the United States has removed itself from one extended military conflict in the Middle East – in Iraq – another one possibly looms on the horizon, brought on by Iran’s suspected nuclear program and, among other things, Israel’s desire to abolish it. The U.S. has a tricky and nuanced road to navigate, made only more complicated by Israel’s role, the rising price of oil, and the presidential election in November. When Americans were asked about various items related to the potential conflict with Iran, the responses reflect the complicated nature of the issue.  Seven in ten Americans agree that Iran’s nuclear capabilities pose a threat to the United States (72%), yet what action the United States should take in response is less clear.

Over half of U.S. adults say that if Israel takes action against Iran’s nuclear program that the U.S. should support Israel (56%), yet fewer than half of Americans say Israel should take action to destroy Iran’s nuclear program (45%) and fewer believe that the U.S. should take this action themselves.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 2,451 adults surveyed online between March 12 and 19, 2012 by Harris Interactive .

While a majority of all U.S. adults agree that Iran’s nuclear capabilities pose a threat to the United States this belief is stronger among older generations; 77%-79% of Baby Boomers (ages 48-66) and Matures (ages 67+) agree, compared to 63%-71% of Echo Boomers (ages 18-35) and Gen X (ages 36-47) who do.  The older generations are in similar agreement about the U.S. supporting Israel if Israel takes action against Iran’s nuclear program: over three in five Baby Boomers (63%) and Matures (68%) say the U.S. should support Israel, yet just 55% of Gen X and 45% of Echo Boomers respectively say the same.  There is a less strong opinion on whether Israel should take military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities.  Approximately half (47%-51%) of Gen X, Baby Boomers and Matures say Israel should, although just 38% of Echo Boomers agree.  If Americans are uncertain about how Israel should act, they are even more uncertain about what the U.S. should do:

• Overall 45% of U.S. adults agree that the United States should NOT take military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, 39% disagree and 16% are not at all sure;
• Matures (aged 67+) are most likely to say that the U.S. should not take action against Iran and Gen X is least likely to say this (40%).

Political Differences
Military engagements and involvement with Israel are usually politically charged issues, but that sense is even more escalated in an election year. Republicans, Democrats and Independents show a different mind when considering Iran’s nuclear situation:

• While a majority of all political parties say that Iran’s nuclear capabilities pose a threat to the United States and that if Israel takes action against Iran the U.S. should support Israel, Republicans are the most likely to say these things (83% say Iran poses a threat and 70% want the U.S. to support Israel). Democrats and Independents agree that Iran poses a threat (70% and 73% say so respectively), yet these groups are less strongly in favor of supporting Israel taking action (51%-57% agree the U.S. should do so);
• When asked directly if Israel should take military action against Iran’s nuclear program Republicans agree they should (59%), yet significantly fewer Democrats and Independents say the same (40% and 45%);
• On the other hand, a majority of Democrats say that the U.S. should not take military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear program (52%), yet fewer than half of Independents (46%) and Republicans (37%) agree.

Taking a more philosophical look, interestingly a majority of Americans — in all political parties — disagree that Iran has the right to continue working on its nuclear program (65%-71% of Republicans, Democrats and Independents say this).

So What?
Although most reports indicate that neither Israel nor the U.S. is likely to take immediate military action against Iran – the results of which could be enormous and costly — the continued discussion and analysis on what each country should do might have consequences of its own, particularly if Iran sees the ongoing discussion as provocation unto itself.  It will be interesting to see how President Obama handles the discussions and decisions moving forward — it seems unlikely that he would want to enter into a new military engagement, yet the potential threat from Iran is felt by Americans, the pro-Israel lobby is strong, and the U.S. demand for oil continues to be pervasive.

Methodology
This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States between March 12 and 19, 2012 among 2,451 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

The Harris Poll  #39, April 10, 2012
By Samantha Braverman, Sr. Project Researcher, Harris Interactive

Image Courtesey of  Steve Rhodes

The article What Do Americans Think About Iran’s Nuclear Threat? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

According to the latest media reports, the threat of a possible Israeli attack on Iran seems to be impending. Moreover, Israeli leaders have publicly stated that a military action against Iran is being considered as a preventive form of defense in case Iran fails to halt its nuclear program.

Columnist David Ignatius in his opinion column on Washington Post, wrote that Leon Panetta, the U.S. Defense Secretary, thinks there is the possibility of an imminent attack by the Jewish State against the Islamic Republic, nevertheless not specifying what has led him to this conclusion.

To quote Ignatius, “Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb.”

At this point, the burning questions are many; Will Israel really attack Iran? What would be Iran’s reaction? What will the Western countries do in case of a real attack – especially the United States? Will the attack cause a chain reaction? Are Iran’s allies and “friends” ready to intervene and take part in a possible conflict? Will this be the triggering event for a third World War? Might it be an atomic war – meaning an actual catastrophe for humanity?

It may sound like a far-fetched theoretical scenario, one that we might experience in the comfort of a cinema armchair or sofa, as the heroes and heroines fight off catastrophe on screen, but in the current state of the world, it could become a reality.

If we look back on history, it almost seems that the creation of the state of Israel did nothing more than cause constant instability and insecurity in the Middle East, involving even far-away countries in the West in its never-ending dispute. The majority of world nations have diplomatic relations with the Jewish State, and for some countries like the United States, this relation is exceptionally strong.

On the other hand, since the Islamic revolution in 1979, relations between Iran and Israel have turned hostile and Iran has instead developed good relations with Israel’s opponents and with so-called “rogue states” and their allies. Therefore, it is not surprising that the possibility of a conflict between Israel and Iran might lead to a world disaster.

The question of Iran’s nuclear program, linked to the possibility of a working Iranian nuclear bomb factory, has arisen again recently and it is considered the “safety factor” that would legitimize an Israeli attack and, potentially, the intervention of the United States and other Western countries on behalf of Israel’s cause. It would be presented as a question of world security, as a threat against the entire humanity which must be be stopped, a danger for the world’s populations – especially those of Israel and Western countries – to be dealt with.

After all, it would not be the first time we hear a rhetoric like this. Other wars of this century were waged with the same or similar purposes, other conflicts were created to follow the logic of the “war on terror” which the U.S. and UK were particularly adamant about. Iraq is the perfect example of this, having been invaded in the ‘belief’ that Saddam had WMD’s which he did not have. Now, with Iran, all I can think is “here we go again.”

There is no certainty of a factory for nuclear bomb, as there is no proof of an Iranian plan to attack Israel or the U.S. at an unspecified time in the future. As far as I remember, the only country that used the atomic bomb against another country’s population in the history of man were the United States – also known as “the democracy exporters” –, and Israel, even if it is widely believed that they have nuclear weapons as well, has never been attacked or invaded for disarmament, and is not considered as a potential threat (by Western countries).

What is difficult to understand is why the world should continue to tolerate the never-ending aggressive attitude of Israel and furthermore, why the state of Israel should believe they have the right to attack Iran on the assumption that “[t]he Iranians are, after all, a nation whose leaders have set themselves a strategic goal of wiping Israel off the map” – as the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told to Ronen Bergman.

Iran is not a democratic and liberal country, that is absolutely true, and surely there is a possibility that it has or plans to gain nuclear weapons but is this not the case of other countries in the world too? Should Israel attack all those countries too, at will? Should other countries attack Israel for the same reasons?

The U.S. and Israel, together with the UK and other Western countries, have so far been the only powers who saw fit for themselves to decide other countries’ future and dominate the Middle East. Nevertheless, the world’s power balance is changing, the financial crisis is getting stronger, and in a potential global war scenario the world society could split up into two new opposing deployments with new big powers rising to prominence with a potential U.S. at one end and a likely China at the other. Has the time come for a new world war?

The article Israel vs Iran, the Possible Scenario appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.