It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
NEW YORK -- A new poll of Israeli public opinion found surprisingly low levels of support for a military strike against Iran -- and especially if Israel has to go it alone.
Just 19 percent of Israelis believe that Israel should strike Iran's nuclear facilities if it must do so without American support. A significantly higher number -- 42 percent -- support a military strike if Israel has American support. Thirty-four percent do not support a military strike at all.
The poll comes at a time when Israel seems increasingly primed to take military action against the nuclear installations of Iran, an action the United States has repeatedly indicated it does not support.
An Israeli parliamentarian recently told Reuters that he feared Israelis were not prepared for a war with Iran, which could possibly include a massive barrage of rockets and asymmetric attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas.
The poll, conducted by Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a University of Maryland professor, measured the opinions of 500 Israelis, with a margin of error of 4 percent. The opinions of Israeli Jews alone did not markedly differe from the broader Israeli views.
Asked about the likely outcomes of a military strike, most Israelis believed it would have a significant impact, with 44 percent believing it would lead to delays of three or more years to Iran's nuclear program. American military officials have said that military action is unlikely to fully prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but some Israeli officials have said that even if the program was delayed, the action would be worth it.
Thirty percent of Israelis polled said they believed a military strike would either accelerate Iran's nuclear program or have no effect at all.
The poll also offered a glimpse of Israeli views on American politics, something that has received some attention during recent Republican presidential debates. When Israelis were asked about their preferences in the upcoming election, only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, of the possible GOP nominees, had support equal to President Barack Obama. Twenty-nine percent of Israelis said they supported each of them.
Obama outpolled both former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich by wider margins: 32 percent to 25 percent versus Gingrich, and 33 percent to 18 percent versus Santorum.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey are facing increasing hostility from the right wing for their views, backed by IAEA reports and U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, that sanctions and diplomacy are effective tools in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Just last week, Newt Gingrich slammed Dempsey, saying “I can’t imagine why he would have said [Iran is a rational actor].”
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) challenged the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s assessment of Iran’s intentions yesterday during a House committee hearing:
PRICE: I want to visit a comment you made recently regarding the nation of Iran and the statement, and I think have the quote correct here, that stunned me and many of my constituents. And that is your quote, “We are of the opinion that Iran is a rational actor.” Do you stand by that statement and maybe you wanna explain a little more?
DEMPSEY: Yes, I stand by it because the alternative is almost unimaginable. The alternative is that we attribute to them that their actions are so irrational that they have no basis of planning. You know, not to sound too academic about it but Thucydides in the fifth century B.C. said that all strategy is some combination of reaction to fear, honor and interests. And I think all nations act in response to one of those three things, even Iran. The key is to understand how they act and not trivialize their actions by attributing to them some irrationality. I think that’s a very dangerous thing for us to do. It doesn’t mean I agree with what they decide by the way but they have some thought process they follow.
Price wasn’t persuaded by Dempsey’s explanation and went on to question the “rationality of an assassination attempt on the Saudi ambassador in our territory” but Dempsey pushed back that while he wouldn’t justify Iran’s alleged actions, he stands by his assertion that Iran engages in calculated, rational actions.
Right-wing hawks are taking a noticeably hostile tone towards the U.S.’s top military officer following his February 19 comments to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that: Iran has not yet decided to pursue a nuclear weapon; it wouldn’t be “prudent” for Israel to attack Iran at this time, and “we are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor.”
While the IAEA has expressed serious concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program, neither the IAEA nor U.S. intelligence reports have asserted that Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program.
When asked "should Israel alone attack the Iranian nuclear installations,"
Two-thirds of Israelis oppose attack on Iran: poll
(AFP) – Dec 6, 2007
Originally posted by reaxi0n
Two-thirds of Israelis oppose attack on Iran: poll
(AFP) – Dec 6, 2007