13 thoughts on “New Polls Show Americans Believe U.S. Should Not Support Israeli Attack on Iran – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Goes to show how screwed up American society really is: if Obama were to make peace with Iran tomorrow and avert a possible war, he would be voted out of office in November. If he started a war tomorrow and killed 100’000 Iranians, he would have his re-election guaranteed.

    The world is sick.

  2. Shibley Telhami is Zionist apologist otherwise he would not be working for Zioconservative think tank like Brooking Institute. He, having an Arab family roots – is a good donkey to demonize Arabs and Muslims.

    Now, every political-aware person knows that the US administration is controlled by AIPAC and other major groups of interests – and not the American voters.

    Paul Craig Roberts, is a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Zioconservative Wall Street Journal. On October 2, 2012, he posted his views on Cynthia McKinney and American leadership.

    “Billions of dollars have been spent on political propaganda, but not a single important issue has been addressed. The closest the campaign has come to a political issue is which candidate can grovel the lowest at the feet of Israeli prime minister Netanyahu. Romney won that contest. But for the rest, well, it is like two elementary school children sticking their tongues out at one another,” says Paul Craig Roberts.


  3. I think the horror of what is happening in Syria has stopped the Arab Spring in its tracks. The momentum has been lost and the extremists have hijacked the whole thing. Chief among the meddlers is Iran, backing Assad.

    The problem with US foreign policy is that it places US interests second to Israel’s, and the “special relationship” is detrimental to the Palestinian people, who are rapidly losing what is left of their homeland. US support and assistance in maintaining the occupation whilst hypocritically calling for a dead two-state solution makes the US look hypocritical and ridiculous, as does their consistent vetoing of any disciplinary actions in the UN against Israel for its violations of humanitarian law and specifically the Geneva Convention against collective punishment.

  4. “Americans’ view of an Israeli attack on Iran is mixed. While a slim minority wants us to actively support such an approach. 53% want us to take a neutral approach. Only 29% think we should actively oppose such an assault. A strong majority believe an Israeli attack will worsen the U.S. strategic position in the region.”

    It seems that a large part of American public wishes to worsen U.S. strategic position in the region. A bit weird.

      1. That is what effective fearmongering can accomplish. It is classic prewar propaganda. Remember Iraq and the WMD’s and how Cheney claimed that Saddam was behind 9/11.

  5. RE: “A majority of respondents said they preferred stability over democracy (isn’t it interesting how Americans have such strong views of what type of governments would be best for others?).” ~ R.S.

    MY COMMENT: If “push comes to shove” here in the U.S., I wonder if these respondents will also prefer stability over democracy. Judging from the erosion of civil liberties since 9/11, I fear that they might.

  6. Comment one: sometimes our intellectual gaze from the heights of American civilization at inferior cultures like Russia and ponder how is it that people there prefer stability (and stronger hand of the state) rather than a wider scope of freedoms. Clearly, in those cases they have in mind “the several states” as they were conceived and not how they truly function.

    Comment two: my impression is that the public is extremely ambivalent because it is presented with very partial and inconsistent information. Unless you are highly inquisitive and have a lot of time to waste, how can you get an idea what is “our strategic position”, “national interest”, or that America, mighty as it is, must choose what it wishes to accomplish.

    Let me give a little example. We may wish to pressure China to regulate trade and currency differently than they do now so we would have a better balance of trade. Or we may pressure them to cooperate better in imposing sanctions on China. As we cannot send Marines to Beijing and replace the government we do not like, all those issues require “give and take”. So which one is it: better sanctions or better trade? Jobs or a satisfaction that “the mullahs” will have hard time?

    Of course, it is not just China, but our entire foreign and military policy is predicated upon assumption that there is no conflict between various goals that we may have or might have if we were not chasing shadows like cajoling countries all over Africa and Oceania to vote about Israel the way we like (or to give us immunity from prosecutions at International Criminal Court).

    1. Or, of course, it is predicated upon the notion that we can bully our way to achieving our goals (a/k/a hegemony). Sad fact is that the US is a failing empire whose influence is fading. Egypt is probably going to dump the Camp David agreement someday soon. China is holding the bulk of US debt. US military power is stretched beyond its limit, so all the US can do is watch while Syria comes apart at the seams and struggle to keep the situation with Iran from turning violent. This is a blessing, actually, because World War III looms. The US is also standing at the cusp of the biggest revelation of all – that it’s snug little “special relationship” may very well ignite a powder keg unless it ends.

  7. See:

    They are citing the legal issue, which is valid, but the sub-text is to ensure that if Israel acts unilaterally, Israel will face the consequences and retaliation on its own as well.

    It’s also worth noting that very few middle-ranking American officers will be dismayed if the British government makes it harder for the American government to send their men on a completely futile mission against America’s long term vital interests. Attacking Iran is also a route which the Obama administration will take only if blackmailed (or the Iranians overplay their hand to a ludicrous extent), so they may not privately resent this as much as they are likely to in public prior to the election.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link