Asking the Right Question

Why are polls so all over the map when it comes to bombing Iran?

BY SCOTT CLEMENT | FEBRUARY 22, 2012

Scott Clement is the polling analyst for the Washington Post. The poll-watcher analysis series on American public opinion on foreign policy is cross-posted at the Behind the Numbers blog.

"Lies, damn lies and statistics" is a jab sometimes aimed at political polls, and in the complicated business of foreign policy polling there's plenty for people to argue over.

Seventy-five percent of Americans see Israel as a friend or an ally. Thirty-seven percent think the United States was right to get involved in Libya last year. Fifty-nine percent believe China poses a major economic threat to the nation.

All these numbers come from polls in the past year, but can they be trusted? And since most Americans aren't foreign policy wonks, are these results even meaningful? And what about when polls show contradictory findings -- like on what to do about Iran's nuclear threat?

Let's start with the good news. By and large, polls boast a strong record of accuracy and there's evidence that poll respondents are doing their part as well. "The public has meaningful opinions on foreign policy issues like domestic issues," says Robert Y. Shapiro, a political science professor at Columbia University, at least where respondents possess a "minimum amount of information on which to base their opinions." Even on issues where there is very little public debate (like, say, on U.S. democracy promotion in Central Asia), poll results in the aggregate can represent a meaningful reaction to a policy.

This is often the case with foreign policy issues, about which few have ruminated laboriously and even fewer know all the facts. The wording of a given question plays a big role in framing the way poll respondents think about the issue and, thus, their answers. Even balanced questions sometimes get varying results, making it difficult to sort out what the public actually wants.

Take the latest controversy over Iran's nuclear buildup. Americans said by nearly 2 to 1 in a Pew survey this month that it is more important to "prevent Iran from developing weapons, even if it means taking military action" than to "avoid military conflict, even if Iran may develop nuclear weapons." One could read this result as an implicit call to arms.

But a contemporaneous CNN/ORC poll found just 17 percent supporting "military action right now." Some 60 percent of those polled favored "economic and diplomatic efforts" and an additional 22 percent supported "no action at all. This poll, then, gives the sense that an invasion is remarkably unpopular.

Majid Saeedi/Getty Images

 

BING520

11:02 PM ET

February 22, 2012

no polling

I guess polling can be manipulated to support anything. We mus have a decider. A decider would be more accurate in show us what the nation will do. George W. Bush knows better than any poll.

 

FUNKEDUP143

6:30 AM ET

February 23, 2012

Critical Thinking Lesson 101

- Who is the audience
- Who is the questioner
- What is their intent by asking the question
- How is the question framed
- Who benefits (Cui bono)

 

CHARLESFRITH

8:14 AM ET

February 23, 2012

Reality Painted By Media

The corny syrup plasma screen classes deserve everything they get if they don't wake up soon to the propaganda.

 

BDL2010

9:38 AM ET

February 23, 2012

How about we put it to a real vote

Why don't we do something Democratic and let the American public go to the polls and VOTE on the use of force or to continue diplomatic solutions. Of course that is what we vote in our elected officials to do on our behalf but that system hasn't seemed to work too well. So this time around maybe we should make sure we really truly have the support of the American people before we go launching off into another war.

 

NONAMEON

3:05 AM ET

March 2, 2012

Obama wanted Gitmo closed,

Obama wanted Gitmo closed, engage with Iran and Syria cordially, pull out the military from the Middle East practically overnight, reach a global climate change deal, and wanted nuclear weapons wiped off the face of the Earth. These and more foreign and domestic policy farces proved to never pan out even in outline. Worse still, they were equally ridiculous and unrealistic as any that GOP candidates have - but most of us knew that anyway. It is strange how this GOP nominee selection became about Obama. I guess they think the insurance to the nomination goes through bashing him. They have no economical plans to insurance our pockets, no political plans to insurance our safety and certainly no energy plans to insurance our future. It's all about bashing Obama.

 

TARQUINIS

10:12 AM ET

February 23, 2012

Iran war is Israeli self-destruction

Iran with no nuclear weapons is zero military threat against nuclear superpower Israel. Israel is in possession of hundreds of nuclear warheads. More importantly, it possesses the most advanced delivery systems in the world including nuclear powered ballistic missile firing submarines. A nation with zero nuclear weapons does not attack another with hundreds. Even if (a hypothetical) Iran did some day acquire a nuclear weapon (to secure itself from vicarious nuclear attack) it could never use it against Israel because of the intertwined nature of the Palestinian and Israeli populations. Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in world Islam is in Jerusalem and they would never risk its destruction.

But lets just ignore all of that.

I ask Israel supporters to seriously consider the CONSEQUENCES of an attack. A war initiated by Israel would spread to our interests in about half an hour. Iran would certainly hit back to the best their abilities. Prices for petroleum would certainly skyrocket to who knows what level, collapsing our fragile economy like a house of cards. Same for the whole world's economy for the same reasons. Mass chaos from Lebanon to Pakistan. Things quickly spiral out of control. Afghanistan explodes. Al-Qaeda claps its hands in glee in Yemen and Somalia. China and Russia get quite hostile. Radioactive clouds drift eastward over India.

And of course in this event, Iran would conclude that it must quickly obtain a nuclear WMD capability. Achieving exactly what you claim you want to avoid. Great! An Israeli attack slams the whole world into what? Choose your own apocalyptic metaphors. Just who else would the world blame?

 

DILBERT

11:30 AM ET

February 23, 2012

Tarq -

you posted the same exact text on a different article
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/22/friendship_under_fire#comment-977876

so I guess I'll just cut & paste my response to your rants...

you wrote ...."including nuclear powered ballistic missile firing"

1) Israeli subs are not nuclear powered
2) Pretty sure the missiles in question are not ballistic (i.e. probably cruise type)

Begs to wonder if this misinformed poster has any of his other "facts" right.

The simple fact is that there will eventually be a war with Iran. If Israel doesn't initiate it, then Iran will. From Iran's perspective, this is divine destiny (i.e. non-negotiable). The only question is if this will be BEFORE or AFTER Iran has deliverable weapons of mass destruction.

 

JFAIR

5:58 PM ET

February 23, 2012

Although I agree with most of

Although I agree with most of your points, Israel has been attacked by non-nuclear nations. Not only that, but Israel threatened to use them against a non-nuclear armed nation. Only after the soviets promised Egypt they would retaliate and the US fell on the side of Israel (Thanks to Kissinger) did the war come to an end.