Persian Mathematics

The poll-watcher analysis series on American public opinion on foreign policy is cross-posted at the Behind the Numbers blog.

President Barack Obama's policy of sanctions and restraint with Iran is widely popular, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, but few give him good ratings when it comes to the nation's intent to develop nuclear weapons.

The issue has election-year implications on both foreign and domestic policy front, with more than eight in 10 Americans believing that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Back at home, rising gas prices are proving a drag on Obama's approval rating on the economy, and providing a potent political weapon for the field of Republican challengers.

Obama has urged restraint with Iran and for allowing sanctions to put pressure on Tehran. "We have a window of opportunity where this can still be resolved diplomatically," Obama argued last week after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Americans by a more than 2 to 1 margin favor a "wait and see" approach on Iran over immediate military action, according to the new poll. Fully 64 percent say it's more important to see if economic sanctions work, even if it allows more time for Iran's nuclear program to progress; only 26 percent support pre-emptive action to halt Iran's progress. Majorities or pluralities across party lines prefer sanctions over immediate action, though Republicans are less supportive than Democrats or independents.

Sanctions may be a core tenet of his administration's approach, but Obama is not reaping much of a reward being cautious. More than half of Americans, 52 percent, disapprove of Obama's handling of the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, while 36 percent approve. The negative assessment could be tied to the political realities of the moment: Most Americans think Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon, and the Obama administration and U.S. allies have yet to ensure that, well, it won't -- and that it will live by its promise to pursue a peaceful nuclear program.

12NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

ERNESTPAYNE

8:34 AM ET

March 15, 2012

Iran and Polling

For an accurate summary of polls I suggest you watch the episode of Yes Minister / Yes Prime Minister where Sir Humphrey explains polling. Hilarious and accurate. A nearly 60 year history of Iran / US relations shows an unbroken run of catastrophically wrong American moves. The US has no leverage and its only real option is to keep its big mouth shut. The "nuclear bomb" issue is arrant nonsense.

TARQUINIS

9:31 AM ET

Zionists: A second thought is appropriate

Iran with no nuclear weapons is zero military threat against nuclear superpower Israel, much less a threat to the USA.

Israel (which refuses to sign or abide by the NPT) is in possession of many 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 all the Zionist posters howling for war, to seriously consider the CONSEQUENCES of an Israeli attack.

If you are paying attention, Syria is currently and steadily sliding into chaos. What originally was a movement in support of democracy is now steadily moving into a sectarian conflict between the Shiia and the Sunni. The Saudis are going to finance weapons for the insurgency. The Shiia of Lebanon and Iran are fearful of major political loss in this, and reluctantly but to date resolutely, continue to back Al-Assad. A war against Iran 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? A bridge too far? Total global chaos? Choose your own apocalyptic metaphors.

But if the Zionist posters care for nothing else, consider this: Israel's current political support in the US could evaporate literally overnight.

REALREALIST

12:24 PM ET

I think most experts agree sanctions won't stop the program

The issue is not if diplomacy should be tried or not...its been tried for years and years and years....does anyone on this stinking forum know what taqqiyeh is? go on....see if you know...and no googling....lol...

the poll should be asking, if sanctions have not worked over the last 5-10 yrs and if they don't stop the program before june, should military intervention then be used?

there HAS to be a red line somewhere at sometime.

If obama were to say change tactics and suddenly say, we will remove all sanctions immediately BUT if by june the program is not fully stopped and enrichment totally mothballed, then we will militarily take down the entire nuclear program immediately after the june deadline. No ifs and or's ...no buts, no additional timelines...june or else...

I think iran might just comply...oh of course they'll lie and hide as much as they can before then, but, it might be worth a try. This offer would HAVE to include the total and 100% guarantee that international advisers and inspectors are free to go in and out of any and all facilities for a period of 5-10 yrs.

Obama should have had this kind of strategy long ago...but as usual, he frittered, dithered, talked big, did little...and here we are now and his nuts are in a vice because of his re-election needs...i call that piss poor handling of this dire situation.

CLEVERBOY

9:49 AM ET

March 16, 2012

What program?

Nuclear energy they are allowed to have.
Nuclear weapons, neither the International Atomic Energy Agency nor US intelligence thinks they have one, and no evidence they want one either.
So what is the problem? Isn't Pakistan, an actual hostile Islamic nuclear power a much greater threat?

11:06 AM ET

you're funny...what program? uh huh...

you must also believe in the tooth fairy...

pakistan is a problem, but, last I read, pakistan has NOT threatened another country with any form of annihilation. No map wiping, ya know?

GROOVEHOUSE

11:54 AM ET

Which country did they

Which country did they threaten to wipe out. I didn't hear them say they want to wipe out the US. Since when did Israel become the US

URGELT

6:33 PM ET

The Red Line

Realist,

The red line isn't in June 2012. It's likely no earlier than the second half of 2013.

Iran's December 2011 announcement of centrifuges tells us where they are, if the UN inspectors hadn't been on the ball (they were, however). It will likely take the balance of 2012 for Iran to enrich enough uranium to 20% purity to support the fabrication of several weapons.

They're only enriching to 20%, eh? That doesn't sound too bad. Don't you need at least 95% purity in a nuclear weapon?

Yeah, only the last enrichment step goes very fast, just a few weeks, a couple of months at the most. The hard part is really over when you've got enough feedstock of 20% enriched uranium to feed into the centrifuge cascades.

But then they'll have to fabricate the weapons and mate them to delivery systems. Those aren't the easiest engineering tasks (though I'm certain Iran has engineers capable of doing both tasks). Bottom line is that a pessimistic (from the point of view of the US) estimate of when Iran might actually possess its first several deployable nukes works out to late 2013, and the most likely estimate is sometime in 2014.

After they get the first few, they'll want to build up their arsenal, of course. Those centrifuges will be busy for a long time to come.

Unless Obama meant what he said. What he said was that Iran will not get nukes.

The only way to prevent it is to convince Iran to quit striving for that goal - which is a little hard when they deny they're striving for it in the first place - or go to war.

I won't give more than passing attention to the (remote) possibility that Iran is not striving for nuclear weapons. Item: you don't put peaceful nuclear programs under mountains, it's ridiculously expensive to do that. Item: Iran already has enough 20% enriched uranium to meet their domestic needs for medical isotope production. Yet those centrifuges are whirling away at max capacity. The only other purpose for 20% uranium is feedstock for enriching uranium to weapons grade. Item: you don't deny UN inspectors permission to see what they want to see under the terms of a treaty to which you are a signatory unless you'd prefer, for very good reason, that they not see it.

We don't have to go to war in 2012. This is a year to give diplomacy a chance. But by mid-2013, it's decision time. Either we step aside and let Iran become a nuclear power, or we go to war to stop it.

Those are some really, truly lousy choices, but that's the decision Obama faces next year.

Incidentally, you can forget about a bombing-only solution. Nobody in their right minds wants to loose radioactive plumes across the Iranian countryside - and those plumes wouldn't stay in Iran if they were released, probably. But even that awful scenario presumes too much. It's not at all clear that bombs designed to bust command bunkers are up to the task of taking out hardened underground sites of the sort that Iran has been constructing. Either way, bombs are the worst choice one could make to deal with this problem.

A land war will be the only sure way to put an end to Iran's nuclear weapons program without producing a disaster on the surface or missing important components of that program.

I honestly don't see an exit ramp on the highway leading to war with Iran. I think at this point the conversation we should be having isn't whether to go to war next year after diplomatic talks fail, but how we'll fight it and what we'll do when organized resistance collapses, leaving a mere insurgency to deal with.

Personally, I'm hopeful that we've learned our lesson: we can't impose functioning governments favorable to our interests on hostile nations. It doesn't work. I hope the occupation lasts only long enough to cart off nuclear weapons and destroy the facilities used to support making them. The Iranians can sort out their own governance without help from us, thank you very much, and there's no sense spending the kind of money we spent in Iraq or Afghanistan to no productive purpose. Again.

12:42 PM ET

and to mr tarq the jew hater...

I would rather deal with the blowback now than the blowback later...and trust me, later will come...

this aint no cold war circa 1960....this is a totally different king of regime who fully understands and lives the concept of religious fanaticism and martyrdom...containment wont work and is not an option anyhow...according to obama and all others...

iran with nukes, as in many nukes, not just one, is a menace to the world...they already have missiles capable of hitting europe... some capable of hitting alaska, and some being worked on capable of hitting all of the US.

All of this doesnt even begin to grapple with nulcear proliferation in the middle east and the dire consequences of that...

in terms of pure doctrines, the ONLY one that makes any sense for the greater goal of long term peace being held, is nuclear IMBALANCE...where israel, who already has them is the only country in the middle east who gets to have and jkeep them...why? because they have PROVEN that they are eminently responsible with their ability to have them responsably. Despite all of the dangerous enemies who strike at them and plot to destroy them daily, israel over 50 yrs has not resorted to using them...situation reversed? I guarantee you israel would not exist today.

NUFF SAID.

DUGLARRI

12:02 AM ET

Realist -congratulations on your clarity of position

It would be wonderfully refreshing if the advocates of war on Iran were as clear on the topic as you are, that the objective of all of this is to prevent Iran from accessing any kind of nuclear technology- since they're intent on martyrdom.

This strips away all the half-measures and obfuscation. It's not about a nuclear weapon. It's about nuclear technology. Either the Iranians give up enrichment, close down all their nuclear facilities, give up nuclear power, and nuclear medicine, of Israel will attack them, with or without the aid and approval of the United States.

The question then becomes clearer. Since this is now all about coercion, does a country with a population of less than five million (effectively) have the power to enforce such a policy over a distant country with a population fifteen times larger?

11:13 AM ET

Monsieur douglarii, or whatever your name is...

you said, " This strips away all the half-measures and obfuscation. It's not about a nuclear weapon. It's about nuclear technology. Either the Iranians give up enrichment, close down all their nuclear facilities, give up nuclear power, and nuclear medicine, of Israel will attack them, with or without the aid and approval of the United States"

um no, this IS about nuclear weapons and NOT about energy or medicine. Iran already has more than enough energy for their future, and just about every pharmaceutical company in the world would happilly provide iran all the cancer medicines it needs...

so lets get real ok? haven't we danced this stupid little dance long enough?

FREETHINKER12

12:44 PM ET

iran can hit alaska?? Dude

iran can hit alaska?? Dude stop smoking crack. If tarq is a jew hater you are an arab and iranian hater

12:45 PM ET

entire history??

you mean 60 years? was it not nearly overrun by egypt and syria in 73 before big daddy USA helped out??

BEACHBABY

5:30 PM ET

The Writing is on the Wall..

There is no way at this point Israel can or will back down. It is time to accept the reality and hope for the best while planning for the worst. May God Bless Israel..

MORI

6:18 PM ET

Iran reply

Morteza Esavand · London Metropolitan University
I think Israel is making lots of noise for her size. Israel knows that they have not the capability to defeat Iran so they want US to do it for them but fortunatly US nows that this war could lead to a ww3 and Iran can inflict huge damages to the region and whole world economy and countries in the Persian Gulf if this countries allow israeili or USA to lunch an attack on Iran.If US and Israel could do it tey would have it done long time ago.Israel knows that in the event of a war, iranian soldjers are able to cross Iraq , syria and lebanon and fight israelis on their northern border and nock on their doors. Can israeli do that? israel has not even managed to defeat Hamas in Gaza and was clearly defeated by Hizballah how can tey imagine to defeat Iranian Armee? in short israel has not have the gutts to start a war and it is only a propaganda tool in israeli hands to deflect the attention from other matters like Palestinan question and internal economy problems . On the other hand I belive Obama nows that as well but he can not tell israeli in publick that israeil should do it on their own and USA do not want to have anything with that war. Netaniho even lied to Mr Obama about the history and claimed that Iranian were about to kill them ca 2500 years ago and everybody knows that jews were freed by Persian King how can we trust that guy at all.He is a chicky guy and think he can fool every one.I also do not see any problem with Iran having the Bomb otherwis they would keep us treathening for ever.

FORLORNEHOPE

4:36 AM ET

Pretty depressing

There is only one way of stopping Iran getting and keeping nuclear weapons. That is to encourage it down the path of a culturally Islamic democracy like its neighbour Turkey. BTW, before the howls start Turkey isn't perfect but neither is the USA nor my home country, the UK! Now let's ask a simple question. Would bombing Iran make a transition to a "Turkish Democracy" more or less likely to happen sooner rather than later?

Of course the real existential threat to Israel as a Jewish country is the development of democracy in the region. An Israel surrounded by democracies and still ruling a disenfranchised Palestinian population confined to the West Bank or under siege in Gaza would have a real problem. This won't happen now or soon but bombing Iran would be a good way to postpone it. Bibi really is a smart guy!

AFGHANGOOD

9:04 AM ET

and the other option is...

I hardly believe the current policy is wait and see...seems to me that ALOT is going on behind the scenes to try and stop them, so please be clear in your article what you are advocating for. That's takes courage, imho, and I'd love to see GOP or you articles writers come out and state clearly that the US needs to go to war with Iran to stop them from allegedly trying acquiring nuclear weapons. I’ve yet to read a single article or comment from clownish GOP candidates on what they will do with regards to Iran? Please, enlighten us…

IAN GRAY

1:00 PM ET

Iran

Iran with or without nuclear weapons is no threat to America and can be contained just like North Korea.
This is all about Israel and AIPAC trying to use American resources to fight unending wars in the Middle East.
Do you want to see what is the real danger to America? Just look at Wall Street and its role in destroying America's economy. The enemy is within. Sooner or later, American people are going to wake up. The question is: will it be too late?

ELLSWORTH SPULICK

1:52 AM ET

April 14, 2012

Persian or Arabic Mathematics!

ran is a large country and different ethnics live beside each other and some of them are Arab as well who live in Kuzestan, a southern province of Iran. Also we should not forget that in the past Iran (Persian Empire) was larger and during the history and after different separations, Iran's political borders have changed. This is right that many of those scholars have written their works in Arabic (the international scientific language among people of that time), but this should not cause us to think that they were Arab. Today most of the scholars write in English, then should this cause us to consider them American for instance?

Foreign Policy Magazine

Inside National Security

Despite the Republican claims that Obama's Iran policy is weak-kneed, the American public generally supports his wait-and-see approach. That is, of course, unless it doesn't work.

BY SCOTT CLEMENT | MARCH 14, 2012

(18)