Change of Heart?

wish I had poll numbers for the same questions from 2002.

The results of a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll were released today. Among other questions, respondents were asked about Iran’s decision to restart its nuclear program. Specifically, they were asked the following questions:

Pay attention to the utter confusion, all too typical, of the American people when it comes to deciding the consequences of one question when asked a second. For example: most Americans think that Iran would use nukes against America if given the opportunity. This is a dire scenario. However, most Americans would not support military action against Iran should they pursue nuclear weapons. This is a bizarre stance: it implies that Americans would rather allow the Iranians to nuke us than to attack Iran in order to preempt an attack they deem imminent. What is all the more ironic, of course, is the hypocrisy of this stance. We have at least as much reason to believe that Iran would pursue weapons and use them against us and our allies if procured; we have enormously more evidence that Iran would be predisposed to provide terrorist organizations with such weapons (given the close ties of Iran’s government with the more ultra-violent factions of Islam, in complete contrast to Hussein’s government, which was hated by such groups due to its rabidly secular and anti-Shiite stance). I love that a vast majority is concerned the US won’t do enough to stop Iran from obtaining nukes, while almost the same number is concerned that the US would rashly use military force. What exactly is it that the American people would want the administration to do, if sanctions don’t work and yet they don’t support force? And, most bizarre, what exactly has changed such that we are apprehensive to use force in the event of a known threat, whereas we were gung-ho to use force given a potential threat? Oh, that’s right. The nation now remembers what war is like, and is tired…

Pay attention also to the mirrored questions regarding the UN and the US, as to their ability to handle the situation. Remember: just a couple of years ago there were calls across the country for the US to pull out of the UN (I actually saw billboards proclaiming “Take the US out of UN!” in the South back in 2002), alongside general calls to stop paying dues, to stop humoring the defunct body, etc. It appears that in the last couple of years we have not only lost our faith in our ability to handle international crises, but we have restored some faith in the international body to perform its intended function. My guess is that this does not coincide with the American people’s sudden love affair with John Bolton. Rather, my guess is that the American people, so typically loath to admit anything like defeat, let alone impotence, is simultaneously admitting that the blunt tool of this administration’s foreign policy is incapable of effectively policing the world. The egregiously sad part of this is that there was and still is a large populace of the country that shouted this from the mountaintops for years, only to fall upon deaf ears. What’s worse, there is now a strong current (epitomized in the President’s comment during the State of the Union speech: “Hindsight is not wisdom”) to respond viciously to those who bring this up. It reminds me a great deal of my own immature responses to my parents and adults in general when they told me that they knew better, yet I acted foolishly and ended up proving them right. The sophomoric response: “FINE! So what if you’re SO WISE; what’s the point in rubbing it in my face? It’s the past; why don’t you just shut up about it and let’s forget it!” (Why is it that the larger a body of people, the more the maturity reduction? The danger in this response, obviously, is that one is so busy feeling pissed at the “I told you so” crowd that nothing is actually learned…)

(Following standard practice, I will collapse the results “somewhat agree” with “strongly agree,” and “somewhat disagree” with “strongly disagree.” These have obvious variants depending on the question.)

What should the US do about Iran?

68% Use economic/diplomatic efforts

18% Take no action now

9% No opinion

5% Take military action now

If diplomacy doesn’t work…?

49% No, do not take military action

40% Yes, take military action

11% No opinion

Do you think the Bush administration would be too quick to use military force against Iran?

69% Yes

Do you think the US will or won’t do enough to keep Iran from developing nukes?

67% Not enough

Would Iran use nukes against US?

59% Likely

38% Not likely

Would Iran supply nukes to terrorists to use against the US?

80% Likely

Would Iran use nukes against Israel?

77% Likely

Would Iran supply nukes to terrorists to use against Israel?

81% Likely

Confidence in the ability of the US to handle the situation in Iran?

45% Confident

55% Not confident

Confidence in the ability of the UN to handle the situation in Iran?

47% Confident

51% Not confident

It takes a LOT for a people as proud, stubborn, independent, and obsessed with a machismo-driven love of the military to suddenly have more faith in the UN than its own government. In other words, this poll says one thing to me: the state of the union is not strong.

-W.