Despite the fact that most experts, including U.S. military leaders, are clear that Iran has not yet made the decision to pursue nuclear weapons, there has of late been a great deal of speculation as to when (not if) there will be a military attack on Iran. The hysteria was only enhanced by President Obama’s recent meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

When considering this hype, however, one should examine the views of the Israeli public on military action. Shibley Telhami, a nonresident Senior Fellow in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, and a professor at the University of Maryland, has conducted a poll, in partnership with the Dahaf Institute in Israel on Israeli public opinion with regard to Iran.

According to the results of the poll, which was concluded on February 26, 2012, only 19% of Israelis surveyed believed that Israel should strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, even without the support of the U.S. This number increased to 42% when the question was whether Israel should strike Iran with the support of the United States. However, a significant percentage of respondents – 34% – responded that Israel should not strike Iran.

Only 22% of respondents agreed that a strike on Iran’s nuclear program would delay the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon by more than 5 years. Nearly the same number – 19% – believed that an Israeli strike would have no effect on Iran’s nuclear program. These results show us that while the Israeli government is trying to ramp up its rhetoric on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, the Israeli people appear to be less sure about whether the military option is the best course of action.  

At a Brookings Institution event on February 29, 2012, Telhami presented the poll data and discussed the political situation in Israel. Commenting on the data was Natan Sachs, a Fellow at Brookings. Sachs noted that although Israeli elections aren’t due until 2013, Netanyahu would almost certainly want elections to be concluded before considering a military strike on Iran. In other words, he would want a clear demonstration of support from the Israeli public, rather than try to win an election while at the same time coordinating a military attack on Iran.

Therefore, it will be critical to watch when Netanyahu calls for elections in Israel, because this could be a sign that he is considering a military strike soon after these electoral questions are resolved, assuming of course he remains Prime Minister.

And if it seems like there’s discord in Israel over this issue, it’s even worse in the United States. A CNN/ORC Poll conducted between February 10-13, 2012 found that an overwhelming 60% of those polled agreed that the U.S. should engage in strong diplomatic and economic efforts in response to the current Iranian nuclear program. Only 17% of respondents would attack Iran right now. Interestingly, during the same time (February 12-15) in 2010, the number of Americans who would attack Iran was even higher than it is now. Additionally, a poll conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) found that the American public is strongly opposed to a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.

It is worth noting that since the rhetoric on Iran has ramped up, so has the amount of polling that has been done on this issue. These polls, however, have yielded contrasting results. For an explanation of why you may have seen poll results that contradict the polls I am presenting here, check out this article.

So it is clear that while the Iran war hype might make for good media, it’s not representative of current public opinion trends. And we do know that public opinion is a factor that leaders consider in their decision-making process. So hopefully, the voices of their constituents will give them a reason to think carefully before acting.

A small number of House Republicans are threatening to undermine U.S. strategy in Iran by encouraging military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

On May 23, 2011, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX)) introduced House Resolution 271, a bill expressing support for “the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty…[and the use] all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.”   To date 44 Republicans have co-sponsored the bill.  It has been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

This is not the first time the U.S. House and Senate have expressed such support for Israeli military strikes.   In 2007, the House put forth a similar bill expressing support for Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities in Syria occurring in 2007 and in Iraq in 1981, but that bill expressed support after Israel’s strikes, not before.  

Rep. Gohmert’s 2011 bill is vague and dangerous.  The bill states that “if no other peaceful solutions can be found within a reasonable time” strikes are acceptable, but “reasonable time” is not defined.  Libya pursued a nuclear weapons program for 25 years before finally abandoning it in 2004.  Since no solution has yet been found to the Iranian nuclear impasse, does that mean military action is viable now?  

Despite the threat Iran poses, the argument for using military force against Iran has never been compelling, as our own Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Laicie Olson documented last year. Military and foreign policy experts have warned that strikes on nuclear facilities can be counter-productive for non-proliferation efforts.   According to the Deulfer Report by the Iraq Study Group and reports by some Iraqi nuclear scientists, the Israeli strike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 encouraged Saddam to ramp up its nuclear weapons program and work more secretively.  

In Iran, “[i]t’s possible [a strike] could be used to play to nationalist tendencies,” General Petraeus told reporters early last year.  Iran’s rulers are divided over whether to build nuclear weapons, especially because they do not know if the public will accept the costs – sanctions and international isolation.  Were Israel to strike Iran’s facilities, it could unify the leadership and rally the public in support of an Iranian bomb.  

Pursuit of this bill is also a challenge to regional U.S. foreign policy.  Polls conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in March and April 2011 showed a significant decline in U.S.  popularity among most Arab publics, a reversal of the increase that followed President Obama’s election.  As the Arab Spring removes American allies, such as in Egypt and Yemen, there is concern that the U.S. will lose support and influence in the Middle East.

Internationally, the Obama administration’s dual track approach of diplomatic engagement and pressure has strengthened the U.S. hand against Iran and led to international support for the toughest ever sanctions against Tehran.   Rep. Gohmert’s bill undermines diligent Pentagon efforts to dissuade Israel from a military attack and the growing international support for tougher non-military measures against Iran.

Additionally, a simulation of an Israeli strike on Iran conducted by the Brookings Institution demonstrated that military strike, even if conducted by Israel, would have direct consequences for the U.S.  Such an attack would likely create a conflict that engulfs the region and draws in the U.S.  Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, warned that a military attack on Iran would be as destabilizing as Iran becoming a nuclear state.   Moreover, the Brookings simulation found that the strike would merely set the Iranian nuclear program back, not destroy it.  

Considering the costs of such strikes, Gohmert’s bill is a brash and shortsighted proposal.  If the intent is to show public support for Israel, it is possible to do so without offering U.S. support for a potentially illegal and certainly a disastrous military attack on Iran.  Gohmert’s bill even lacks the support of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S.  Hopefully, Israel will show restraint and this bill will go the way of its 2010 predecessor, quietly disappearing at the door of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.