Last night Rachel Maddow devoted her show to the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) vital nuclear material security and nuclear terrorism prevent efforts. In particular she highlighted the successful effort to remove highly enriched uran…
US News and World Report Quotes Kingston Reif
Rep. Michael Turner Says European-Missile Defense Leaves U.S. Mainland Vulnerable. March 20, 2012 By Lauren Fox US News and World Report A leading Republican lawmaker admonished the White House Tuesday for pursuing a European-based missile defense program while cutting money for one that’s designed specifically to protect the United States. Click here to read the […]
Fact Sheet: 2012 Nuclear Security Summit Preview
By Duyeon Kim DATE March 26-27, 2012 in Seoul, Korea SIGNIFICANCE AND BACKGROUND The 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit aims to strengthen and deepen nuclear security commitments made at the 2010 Washington Summit. The objective of the summit process is to prevent vulnerable fissile materials that can be used to produce nuclear weapons from […]
The Wages of Missile Defense
Check out my latest article about Ground-based Midcourse Defense on the Center for Arms Control’s website.
The House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee met on March 6, 2012 to discuss the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile Defense. One of the many topics they discussed was the U.S. Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, (GMD – formerly known as National Missile Defense). Republicans on the subcommittee appeared to criticize the slow pace at which they believe the Pentagon is maturing the GMD system. Given the long and troubled history of the program, however, deploying newer technology before it is ready doesn’t make sense…
Ramping Up the Rhetoric: Does the Israeli Public Support the Claims its Leaders Are Making?
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.