Jewish Journal


Striking Iran, questions and assumptions

by Shmuel Rosner

May 25, 2012 | 9:48 am

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting the nuclear plant at Natanz. (Photo: Reuters)

We just updated our J-Meter Iran Trend Tracker with new numbers ‎from the recent PEW survey. They show wide and growing support for ‎a military strike to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, a ‎support that is well documented in the Iran Trend Tracker – with ‎caveats: Americans support a strike when presented with a two-option ‎question – to attack or not to attack – but are much less supportive ‎when a three-option is presented – to attack, talk or give up (they tend ‎to choose talking and sanctioning). You can see it all in the tracker. And ‎besides, the ongoing talks between the international community and ‎Iran have the potential to sway public opinion, as we explain in the J-‎Meter: ‎

The coming weeks and public perception of the way talks with ‎Iran progress (namely, ‎are they skeptical like Netanyahu or more ‎willing to be hopeful about it?) might change ‎this overall support ‎for military action.‎

The left-leaning Think Progress was critical of the PEW survey that ‎we’ve added, for the following reasons – that do have some merit:‎

Respondents were asked to choose [PDF, page 27] between ‎‎“preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it ‎means taking military action,” or “avoiding a military conflict ‎with Iran, even if means Iran may develop nuclear weapons.” Built ‎into these questions is the assumption that military action can ‎prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or, conversely, that ‎the lack of military action may ensure an Iranian nuclear weapon. ‎Policy experts in Israel and the U.S. have consistently challenged ‎this understanding of the Iranian nuclear showdown.‎

Think Progress writer Eli Clifton is right to point out the fact that a two-‎option question forces respondents to either support an attack or to be ‎willing to accept a nuclearized Iran. If one believes that a third option is ‎available – or that no option is available – it is reasonable for one to be ‎suspicious of a two-option question. Clifton’s analysis of the problem, ‎though, is guilty of a graver sin than the one with which he takes issue ‎with PEW. He argues that, “Built into these questions is the assumption ‎that military action can prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons ‎or, conversely, that the lack of military action may ensure an Iranian ‎nuclear weapon”. Not true: the questions were carefully worded. The ‎first option is: “preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, ‎even if it means taking military action” – and is meant to identifying ‎respondents that believe in prevention, even if the cost is high. This is ‎not support for attack - it is support for prevention at all costs. The ‎second option is: “avoiding a military conflict with Iran, even if means ‎Iran may develop nuclear weapons” – and is meant to identify those ‎respondents that have more fear of attack than fear of a nuclearized ‎Iran. Even if this means that Iran goes nuclear, these respondents (a ‎minority of Americans according to this survey) would oppose an ‎attack.‎

Why Clifton would like to discredit this survey is clear – he opposes an ‎attack. That he can arguably say that some options were omitted from ‎the survey is true: a respondent who believes that nothing can stop ‎Iran has no good answer to choose. But claiming that the wording of ‎the questions implies that only attack can prevent Iran from becoming a ‎nuclear power is misreading the question. And one suspects it is not an ‎innocent misreading, one that is less innocent than the wording of the ‎PEW question.‎

Tracker Pixel for Entry


We welcome your feedback.

Privacy Policy
Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service
JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

JewishJournal.com reserves the right to use your comment in our weekly print publication.


The Israel Factor