Americans Back Iran Strike if Nuke Talks Fail

by Roy C | October 7, 2009 at 10:12 am

463 views | 48 Recommendations | 28 comments

We Americans are willing to talk, but we expect results.

As was pointed out in the Italian press at the onset of the War in Iraq, war is not a taboo for the American people. We will fight to defend our democratic republic and others around the world.

We don't believe that Obama has been tough enough on Iran.

Some have wondered why Obama has not taken advantage of the weakness of this regime in Iran, its unpopularity and the fact that it stands almost on the brink of falling from within.

Americans Back Strike on Iran if Nuke Talks Fail

Posted by David Paul Kuhn

The American public supports U.S. military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, if diplomacy fails, according to two major polls.

The Pew Research Center reported Tuesday that about six in 10 Americans support a military strike if nuclear negotiations break down. A majority of Independents, Democrats and Republicans share this view. Pew's survey echoes a Fox News poll last week.

In short, the U.S. mainstream is cautiously hawkish on Iran. But Americans do not believe the time for force is now. About six in 10 Americans still back direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran. Here too, however, Americans want a firm hand. Three quarters of Americans support "tougher" sanctions against Iran, Pew reports.

Tougher, that is, because Americans believe the time for talking will end. Pew found that 64 percent of Americans say that negotiations will not alone convince Iran to give up its nuclear program, also mimicking Fox's poll results last week.

As I wrote yesterday, Americans have come expect the worst from Iran. And as Iran moves toward the bomb, it cannot count on American war fatigue. At some point, President Obama may feel broad public pressure to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. The feasibility of delaying Iran's nuclear program by force is, of course, another matter.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

Hugh Askew

at 11:32 on October 7th, 2009

If we, or Israel, decide to bomb Iran's nuke facilities, we need to be aware of, and prepared for, the consequences. They will be massive.

The Straits of Hormuz will likely be closed within 24 hours of such an attack. The price of gasoline will shoot above $10.00 per gallon, in a matter of minutes, after the news becomes public. The economic ramifications will be horrendous, huge, and long lasting.

None of that is made up. Mr Imabadjammy has made his intentions known. He is playing his hand, betting that the west won't have the temerity to attack. Obama seems to have played into his hand by assumming that a good gab fest would make things all better.

bettermakings (not verified)

at 18:22 on October 7th, 2009

People here commented about the "consequences", such as the straits of Hormez being blocked. Sure, that might happen, but it wouldn't take long before regime-change in Iran. The recent riots/protests against Ahmadinejad show that a large part of the population of Iran will welcome American troops, even more so than in Iraq. ................... A war with Iran could be short & simple, and successful, with few civilian casualties. Look at the Iranian-Americans: 40% leave Islam. How could a secular population have an Islamic government? It's inevitable that it will collapse, and an American strike could be the catalyst to make it happen.

Roy C

at 11:35 on October 7th, 2009

Better some economic consequences than letting them have the bomb.

Who will blink first? Realpolitik poker.

Iffy (not verified)

at 12:16 on October 7th, 2009

A strike will need to be swift (overnight) and overwhelming (completely knocking out Iran's cities and facilities). It is do-able and as shock and awe proved, effective. As for Iran's retaliation, that is over-blown. The country can't keep its airforce flying and its military infrastructure is out of date and falling apart.

rng

at 12:20 on October 7th, 2009

Why would we ever possibly think they will suddenly change direction in a matter of weeks/months when they have been on this path for years across multiple US Administrations?

I agree with most of the analysts that have some knowledge on the area that Iran will go nuclear, and the US won't/can't do a damn thing about it as it is militarily overstretched, economically strapped and strategically outplayed by Iran as it has been for over a decade, and absolutely so post Iraq debacle when we handed control to Tehran gift wrapped.

Nothing short of a miracle can stop Iran going nuclear and the best Israel could do is delay them and earn itself one hell of a problem in the process.

We need to start thinking how to best deal with a nuclear Iran (like we had to Pakistan because we didn't stop them either), not day dreaming about the past when we could have stopped them. We cannot play Atlas and support the world on our shoulders, it never was our job and now we are incapable.

Hugh Askew

at 13:47 on October 7th, 2009

We are definitely not incapable. We can stop the work they are doing now, but the cost will be great.

Strategically, we have both air and ground forces in place on either side of Iran. We also have the supply pipelines in place. In addition, we currently have a good sized naval force sitting off Iran. That hardly qualifies as being "strategically outplayed".

What we don't have, is the equipment, nor the manpower, to stop Iran from sending a couple of tankers to the bottom of the Persian Gulf. Nor do we, at this time, have world sentiment on our side.

rng

at 14:08 on October 7th, 2009

They have the capacity to use irregulars as a response in many areas of out interest. We would also have to rush troops back into Iraq to deal with the Shiite backlash. While we are "technically capable" the cost and backlash would be too high a price for it to be a pragmatic response, despite the US/Israeli join exercises. Also the Russians are playing two sides down the middle. Note the new play and strategic alignment between Moscow and Turkmenistan includeing joint exercises as that is the back door to pipeline in and out of Iran. I still don't know whether Iran got the S300's (probably not) or the Chinese knock off, but our so called security partners are playing us down the middle as the patsy...again. We have leviathan forces encircling Iran - they have proxies, irregulars and power they can influence that will cause havoc for us if that strike happens. I predict they will go nuclear, just like Pakistan did. We have to have a plan to deal with that in my opinion. As a quick aside, historically, most powers that do go nuclear tend to become less overtly hostile as they feel more secure, but it is the ilicit technology transfers after than and the race it can inspire that are more worrying.

Roy C

at 13:46 on October 7th, 2009

They will change when they are scared enough. Really.

rng

at 14:10 on October 7th, 2009

We scare them enough to be concerned about regime change a la Iraq, which is why they want the nuclear deterrent, but not enough to change course overall

albertacowpoke

at 14:21 on October 7th, 2009

The question is what price is America willing to pay to stop Iran from going nuclear.

The world is intertwined and specifically Iran with China and Russia in regards to oil.

The Commander in Afghanistan is asking for up to an additional 40,000 troops to make Afghanistan succesful. Iraq would ignite again.

Iran knows very well that the US can.t afford another foreign venture.

The poll might suggest that 6 of 10 Americans support a strike if talk fails. Will they feel the same if they become aware of the consequences?

The other obvious question is do you pay the price now, or do you pay later?

America is also operating with the largest deficit since World War II. Would another venture be affordable?

There are limits to America's so called might and wealth.

Roy C

at 14:27 on October 7th, 2009

Yes, true, but Iraq will fall in days without gasoline. And how many "friends" does the Shiite adventurer state of Iran really have?

rng

at 14:48 on October 7th, 2009

That's the point, Roy. Sanctions leak, always have and Turkmenistan is a sieve. Aldo if you corner them you will coalesce opposition against the West as a devil even among those who would be your friend otherwise like Mousavi. A 4x2 approach is not going to work here, these are Persians, they are way too sneaky

Roy C

at 15:00 on October 7th, 2009

No, they leak, but not important and not necessary, if you can't get enough gasoline.. The economy falls. Not even a problem.

rng

at 18:23 on October 7th, 2009

Bless you, you are an idealist...with a rather unusual twist

Roy C

at 18:50 on October 7th, 2009

Well, bless you, too and I mean it. Thanks.

rng

at 18:56 on October 7th, 2009

I did too. I really hope you are right!

Barry Artiste

at 15:59 on October 7th, 2009

Well you know what they say, Money talks, and bullshit walks, so lets see if Iran put their money where their nukes are!

René

at 09:12 on October 8th, 2009

Barry, I think the regime leaders and shakers moved most of their money out of the country last summer. So......
That would be their weak point. Find and freeze all those bank accounts, and watch them jump.

jefhow22

at 16:25 on October 7th, 2009

Armageddon...God have Mercy on us all...

israeli.agent

at 17:02 on October 7th, 2009

Just wondering. What other difference a nuclear Iran makes in the world a nuclear Pakistan could not?

Other than a grave threat to Israel?

.Agent.

rng

at 18:18 on October 7th, 2009

Just wondering. What other difference a nuclear Iran makes in the world a nuclear Pakistan could not?

Shortly, we will find out. Then we will learn to live with it, and with Turkey, Saudi and Egypt going nuclear too. It is an irreversible path at this stage, gas shortages won't change that I'm afraid

THinking One (not verified)

at 18:08 on October 7th, 2009

It is easier to say lets strike, however the results of effective diplomacy can be enjoyed by many generations to come as oppose to another war story and the horible regrets that follow

bettermakings (not verified)

at 18:20 on October 7th, 2009

rng

at 19:05 on October 7th, 2009

"A war with Iran could be short & simple..."

Man, am I glad you are here and not in State or Defense!

bettermakings (not verified)

at 18:20 on October 7th, 2009

Roy C

at 18:51 on October 7th, 2009

Worse, we relish the negativity, a sure sign of our own narcissism!

lawl fuck that (not verified)

at 06:05 on October 16th, 2009

ha i say if iran does anything stupid its easy we nuke the fuck out of them wipe their entire contry out leave noone that means after the bombs fall we go in and kill every survivor and pretend it ever happend we should do it befor they nuke us because when they nukes its over for us every country in the world is going to prepare everything they got on the U.S because there to fucking stupid and afraid that we will kill them allbut thats what i mean if one bomb goes off in the U.S then we beat them like the dogs they are and destroy every single fucking 3rd world country that is not in the U.N

Pissedoff (not verified)

at 13:59 on November 2nd, 2009

Please, Please, PleaseWAKE-UP and THINK. The United States is not being threatened my Iran. Israel is not being threatened by Iran. Israel HAS nuclear weapons. If we or the Israelis bomb Iran, the United States economy will crash. Does anyone remember what happened with the gas crisis of the 70's. Iran curbed the oil production because the United States re-supplied Israel during it's war in 1974. It cost the U.S. Trillions in lost revenue. The American public is a pawn to the powerful lobby of Israel. Is it not bad enough we support them no matter WHAT they do? How much aid has gone to such a small country when we Americans are out of workand in a recession. The United States has been borrrowing money from China to pay for our national debt, yet we continue to give money away evan though we are in the red! Should we be an honest broker and give the same amount of aid to each Palestinian that we give to each Israeli? Wake up people. If Israel wants to stop Iran, then Israel should. But, lets remember, Israel has nuclear weapons(but they refuse to admit it) So why shouldn't other nations be allowed to? Oh yeah, don't think you are going to insult me by calling me an Anti-Semite. Some of my best friends are Jewish!