For the last few weeks, the general sense is that the US public backs the tentative deal on Iran’s nuclear program. So it’s surprising to see USA Today (12/9/13) hyping a poll that sends a very different message. Has public opinion shifted? Not really–you simply have to look at what the polls are asking.
USA Today’s Susan Page
Under the print edition headline “Few Trust Iran on Nuclear Accord,” USA Today‘s Susan Page reports that “the White House and Iran face an uphill selling job to convince Americans to embrace the interim nuclear pact negotiated with Tehran last month.” Just how bad is it? Page explains that a new USA Today/Pew poll says it’s pretty bleak:
In the survey, taken Tuesday through Sunday, 32 percent approve of the deal, 43 percent disapprove. One in four don’t know or declined to answer.
This is surprising, since many other polls found the public generally supportive of the deal. Taking a look at the Iran page at PollingReport.com, a CNN poll (11/18-20/13) finds 56 percent favor the deal; an ABC News/Washington Post Poll (11/14-17/13) finds 64 percent approval.
Now, it’s entirely possible that Americans have been watching a lot of TV, and have seen a parade of hawks and skeptics talking about the need to increase the sanctions on Iran. But the real difference would seem to be simpler to explain. Those other two polls asked questions that included a summary of the deal. The ABC/Post poll, for instance, put it this way:
Would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift some of their economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?
This new poll, though, asked the question this way:
From what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the agreement between the United States and Iran on Iran’s nuclear program?
So why would you get such starkly different results? Because most people actually don’t follow this story very closely at all. Forty-eight percent of respondents said they’d heard a little about the agreement, 28 percent said they’d heard nothing at all. But those people are still asked to weigh in on whether they approve or disapprove of the deal. (How does that phone conversation go, exactly? “So, do you know much about this Iran nuclear deal?” “No, not really.” “OK, so what’s your take on it, then?”)
It’s not an especially helpful survey–unless you’re looking to build opposition to the nuclear deal.
Ignorance is always bliss
For the purposes of the propagandist
As George Carlin put it: “Well, we like war. We like war, we are war like people. We like war, because we are good at it. You know why we are good at it? Because we get a lot of practice.”
The press and pundits are always pushing for war because it sells copies, it perpetuates the Empire, it benefits their war-profiteering masters and it distracts the Proles from the real (domestic) issues (inequality). Thanks to press and pundits’ own misinformation, Americans don’t know what is really hitting them so they displace their anger on “the other”.
Externally this displacement of anger is on mostly defenseless nations of the Global South. Domestically it’s on the poor, blacks, Latinos, immigrants, liberals, LGBTQ, teachers, unions, environmentalists, socialists, anarchists, whistle-blowers, communists, feminists, spiritual and nonviolent people, etc. My apologies to all the other caring and thinking people that I left out!
Personally, I tends to agree with professor James Petras. The removal of Syria’s chemical deterrent and the US-Iran interim deal, are death blows to Syrian-Iranian resistance to the world Zionist power.
“In effect, Iran has conceded the maximum concessions regarding its strategic national defenses, nuclear facilities and uranium enrichment in what is supposedly the ‘initial’ round of negotiations, while ‘receiving’ the minimum of reciprocal concessions. This highly unfavorable, asymmetrical framework, will lead the US to see Iran as ‘ripe for regime change’ and demand even more decisive concessions designed to further weaken Iran’s defensive capacity. Future concessions will increase Iran’s vulnerability to intelligence gathering and undermine its role as a regional power and strategic ally of the Lebanese Hizbullah, the current beleaguered governments in Syria and Iraq and the Palestinians under Israeli occupation,” says professor James Petras.
The end result: The end of Islamic Revolution in Iran.
http://rehmat1.com/2013/12/10/hersh-obama-lied-on-sarin-attack-in-syria/
Remove all sanctions from Iran. What does sanctioning their banks do but guarantee war? The west has been sanctioning their oil companies, their banks, their manufacturing companies all under the bogus pretense that they could all be used to make nukes.
The west does not have a shred of evidence to support these sanctions.
Show the American people the evidence. The same sanctions that starved thousands of Iraqis are being placed on Iran. For no reason! There is evidence that Iran is only working on nuclear energy. You can’t prove a negative.
Obviously the poll results were cooked up by interested parties.The interested parties?! Obvious beyond doubt
In the old days, war was limited to a specific physical territory — the theater of war, as it was called. A nuclear war would have no such boundaries.
Western economic trade policies gave the Nazis yet one more excuse for waging war. Likewise, Iran could push ahead with a weapons program simply because the RW in the US is so idiotic they will not accept a peaceful deal, whether one were to agree with such a move by Iran or not.
The neocons who are pushing this agenda had better be careful or they just might wind up with the very peril they think they are warding off. Best to keep cool heads all round I think.
LOL, USA Today: you only needed to ask one question:
My poll asks one question, with a choice of 2 anwers but accepts only one answer.*******
If the USA has to cut spending should it create sanctions on military spending or with the social safety nets?******
If you asked that, the only people who would want war would be the military industrial complex and the congressional members who love them!
You see, USA Today……how easy it is to get the answer you want, and this also explains why I never take polls. : )
Most folks know little or nothing pertaining to this deal.Im not sure polls are worth much
No difference…That sounds like a sly beginning move on your part to blame the tea party or maybe FOX news for Iran going nuclear.Sorry charlie.We have their absolute garentee that they have never intended such a thing and that they are totally transparent as far as their development along those lines.That means according to them(and knuckleheads who believe anything they say)that they are still more then ten years away from any such development even if they turned all their efforts to such a thing ,and completely defied the world.So it is clearly one or the other.if they were to say oops we have the bomb cause you made us do it…..You can be 100% sure they have been lying for a decade about their intentions.
gloriana how about this poll….if we could start a 98%taxe rate for every politician;as well as anyone who makes more than a couple million dollars,as well as all large corporations,Famous musicians and actors ,and use that money for universal healthcare,free cars and college education..would you be for it?Im afraid tons of the low information voters would jump on it like a dog on a soup bone.And if anyone disagrees with the idea.Blame the tea party