Tweet
Americans Don't Trust Bush on Iran
Poll: Bush Not Trusted to Make the 'Right Decision' in Iran
By Doyle McManus, Times Staff Writer
6:00 PM PDT, April 12, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Americans are divided over the prospect of U.S. military action against Iran if the government in Tehran continues to pursue nuclear technology — and a majority do not trust him to make the "right decision" on that issue, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
Asked whether they would support military action if Iran continued to produce material that could be used to develop nuclear weapons, 48% of the poll's respondents, or almost half, said yes; 40% said no.
If President Bush were to order military action, most respondents said they would support air strikes against Iranian targets, but only about 1 in 4 said they would support the use of American ground troops in Iran.
The findings of the poll, conducted largely before the Tehran government announced Monday that it had enriched uranium for civilian energy generation, reflected public concern about Iran's acquisition of nuclear technology — but public division over the best U.S. response, along with eroding confidence that Bush can be trusted to make good decisions.
A solid majority of respondents, 61%, said they believed that Iran would eventually get nuclear weapons. Only 15% said they believed that Iran would be prevented from developing nuclear weapons through diplomatic negotiations, and only 12% said they thought Iran would be stopped through military action.
Iran says it is not seeking nuclear weapons, but Western governments say they do not believe the Tehran government's denials.
In a telling reflection of Bush's erosion in public support, 54% said they did not trust him to "make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran," while 42% of respondents said they trusted him to do so.
That was a reversal of public sentiment since 2003, on the eve of Bush's decision to invade Iraq, when 55% of respondents said they trusted him to make the right decision over whether to go to war.
The poll results and interviews with individual respondents made it clear that the experience in Iraq — both the discovery that U.S. intelligence was wrong to declare that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the costly continuing conflict against Iraqi insurgents — have persuaded many Americans to be cautious about going to war against neighboring Iran.
"I think our intelligence really stinks," said Marilyn Wisniewski, 65, of Crestwood, Ill. She said she initially supported the war in Iraq, but is unsure of the proper course in Iran.
"How do we know what they have?" she asked. "We can't trust [the Iranians]. We have to protect ourselves. But how are we going to do that? I wouldn't send troops in there. I suppose I might support airstrikes."
Others echoed her sentiments. "You can't make the same mistake twice," said Gene Gentrup, 42, of Liberty, Mo. "Don't tell me they have WMD if they're saying they don't We have damaged our credibility on that in Iraq.
"If we do anything in Iran, it's important that we do it with support from other countries," he added.
The poll contacted 1,357 adults nationwide by telephone from April 8 through April 11. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the entire sample.
Americans' support for military action against Iran has fluctuated in recent years. In a January Times/Bloomberg poll, 57% said they would support military action if Iran continued to produce material that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. But in a Fox News poll in January 2005, only 41% of respondents said they believed the United States should "take military action to keep Iran from trying to develop a nuclear weapons program."
In this month's Times/Bloomberg poll, when respondents were asked what kind of military action against Iran they would support if the president chose to act, 44% said they would support air strikes but oppose the use of ground troops; 19% said they would support both air strikes and ground troops; and 6% said they would support the use of ground troops alone.
The poll found that 2 in 5 Americans, or 40%, said the war in Iraq has made them less supportive of military action against Iran; about the same proportion, 38%, said the experience in Iraq has had no influence on their views of Iran. By a ratio of more than 3 to 1, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say that Iraq has made them less supportive of action in Iran.
On Iraq, the poll found that Americans have become markedly more pessimistic about the chances of success in the war since the beginning of this year.
Only about 1 in 4 respondents, or 23%, said they expect the situation in Iraq to "get better" over the coming year. In the January Times/Bloomberg poll, 34% said they expected the situation to improve.
Most of that decline in overall confidence came from respondents who described themselves as Democrats; only 6% in this month's poll said they expect things to improve over the coming year, down from 24% in January. But Republicans' optimism also dropped, to 44% this month from 55% in January.
That sentiment may rest in part on the growing view that Iraq is now in a de facto state of civil war, a characterization the Bush administration has contested. The poll in January was taken a month after Iraq's successful parliamentary election, when sectarian violence was at a lower level.
A majority of respondents, 56%, said they believed Iraq was "currently engaged in a civil war." And a record high number for the Times poll, 58%, said they believed it was not worth going to war in Iraq. Until the spring of 2004, a majority of poll respondents said it was worth going to war, but since 2004 the number disagreeing has gradually risen.
Almost half of those respondents — 45% — now say they believe President Bush should set a date for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of his term in 2009. That appears to be a significant increase since October 2004, when a similar question was asked and only 28% said Bush should set a definite date for withdrawal.
Nevertheless, most Americans do not support an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq — not even if a full-scale civil war breaks out, the poll found.
When asked what the United States should do if the violence in Iraq turned into "a nationwide civil war," only about one-third, or 32%, said all American troops should be withdrawn. About the same proportion, 33%, said U.S. troops should remain neutral and attempt to mediate. One-fourth, or 25%, said U.S. troops should intervene in the violence — either to stop the fighting or (in a minority opinion measured at 6%) to help one side win.
"If we're there to do a job, we should finish the job," said Wisniewski, a moderate Democrat who works at an insurance agency in a Chicago suburb. "But if it gets to the point where the Shiites and the Sunnis are just fighting each other, it seems self-defeating. If our people are getting killed because of that, what's the reasoning?"
But asked if she favored an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops under those circumstances, she paused.
"I don't know," she said.
By Doyle McManus, Times Staff Writer
6:00 PM PDT, April 12, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Americans are divided over the prospect of U.S. military action against Iran if the government in Tehran continues to pursue nuclear technology — and a majority do not trust him to make the "right decision" on that issue, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
Asked whether they would support military action if Iran continued to produce material that could be used to develop nuclear weapons, 48% of the poll's respondents, or almost half, said yes; 40% said no.
If President Bush were to order military action, most respondents said they would support air strikes against Iranian targets, but only about 1 in 4 said they would support the use of American ground troops in Iran.
The findings of the poll, conducted largely before the Tehran government announced Monday that it had enriched uranium for civilian energy generation, reflected public concern about Iran's acquisition of nuclear technology — but public division over the best U.S. response, along with eroding confidence that Bush can be trusted to make good decisions.
A solid majority of respondents, 61%, said they believed that Iran would eventually get nuclear weapons. Only 15% said they believed that Iran would be prevented from developing nuclear weapons through diplomatic negotiations, and only 12% said they thought Iran would be stopped through military action.
Iran says it is not seeking nuclear weapons, but Western governments say they do not believe the Tehran government's denials.
In a telling reflection of Bush's erosion in public support, 54% said they did not trust him to "make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran," while 42% of respondents said they trusted him to do so.
That was a reversal of public sentiment since 2003, on the eve of Bush's decision to invade Iraq, when 55% of respondents said they trusted him to make the right decision over whether to go to war.
The poll results and interviews with individual respondents made it clear that the experience in Iraq — both the discovery that U.S. intelligence was wrong to declare that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the costly continuing conflict against Iraqi insurgents — have persuaded many Americans to be cautious about going to war against neighboring Iran.
"I think our intelligence really stinks," said Marilyn Wisniewski, 65, of Crestwood, Ill. She said she initially supported the war in Iraq, but is unsure of the proper course in Iran.
"How do we know what they have?" she asked. "We can't trust [the Iranians]. We have to protect ourselves. But how are we going to do that? I wouldn't send troops in there. I suppose I might support airstrikes."
Others echoed her sentiments. "You can't make the same mistake twice," said Gene Gentrup, 42, of Liberty, Mo. "Don't tell me they have WMD if they're saying they don't We have damaged our credibility on that in Iraq.
"If we do anything in Iran, it's important that we do it with support from other countries," he added.
The poll contacted 1,357 adults nationwide by telephone from April 8 through April 11. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the entire sample.
Americans' support for military action against Iran has fluctuated in recent years. In a January Times/Bloomberg poll, 57% said they would support military action if Iran continued to produce material that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. But in a Fox News poll in January 2005, only 41% of respondents said they believed the United States should "take military action to keep Iran from trying to develop a nuclear weapons program."
In this month's Times/Bloomberg poll, when respondents were asked what kind of military action against Iran they would support if the president chose to act, 44% said they would support air strikes but oppose the use of ground troops; 19% said they would support both air strikes and ground troops; and 6% said they would support the use of ground troops alone.
The poll found that 2 in 5 Americans, or 40%, said the war in Iraq has made them less supportive of military action against Iran; about the same proportion, 38%, said the experience in Iraq has had no influence on their views of Iran. By a ratio of more than 3 to 1, Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say that Iraq has made them less supportive of action in Iran.
On Iraq, the poll found that Americans have become markedly more pessimistic about the chances of success in the war since the beginning of this year.
Only about 1 in 4 respondents, or 23%, said they expect the situation in Iraq to "get better" over the coming year. In the January Times/Bloomberg poll, 34% said they expected the situation to improve.
Most of that decline in overall confidence came from respondents who described themselves as Democrats; only 6% in this month's poll said they expect things to improve over the coming year, down from 24% in January. But Republicans' optimism also dropped, to 44% this month from 55% in January.
That sentiment may rest in part on the growing view that Iraq is now in a de facto state of civil war, a characterization the Bush administration has contested. The poll in January was taken a month after Iraq's successful parliamentary election, when sectarian violence was at a lower level.
A majority of respondents, 56%, said they believed Iraq was "currently engaged in a civil war." And a record high number for the Times poll, 58%, said they believed it was not worth going to war in Iraq. Until the spring of 2004, a majority of poll respondents said it was worth going to war, but since 2004 the number disagreeing has gradually risen.
Almost half of those respondents — 45% — now say they believe President Bush should set a date for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of his term in 2009. That appears to be a significant increase since October 2004, when a similar question was asked and only 28% said Bush should set a definite date for withdrawal.
Nevertheless, most Americans do not support an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq — not even if a full-scale civil war breaks out, the poll found.
When asked what the United States should do if the violence in Iraq turned into "a nationwide civil war," only about one-third, or 32%, said all American troops should be withdrawn. About the same proportion, 33%, said U.S. troops should remain neutral and attempt to mediate. One-fourth, or 25%, said U.S. troops should intervene in the violence — either to stop the fighting or (in a minority opinion measured at 6%) to help one side win.
"If we're there to do a job, we should finish the job," said Wisniewski, a moderate Democrat who works at an insurance agency in a Chicago suburb. "But if it gets to the point where the Shiites and the Sunnis are just fighting each other, it seems self-defeating. If our people are getting killed because of that, what's the reasoning?"
But asked if she favored an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops under those circumstances, she paused.
"I don't know," she said.
Comment