THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010


The Chicago Council on Global Affairs released its latest survey of national public opinion on US foreign policy last Thursday 16 September 2010 with some rather surprising results – results that are sure not to please the Zionists of Israel and their neoconservative supporters in the US particularly and around the world generally.

The survey has found that the rhetoric of the President, his administration, Congress and right-wing political commentators regarding US support for Israel does not at all coincide with the American public’s view about supporting Israel – especially when it comes to the prospect of war with Iran.

Crucially, when asked; if Israel was to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities and if Iran were to retaliate against Israel and the two were to go to war against each other, should the United States bring its military forces into the war on the side of Israel, some 56% of respondents said ‘no’ and only 38% said ‘yes’. (See p.21 of the survey.)

The survey also showed that American’s are in no mood to go to war against Iran directly. 71% favour economic sanctions coupled with continued diplomatic efforts to resolve the ‘crisis’ while 77% supported not trading with Iran and a surprising 62% supported the idea of US leaders having direct talks with Iranian leaders. (See p.19 of the survey.)

The results of the survey are likely to put a dent in neoconservative and Zionist aspirations for regime change in Iran as far getting American public opinion to support military action is concerned. However, one needs to ask; is that likely stop the Israelis from striking Iran and would current American public opinion stop President Obama and Congress from committing the US to war against Iran if Iran were to retaliate against Israel?

Certainly, this side of the mid-term elections, Obama is not likely to support war against Iran and, if that’s the case, Israel will unlikely strike Iran any time soon even if it wanted to. As I have argued consistently at this blog, it is impossible for Israel to launch a truly unilateral strike against Iran; Israel would need the full collaborative support of the US in order to strike Iran. However, if Israel actually were able to strike Iran unilaterally, the US government would feel obliged to support Israel in preventing Iranian retaliation which effectively would mean the US launching an all-out war against Iran, regardless of whether or not the American people supported it, with the US government hoping that, once committed to war, the American people would come around to supporting it – as they have so often done in the past.

In its analysis, the survey suggested that the American people are far more concerned about their own domestic economic plight than they are about Iran, but, whether or not that will stop the push for war by the Zionists of Israel and their neoconservative supporters remains to be seen.

For the Zionists of Israel it’s a matter of manipulating regional affairs to suit their agenda of creating a casus belli which can be used to launch an attack against Iran. This may be via war directly against Hezbollah and/or Hamas instigated as the result of some Israeli provocation, or alternatively, Israel finding some excuse to launch an attack directly against Iran. Either way, I doubt that American public opinion overall will have too much bearing on how Israel finds a way to have the war it’s been itching to have for some years; and I doubt that American public opinion will count for much if push comes to shove and Israel bites off more than it can chew in attacking Iran and finds itself in need of America’s support – again. On the hand, though, I doubt that Obama will be in much of a rush to covertly support, even if he were able to do it covertly, an Israeli unilateral strike against Iran.


Despite American public opinion being firmly against war on Iran, the Republican Senator for South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, who sits on the influential Senate Armed Services Committee, has come out in favour of attacking Iran with air and sea strikes (not invasion) in order to effect regime change in Iran.


Anonymous said...

Hello again Damian and friends,

Speaking of Iran, something that makes me wonder but which I've not heard anyone address concerns those three yank 'hikers' who 'accidently' strayed across the border into Iran from Iraq.
I noticed the woman was released, but I still wonder;

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the story of being innocent 'hikers' in Iraq (still a war zone then and now), just innocently holidaying and 'accidently' crossing the mountainous border into Iran seems a tad, well, bizarre?.

Would they have us believe that Iraq was just another quiet country?.
Had they no maps for their hike or the fancy GPS sets?.

Its as implausible as during the Vietnam war, yank 'hikers' crossing into Laos by accident from North Vietnam.

"Oh we're just on holiday don't you know!".
Dear Oh Dear, do they take us for simpletons?.

I haven't heard anyone in the media ask this simple question, but I accept its possible I missed something as I've been away.

see you on the track crossing into North Korea sometime.

your mate,
Nylon Shirt

Damian Lataan said...

G'Day NS, I guess it occurred to the Iranians that the liklihood of three American civilians being on a hiking holiday in Iraq and straying into Iran was a bit far fetched - which, of course, is why they have been held for so long.

I don't know the full story but it does sound very iffy.