Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Reason-Rupe: Support for Military Intervention in Iran Drops When Iraq War Considered

Emily Ekins | 4.10.2012 1:50 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

The latest Reason-Rupe poll finds that nearly half of Americans favor the United States attacking Iran to destroy or delay its nuclear program, if Iran were close to being able to produce a nuclear weapon. Under these conditions, 45 percent oppose military intervention, and intensity is split with 30 percent strongly supporting intervention and 30 percent strongly opposing it.

However, this support quickly recedes when potential military intervention is compared to the war in Iraq. Instead, 56 percent of respondents oppose attacking Iraq if it "would start a war that is similar in length and costs to the war in Iraq." Intensity is on the side of those who oppose intervention with 42 percent who strongly oppose compared to 20 percent who strongly favor.

These data demonstrate that although Americans are concerned about Iran having nuclear capabilities, there are limits to what Americans are willing to pay to stop Iran, especially when Iran's nuclear capabilities are not fully known. 

Full poll results found here.

Nationwide telephone poll conducted March 10th-20th of both mobile and landline phones, 1200 adults, margin of error +/- 3 percent. Columns may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Full methodology can be found here. 

Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: The New York Times Gets Florida's Self-Defense Law Wrong. Again.

Emily Ekins is a research fellow and director of polling at the Cato Institute.

PoliticsWorldForeign PolicyIraqIranInterventionism
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (60)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. mr simple   13 years ago

    It's kind of amazing that the only category that grows when war with Iran is compared to the war with Iraq is the strongly oppose category. What the fuck do people think is going to happen? "Oh this time we might be facing a stronger and more organized enemy, but I'm sure it will be mush easier."

  2. Mad Scientist   13 years ago

    What do people think about attacking Iran when the surveyors (that can't be the right spelling, can it?) point out that squashing Iraq created a power vacuum in the middle east?

  3. Fist of Etiquette   13 years ago

    SANTORUM OUT!

    That's the headline on Drudge. I don't know if an out-of-the-closet Rick Santorum can continue running for president as a SoCon. He should drop out.

    1. mr simple   13 years ago

      I bet he went down looking. He always was a sucker for the screwball.

    2. Randian   13 years ago

      I wonder what they offered him to drop out. Health and Human Services? Ambassador to the Vatican?

      1. SugarFree   13 years ago

        Czarina of Night Clubs, Fetish Shops and Fabulousness.

      2. Episiarch   13 years ago

        Salty ham tears czar.

      3. AlmightyJB   13 years ago

        Whatever it was I'm glad he's out. Not that I'm a romney fan but I cannot stand santorum.

      4. Peter L   13 years ago

        He just didn't want to go through the ignominity of losing in his home state.

  4. Randian   13 years ago

    This is just me whining, but what the fuck is wrong with people? How can you possibly be supportive of more war? Is enough enough yet? Jesus Fucking Wept.

    1. SugarFree   13 years ago

      Like the most monstrous of ticks, there will never be enough blood to sate them.

      1. Randian   13 years ago

        I am now going to refer to warmongers as ticks, so I can say that to them when they ask me what I mean by that. Thanks for that.

        1. Randian   13 years ago

          Too many "thats".

    2. Episiarch   13 years ago

      I guess war boners are better than sex boners.

      1. AlmightyJB   13 years ago

        They must not be able to get the latter.

        1. Episiarch   13 years ago

          Who needs Viagra when you have bloodthirstiness?

          1. SugarFree   13 years ago

            Blood is all the lube some of them need.

            1. Episiarch   13 years ago

              Well, it is a good lubricant.

              1. Randian   13 years ago

                Ask Roman Polanski.

                Hey-yo! Someone call Ed McMahon.

    3. AlmightyJB   13 years ago

      I don't get it either. I don't understand why in the hell were even discussing starting another war.

      1. Randian   13 years ago

        Also, what is with the "don't knows?" at 7%? Do you want another war or don't you? It is a really simple question.

        1. SugarFree   13 years ago

          "Er, duh, what's 'war' mean? Like, uh, guns and stuff? Durr. I have a landline."

        2. John   13 years ago

          It is anything but a simple question. I am a don't know. Whether you want war or not depends completely upon your assessment of the Iranians and their intentions, something that I and most other people don't have enough information to do.

          So it is not a simple question unless you think that we should just bomb anyone for any reason or that it is American's job to die in the name of peace.

          1. Randian   13 years ago

            It's an If-Then proposition:

            IF Iran is close to getting a nuclear weapon, THEN would you favor war?

            That's it John. It is very simple.

            1. John   13 years ago

              It is still not simple. Just because they have nukes doesn't mean that war is justified. Again, it depends on your assessment of Iranian intentions. I couldn't care less that they have nukes if they have no plan to use them or to make trouble in the world. But how do I know that?

              1. Randian   13 years ago

                The intentions are already embedded in the question. Iran is getting nuclear weapons; so is the rest of the world. We can waste lives and treasure trying to re-cork that genie, or we can deal with reality.

                1. John   13 years ago

                  The intentions are in no way embedded in the question. And there is nothing to say they are getting nukes no matter what anymore than you can say for sure that they mean to use them or don't mean to use them.

                  All of that is just a fantasy you tell yourself to keep from having to actually think about the problem. You don't even know what reality is let alone inhabit it.

              2. Francisco d Anconia   13 years ago

                Again, it depends on your assessment of Iranian intentions.

                You can never KNOW the intentions of another. Which is PRECISELY why preemptive war is ALWAYS immoral.

                They use their nukes on a US city...have a nut...glass parking lot. Until they do, we don't have a leg to stand on.

                1. John   13 years ago

                  That is great for you. But the several hundred thousand people who would die in such an attack don't view it that way. No country is obligated to sit on its ass and wait for the other guy to come kill him. If Iran is so afraid of preemptive war, they maybe ought to stop fucking with their enemies.

                  And even if they did nuke a city, I would give a month before the peacenik Libertarians on here were whining about how horrible our response was.

                  1. Randian   13 years ago

                    No one is obligated to sit on his ass and wait for the other guy to come kill him. That's why we should ban guns.

                  2. Francisco d Anconia   13 years ago

                    So by the same logic...if I suspect someone has a gun, and I believe he might use it to murder someone, I have the right to shoot him before he does.

                    Dude, your position is morally bankrupt.

                    1. Francisco d Anconia   13 years ago

                      That was for John...sorry.

                  3. DaveAnthony   13 years ago

                    And what about the several hundred thousand that would die when we pre-emptively attack another country without knowing their intentions? We become the bad guy on the chance that they might be a bad guy? Like FdA said... immoral.

            2. John   13 years ago

              And how do I know a war would even stop them from getting nukes? I don't.

            3. John   13 years ago

              Lets talk false dichotomies

              Randian|4.10.12 @ 2:10PM|#

              This is just me whining, but what the fuck is wrong with people? How can you possibly be supportive of more war? Is enough enough yet? Jesus Fucking Wept.

              You got a lot of nerve to accuse me of false dichotomies after you post that pile of stupid. How could someone possibly support more war?

              Well, maybe they view the situation differently than you do. But no it can't be that. They must just like war and want to kill people.

    4. John   13 years ago

      Go ask the Iranians. Why can't they just not build nukes and end the whole thing? Or maybe they really don't give a shit whether you want war or not. Ever think of that?

      1. Randian   13 years ago

        Oh look here comes a Tick right now.

        1. John   13 years ago

          Sorry the world doesn't fit to your fantasies. Maybe the Iranians are wonderful peaceful people who are either not building the bomb or if they do would never use it. I hope that is the case. But I don't know.

          Maybe they are. Or maybe the country is run by a bunch of warlike lunatics who mean us and everyone else in the world harm. Isn't that at least possible? That maybe just maybe they mean all of the crazy things that they say?

          You act like the question is "should we declare war on Canada".

          1. Randian   13 years ago

            John is either a warmongerer lunatic or a dishonest water-carrier.

            Aren't false dichotomies fun?

            1. John   13 years ago

              Sure make a flippant statement when confronted with facts you don't like. If it is possible that the Iranians mean what they say, then it is not so stupid to stop them from getting nukes is it?

              You are the one above who is so convinced it is a simple question, not me. There is nothing simple about it. It is only simple if you live in a fantasy world where no one other than the United States could ever mean anyone any harm.

              1. Randian   13 years ago

                This Week in Putting Words in Other People's Mouths:

                It is only simple if you live in a fantasy world where no one other than the United States could ever mean anyone any harm.

                1. John   13 years ago

                  If the shoe fits wear it. The only way it is a simple question is if you think you know for sure the Iranians are lunatics bent on nuking the world or know for sure they are peaceful and mean no harm.

                  Since you most certainly don't believe the former, it must be the latter.

                  1. Randian   13 years ago

                    Like Francisco said, you can never know what someone's intentions are. That is why the proper war standard is whether X action places this nation in imminent danger. Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon in no way satisfies that criteria. You can bend and twist and try to say "but if Iran does this AND then that AND THEN this other thing, then we would be in danger", but the "if-then" question says "if Iran gets close, then would you support war?" And a depressing number of people, without, as you say, knowing what Iran's intentions are, says "yes".

                    "Don't know" is not acceptable because you will never fully know someone's intentions. So, knowing what you know now, with this additional criteria, would you support war? That's the question.

                    1. John   13 years ago

                      At this moment no. But that is a completely uninformed opinion on my part. I don't have access to the intelligence. I don't know what the President knows. So my opinion and your opinion neither one are worth shit.

                    2. Randian   13 years ago

                      I don't know what the President knows.

                      Yes, actually, you pretty much do. There may be high-level geopolitical issues that color the larger problem slightly, but for the most part, you have the necessary facts to form an informed opinion.

                      And I would laugh if you of all people came on here and said "oh hey Obama said he knows somethin' so war is okey-dokey with me"

                    3. Francisco d Anconia   13 years ago

                      "Intelligence" isn't factual. Intell, is just some analyst's best guess based on limited information. I've read plenty of classified reports in a former life. They'd present the facts and then fill in the blanks to draw a conclusion. You'd sit there and say to yourself, yes, that's one possible conclusion and I can come up with 10 others.

                      Going to war, where you kill thousands and tie up a nations capitol for years based upon intelligence data is a fools errand.

      2. ant1sthenes   13 years ago

        "Why can't they just not build nukes and end the whole thing?"

        Because they looked at Afghanistan (filled with Islamic radicals, the government allegedly provided safe harbor to terrorist mastermind, has no nukes) which got the full Occupy Kabul treatment; and they look at Pakistan (filled with Islamic radicals, the government almost certainly provided safe harbor to terrorist mastermind, has nukes) which got the kid gloves, when it wasn't treated as a strategic partner. And something on that list jumps out at them.

  5. Spoonman.   13 years ago

    "Now let's pretend you're not a moron. Answer again."

    1. Fist of Etiquette   13 years ago

      Those are my favorite Reason-Rupe polls.

  6. Nick M   13 years ago

    I don't understand how most people don't see this Iran situation as a replay of the Iraq war:
    - Potential WMDs
    - Authoritarian regime
    - Axis of evil
    - Politicians dueling to see who is the most hawkish
    - Neo-cons trying to scare the hell out of everyone
    - Legacy media not being nearly skeptical enough

    It's the same script.

    1. John   13 years ago

      So what? How does the fact that they were wrong about Iraq necessarily mean they are wrong about Iran?

      So because Iraq didn't have a WMD program (a highly debatable assumption but I one I will grant for the sake of argument)means that now and forever every other country accused of having one also doesn't have one?

      One situation has nothing to do with the other. What is actually happening with Iran? That is the only question that matters.

      1. Nick M   13 years ago

        One situation has nothing to do with the other.

        So you're saying that these two situations, which have much in common that I already listed and much more that could be listed have nothing to do with each other? I disagree.

        My point in bringing up the similarities is that I would hope the US government, public and media would learn from the mistakes of such a recent and similar situation. It appears to me that we have not learned much, because we are proceeding in much the same way we did a decade ago.

    2. EDG reppin' LBC   13 years ago

      BOHICA

    3. jacob   13 years ago

      - Authoritarian regime
      - Axis of evil

      Now......are you referring to Bush/Cheney (then) and Obama (now)?

    4. jacob   13 years ago

      Your comment makes me recall a saying about history and being doomed to repeat it or something like that.

      But no, there is absolutely nothing at all that's similar to these very similar-appearing situations.

  7. DaveAnthony   13 years ago

    The question should have been "Given that US intelligence was so spectacularly wrong about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, would you favor going to war with Iran based on US intelligence reports that they were close to producing nuclear weapons?"

    1. jacob   13 years ago

      Agreed. And that is how people answered it, hence the strong objections noted in the 2nd table.

  8. fried wylie   13 years ago

    "It's not a simple question, so let's blow shit up."
    -John

  9. Auric Demonocles   13 years ago

    Support for Ekins Posts Drops When Alt-Text Considered

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Welcoming Anti-Trump Liberals to the Free Trade Club

Katherine Mangu-Ward | From the July 2025 issue

Brickbat: Armed, Elderly, and Dangerous

Charles Oliver | 6.2.2025 4:00 AM

How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive

M. Nolan Gray | From the July 2025 issue

Photo: Dire Wolf De-extinction

Ronald Bailey | From the July 2025 issue

How Making GLP-1s Available Over the Counter Can Unlock Their Full Potential

Jeffrey A. Singer | From the June 2025 issue

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!