Political Hotsheet
By

Lucy Madison /

CBS News/ March 12, 2012, 6:30 PM

Poll: Most support U.S. military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons

CBS News
(CBS News) Amid continued speculation that Israel may be considering an attack on Iran, a majority of Americans say they would favor using U.S. military action against Iran to prevent the country from acquiring nuclear weapons, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.

The poll, which surveyed more than 1,000 adults nationwide between March 7 and 11, showed that 51 percent of Americans would support U.S. military action in Iran for purposes of stopping the country from developing a nuclear weapon. Thirty-six percent say they would oppose such action, and 13 percent say they are unsure.

Support for U.S. military action in Iran appears to fall largely along partisan lines: 66 percent of Republicans, compared with 40 percent of Democrats, would be in favor. Conversely, 50 percent of Democrats oppose the use of U.S. force in Iran, while only 24 percent of Republicans say the same. Fifty-one percent of independents would support taking U.S. military action in Iran to prevent the country from developing nuclear capabilities; 34 percent oppose it.

Search the CBS News poll database
Full poll results

President Barack Obama meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, Monday, March 5, 2012.

/ AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
More respondents also say they think the U.S. should support Israel in the event the country undertakes its own military effort against Iran than those who say the U.S. should oppose it. According to the survey, 47 percent of Americans say the U.S. should support Israel in the event of an attack, while 42 percent say the U.S. should not get involved.

That question, too, was divided along partisan lines. Republicans overwhelmingly (72 percent) say they would want the U.S. to get involved, while Democrats (55 percent) and independents (44 percent) say the U.S. should not get involved.

Americans are split on President Obama's handling of the situation in Iran: 42 percent approve and 39 percent disapprove. Nineteen percent say they don't know. Sixty-five percent of Republicans disapprove, and 63 percent of Democrats approve. Independents are divided, with 42 percent approving and 36 percent disapproving. Twenty-two percent of independents said they don't know.

MORE FROM THE POLL:

Most GOP voters expect Romney nomination
Most say employers should be allowed not to cover contraception
Poll: Romney, Santorum narrow gap on Obama
Obama's approval rating sinks to new low
Poll: Most think president can impact gas prices

Mr. Obama has long maintained that Iran should not be allowed to build a nuclear weapon, but he has argued that sanctions and diplomacy - not U.S. military force - are the optimal means with which to prevent Iran from developing it.

The president met last week with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and how the United States and Israel will respond. 

In a press conference a day after the meeting, Mr. Obama emphasized that he hoped the U.S. and Iran could resolve their conflicts peacefully.

"Because what I've said is, is that we have a window through which we can resolve this issue peacefully," said Mr. Obama. "We have put forward an international framework that is applying unprecedented pressure. The Iranians just stated that they are willing to return to the negotiating table. And we've got the opportunity, even as we maintain that pressure, to see how it plays out."

In a speech last week in Washington at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference, Netanyahu signaled impatience with the president's preferred solution. Israel, he said, has "waited for diplomacy to work, we've waited for sanctions to work. We cannot afford to wait much longer. ... I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation."

© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
6 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
plastiques_xprt says:
Nothing wrong with the draft, most all countries in Europe (including Switzerland) have a draft. I was drafted during the Vietnam War (US Navy EOD diver). I work for our government in DHS and can tell you that even Obama knows (as does the UN which has publicly stated it) that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Our concern isn't an ICBM launch (which Iran is working on) but either a launch from an Iranian cargo ship or a dirty bomb making its way into NY or LA, that's the scenario we and think tanks like Rand work on. If you think an attack on Iran would be economically bad, any kind of nuke (even provided by Iran to proxy groups like Hezbollah, etc.) detonated over NY or LA in models would be even more devastating, both economically and by casualties and asset damage. Deal with it now or later!
reply
focusonjobs1 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
The old dirty bomb up the tail pipe trick!! Why so concerned Iran.....don't you want to do something about the countries that already have nukes and have proven they have security issues like India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
focusonjobs1 says:
And the Republicans claim they are concerned about spending......where will the money come from? And it does have everything to do with who will be fighting the war. It's time to reinstate the draft!!!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
Bring back the draft and these chickenhawk brainless Americans will wise up quick. They are happy to have other kids die for their greed and consumption of oil.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
cbs_mike says:
Were these folks told with an attack on Iran they can dream of $5 per gallon gas? a second recession ... perhaps even a depression of unimaginable variety....be prepared America! LOL.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
robo_duck says:
The keyword is IF they were developing nuclear weapons, which so far there is absolutely no evidence that the Iranian are, so I suspect that the poll was biased by the way the question was asked. 1,000 sampled out of a population of over 300 million is hardly a good indicator either.
reply