Would the general public really support Bush if he attacked Iran?

[Ignacio Upton]

Some people around here and other progressive sites speculate that an Iran attack could be a "wag the dog" that Bush could use to distract the country from Iraq, Plame, violating FISA, and Republican corruption and incompetence. However, does anyone REALLY think that an airstrike on Iran, especially with NUKES, will send Bush's approval into the stratosphere? I don't think that the public is gung-ho about plunging us into a third war, especially since Iran sits next door to BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranians, feeling justified that we were the aggressors in the attack, could plunge Iraq and Afghanistan into all out chaos. Their alliance with Iraqi Shia will piss off the only group that has prevented Iraq from going into a full civil war already, and Iran's support of Hezbollah, who are much more skillful than Al Qaida at attacks, could give us several 9/11's on our soil or on the soil of Israel or our other allies. I don't believe that Iran is not a threat or a future threat, as many of the same people who opposed going into Iraq have acknowledged that they are an issue (including Dean, Kerry, the 9/11 Commission, and Richard Clarke.) We must keep them from developing a full nuclear weapons program, but we also have to look at how much progress they are really having at it. There is no evidence that Iran is anywhere close to developing a nuclear bomb, which nullifies any justification for a pre-emptive strike (Bush probably wants to move troops into Iran from Iraq but can't since we are tied down and the only alternative would be to restore the draft, which will be the death of his Presidency.)

[the other one]

1. A war-weary country cries "no mas"

Come on! World War 2 only took us 45 months. There is no way people will get excited over another Bush adventure, whether it is warrented or not. (and its not)

[MercutioATC]

2. Spun the right way, sure.

Iran is 3 months away from developing nuclear weapons...we caught an Iranian spy cell in this country...we have proof that Iran is funding the insurgents in Iraq...

...the list goes on.

Remember, none of us are as dumb as all of us are.

[RufusEarl]

3. Bu$h and Iran

I've read that Bu$h thinks he's the only president that would attack Iran, just as he thought he was the only president Dem or Rep that would attack Iraq.

I would not be surprised if he did bomb Iran, I don't believe the man thinks in terms of what any of us or the rest of the world thinks.

The way i read the Neo-Cons agenda is they plan on taking over the whole of the middle east and of course that includes Iran.

The one thing that gives me hope that they want use nukes, is the fact that they want the oil under the sand of Iran. And if the country is hot, they want be able to get to it.

I can only hope and prey, thats one of many things that keeps them from going into Iran.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. I'm sick to death of this 'they could be a threat 'and 'we must keep them

from developing nuclear weapons.' Where was everybody when Pakistan and India and Israel developed their bombs? I trust Pakistan the least of all with nukes, but there are thousands of ways to work with nuclear weapon owning countries besides 'taking them out'. The whole world was making progress towards nuclear dis-armament until these fascist idiots took control and decided on the very policies we have condemned in others for decades.

Any country could be a threat someday, the one we should be dealing with right now is our own.

[longship]

5. Unfortunately, it won't work like that.

If ChimpCo decides to attack Iran, it will not be the US public opinion which will decide Chimp's support. It will be the international reaction and the consequences of the attack which will decide it.

Depending on the type of force used, these consequences could be too terrible to contemplate. If ChimpCo uses even one nuke... :scared:

[BillZBubb]

6. The sheeple ALWAYS rally around the flag.

So, yes, with a full bore propaganda campaign, a majority in this country would INITIALLY support the action. Heck the propaganda is already working--I've seen plenty of posters here at DU who think Iran is a big, big threat.

[bushmeister0]

7. Could a PR campaign start a war?

Kevin Drum in Washington Monthly writes:

The problem is that even if this is a bluff, it's one that has a profound effect on both Iran and the American public. As James Fallows says:

By giving public warnings, the United States and Israel “create ‘excess demand’ for military action,” as our war-game leader Sam Gardiner recently put it, and constrain their own negotiating choices.

In other words, if the PR campaign is too successful, then Bush will have boxed himself in. Eventually he'll feel obligated to bomb Iran solely because he's now under pressure to make good on his threats and doesn't want to look like he's backing down. World Wars have started over less.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008596.php

[debbierlus]

8. It won't happen that way!

We are not going to attack Iran!

Israel is...

And, THEN, we will HAVE to attack Iran, to defend Israel.

They will act like martyrs....It will go like this:

We tried to prevent it. But, people who employ terror can not be reasoned with through words. Only through swift force and decisive action will we prevail

But, now they are attacking our allie. We can not abadon our allie in its time of great need. Only through swift force and decisive action will we prevail America must rise to the occassion and stand by the nation of Israel. It is a trying time for this nation. But, we will prevail....

Cue the flag unfurling and the Star Spangled Bannner......

The only problem for Bush & co is that the above strategy has been revealed. So, it will make it a tougher selll to act like we were dragged into it...when really we planned it all along! Iraq has diminished their credibility to the point where many will believe it was premeditated.

[WilliamPitt]

9. With Iran trumpeting its "nuclear triumph" today,

who knows? The single worst part of this whole scenario is the fact that the leaders of the nations squaring off here are fucking batshit monkeypoo nutbag insane. Both believe they are on armchair-to-armchair relations with God. Both have been making very bad decisions.

Powerful stupid people with God complexes and a propensity for grevious error going nose-to-nose means nearly anything is liable to happen.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

11. Will, the question is less "would he do it" than would people support it.

[WilliamPitt]

15. I understand

and if Iran's batshit monkeypoo nutbag insane leader keeps yowling about his nuclear program, it gives the American public (via the news media) ample reason to buy into the fear game.

Do I think people would support it? Yes, if this kind of stuff keeps getting thrown around.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. No way--they've cried 'wolf' in a big way already. Whether they admit it

to themselves or not, even most of the shrub-bots realize in their heart that Iraq is a failure and disaster.

Even just a bombing campaign, I think, would fire up the patriotic warmonger juices of 15-20 percent of people, but everyone else would either be disgusted or have a queasy, uneasy, feeling at best.

[AndyTiedye]

12. No, But The Media Would Report 90% Support for the Warped Resident

[Neil Lisst]

13. If bush uses nuclear weapons, the public will demand his removal

But if he merely uses big bombs that aren't nuclear, he'll break 40% support as soon as the first US air crew is shot down. He will count on the sympathy for missing airmen to gain him support.

[Terran1212]

14. Fear -- Americans are cowards