Polling shows that most Americans are backing Obama's deal with Iran-- and by a wide margin.
Americans back a newly brokered nuclear deal with Iran by a 2-to-1 margin and are very wary of the United States resorting to military action against Tehran even if the historic diplomatic effort falls through, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday.But 22% who oppose the deal and the 20% who want to attack Iran are very over-represented in Congress… and in the media. As Maddow explains in her short piece on the deal in the video above, "Democrats and Republicans in Congress, both, are trying to scuttle the deal, working in a bipartisan way no less-- miracle of all miracles-- to try to scrap it, working too impose new sanctions on Iran…" Who exactly? The Republicans who have been paid off by Israel's GOP paymaster, Sheldon Adelson and the Democrats who have been paid off by Israel's Democratic Party paymaster, Haim Saban. If you get an idea that there are people-- regardless of party-- who are putting Israel's national priorities ahead of America's national priorities… well, those are probably not men and women who belong in the U.S. Congress.
…According to the Reuters/Ipsos survey, 44 percent of Americans support the interim deal reached between Iran and six world powers in Geneva last weekend, and 22 percent oppose it.
While indicating little trust among Americans toward Iranian intentions, the survey also underscored a strong desire to avoid new U.S. military entanglements after long, costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if the Iran deal fails, 49 percent want the United States to then increase sanctions and 31 percent think it should launch further diplomacy. But only 20 percent want U.S. military force to be used against Iran.
The survey's results suggest that a U.S. public weary of war could help bolster Obama's push to keep Congress from approving new sanctions that would complicate the next round of negotiations for a final agreement with Iran.
"This absolutely speaks to war fatigue, where the American appetite for intervention-- anywhere-- is extremely low," Ipsos pollster Julia Clark said. "It could provide some support with Congress for the arguments being made by the administration."
Lindsey Graham, John McCain and the forever war crew are dangerous hardliners. Iran has that type too-- and they are also opposing the deal. And they're in Iran's version of Congress too, the Majlis. One John McCain-like creature called the deal a "poisoned chalice."
Having signed the first-stage accord that curbs Iranian nuclear activity in exchange for limited relief from sanctions, President Hassan Rouhani and his foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif now have the task of trying to convince skeptics that they are not compromising on key issues of national sovereignty.I was in Iran twice, in the last 1960s and again in the early 1970s, each time for several months. I remember thinking at the time that I had never been in such a pro-American country. There has been a great deal of damage to the trust between the two countries, as well as between Iran and Israel which were close military and commercial allies back then as well. But Iran is not some savage, uncivilized Arab country. This is a very sophisticated country that doesn't want to be pushed around and that has a proud sense of its place in history. Obama is very smart to try too bring them back into the community of nations. His opponents-- and Rouhani's-- are barbarians and warmongers. Jay Stamper, the progressive Democrat running against Lindsey Graham is cautiously optimistic about the deal. Yesterday, he told us that "Our agreement with Iran doesn't give us everything we want but if Iran actually honors its obligations, we will have succeeded in slowing the progress of Iran's nuclear weapons program. Predictably, Lindsey Graham opposes any agreement that has the potential to postpone or prevent a war. And Lindsey never misses an opportunity to embrace war as a first resort."
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has publically supported nuclear negotiators and opposition to the deal seems limited, but opinion can shift quickly in Iran and Rouhani's task will become more delicate as the country moves toward a final accord six months from now.
In the debate broadcast live on state radio, Zarif tried to deflect criticism by noting that some construction will continue at the planned Arak heavy water reactor, whose advancement was effectively frozen by the Geneva accord.
Zarif pointed out the building projects would not involve areas covered by the deal, including the installation of new equipment or work toward making the reactor operational. But even minor progress at Arak could bring claims by Israel and other opponents of the deal that Iran is violating its rules and spirit.
Heavy water reactors such as Arak produce a greater amount of byproduct plutonium, which can be used in nuclear weapons production if extracted by a special process. Iran has pledged not to pursue facilities that could separate the plutonium.
Coming at it from the other side, Iranian hard-liners said that it placed overly sweeping restrictions on the Islamic Republic's nuclear activities.
Lawmaker Ruhollah Hosseinian said the deal was so vague and conditional that it may finally lead to a shutting down of Iran's uranium enrichment program, which can lead to material used in nuclear weapons. Iran denies Western claims that it is pursuing weapons and says the enriched uranium is needed for peaceful purposes.
"It practically tramples on Iran's enrichment rights... Uranium enrichment restrictions in the final stage and constraints in the first stage mean that enrichment in Iran is headed toward self shut-down," he said.
"A chalice of poison has been given to the people but (the government) is trying to show it as a sweet drink through media manipulation," Hamid Rasaei said.
…Others government supporters say the angry reaction from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called it a "historic mistake," shows it was a triumph.
