Archive | November 27th, 2013

GILAD ATZMON ON PRESS TV: WORLD TIRED OF I$RAHELL WAR POLICY ON IRAN

NOVANEWS
Political activist Gilad Atzmon says there is a growing international fatigue of Israel’s war-mongering policy and its effort to discredit a nuclear deal with Iran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said he plans to send his national security advisor to the United States to discuss the interim deal with Iran on its nuclear program.

“Netanyahu and his cabinet are not yet used to the idea that there is a growing international fatigue of Israeli and Jewish lobby belligerence and war mongering,” Atzmon told Press TV on Tuesday.

He said that Israel and its powerful lobby in the United States “fail to understand that the world is telling them ‘enough is enough’.”

“We don’t want to fight anymore Jewish wars… we are not going to bomb Iran for you,” he added.

Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — the US, Britain, Russia, France and China — plus Germany, sealed an interim deal in Geneva on November 24.

Netanyahu responded angrily to the deal, calling it “a historic mistake.”

However, US President Barack Obama has defended the nuclear agreement with Iran, pushing back against rising criticism from Israel and Congress.

 

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on GILAD ATZMON ON PRESS TV: WORLD TIRED OF I$RAHELL WAR POLICY ON IRAN

Group of 15 ‘religious extremists’ arrested in Moscow, explosives, weapons seized

NOVANEWS

Members of the suspected extrimist cell being detained. Image courtesy of the Interior Ministry.

Moscow police have arrested 15 members of Takfir Wal-Hijra, an extremist organization. The cell had a stash of weapons and explosives, which was seized in the police raid.

The cell was exposed and busted thanks to ongoing investigations into crimes not related to terrorism, the Interior Ministry reported. Members of the group were involved in various acts of crime to fund their activity.

Fourteen radicals were arrested overnight in the east of the city, while another was apprehended hours later at a different location.

Police seized three improvised explosive devices complete with detonators. One of the bombs was designed to be belt-stripped.

Among other items discovered were bomb components, handguns, grenades, ammo and extremist literature, the ministry statement said.

Materials seized in the raid. Image courtesy of the Interior Ministry.Materials seized in the raid. Image courtesy of the Interior Ministry.

Takfir Wal-Hijra is a radical Islamist organization, which was formed in Egypt in the 1970s.

Members of the group adhere to one of the most fundamental forms of Islam and observe very strict rules, including a ban on being photographed, documented and often even talked to by non-members.

It was not reported to have any cells in Russia or neighboring countries until about five years ago, Elena Suponina, head of the Center for Asia and Near East of the Russian Institute for Strategic Research told RIA Novosti.

The expert added that the cell detained in Moscow may not have a direct connection with Egyptian ranks of the organization, but rather just used the well-known name.

“Still since they share the ideology and are prepared to resort to violence to reach their goals, they are certainly dangerous,” she said.

Grenades and other weapons seized in the raid. Image courtesy of the Interior Ministry.Grenades and other weapons seized in the raid. Image courtesy of the Interior Ministry.

The underground organization mostly focuses on propaganda and recruiting new members, although they are known to occasionally use violence, the expert said.

Back in 1977, Takfir Wal-Hijra was crushed by Egyptian security forces in response to the murder of an Islamic scholar and a former government minister.

The organization’s decentralized structure is said to have been used by Osama Bin Laden as a template for the creation of Al-Qaeda.

It’s not clear how much the cells operating under the name today have in common.

One of the bombs seized by police was designed to be belt-stripped.One of the bombs seized by police was designed to be belt-stripped.
An x-ray of one of the bombs showed it was filled with nails and a detonator.An x-ray of one of the bombs showed it was filled with nails and a detonator.

 

Posted in RussiaComments Off on Group of 15 ‘religious extremists’ arrested in Moscow, explosives, weapons seized

Pakistani Drone Strike Opponents Block NATO Shipments to Afghanistan

NOVANEWS

Pakistani government continues to privately back the US-led drone campaign in spite of growing public opposition to drone strikes –   

Bio

Sana Saleem is CEO of human rights organization Bolo Bhi, which means “Speak Up.” The organization focuses on policy, advocacy and research. She’s an activist and blogger at The Guardian, Global Voices and Dawn.com.

Transcript

Pakistani Drone Strike Opponents Block NATO Shipments to Afghanistan

JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.

In Pakistan, drone strike opponents have succeeded in blocking a major NATO supply route to Afghanistan for the third straight day. They are protesting the ongoing U.S.-led drone strikes, which have killed hundreds of civilians. Opponents held a massive demonstration over the weekend and announced that they will block NATO shipments until the U.S. drone war in Pakistan comes to an end.

Now joining us to discuss this and the growing opposition to drone strikes is Sana Saleem. She is the director of human rights organization Bolo Bhi, which means speak up in Urdu. And she’s a blogger atThe Guardian and Global Voices.

Thanks for joining us, Sana.

SANA SALEEM, WRITER AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST: Thank you for having me.

DESVARIEUX: So, Sana, let’s talk about the issue of drones in Pakistan and some of the internal politics here. For some time, the Pakistani government privately supported drone strikes. More recently, they have demanded the U.S. halt them. Yet the current anti-drone protests are being held by a federal opposition party. Where do the major political parties and Pakistani public fall on the issue of drones?

SALEEM: Sort of going back on, you know, drone warfare in Pakistan and how it began, drone warfare began during the time of General Pervez Musharraf, which was essentially during a government which came under dictatorship. And so, therefore, there was lots–in fact, the entire war in Afghanistan and the whole alliance with the U.S. on the war on terror came during General Musharraf’s time. And because it wasn’t a democratic government and the Parliament at that time was not considered truly democratic, he did not follow the usual due process of now, which is essentially that the Parliament is briefed by the prime minister, and the prime minister is first briefed by the military. And so whatever military understanding is–whenever military cooperation is being undertaken by the government, it is being considered at every level, and everybody’s been taken into account. When this happened, unfortunately, it was a military government in Pakistan, and therefore a lot of the, you know, let’s say, undercover agreements with the American government that our government had had were not unearthed until much later.

This happened in 2012, when the Pakistani government, the Foreign Ministry, for once, took a very strong stance on drone strikes and they adopted a policy whereby the foreign office in Pakistan would always issue a statement opposing a drone strike every single time a drone strike was reported. And you’ve seen that from, you know, the past year.

And before that, even before that, soon after the Musharraf-led government ended, we’d seen a strong opposition to drone warfare. And as a matter of fact, a lot of the opposition that was built in to impeach then-president Pervez Musharraf was around the fact that he had extensively cooperated with the U.S., and also the fact that he had cooperated with drone strikes taking place in Pakistan.

And so for the past year we’ve seen an increased number of statements coming in from the Foreign Ministry. For now, all major political parties on the record are–consider drone strikes a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. They also consider it a human rights issue. But none of them, even the one that is currently undertaking these protests, PTI, have taken any strong substantial steps to put an end to it. It’s always the fact that, you know, these strikes continue to happen even though the Foreign Ministry has been continuing to issue statements.

But we do know that these strikes do not happen without the cooperation of the Pakistani intelligence agencies or the Pakistani military. That is the understanding amongst the journalists. That is the understanding among the human rights groups. That’s the understanding within the government. But it’s never really openly said.

DESVARIEUX: Okay. And I want to get to the point about those who are saying that–I want to bring up the counterargument to what drone opponents are saying. You have some drone supporters basically making the case that drones are a more humanitarian alternative to sending in ground troops, that there will be fewer civilian casualties. What’s your response to that argument?

SALEEM: So we cannot make that argument entirely based on facts, because, I mean, on both sides, we do not–like, drone strikes–most number of drone strikes that have occurred have occurred in the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas of Pakistan, where there is little to no coverage at all. So we do not exactly have the number of deaths.

We do have independent studies now, an elaborate number of independent studies. But, again, drone supporters would say that, you know, none of these researchers actually had, you know, traveled to FATA or traveled to Waziristan. They’re reporting through sources that are on the ground. And so drone supporters will say that these resources are dubious in nature.

But, I mean, the idea is that if you are supposed to be on the side of–you know, sort of even in doubt about civilian casualties, you’d rather be–I mean, as a human rights person, I would rather be on the side of saying, you know, there is, because that is a reality of war, that civilian casualties do happen. So I would rather be on the side of the fact that, yes, civilian casualties may happen, and we need to accept the fact that either–even as drone supporters, either you’re okay with the number of casualties and say that, yes, so that drones can kill civilians, but it is much better than troops going in or the fact that troops cannot go in.

But the idea is that this has been happening for the past many, many years. The FATA, or the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas of Pakistan, are not under [parliamentary] control. They’re not–they do not–laws that are passed in the Parliament do not apply in these areas. There has been no move in bringing in reforms so that these laws may apply there. There has been no move in applying or passing a counterterrorism strategy.

So the argument, even with drone supporters, has always been the fact that they think that, you know, they go with the policy that beggars are not choosers, and the fact that the army cannot operate in those areas–drones are our best bet.

But on the contrary, opponents of drones–and I like to put myself in that category–would like to see concrete counterterrorism strategies put in place so that we can have that due process, rather than going for a process that we can call extrajudicial killings of both civilians and also terrorists.

DESVARIEUX: And just really briefly, Sana, do you think these protests, these ongoing protests, are actually going to have any sort of effect on U.S. policy in Pakistan, and even Pakistani policy agreeing to this U.S. policy?

SALEEM: Unfortunately, even though I strongly oppose drones, I do not believe that these protests will do anything more than just bravado or just to show off power, because, again, the Pakistani political parties have made little to no movement in actually getting a counterterrorism policy in place. They do not currently have, even after ten years of war, a counterterrorism strategy that can display what in the long term will the forces be doing, how will they be enacting in these areas.

If they are suggesting, like you said, like you mentioned earlier, drone supporters will always say the fact that, you know, there are militants out there, and because drones are supposedly targeting those militants, those are our best bet, well, if the Pakistani government does not want drones anymore or just thinks that these are killing civilians, we need to be able to create alternatives. And the alternatives can only be created if there is a strategy or a clear path.

And not only is that clear path done by taking the military and the Parliament as a whole in confidence, plus also the people, and then taking the U.S., which is undoubtedly our ally on this war, into confidence–otherwise, there cannot be any concrete, you know, solution to any of these protests. I just think that this is–I mean, unfortunately, this looks like grade three power, this looks like a great, you know, bravado show of power and all that. But I don’t think this can have any substantial changes.

And also, more importantly, due process should not be influenced solely by street power. This should be done through proper channels. This should be sustainable and substantial. And this can only be done if clear policies are implemented by the government.

DESVARIEUX: Alright. Sana Saleem, joining us from Pakistan.

Thanks for being with us.

SALEEM: Thank you.

DESVARIEUX: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

Posted in USA, Afghanistan, Pakistan & Kashmir, YemenComments Off on Pakistani Drone Strike Opponents Block NATO Shipments to Afghanistan

Investigating the Saudi Government’s 9/11 Connection and the Path to Disilliusionment – Sen. Graham on Reality Asserts Itself pt 1

NOVANEWS

On RAI with Paul Jay, Senator Bob Graham explains why he persists in making the case that facts directly connect the Saudi government with 9/11 conspirators –  1 hour ago

Investigating the Saudi Government’s 9/11 Connection and the Path to Disilliusionment

Senator Bob Graham on Reality Asserts Itself (Part 1)

Former U.S. Senator Bob Graham says Saudi Arabia was “essentially a co-conspirator in 9/11,” and greater awareness of its role in funding and supporting the 9/11 terrorist attacks “would change the way in which, particularly in the current milieu of events in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is being viewed” by the U.S. public.

Saudi Arabia is known to either support or arm militant rebel groups in Syria, Sunni militants in Iraq, and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

A 2009 memo leaked by Wikileaks quoted Hillary Clinton saying “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

Senator Graham also said his investigation into the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11, and the subsequent cover-up of Saudi involvement in 9/11 by the Bush administration, led him to question his life-long reverence for presidential authority.

“I grew up with the idea that the president was almost a divine figure; that he was the literally the father of the country and always acted in a way that was beneficial to the mass of people in America,” said Graham. “You may have disagreements with the current occupant of the office, but the presidency itself was a benighted position deserving of your respect and worthy of your confidence.”

“So when I got involved particularly at the national level in the U.S. Senate and saw some of the things that were happening—which were not theoretical; they were things that I was dealing with on a very day-to-day hands-on basis that were contrary to that view of what was the presidency—it was a very disillusioning experience.  And maybe some of the comments that I make in the book Intelligence Matters reflect that path to disillusionment,” said Graham.

Transcript

Investigating the Saudi Government's 9/11 Connection and the Path to 
Disilliusionment - Sen. Graham on Reality Asserts Itself pt 1

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay in Miami Lakes, Florida. And welcome toReality Asserts Itself.

You’re wondering why I’m in Miami Lakes, Florida. Well, you’re going to find out in just a few seconds.

But we’re going to deal with a rather serious subject in this interview. We’re going to deal with the role of Saudi Arabia and its effect or influence on U.S. foreign policy and a little bit of background, recent background about U.S.-Saudi relations.

Saudi Arabia, as everyone that follows this story, has been certainly one of the driving force–if not the driving force–in what’s unfolding in Syria. The armed opposition in Syria has been armed by Saudi Arabia. Money has been fueling there, and the Saudis have been putting enormous pressure on the American government to directly militarily intervene.

United States is now involved in negotiations with Iran to make some kind of a pact that would have the Iranians back off on any nuclear program they have. The Iranians say it’s not a weaponized program, and so does American intelligence, but there’s a lot of fear or concern on the part of many that in fact it could become a weaponized program. So negotiations are finally taking place, this time it looks like with some earnest.

But it’s fairly well known that the Saudis are not very happy about these negotiations, along with Israel, at least behind the scenes. The Saudis have been saying these negotiations should not even take place. Prince Bandar, head of the Saudi National Security Council, recently told European diplomats that the United States was losing its credibility in the Middle East because it wouldn’t militarily intervene in Syria and because of what they see as backing down to Iran.

I attended a dinner recently, where I was rubbing elbows with Saudi and other Gulf Cooperation Council country and military leadership, and all the talk at that dinner was about the Saudis wanting the United States not only to intervene in Syria but to actually directly attack Iran.

So if Saudi Arabia’s having so much influence on U.S. foreign policy, shouldn’t we pay attention to the words of Senator Bob Graham, who wrote a book, Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America’s War on Terror? In that book he said fairly strong things about Saudi Arabia. Here’s what Senator Bob Graham wrote towards the end of his book. I believe–and I’m adding a word here to give it context–there is a state-sponsored terrorist support network that still exists, largely undamaged, within the United States.

The whole book is about the role of Saudi Arabia and its connection to 9/11. And according to Bob Graham, members of the Saudi government and royal family were directly connected to inspiring, funding, and helping support the organization of certain 9/11 conspirators. That came about as a result of his work as chair of the congressional joint committee on 9/11. So if we’re going to look at today’s effect and role of Saudi Arabia on current policy and the important role it’s playing, we should also pay attention to the recent history of Saudi Arabia.

And now joining us to talk about all of this is Senator Bob Graham.

Thanks very much for joining us.

BOB GRAHAM, FMR. U.S. SENATOR: Thank you very much. And I appreciate your interest in this very important and underreported subject.

JAY: And strangely underreported, given that this isn’t just some piece of history that should be in a museum and isn’t interesting to discuss it. But we’re talking about the active role of Saudi Arabia today, not just in terms of affecting U.S. foreign-policy, but on other issues that you mention in terms of ongoing–potentially ongoing terrorist networks.

GRAHAM: Their active role, and how our perspective role on that active role would be different if there was an acceptance of the fact that Saudi Arabia was essentially a co-conspirator in 9/11, how much that would change the way in which, particularly in the current milieu of events in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is being viewed.

JAY: It would change everything, given so much of our policy is based on Saudi Arabia as being, you know, at least one of, if not the primary ally in the Middle East.

GRAHAM: And that perception that Saudi Arabia since World War II has been the object of a special relationship with United States I think has contributed–not the total reason, but a factor, in that we have gone so unexamined in this current relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States.

JAY: Okay. Before we go further, let me introduce Bob Graham properly, because Senator Graham is not just a senator, in the sense that there’s a lot of senators but not all senators have played as prominent a role as Senator Graham has in the American intelligence community. And here’s a little bit of an introduction, ’cause I know he’s done a lot more than what I’m about to say.

So Bob Graham was born in 1936, was the 38th Governor of Florida from 1979 to 1987 and a United States senator from that state from 1987 to 2005.

Graham tried unsuccessfully–and I have to say, personally I was a little disappointed myself in this–unsuccessfully for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination. He dropped out of the race on October 6, 2003. He announced his retirement from the Senate on November 3 of that year.

Graham is now concentrating his efforts on the newly established Bob Graham Center for Public Service at his graduate alma mater, at the University of Florida.

After he left office, he served as chairman of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. Graham also served as cochair of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. And he’s a member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the CIA External Advisory Board.

So Senator Graham is not just a senator. Senator Graham has been at the center of a lot of very important issues that face American intelligence.

So, Senator Graham, in this show, Reality Asserts Itself–and you’re going to–this is a bit of a tease, all this, because we’re going to go back a little bit. We usually start with little bit of a back story of our subjects and a little bit of why they think what they think. And then we kind of get into the issues.

So tell us a little bit about growing up. Your father was a state senator. He was a dairy farmer, and became a fairly prominent family in Florida.

GRAHAM: I grew up on a farm which was an island in the middle of the Everglades. When I was a boy, I grew up with alligators and frogs and all the critters in the Everglades, and that had a significant effect on me, particularly my concerns about the environment and the protection of our water and land resources.

My father was a very strong influence on me. He had been a mining engineer in the West back in the beginning of the 20th century. He was born in 1885 of Canadian parents and was a very strong, forceful person, but had a special way of relating to people. People wanted to work with him because they admired his honesty and forthrightness and that he treated people with dignity and respect. Those are qualities which I learned from him and I hope I’ve been able to apply.

JAY: Now, he became a state senator. Did you grow up in a house filled with politics?

GRAHAM: Yes. He became a state senator because in the mid-1930s there was a great deal of corruption in South Florida. Al Capone had moved much of his operation from Chicago to Miami. My father was offended by that. And although he never had been in politics before, he thought one way that he might make a contribution would be to be elected to the Florida State Senate at a time when the state exercised almost total control over cities and counties in Florida.

He was elected. In fact, one of the first things he did was abolish the city of Hialeah, which was somewhat at the center of the corruption in Dade County, and then reestablished the city of Hialeah, naming the mayor and all the members of the City Council. Those new members in turn fired the police chief, brought in some honest people. Then Hialeah for a period of time was a very clean city. And I think that influence has continued to today.

JAY: Now, when you grew up, in terms of your conception of America and the American narrative, you know, there’s an official narrative, and then there’s kind of a real history. You become, when you are a senator, a very vocal opponent of the war in Iraq. And in your book you’re pretty clear that you think that the Bush-Cheney administration essentially lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When you were growing up, could you imagine such a thing? You’re seeing corruption, but can you believe the president would lie America into war?

GRAHAM: No. I grew up with the idea that the president was almost a divine figure, that he was the literally the father of the country and always acted in a way that was beneficial to the mass of people in America. I had very high reverence that you may have disagreements with the current occupant of the office, but the presidency itself was a benighted position deserving of your respect and worthy of your confidence.

So when I got involved particularly at the national level in the U.S. Senate and saw some of the things that were happening–which were not theoretical; they were things that I was dealing with on a very day-to-day hands-on basis that were contrary to that view of what was the presidency–it was a very disillusioning experience. And maybe some of the comments that I make in the book Intelligence Mattersreflect that path to disillusionment.

JAY: Prior to the Iraq War, are there moments on that path?

GRAHAM: That was the dramatic moment. There were some other things that I observed while I was in public office that caused me to adopt a more pragmatic and a less I’ll give you the benefit of the doubtapproach [crosstalk]

JAY: What year are you in the Senate?

GRAHAM: I’m in the Senate from 1987.

JAY: And when do you get onto the Intelligence Committee?

GRAHAM: In 1993.

JAY: So from ’93 forward–and I suppose a lot of this stuff is classified–but are there things that you know from being on the Intelligence Committee that we’re on this path to disillusionment?

GRAHAM: Again, the circumstances that surrounded 9/11 and the run-up to the Iraq War were the epiphany events in my full appreciation of this. But there had been other things that had occurred which began to harden me for this epiphany which I was to experience in the near future.

JAY: Are there examples of that? And let me say, because–I mean, you pursue stuff with your committee on 9/11 that it would’ve been a lot easier for you not to pursue, and especially would’ve been a lot easier for you to shut up afterwards. But you didn’t. I mean, you wrote a book about it. You wrote a novel, because some of the stuff was classified, and the only way to get a sense of it was through fiction. And you write a nonfiction book, where you really come out with some bold statements. It would have been a lot easier for you to keep quiet. So what makes you that person?

GRAHAM: I think it’s my growing up experience, the influence of my father, the unvarnished patriotism which, as a 50-year-old, became a little less unvarnished as I saw some of the realities of activities that fell short of my expectations of how people in the highest office should perform.

JAY: Now, the thing that brought this to my attention and I think that made this so much news was that when your committee reported, it became a story for those that followed this that there were–was it 27 or 28 pages?

GRAHAM: There were 28 pages in the final report, out of over 800 total, which were totally censored from–that were one to the end of that chapter. That was the chapter that largely dealt with the financing of 9/11, who paid for these very complex and in many instances expensive activities that were the predicate for 9/11. I was stunned that the intelligence community would feel that it was a threat to national security for the American people to know who had made 9/11 financially possible. And I am sad to report that today, some 12 years after we submitted our report, that those 28 pages continue to be withheld from the public.

JAY: Now, it’s fairly clear from your book what’s in the 28 pages, I mean, in general terms. The L.A. Times did a report on those 28 pages. A journalist for The L.A. Times spoke with someone who’d actually seen the 28 pages–didn’t reveal the name. But apparently it’s the actual names of the people in the Saudi government and Saudi royal family that are in on financing 9/11 conspirators. And your book makes it pretty clear that that’s what it’s about.
 
First of all, who ordered the redaction, that you weren’t allowed to say this?

GRAHAM: First, I’m going to have to withhold my comment on what you have just said. I am under the strictures of classification. I have–although it was written in 2002, I still have a reasonably good remembrance of what was in those 28 pages, but I’m frustrated because I can’t talk about it.
 
JAY: I know. And that’s why I quoted The L.A. Times and didn’t ask you.
 
GRAHAM: I appreciate–.

JAY: ‘Cause I know you can’t say it. But The L.A. Times said they had talked to someone. And I’m not even asking you to confirm it, ’cause that might get you in hot water, too. But the report from The L.A. Times was that this is actual names, and you actually said–you pointed and said who’s who, and that all got redacted.

GRAHAM: Yeah.

JAY: So in the next segment of our interview with Senator Bob Graham, we’re going to dig into the evidence uncovered by his inquiry and why he thinks the Saudi government and members of the royal family were directly involved in the events of 9/11.

Please join again on The Real News Network for Reality Asserts Itself with Senator Bob Graham.

Posted in USA, Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Investigating the Saudi Government’s 9/11 Connection and the Path to Disilliusionment – Sen. Graham on Reality Asserts Itself pt 1

Solution of Sectarian Violence

NOVANEWS

By Sajjad Shaukat

While, the country by and large witness Ashura peacefully, but on November 15, this year,

sectarian violence between Shia mourners and Sunnis in Rawalpindi has left 10 dead and more

than 65 injured. Angry protesters targeted the mosque and the seminary, torching its building

including an adjacent cloth market where incidents of looting and arson occurred. Very soon,

the incident enveloped Multan, Chishtian, Bahawalnagar, Kohat and Hangu where violent

demonstrations and bloody clashes between the two religious sects took place, which also caused

some deaths. Curfew was imposed and Army was called to restore peace not only in Rawalpindi,

but also in other affected-cities.

Although curfew has been lifted in Rawalpindi and the situation has started normalizing there

and some other cities, yet outbreak of religious riots need special analysis because the leaders

of the major political and especially religious parties including those of the Sunni and Shia sects

have indicated the involvement of the foreign hands behind Rawalpindi tragedy.

In this regard, several Ulemas (Religious scholars) and politicians belonging to Majlis-e-Wahdat-
e-Muslimeen, Sunni Ittehad Council, The Sunni Tehreek Ulema Board, The Melli Yakjaheti

Council, Tanzeem-i-Nefazi Fiqa Jafria, Defence of Pakistan Council, Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiat

Ulema-e-Islam-F and Muttahida Quami Movement said, “Conspiracies were being hatched to

destroy peace in the country though sectarian divide…the enemies had once again succeeded

in igniting sectarian strife.” They also urged the masses to be patient to foil the international

conspiracy and asked the government to unmask the culprits including some hidden forces

behind the Pindi sectarian incident.

However, in the past few years, Pakistan has been facing various kinds of subversive activities,

but foreign hostile entities have also accelerated sectarian violence as part of their unfinished

agenda to further weaken the country.

Undoubtedly, the sporadic sectarian violence against these Muslims has intensified, but, it cannot

be seen in isolation as it includes multiple anti-Pakistan designs. Notably, secret agencies like

American CIA, Israeli Mossad and Indian RAW are behind sectarian unrest in Pakistan.

In fact, the US had planned to spark a civil war between the Sunnis and Shias in wake of war on

terror. So, we cannot blame these secret agencies without solid evidence.

For the purpose, a study of the Rand Corporation, titled ‘US Strategy in the Muslim World After

9/11’ was conducted on behalf of the then US Deputy Chief of Staff for Air Force. The report

of the Rand Corporation-a leading think tank, released on December 27, 2004 advocated that

Sunni-Shia sectarian division should be exploited to promote the US objectives in the Muslim

The report of the Rand Corporation was first implemented in Iraq. In this context, CIA also got

the services of Mossad and RAW to fuel sectarian violence in Iraq. In 2004, major terror-attacks

were carried out against the Shias in Karbala and Baghdad. Afterwards, a chain of Shia-Sunni

clashes started between Iraqi Shias and Sunnis, targeting each other’s mosques, religious leaders

through bomb blasts, suicide attacks etc.

After Iraq’s experiment, more deadly pattern of sectarian strife and clashes have been conducted

in Pakistan, which still continues in one or the other way.

As a matter of fact, some banned religious outfits like Lashkar-i-Janghvi and the Sunni militant

groups, Jundollah (God’s soldiers) which have claimed responsibility for a number of terror

assaults on Shias in Balochistan get arms and ammunition from RAW and CIA. These foreign-
backed militants groups which have close connections with each other and Tehrik-i-Taliban

Pakistan are behind target-killing of many Sunni and Shia leaders, political figures of these sects,

bomb blasts, suicide attacks, assaults on the religious processions, mosques, Imambargahs etc.,

carried out in various regions of Pakistan to achieve the covert aims of the US, India and Israel.

These insurgent groups also kidnapped and killed many Iranian nationals in Pakistan including

Iranian diplomats. Jundollah conducted many subversive acts in Pakistan’s Balochistan and

Iranian Sistan-Baluchistan. In this regard, Tehran has directly accused CIA of funding these

It is mentionable that while hinting towards US, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei

rightly disclosed, “The bloody actions being committed in Iraq, Pakistan and Iran are aimed at

creating a division between the Shias and Sunnis…those who carry out these terrorist actions are

directly or indirectly foreign agents.”

Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the Rawalpindi-tragedy, the atmosphere presents an edgy

picture, as tension brews among sects of different religious seminaries (Madrassas)—heads of

some Madrassas and religious sects have also conducted demonstrations and rallies. So, public

undertones filled with fear of avenging forays by Sunni (Whabbi) sect, not only in Rawalpindi,

but also other parts of the country.

As part of solution, various measures should be taken in countering the sectarian violence in

Pakistan. In this respect, the right hour has come that religious clerics, political and religious

parties including media persons and the intellectuals must play an effective role in creating

religious tolerance and enlightenment amongst all religious factions, particularly those of Sunnis

and Shias, convincing them to live in harmony and peace. They must point out that in democratic

a state, peaceful protest is a right way, but violent attacks on places of worship and clashes

against each other’s sect, and damaging the property is against the teachings of Islam. In this

regard, peaceful long march of Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri might be cited as example.

In order to tackle the sectarian divide, forbearance, self control and tolerance must be preached

by all segments of society, and especially media must educate the people to adopt the principle

of mutual co-existence, while religious clerics must come forward to impress upon the audience

to remain cool and promote cohesion and brotherhood among different religious groups.

At the same time, sectarianism should be taken as a serious threat and dealt with strictly.

Sectarian vulnerability should not be allowed to create ferocity, unrest and disorder in the

country. This entails application of stringent measures and harsh control over sectarian groups to

avoid conflicts and spread of religious hatred.

Following the Rawalpindi episode, although the government has taken some steps like formation

of Judicial Commission and removal of senior Police officers, yet it must draw a comprehensive

strategy to eliminate the threat of sectarianism. In this context, the government will have to

enforce law for all sectarian groups, making them observe control, calmness and enhanced sense

of tolerance. Besides, our rulers must carry out reforms of Madrassas, and ensure that foreign

aid to these religious institutions is provided only through the approval and consent of the

government. This will automatically block the way of proxy wars fought by Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia and Iran at Pakistani soil, using people of Pakistan just as the fodder of these wars. The

government should also monitor the literature published by different sects and their affiliated

religious institutions or Madrassas, and those found guilty of spreading hateful communication

must be brought to books.

Nonetheless, there is a need to adopt multiple ways for the progress and prosperity of the

country. In this respect, all the sectarian groups need to think that they are Pakistanis, not

like a Sunni, Shia, Deobandi, Ahl-i-Hadith and so on. This message should be sent to all the

seminaries, indicating the hostile designs of anti-Pakistan forces which are fully engaged in

destabilizing Pakistan through sectarian unrest.

Adopting long and short term measures to address the issue of sectarianism, particularly, leading

religious scholars must also ensure that extremism and sectarianism do not spoil internal peace,

law and order in Pakistan.

People of Pakistan must be reminded by these internal entities, as to how Islamic countries were

targeted by the imperialists to achieve their objectives and meet their interests. In the process,

countries like Iraq have been completely destroyed. And Pakistan cannot afford to become the

target of such internal violence initiated on the basis of sectarian divide. The people of Pakistan

must be educated that their survival lies in their unity and inter-sect harmony.

Notably, Islam teaches us peace and tranquillity, while prohibiting fighting during holy months

like Moharam and Ramzan. It is obligatory for all of us to observe the sanctity of holy months.

Again, demonstrating inter-sect harmony and mutual respect should become the hallmark of all

Besides, solution of sectarian violence demands that all the segments of society must show

selfless unity with the security forces and law-enforcing agencies in castigating the external

conspiracy, aimed at ignite sectarian riots in Pakistan.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants,

Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Solution of Sectarian Violence

Yabancı Basında Çıkan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Karikatürleri

NOVANEWS

Gezi eylemleri sırasında karikatüristler ve grafik tasarımcıları yaptıkları çalışmalarla eylemlere orantısız zeka çalışmalarıyla destek vermişlerdi. Bunların yanı sıra bir de sokaklarda duvar yazılarıyla orantısız zekaya destek verenler bulunuyordu.

Bu süreç yabancı basının da uzun süre ilgi odağı oldu hatırlarsanız. Yabancı basın organlarında çalışan karikatüristler de Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan’ın sözlerini ve bu olaylara olan tutumunu ele alan çalışmalarını kağıda yansıttılar.  Biz de bu karikatürleri bir çatı altında toplayalım dedik sizler için. Karikatürlerin başında da, karikatüristin ismini ve çalışmasının ismini sizlerle paylaşıyoruz.

Jaume Capdevila: “Erdoğan”

rte 2

Joep Bertrams: “Üstün güç”

rte 3

Rainer Hachfeld: “Erdoğan’dan günün emri”

rte 4

Christo Komarnitski: “Erdoğan’ın Facebook profili”

rte 5

Tom Janssen: “Türkiye’den diyalog manzaraları”

rte 6

Olle Johansson: “Kaldıraç”

rte 7

Taylor Jones: “Dini bütün Erdoğan”

rte 8

Marian Kamensky: “Erdoğan”

rte 9

Hassan Bleibel: “Erdoğan’ın gücü”

rte 10

Arend van Dam: “Erdoğan basına karşı”

rte 11

Patrick Chappatte: “Türkiye’deki eylemler”

Balon çevirisi: “Kentsel dönüşüm projenizi beğenmediler sanırım”

 

 

rte 12

Bob Englehart: “Türkiye’deki isyanlar”

Balon çevirisi: “Size ne yiyeceğinizi, ne zaman alkol içeceğinizi ve kaç tane çocuk yapacağınızı söylüyorum. Sorun ne?”

rte 13

Marian Kamensky: “Erdoğan’ın piyanosu”

rte 14

Tom Janssen: “Sarhoş Erdoğan”

rte 15

Daryl Cagle: “Erdoğan”

Balon çevirisi: “Ben hiçbir sorun görmüyorum, sizi gidi ayyaşlar, çapulcular!”

rte 16

Hassan Bleibel: “Suriye’ye yardım”

rte

 

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on Yabancı Basında Çıkan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Karikatürleri

. CNN/ORC POLL: USA-IRAN

.NOVANEWS

.

“As you may know, the U.S. and other countries have imposed strict economic sanctions against Iran while that country has nuclear facilities which could eventually allow it to produce its own nuclear weapons. Would you favor or oppose an interim deal that would ease some of those economic sanctions and in exchange require Iran to accept major restrictions on its nuclear program but not end it completely and submit to greater international inspection of its nuclear facilities?”

.

Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %

ALL

56 39 5

Democrats

66 27 8

Independents

55 41 4

Republicans

45 51 4

 

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Nov. 14-17, 2013. N=1,006 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.

.

“Thinking now about the situation with Iran: Would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift some of their economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?”

.

Support Oppose Unsure
% % %

11/14-17/13

64 30 7

.

“How confident are you that such an agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons: very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?”

.

Very
confident
Somewhat
confident
Not so
confident
Not confident
at all
Unsure
% % % % %

11/14-17/13

4 32 27 34 3

 

CNN/ORC Poll. Sept. 27-29, 2013. N=803 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.

.

“Would you favor or oppose direct diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?”

.

Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %

9/27-29/13

76 21 3

10/16-18/09

78 22 1

 

Gallup Poll. Sept. 15-16, 2013. N=1,010 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.

.

“For each of the following countries, please say whether you consider it an ally of the United States, friendly but not an ally, unfriendly, or an enemy of the United States. How about Iran?”

.

An ally Friendly but
not an ally
Unfriendly An enemy Unsure
% % % % %

9/15-16/13

2 8 38 45 8

6/1-4/13

2 8 34 51 5

5/18-21/00

3 14 44 34 5

 

CBS News/New York Times Poll. May 31-June 4, 2013. N=1,022 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Which of these comes closest to your opinion? 1. Iran is a threat to the United States that requires military action now. 2. Iran is a threat that can be contained for now. 3. Iran is not a threat to the United States at this time.”

.

Requires
action now
Can be
contained
Not a
threat
Unsure
% % % %

5/31 – 6/4/13

15 59 21 5

5/03

9 66 18 7

.

“Would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran in order to prevent them from producing a nuclear weapon?”

.

Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %

5/31 – 6/4/13

58 37 5

 

CNN/ORC Poll. March 15-17, 2013. N=1,021 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“If Israel were to attack Iran to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, then what should the United States do? Should the United States support Israel’s military action, or should the United States not get involved?”

.

Support
action
Not get
involved
Unsure
% % %

3/15-17/13

49 49 2

 

Pew Research Center. March 13-17, 2013. N=752 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.2.

.

“In your opinion, which is more important: to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action, OR to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons?” Options rotated

.

Prevent from
developing
nuclear
weapons
Avoid military
conflict
Neither (vol.) Both (vol.) Unsure
% % % % %

3/13-17/13

64 25 3 1 7

2/8-12/12

58 30 2 1 10

9/30 – 10/4/09

61 24 4 1 10

 

Pew Research Center. Oct. 4-7, 2012. N=1,511 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.9.

.

“Thinking about the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program, which is more important in your opinion — to take a firm stand against Iranian actions, OR, to avoid a military conflict with Iran?” Options rotated

.

To  take a
firm stand
To avoid
military conflict
Both (vol.) Unsure
% % % %

10/4-7/12

56 35 1 8

 

Reuters/Ipsos Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. March 8-11, 2012. N=1,084 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.

.

“Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran if there is evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons?”

.

Support Oppose Neither
(vol.)
Both (vol.)/
Unsure
% % % %

3/8-11/12

56 39 2 3

.

“Do you support or oppose Israel taking military action against Iran if there is evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons?”

.

Support Oppose Neither
(vol.)
Both (vol.)/
Unsure
% % % %

3/8-11/12

62 30 4 4

.

“Do you support or oppose taking military action against Iran if there is evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons even if it causes gasoline and fuel prices in the United States to go up?”

.

Support Oppose Neither
(vol.)
Both (vol.)/
Unsure
% % % %

3/8-11/12

53 42 2 2

 

Pew Research Center. March 7-11, 2012. N=1,503 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“How much, if anything, have you read or heard about the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program? Have you heard a lot, a little, or nothing at all?”

.

A lot A little Nothing
% % %

3/7-11/12

41 38 21

2/8-12/12

38 39 23

.

“Which is your greater concern when it comes to dealing with Iran’s nuclear program — that we will take action too quickly, or that we will wait too long?”

.

Take action
too quickly
Wait too long Unsure
% % %

3/7-11/12

34 54 12

2/1-5/06

34 53 13

 

CBS News/New York Times Poll. March 7-11, 2012. N=1,009 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Would you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran in order to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapons program?”

.

Support Oppose Unsure
% % %

3/7-11/12

51 36 13

.

“What should the U.S. do if Israel were to attack Iran in order to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapons program? Should the U.S. support Israel’s military action, or should the U.S. not get involved?”

.

Support Not get
involved
Oppose
(vol.)
Unsure
% % % %

3/7-11/12

47 42 1 10

 

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. March 7-10, 2012. N=1,003 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.

.

“Based on what you’ve heard or read, do you think Iran is or is not trying to develop nuclear weapons?”

.

Is trying Is not Unsure
% % %

3/7-10/12

84 9 8

10/15-18/09

87 8 4

.

“To try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose . . . ?”

.

Support Oppose Unsure
% % %

.

“Direct diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran to try to resolve the situation”

3/7-10/12

81 16 2

10/15-18/09

82 18 1

.

“Increasing international economic sanctions against Iran” 2009: “Imposing international economic sanctions against Iran”

3/7-10/12

74 21 5

10/15-18/09

78 18 4

.

“The United States bombing Iran’s nuclear development sites”

3/7-10/12

41 53 6

10/15-18/09

42 54 4

.

“Would you support or oppose Israel bombing Iran’s nuclear development sites?”

.

Support Oppose Unsure
% % %

3/7-10/12

42 51 7

.

“If Israel were to bomb Iran’s nuclear development sites, do you think it would or would not risk starting a larger war in the Middle East?”

.

Would risk
larger war
Would not Unsure
% % %

3/7-10/12

88 9 4

.

“Do you think it’s a better idea to attack Iran soon, before its nuclear program progresses any further, even if that means not waiting to see if economic sanctions work; or a better idea to see first if economic sanctions against Iran work, even if that allows more time for its nuclear program to progress?” Options rotated

.

Attack soon See if
sanctions work
Neither (vol.) Unsure
% % % %

3/7-10/12

26 64 4 6

 

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Feb. 29-March 3, 2012. N=approx. 400 adults nationwide.  RV = registered voters

.

“If Iran continues with its nuclear research and is close to developing a nuclear weapon, do you believe that the United States should or should not initiate military action to destroy Iran’s ability to make nuclear weapons?”

.

Should Should not Unsure
% % %

2/29 – 3/3/12

52 40 8

12/7-11/11

54 38 8

8/26-30/10

52 35 13

3/11, 13-14/10

51 38 11

10/22-25/09

52 37 11

7/18-21/08 RV

41 46 13

3/2-5/07

43 47 10
7/10-12/06 48 40 12

.

“Now talking some more about this: If Iran continues with its nuclear research and is close to developing a nuclear weapon, which ONE statement best describes what you think? The U.S. should take direct military action to destroy Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon. The U.S. should take no direct military action to destroy Iran’s ability to make a nuclear weapon but should support Israel if it takes military action The U.S. should take stronger diplomatic and economic action to put pressure on Iran but should take no military action. The U.S. should take no action unless Iran attacks the U.S. or its allies.” Options rotated

.

Take direct
military action
Support Israel
if it takes
military action
Take stronger
diplomatic and
economic action
Take no
action unless
Iran attacks
Mixed (vol.)/
Unsure
% % % % %

2/29 – 3/3/12

21 26 32 17 4

 

CNN/ORC Poll. Feb. 10-13, 2012. N=1,026 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“What do you think the United States should do to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program: take military action against Iran now, use economic and diplomatic efforts but not take military action right now, or take no action against Iran at this time?”

.

Military
action
Economic and
diplomatic
efforts
No action Unsure
% % % %

2/10-13/12

17 60 22 1

11/18-20/11

16 65 17 1

2/12-15/10

23 63 12 3

4/21-23/06

13 63 21 3

 

Pew Research Center. Feb. 8-12, 2012. N=1,501 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Do you think tougher international economic sanctions on Iran will or will not work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program?”

.

Will work Will not work Unsure
% % %

2/8-12/12

21 64 15

.

“If Israel were to attack Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program, what position should the U.S. take? Should it support Israel’s military action, oppose Israel’s military action, or should the U.S. stay neutral?”

.

Support Oppose Stay neutral Unsure
% % % %

2/8-12/12

39 5 51 4

 

Pew Research Center. Jan. 11-16, 2012. N=1,502 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.

.

“Thinking about Iran, how much, if anything, have you heard about recent tensions between the U.S. and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program and disputes in the Persian Gulf: a lot, a little, or nothing at all?”

.

A lot A little Nothing
at all
Unsure
% % % %

1/11-16/12

42 41 15 2

.

“In your opinion, which is more important: to take a firm stand against Iranian actions, or to avoid a military conflict with Iran?” Options rotated

.

Take a
firm stand
Avoid military
conflict
Neither (vol.) Both (vol.) Unsure
% % % % %

1/11-16/12

50 41 1 2 7

 

CBS News Poll. Nov. 6-10, 2011. N=1,182 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Thinking about Iran, which comes closer to your opinion? Iran is a threat to the United States that requires military action now. Iran is a threat that can be contained with diplomacy now. OR, Iran is not a threat to the United States at this time.”

.

Military
action now
Diplomacy
now
Not a threat Unsure
% % % %
11/6-10/11 15 55 17 13
10/5-8/09 19 57 13 11
2/18-22/09 13 58 19 10
9/21-24/08 10 61 20 9
9/4-8/07 9 59 24 8
3/26-27/07 18 54 18 10
3/7-11/07 10 65 18 7
2/23-27/07 15 57 20 8
2/8-11/07 21 57 14 8
6/10-11/06 21 55 19 5
5/4-8/06 11 58 22 9
4/28-30/06 18 58 16 8
2/22-26/06 20 55 19 6

 

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. April 6-7, 2010. N=900 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Do you support or oppose the United States taking military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?”

.

Support Oppose Depends
(vol.)
Unsure
% % % %

4/6-7/10

65 25 5 6

9/29-30/09

61 28 6 5

 

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Feb. 12-15, 2010. Adults nationwide.

.

“What do you think the United States should do to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program: take military action against Iran now, use economic and diplomatic efforts but not take military action right now, or take no action against Iran at this time?” If not take military action or unsure: “Suppose the United States does take economic and diplomatic action, but those efforts do not work. If that happens, do you think the United States should or should not take military action against Iran?” Combined responses. N=522 (Form A), MoE ± 4.5.

.

Military
Action Now
Military Action
If Other Efforts
Don’t Work
No Military
Action
Unsure
% % % %

2/12-15/10

23 36 39 2

4/21-23/06

13 30 46 11

.

“Do you think Iran currently has nuclear weapons, or not?” N=501 (Form B), MoE ± 4.5

.

Currently Has Does Not Unsure
% % %

2/12-15/10

71 26 3

.

“Do you think Iran currently has nuclear weapons, or not?” If no or unsure: “How likely do you think it is that Iran will have nuclear weapons in the next few years: very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely?” Combined responses. N=501 (Form B), MoE ± 4.5.

.

Currently Has
From Preceding
Question
Very
Likely in
Few Years
Somewhat
Likely in
Few Years
Somewhat
Unlikely in
Few Years
Very
Unlikely in
Few Years
% % % % %

2/12-15/10

71 9 12 5 2

 

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. Adults nationwide.

.

“Based on what you have heard or read, do you think that the government of Iran is or is not attempting to develop its own nuclear weapons?” N=540 (Form A), MoE ± 4

.

Is Is Not Unsure
% % %

10/16-18/09

88 11 2

12/6-9/07

61 33 7

10/12-14/07

77 18 5

.

“Would you favor or oppose imposing economic sanctions on Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?” N=498 (Form B), MoE ± 4.5

.

Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %

10/16-18/09

77 21 1

.

“Would you favor or oppose U.S. military action against Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?” N=498 (Form B), MoE ± 4.5

.

Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %

10/16-18/09

54 45 1

 

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Oct. 15-18, 2009. N=1,004 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.

.

“Based on what you’ve heard or read, do you think Iran is or is not trying to develop nuclear weapons?”

.

Is Is not Unsure
% % %

10/15-18/09

87 8 4

.

“To try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose . . . ?”

.

Support Oppose Unsure
% % %

.

“Offering Iran financial incentives such as aid money, or more trade, if it abandons any effort to develop nuclear weapons” Half sample (Form A)

10/15-18/09

30 67 2

.

“Invading with U.S. forces to remove the Iranian government from power” Half sample (Form B)

10/15-18/09

33 62 4

 

Ipsos/McClatchy Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. Oct. 1-5, 2009. N=1,296 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.7.

.

“Do you think the United States should or should not take any economic or diplomatic action against Iran?”

.

Should Should Not Unsure
% % %

10/1-5/09

56 31 13

.

“Do you think the United States should or should not take any military action against Iran?”

.

Should Should Not Unsure
% % %

10/1-5/09

29 61 10

.

“Would you say that Iran represents a very serious threat to the United States, a moderately serious threat, a slight threat, or no threat at all?”

.

Very
Serious
Moderately
Serious
Slight None at All Unsure
% % % % %

10/1-5/09

30 36 19 12 4

 

Pew Research Center survey. Sept. 30-Oct. 4, 2009. Adults nationwide.

.

“How much confidence do you have in Barack Obama to do the right thing when it comes to dealing with Iran: a great deal of confidence, a fair amount of confidence, not too much confidence, or no confidence at all?”N=747 (Form 1), MoE ± 4

.

A Great
Deal
A Fair
Amount
Not Too
Much
None
at All
Unsure
% % % % %

9/30 – 10/4/09

17 34 24 20 5

.

“Thinking about Iran for a moment: How much, if anything, have you read or heard about the dispute about Iran’s nuclear program? Have you heard a lot, a little, or nothing at all?” N=1,500, MoE ± 3

.

A Lot A Little Nothing Unsure
% % % %

9/30 – 10/4/09

41 41 18

9/06

41 44 14 1

.

“From what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the United States negotiating directly with Iran over the issue of its nuclear program?” N=747 (Form 1), MoE ± 4

.

Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %

9/30 – 10/4/09

63 28 9

.

“From what you know, do you think the United States negotiating directly with Iran will or will not work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program?” N=753 (Form 2), MoE ± 4

.

Will Will Not Unsure
% % %

9/30 – 10/4/09

22 64 13

.

“Would you approve or disapprove of tougher international economic sanctions on Iran?” N=747 (Form 1), MoE ± 4

.

Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %

9/30 – 10/4/09

78 12 10

.

“Do you think tougher international economic sanctions on Iran would or would not work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program?” N=753 (Form 2), MoE ± 4

.

Would Would Not Unsure
% % %

9/30 – 10/4/09

32 56 11

 

CBS News Poll. July 9-12, 2009. N=944 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Thinking now about Iran. When it comes to the protestors there who are challenging the results of Iran’s recent presidential election, do you think Barack Obama is giving them too much support, giving them too little support, or is he giving the protestors in Iran about the right amount of support?”

.

Too Much Too Little Right Amount Unsure
% % % %

7/9-12/09

13 15 56 16

 

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. June 26-28, 2009. N=1,026 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Would you say that the following represent a very serious threat to the United States, a moderately serious threat, just a slight threat, or no threat at all? Iran.”

.

Very
Serious
Moderately
Serious
A Slight
Threat
No Threat
% % % %

6/26-28/09

43 36 13 7

.

“Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama has responded to the recent events in Iran?”

.

Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %

6/26-28/09

61 36 4

.

“Do you think the comments that Barack Obama has made in criticizing the current leaders of Iran have gone too far, have not gone far enough, or are about right?”

.

Too Far Not Far
Enough
About
Right
Unsure
% % % %

6/26-28/09

9 33 56 2

.

“Do you think the U.S. government should openly support the demonstrators who are protesting the recent election in that country, or do you think the U.S. should not directly intervene in the situation in Iran?”

.

Openly
Support
Not Directly
Intervene
Unsure
% % %

6/26-28/09

24 74 1

.

“Do you think the U.S. should or should not take any economic or diplomatic action against Iran?”

.

Should Should Not Unsure
% % %

6/26-28/09

42 54 4

.

“Do you think the U.S. government should or should not take any military action against Iran?”

.

Should Should Not Unsure
% % %

6/26-28/09

16 82 2

.

“Do you think the results of the recent election that were released by the Iranian government were an accurate reflection of how Iranians voted, or do you think those results were a fraud that were an attempt by the government to steal the election?”

.

Accurate Fraud Unsure
% % %

6/26-28/09

10 82 7

.

“What has your personal reaction been to the way the Iranian leaders have dealt with the demonstrators in that country? Would you say you are outraged, or are you upset but not outraged, or are you not upset?”

.

Outraged Upset Not Upset Unsure
% % % %

6/26-28/09

30 55 13 2

 

CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 22-26, 2009. N=973 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Do you think the United States should or should not establish diplomatic relations with Iran while Iran has a nuclear program?”

.

Should Should Not Unsure
% % %

4/22-26/09

53 37 10

 

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. April 3-5, 2009. Adults nationwide.

.

“Which comes closest to your view? Iran poses an immediate threat to the United States. Iran poses a long-term threat to the U.S., but not an immediate threat. OR, Iran does not pose a threat to the United States at all.” N=510 (Form A), MoE ± 4.5

.

Immediate
Threat
Long-term
Threat
Not a Threat
At All
Unsure
% % % %

4/3-5/09

22 60 17 1

.

“Do you think Obama administration officials should hold diplomatic talks with the leaders of Iran in the next few weeks, or should they wait to hold diplomatic talks with Iran until that country makes significant changes in its policies towards other countries?” N=513 (Form B), MoE ± 4.5

.

Hold Talks Wait to
Hold Talks
Unsure
% % %

4/3-5/09

59 40 1

 

Gallup Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 2009. N=1,027 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Turning for a moment to U.S. relations with Iran: Do you think the United States should or should not engage in direct diplomacy with Iran?”

.

Should Should Not Unsure
% % %

1/30 – 2/1/09

56 38 6

 

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Dec. 1-2, 2008. N=1,096 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“After Barack Obama becomes president, do you think he should meet with the leader of Iran without any preconditions, or do you think Obama should meet with the leader of Iran only if Iran agrees to change some of its policies, or do you think Obama should not meet with the leader of Iran regardless of what the Iranian government might agree to do?”

.

Meet Without
Preconditions
Meet if Iran
Changes Policies
Do Not Meet Unsure
% % % %

12/1-2/08

34 42 22 2

 

USA Today/Gallup Poll. Nov. 2-4, 2007. N=1,024 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Turning now to Iran — What do you think the United States should do to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program: take military action against Iran, or rely mainly on economic and diplomatic efforts?” Options rotated

.

Military
Action
Economic/
Diplomatic
Efforts
Unsure
% % %

11/2-4/07

18 73 8

.

“Suppose U.S. economic and diplomatic efforts do not work. If that happens, do you think the United States should or should not take military action against Iran?” Among those who answered economic/diplomatic efforts (N=877, MoE ± 4)

.

Should Should Not Unsure
% % %

11/2-4/07

34 55 11

.

“How concerned are you that the U.S. will be too quick to use military force in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons: very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not concerned at all?”

.

Very
Concerned
Somewhat
Concerned
Not Too
Concerned
Not at All
Concerned
Unsure
% % % % %

11/2-4/07

42 34 14 8 1

2/9-12/06

34 35 20 10 1

.

“How concerned are you that the U.S. will not do enough to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons: very concerned, somewhat concerned, not too concerned, or not concerned at all?”

.

Very
Concerned
Somewhat
Concerned
Not Too
Concerned
Not at All
Concerned
Unsure
% % % % %

11/2-4/07

33 40 17 9 2

2/9-12/06

26 41 24 6 2

 

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 12-14, 2007. N=1,212 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“If the U.S. government decides to take military action in Iran, would you favor or oppose it?”

.

Favor Oppose Unsure

.

% % %

.

10/12-14/07

29 68 4

.

5/4-6/07

33 63 4

.

1/19-21/07

26 68 6

.

.

“Based on what you have heard or read, do you think that the government of Iran is or is not attempting to develop its own nuclear weapons?”

.

Is Is Not Unsure

.

% % %

.

10/12-14/07

77 18 5

.

.

“Based on what you have heard or read, do you think that the government of Iran is or is not providing weapons and other support to the insurgents who are fighting the U.S. troops in Iraq?”

.

Is Is Not Unsure

.

% % %

.

10/12-14/07

82 13 4

.


 

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Sept. 25-26, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Do you believe Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes or military purposes?”

.

Peaceful Military Unsure
% % %

9/25-26/07

6 80 14

.

“Do you believe the United States should take a softer line with Iran, including more diplomacy, or take a tougher line, including military action if necessary?”

.

Softer Line Tougher Line Same as
Now (vol.)
Unsure
% % % %

9/25-26/07

31 50 8 11

.

“If diplomacy fails to convince Iran to end its nuclear program before President Bush leaves office, which of the following actions would you prefer? Do you think President Bush should take military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities before his term ends, or let the next president, whoever that may be, deal with Iran?”

.

Take Military
Action
Let Next
President
Deal with Iran
Unsure
% % %

9/25-26/07

29 54 16

 

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 4-8, 2007. N=1,035 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Thinking now about Iran. How closely have you been following news about recent talks between Iran and the United States? Have you been following it very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?”

.

Very Closely Somewhat
Closely
Not Too
Closely
Not at All
% % % %
9/4-8/07 8 30 39 23

.

“To the best of your knowledge, do you think Iran is currently providing weapons to insurgents in Iraq, or isn’t Iran doing that?”

.

Is Is Not Unsure
% % %

9/4-8/07

67 10 23

3/26-27/07

65 12 23

 

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 4-6, 2007. N=1,028 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“For each of the following countries, please say whether you consider it an ally of the United States, friendly but not an ally, unfriendly, or an enemy of the United States. Iran.”

.

Ally Friendly Unfriendly Enemy Unsure
% % % % %

5/4-6/07

3 12 36 46 3

12/15-17/06

4 14 29 48 5

 

CBS News/New York Times Poll. March 7-11, 2007. N=1,362 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“As you may know, members of the Bush Administration have accused Iran of supporting Iraqi insurgents by supplying them with weapons to use against American forces. When members of the Bush Administration talk about Iran’s involvement in Iraq, do you think they are telling the entire truth, mostly telling the truth but hiding something, OR are they mostly lying?”

.

Entire Truth Hiding
Something
Mostly Lying Unsure
% % % %
3/7-11/07 14 56 24 6

 

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). March 2-5, 2007. N=1,007 adults nationwide.

.

“If Iran is responsible for providing insurgents with technology being used in roadside bombs in Iraq, do you believe that the United States should or should not initiate military action to destroy Iran’s ability to provide this latest technology to Iraq?” Half-sample

.

Should Should Not
% %

3/2-5/07

55 45

 

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 22-25, 2007. N=1,082 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“The Bush Administration has charged that Iran is supporting insurgent attacks against American forces in Iraq. Do you feel the Bush Administration does or does not have solid evidence that Iran is doing this?”

.

Does Does Not Unsure

.

% % %

.

2/22-25/07

47 44 9

.

.

“How confident are you that the Bush Administration will do a good job handling current tensions with Iran: very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?”

.

Very
Confident
Somewhat
Confident
Not So
Confident
Not at All
Confident
Unsure
% % % % %

2/22-25/07

11 30 24 34 1

 

Pew Research Center. Feb. 7-11, 2007. N=1,509 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Thinking about Iran for a moment — How much, if anything, have you read or heard about reports that Iran may be providing weapons to insurgent groups in Iraq . . . ?”

.

A Lot A Little Nothing
At All
Unsure

.

% % % %

.

2/7-11/07

34 43 22 1

.

.

“In your opinion, which is more important: to take a firm stand against Iranian actions or to avoid a military conflict with Iran?” Options rotated

.

Take a
Firm Stand
Avoid
Conflict
Neither (vol.) Both (vol.) Unsure
% % % % %

2/7-11/07

43 43 1 1 12

 

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Jan. 16-19, 2007. N=1,000 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Now, thinking about Iran: In dealing with Iran, do you think the Bush Administration is being too confrontational, not confrontational enough, or handling it about right?”

.

Too
Confrontational
Not
Confrontational
Enough
About Right Unsure  
% % % %  

1/16-19/07

30 24 37 9  

 

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 19-20, 2006. N=1,000 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Have you seen or heard any news about Iran and its nuclear weapons program, or not?”

.

Have Have Not Unsure
% % %

10/19-20/06

62 36 2

.

Please tell me whether or not you would support the following kinds of U.S. military action against Iran if that country continues its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. What about . . . ?”

.

Would
Support
Would Not
Support
Unsure
% % %

Air strikes against military targets and suspected nuclear sites in Iran

   10/19-20/06

38 54 8    

.

Sending in U.S. ground troops to take control of the country

   10/19-20/06

18 76 6    

 

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. June 24-27, 2006. N=1,321 adults nationwide. Margin of error ±3.

.

“Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iran’s nuclear weapons program?”

.

Approve Disapprove Unsure    
% % %    

6/24-27/06

40 31 29    

.

“Overall, taking into consideration everything you have heard or read about the situation with Iran, do you think Iran will be stopped from getting nuclear weapons through diplomatic solutions, or only through military action, or do you think Iran will eventually get nuclear weapons?”

.

Stopped
Through
Diplomacy
Stopped
Through
Military Action
Will Get
Nuclear
Weapons
Unsure  
% % % %  

6/24-27/06

16 16 56 12  
4/8-11/06 15 12 61 12  

.

“If Iran continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose the U.S. taking military action against Iran?”

.

Support Oppose Unsure    
% % %    

6/24-27/06

52 37 11    
4/8-11/06 48 40 12    

 

CBS News/New York Times Poll. May 4-8, 2006. N=1,241 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Thinking now about Iran. How much have you heard or read about Iran’s nuclear weapons program: a lot, some, not much or nothing so far?”

.

A Lot Some Not Much Nothing
% % % %
5/4-8/06 26 43 21 10

 

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics PollMay 2-3, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Which one of the following best describes your view of the danger Iran poses to the United States today? A clear and present danger. A threat in the near future. A threat further down the road. Not a threat at all.”

.

Present
Danger
Threat in
Near Future
Threat Further
Down Road
Not a
Threat
Unsure
% % % % %

5/2-3/06

24 33 30 10 2

.

“If there is any chance of Iran getting nuclear weapons before President Bush leaves office, do you support him taking U.S. military action against Iran, or not?”

.

Support Don’t Support Unsure
% % %

5/2-3/06

48 44 8

.

“Last week the president of Iran said resolutions by the United Nations Security Council could not make Iran give up its nuclear program, saying quote, ‘The Iranian nation won’t give a damn about such useless resolutions.’ Do you think the United Nations should still try diplomacy, or given Iran’s defiant rhetoric do you think the United Nations should at a minimum impose economic sanctions on Iran right away?”

.

Still Try
Diplomacy
Impose
Sanctions
Unsure
% % %

5/2-3/06

39 51 10

.

“Do you trust Iran to tell the truth about the purpose of its nuclear technology program?”

.

Yes No Unsure
% % %

5/2-3/06

12 85 3

.

“Do you think the United Nations can stop Iran from building nuclear weapons?”

.

Yes No Unsure
% % %

5/2-3/06

22 74 5

.

“If Iran gets nuclear weapons and President Bush has not used military force against Iran to stop them, will you feel that he did the right thing by not using force, even though Iran did get nuclear weapons, OR failed in his duty to protect the United States by not using force?” Options rotated

.

Did Right
Thing
Failed in
His Duty
Unsure
% % %

5/2-3/06

44 35 21

 

USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 28-30, 2006. N=1,011 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Turning now to Iran — How confident are you in the United Nations to handle the situation relating to Iran’s nuclear program: very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at all confident?”

.

Very
Confident
Somewhat
Confident
Not Too
Confident
Not at All
Confident
Unsure
% % % % %

4/28-30/06

5 28 36 31 1

.

“Suppose all economic and diplomatic efforts fail to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program. If that happens, do you think the United States should or should not take military action against Iran?”

.

Should Should Not Unsure    
% % %    

4/28-30/06

36 57 6    

 

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). April 21-24, 2006. N=1,005 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.

.

“Now I’d like to ask you about recent news regarding the country of Iran. How much have you seen, read, or heard recently regarding Iran taking steps to resume research on nuclear fuel: a lot, some, not very much, or nothing at all?”

.

A Lot Some Not Very
Much
Nothing
At All
% % % %
4/21-24/06 43 32 17 8

.

“If Iran continues with its nuclear research and is close to developing a nuclear weapon, do you believe that the United States should or should not initiate military action to destroy Iran’s ability to make nuclear weapons?” Half-sample (Form A)

.

Should Should Not Depends (vol.) Unsure
% % % %
4/21-24/06 42 46 5 7

.

“If Iran continues with its nuclear research and is close to developing a nuclear weapon, do you believe that the United States should join a coalition of other countries to initiate military action to destroy Iran’s ability to make nuclear weapons?” Half-sample (Form B)

.

Should Should Not Depends (vol.) Unsure
% % % %
4/21-24/06 48 42 4 6

 

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. April 18-19, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Last week the president of Iran announced that Iran has begun enriching uranium and said his country had ‘joined the club’ of nuclear nations. The current U.S. position is to try to find diplomatic solutions, but to keep military action as an option. Do you agree or disagree with this position?”

.

Agree Disagree Unsure
% % %
4/18-19/06 62 27 12

.

“Do you think the United States currently has the military strength to defeat Iran?”

.

Yes No Unsure
% % %
4/18-19/06 56 34 10

.

“Do you think it would be responsible or irresponsible for the United States to have war plans for Iran already prepared?”

.

Responsible Irresponsible Unsure
% % %
4/18-19/06 67 26 7

.

“Do you think the United States could co-exist with a nuclear Iran or not?”

.

Could Could Not Unsure
% % %
4/18-19/06 44 40 16

.

“Do you think the United States will eventually have to take military action against Iran?”

.

Yes No Unsure
% % %
4/18-19/06 47 37 17

 

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. April 8-11, 2006. N=1,357 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Generally speaking, do you trust George W. Bush to make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran, or not?”

.

Trust Do Not Trust Unsure    
% % %    
ALL adults 42 54 4    
   Democrats 8 89 3    
   Independents 40 54 6    
   Republicans 82 15 3    

.

“Would you say that what has happened over the past three years with the war in Iraq has influenced the way you feel about the U.S. taking military action against Iran, or has it not influenced the way you feel?” If influenced: “Has the war in Iraq made you more or less supportive of U.S. military action against Iran?”

.

More
Supportive
Less
Supportive
Has Not
Influenced
Unsure  
% % % %  
4/8-11/06 17 40 38 5  

 

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics PollMarch 14-15, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Now thinking about Iran: Which one of the following do you think is the most likely outcome for the situation with Iran trying to obtain nuclear weapons? (1) Iran will be stopped from getting nuclear weapons through diplomatic solutions. (2) Iran will be stopped from getting nuclear weapons through military action. (3) Iran will eventually get nuclear weapons.”

.

Stopped:
Diplomatic
Solutions
Stopped:
Military
Action
Will Get
Nuclear
Weapons
Unsure
% % % %
3/14-15/06 22 26 42 11

.

“If diplomacy fails, which of the following U.S. military actions would you support to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Would you support [see below]?”

.

Yes No Unsure
% % %

“Using only airstrikes, but no ground troops”

   3/14-15/06 54 35 11
   1/24-25/06 51 34 15

.

“Using airstrikes and ground troops”

   3/14-15/06 42 48 10
   1/24-25/06 46 42 12

.

“Using whatever military force is necessary”

   3/14-15/06 50 42 8
   1/24-25/06 59 33 8

.

“How likely do you think it is that the United States will be forced to take military action against Iran in the next year . . . ?”

.

Very
Likely
Somewhat
Likely
Not Very
Likely
Not at All
Likely
Unsure
% % % % %
3/14-15/06 19 38 22 14 7

 

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 9-12, 2006. N=1,000 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Now, turning to Iran — What do you think the United States should do to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program: take military action against Iran now, use economic and diplomatic efforts but not take military action right now, or take no action against Iran at this time?” Options rotated

.

Military
Action Now
Economic/
Diplomatic
Efforts
No Action
At This Time
Unsure
% % % %

2/9-12/06

9 68 18 5

.

“How confident are you in the Bush Administration’s ability to handle the situation in Iran: very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at all confident?”

.

Very
Confident
Somewhat
Confident
Not Too
Confident
Not at All
Confident
Unsure
% % % % %

2/9-12/06

17 28 27 28 1

.

“How confident are you in the United Nations’ ability to handle the situation in Iran: very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at all confident?”

.

Very
Confident
Somewhat
Confident
Not Too
Confident
Not at All
Confident
Unsure
% % % % %

2/9-12/06

8 39 27 24 2

.

“Suppose Iran DOES develop nuclear weapons. Just your best guess, how likely is it that [see below]: very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely?”

.

Very
Likely
Somewhat
Likely
Not Too
Likely
Not at All
Likely
Unsure
% % % % %

.

“Iran would provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists who would use it against the United States”

   2/9-12/06

50 30 12 6 2

.

“Iran would provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists who would use it against Israel”

   2/9-12/06

49 32 12 4 4

.

“The Iranian government would use nuclear weapons against Israel”

   2/9-12/06

41 36 15 4 4

.

“The Iranian government would use nuclear weapons against the United States”

   2/9-12/06

30 29 26 12 2

 

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Feb. 1-5, 2006. Adults nationwide.

.

“Thinking about IRAN for a moment — The Iranian government recently said it will resume research on nuclear technology, despite opposition from other countries. How much, if anything, have you read or heard about this . . . ?” N=1,502, MoE ± 3

.

A Lot A Little Nothing
At All
Unsure
% % % %
2/1-5/06 32 46 21 1

.

“Who should take the lead in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program: the United States or countries in the European Union?” Options rotated. N=757, MoE ± 4 (Form 1).

.

U.S. E.U. Other (vol.) Unsure
% % % %
2/1-5/06 30 51 11 8

.

“Who should take the lead in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program: the United States or the United Nations?” Options rotated. N=745, MoE ± 4 (Form 2).

.

U.S. U.N. Other (vol.) Unsure
% % % %
2/1-5/06 17 78 2 3

.

“If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, do you think they would be likely to [see below] or not?” N=1,502, MoE ± 3

.

Likely Not Likely Unsure
% % %

“Provide nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations”

   2/1-5/06 82 11 7

.

“Attack Israel”

   2/1-5/06 72 16 12

.

“Attack the U.S. or European nations”

   2/1-5/06 66 26 8

 

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Jan. 23-26, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Iran says it is refining uranium to use in nuclear power plants. Other countries are concerned Iran may also use this uranium in nuclear weapons. To try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear technology, would you support or oppose imposing international economic sanctions against Iran?”

.

Support Oppose Unsure
% % %

1/23-26/06

71 26 3

.

“To try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear technology, would you support or oppose the United States bombing Iran’s nuclear development sites?”

.

Support Oppose Unsure
% % %

1/23-26/06

42 54 4

 

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Jan. 24-25, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Iran says it wants to use uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes, such as nuclear power generation, but some believe Iran wants to use the uranium for military purposes, such as to build a nuclear weapons program. Which do you believe is more likely — Iran wants uranium for peaceful purposes or military purposes?” Options rotated

.

Peaceful
Purposes
Military
Purposes
Unsure
% % %
1/24-25/06 8 82 11

.

“Which one of the following best describes your view of the danger Iran poses to the United States today? An immediate threat. A threat in the near future. A threat further down the road. Not a threat at all.”

.

Immediate
Threat
Threat in
Near Future
Threat Down
The Road
Not a Threat
At All
Unsure
% % % % %
1/24-25/06 16 40 34 7 3

.

“Do you think Iran currently has a nuclear weapons program?”

.

Yes No Unsure
% % %
1/24-25/06 68 18 14
1/25-26/05 60 23 18
10/28-29/03 57 24 19

.

“How confident are you in the ability of the Bush Administration to handle the situation with Iran: very confident, somewhat confident, not very confident, or not at all confident?”

.

Very
Confident
Somewhat
Confident
Not Very
Confident
Not at All
Confident
Unsure
% % % % %
1/24-25/06 24 30 17 26 3

.

“How confident are you in the ability of the United Nations to handle the situation with Iran: very confident, somewhat confident, not very confident, or not at all confident?”

.

Very
Confident
Somewhat
Confident
Not Very
Confident
Not at All
Confident
Unsure
% % % % %
1/24-25/06 11 35 22 27 5

.

“Do you think Iran is more of a threat or less of a threat to the world today than Iraq was before the United States took military action to remove Saddam Hussein?”

.

More Less Same (vol.) Unsure
% % % %
1/24-25/06 47 25 19 9

.

“If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, how concerned are you that it would [see below]: very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not at all concerned?”

.

Very
Concerned
Somewhat
Concerned
Not Very
Concerned
Not at All
Concerned
Unsure
% % % % %

“Supply nuclear weapons to terrorists”

   1/24-25/06 68 23 3 3 3

.

“Attack a neighboring country”

   1/24-25/06 54 27 8 7 4

.

“Attack the United States”

   1/24-25/06 47 26 16 8 3

 

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. Jan. 22-25, 2006. N=1,555 adults nationwide. Margin of error ±3.

.

“If Iran continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, would you support or oppose the U.S. taking military action against Iran?”

.

Support Oppose Unsure
% % %
1/22-25/06 57 33 10

 

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 20-22, 2006. Adults nationwide.

.

“Turning now to Iran — Which comes closest to your view: Iran poses an immediate threat to the United States, Iran poses a long-term threat to the U.S. but not an immediate threat, or Iran does not pose a threat to the United States at all?” Options rotated. N=1,006, MoE ± 3.

.

Immediate
Threat
Long-Term
Threat
No Threat
At All
Unsure
% % % %
1/20-22/06 19 65 12 5
5-6/03 13 64 20 3

.

“How worried are you about Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons: very worried, somewhat worried, not too worried, or not at all worried?” N=506, MoE ± 5 (Form A)

.

Very
Worried
Somewhat
Worried
Not Too
Worried
Not At All
Worried
Unsure
% % % % %
1/20-22/06 27 47 19 6 1

.

“Based on what you have heard or read, do you think that the government of Iran is or is not attempting to develop its own nuclear weapons?” N=500, MoE ± 5 (Form B)

.

Is Is Not Unsure
% % %
1/20-22/06 80 12 8

 

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Jan. 25-26, 2005. N=900 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Do you think the United States should take military action to keep Iran from developing or trying to develop a nuclear weapons program?”

.

Yes No Unsure
% % %
1/25-26/05 41 46 13

 

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 27-29, 2003. Nationwide:

.

“Thinking for a moment about Iran: As you may know, the U.S. believes Iran is either providing assistance to terrorists or attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction. Do you think the United States should or should not go to war with Iran?”Form A (N=483, MoE ± 5)

Should Should
Not
No
Opinion
% % %
6/27-29/03 27 67 6
4/10/03 24 69 7

.

How likely do you think it is that Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction: very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely?” Options rotated; Form B (N=520, MoE ± 5)

Very
Likely
Somewhat
Likely
Not Too
Likely
Not At All
Likely
No
Opinion
% % % % %
6/27-29/03 46 38 11 2 3

.

How likely do you think it is that Iran is providing assistance to terrorists: very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely? Options rotated; Form B (N=520, MoE ± 5)

Very
Likely
Somewhat
Likely
Not Too
Likely
Not At All
Likely
No
Opinion
% % % % %
6/27-29/03 58 31 4 3 4

 

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. June 18-22, 2003. N=1,024 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Thinking about another country in the region, would you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons?”

Support Oppose Unsure
% % %
6/03 56 38 6

 

The Los Angeles Times Poll. April 2-3, 2003. N=745 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.

.

“There is evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Do you think the U.S. should or should not take military action against Iran if they continue to develop these weapons?”

Should Should
Not
Don’t
Know
% % %
ALL 50 36 14
Democrats 52 38 10
Independents 45 44 11
Republicans 59 30 11

 

Gallup Poll. Feb. 4-6, 2002. N=1,011 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

“Next, I’d like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. Is your overall opinion of Iran very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable?”
Very
Favorable
Mostly
Favorable
Mostly
Unfavorable
Very
Unfavorable
Unsure
% % % % %
2/02 2 9 46 38 5
2/01 2 10 45 38 5
3/89 1 4 27 62 6

 

 

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on . CNN/ORC POLL: USA-IRAN

Syrians on Both Sides of the War Increasingly See Assad as Likely to Stay

NOVANEWS
By 

BEIRUT, Lebanon — A growing number of Syrians on both sides of their country’s conflict, along with regional analysts and would-be mediators, are demanding new strategies to end the civil war, based on what they see as an inescapable new reality: President Bashar al-Assad is staying in office, at least for now.

They say the insistence from the United States-backed opposition that Mr. Assad must go before peace talks can begin is outdated, failing to reflect the situation on the ground. Rather, they say, a deal to end or ease the violence must involve Mr. Assad and requires more energetic outreach to members of his government and security forces, with concrete proposals and reassurances that could bring compromise.

They also contend that the American-backed exile opposition coalition that remains at the center of Washington’s policy has little relevance and no respect from combatants on either side. These critics of American policy say that the United States and its coalition ally are helping guarantee that diplomacy remains paralyzed as Syrians die.

On Friday, the exile coalition declared it would not attend a meeting in Moscow that would have brought it together with Syrian government officials for the first time, albeit to focus narrowly on addressing Syria’s deepening humanitarian crisis. The sticking point: Moscow also invited Assad opponents who are more willing to compromise.

The critics say there is no indication that Mr. Assad is headed for imminent defeat; indeed, he seems to be increasing his grip on parts of the country. So they are reluctantly embracing a scaled-down goal of a transitional government that in the medium term includes Mr. Assad.

The best hope, they say, is to gradually blunt the violence in a Syria that will long remain divided among areas dominated by jihadist fighters, more-moderate elements of the opposition and a transitional government.

Changing course is urgent, the critics say, because as the prospects for the peace talks in Geneva recede, Syria is falling apart. In the north, extremist jihadist groups are terrorizing residents, clashing with rival rebels and establishing a base that poses threats beyond Syria’s borders. Hunger and disease are on the rise. Polio is resurgent. More than nine million Syrians have been displaced from their homes, the equivalent, by percentage of the population, of more than 100 million Americans on the move.

“There is a sense of surreality” to United States policy, said Ryan C. Crocker, a former ambassador to Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and now the dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. “ ’Assad must go.’ Well, Assad isn’t going to go.”

Mr. Crocker and others say the current approach fails to capitalize on a growing center of Syrians exhausted by the war who have lost their enthusiasm for either side and fear that Syria is becoming a failed state.

Dozens of interviews with a broad spectrum of Syrians across the country bear out the growth of such a group, who often call themselves the “gray” middle. Many complain that no one represents them in what has become, like the Lebanese civil war that dragged on for 15 years, an international proxy war that extremists and profiteers on both sides have a vested interest in prolonging.

In interviews on opposite ends of West Beirut in recent days, two Syrians from opposite sides of the conflict — an antigovernment activist married to a rebel commander and a government supporter with ties to members of the security establishment — expressed similar feelings: a passionate love of Syria and a desire to end the destruction and killing.

They proposed opposite compromise solutions. The rebel’s wife said Mr. Assad could stay as long as the security forces were completely overhauled. The government supporter called for replacing Mr. Assad, but keeping the core of the military and security leadership in place.

Several people familiar with the official diplomacy say that Western diplomats have quietly met recently with one or two Syrian officials and government-connected figures, but have offered them little of substance.

“The best thing the West is offering Assad now is a cell in The Hague,” said Randa Slim, a research fellow at the New America Foundation and a scholar at the Middle East Institute, who is closely following official and unofficial efforts for dialogue, referring to the location of the International Criminal Court. But any deal, she said, “is bound to involve people with blood on their hands.”

“There are no saints in wars,” she continued.

American officials have subtly modified their tone, saying Mr. Assad has “lost his legitimacy,” rather than demanding outright that he step down. And on Friday, they pressed the coalition to attend the Geneva peace talks, ahead of a weekend coaltion meeting to decide the issue. But analysts say the officials have not articulated a vision that acknowledges the tenacity of Mr. Assad’s government, the toothlessness of the exile coalition or Syrians’ growing misgivings over the ascendance of jihadist insurgents who have sought to impose religious rule on areas they control.

In the meantime, others are stepping into the vacuum. Russia is moving forward with plans to host the meeting in Moscow with a broader array of opposition figures — some of them controversial — than just the coalition.

In a sign that the Obama administration’s strategy may be shifting, however, a spokeswoman for the exile opposition group, the Syrian National Coalition, Bayan al-Khatib, said Wednesday that American officials had encouraged the coalition to attend, and that some members were considering it. They were apparently overruled.

Other quiet attempts are being made to set up unofficial talks, some with State Department backing. In one last month that did not involve the Americans, Abdullah al-Dardari, who was ousted from the Syrian government in 2011 and is now a United Nations official, held a meeting in Beirut of about 170 Syrians from opposing sides in the conflict.

The meeting, several participants said, included midlevel, technocratic government officials; religious and business figures; prominent members of the nonviolent opposition; and at least two rebel fighters from the Western-backed Free Syrian Army, one of whom boasted that he had shot down two helicopters. The official agenda was to discuss the eventual reconstruction of Syria, but the underlying goal was to seek common ground.

One participant described a coffee-break conversation between a woman who had been jailed for antigovernment political activities and a government supporter. Both considered their primary enemy to be the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, a foreign-dominated jihadist organization.

The Assad supporter’s face brightened with surprise, the participant said, when the activist declared that given a choice between Mr. Assad’s government and the jihadists, she would choose the government — an increasingly common sentiment among civilian activists.

The government supporter who was interviewed in West Beirut, who speaks often to senior military and security figures, said some of them would be open to a future without Mr. Assad if a transitional government included “somebody they can accept” — they mentioned Rifaat al-Assad, a former military commander and exiled uncle of President Assad — and if it prevented the collapse of the security forces.

He said President Assad might be persuaded to preside over a transition and then decline to run for re-election, allowing him to claim that he saved Syria from jihadists and led it to democracy.

The wife of the rebel commander said that her husband’s fighters could accept Mr. Assad’s remaining for a while if other demands were met. She acknowledged they were among the insurgency’s most pragmatic figures and committed to pluralism. They are from Yabroud, an ethnically mixed town where civilian activists provide local services under rebel rule.

“The point is not Assad but the security system,” she said, adding that the exile coalition had lost touch with Syrian suffering. “If they want to help us, they should accept this solution.”

She said the United States should arrange talks and push for a confidence-building deal: a monthlong cease-fire in which rebels would stop shelling government positions in exchange for the release of political prisoners, especially women and children, and the delivery of humanitarian aid to blockaded areas.

To numerous analysts and Syrian centrists, the best-case outlook now is a transitional government that includes Mr. Assad and opposition figures, a gradual process of change that includes a new constitution and transparent elections, and agreement that he will eventually step down by declining to run for re-election.

“My view, which causes fear and loathing throughout Washington,” Mr. Crocker, the former ambassador, said, “is we really need to be making more of an effort to talk to regime people,” as well as to form direct contacts with insurgents and their supporters inside Syria.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syrians on Both Sides of the War Increasingly See Assad as Likely to Stay

The Iran-Contra Affair

NOVANEWS

By: Sammi Ibrahem Sr

Reagan during the Iran-Contra Affair

Ronald Reagan’s efforts to eradicate Communism spanned the globe, but the insurgent right wing Contras’ cause in Nicaragua was particularly dear to him. Battling the Cuban-backed Sandinistas, the Contras were, according to Reagan, “the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.” Under the so-called Reagan Doctrine, the CIA trained and assisted this and other anti-Communist insurgencies worldwide.

 

Corbis Oliver North

Assisting involved supplying financial support, a difficult task politically after the Democratic sweep of congressional elections in November 1982. First Democrats passed the Boland Amendment, which restricted CIA and Department of Defense operations in Nicaragua specifically; in 1984, a strengthened Boland Amendment made support almost impossible. A determined, unyielding Reagan told National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, “I want you to do whatever you have to do to help these people keep body and soul together.”

What followed would alter the public’s perception of the president dramatically. How “Iran” and “Contra” came to be said in the same breath was the result of complicated covert activities, all carried out, the players said, in the name of democracy.

In 1985, while Iran and Iraq were at war, Iran made a secret request to buy weapons from the United States. McFarlane sought Reagan’s approval, in spite of the embargo against selling arms to Iran. McFarlane explained that the sale of arms would not only improve U.S. relations with Iran, but might in turn lead to improved relations with Lebanon, increasing U.S. influence in the troubled Middle East. Reagan was driven by a different obsession. He had become frustrated at his inability to secure the release of the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon. As president, Reagan felt that “he had the duty to bring those Americans home,” and he convinced himself that he was not negotiating with ” terrorists”. While shipping arms to Iran violated the embargo, dealing with ” terrorists”  violated Reagan’s campaign promise never to do so.

 

Corbis Reagan during the Iran-Contra Affair
The arms-for-hostages proposal divided the administration. Longtime policy adversaries Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz opposed the deal, but Reagan, McFarlane and CIA director William Casey supported it. With the backing of the president, the plan progressed. By the time the sales were discovered, more than 1,500 missiles had been shipped to Iran. Three hostages had been released, only to be replaced with three more, in what Secretary of State George Shultz called “a hostage bazaar.”When the Lebanese newspaper “Al-Shiraa” printed an exposé on the clandestine activities in November 1986, Reagan went on television and vehemently denied that any such operation had occurred. He retracted the statement a week later, insisting that the sale of weapons had not been an arms-for-hostages deal. Despite the fact that Reagan defended the actions by virtue of their good intentions. Polls showed that only 14 percent of Americans believed the president when he said he had not traded arms for hostages.

While probing the question of the arms-for-hostages deal, Attorney General Edwin Meese discovered that only $12 million of the $30 million the Iranians reportedly paid had reached government coffers. Then-unknown Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council explained the discrepancy: he had been diverting funds from the arms sales to the Contras, with the full knowledge of National Security Adviser Admiral John Poindexter and with the unspoken blessing, he assumed, of President Reagan.

Poindexter resigned, and North was fired, but Iran-Contra was far from over. The press hounded the president: Did he know about these illegal activities, and if not, how could something of this magnitude occur without his knowledge? In an investigation by the Reagan-appointed Tower Commission, it was determined that, as president, Reagan’s disengagement from the management of his White House had created conditions which made possible the diversion of funds to the Contras. But there was no evidence linking Reagan to the diversion.

Speculation about the involvement of Reagan, Vice President George Bush and the administration at large ran rampant. Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh investigated the affair for the next eight years. Fourteen people were charged with either operational or “cover-up” crimes. In the end, North’s conviction was overturned on a technicality, and President Bush issued six pardons, including one to McFarlane, who had already been convicted, and one to Weinberger before he stood trial.

Although laws had been broken, and Reagan’s image suffered as a result of Iran-Contra, his popularity rebounded. In 1989 he left office with the highest approval rating of any president since Franklin Roosevelt.

Posted in USAComments Off on The Iran-Contra Affair

Libya’s top general quits after protests turn violent, kill 31

NOVANEWS

Demonstrators march on Shield of Libya compound, demanding government take control of armed groups that helped overthrow Gaddafi.

A Libyan protester holds a gun during clashes between demonstrators and troops of the Libyan Shield Forces, a coalition of militias, following a demonstration outside the LSF office in Benghazi on June 8, 2013. (AFP/AFP/Getty Images)

After 31 deaths this weekend further proved Libya isn’t moving fast enough to establish a national security force, General Yusef al-Mangoush announced he was quitting as chief of the military.

The General National Congress accepted his resignation on Sunday, BBC reported.

The violence happened Saturday in Benghazi outside a “Shield of Libya” compound. Demonstrators surrounded the militia base and said they wanted militias disbanded and government forces to take control.

A similar demonstration elsewhere in Libya on Saturday ended without violence.

The gunmen opened fire and threw explosives at the buildings, and Shield of Libya returned fire. It’s unclear what or who initiated the battle.

To gain order, the GNC established a strict timeline for creating a national security force,Agence France-Presse said.

The government must form a plan to disband “all illegitimate armed groups … including by use of force” and integrate them into the regular army.

That plan must be implemented by 2014, according to AFP. Libya continues to play a dangerous game with its militias.

The Shield of Libya, or Libyan Shield, was instrumental in overthrowing dictator Muammar Gaddafi; it continued to operate under defense ministry control.

More from GlobalPost: Libyan women face challenges as nation evolves

Libya’s post-Gaddafi authorities, still unable to form a professional new army and police corps, have called on the Shield to intervene in various tribal conflicts that trouble the country, AFP said.

An estimated 100 people were wounded during the fighting this weekend, and BBC reported six amputations among the dead.

Adel Tarhuni, who speaks for the Shield of Libya, told the Guardian newspaper that his group had no choice.

“We had to defend ourselves,” he said, according to the Guardian.

The militia then left their compound and government troops moved in at the barracks.

Many in Libya and abroad blame Mangoush for failing to consolidate and organize the national security forces after Gaddafi’s death.

Agence France-Presse contributed to this report.

More from GlobalPost: Inside Gaddafi’s Libya

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/war/conflict-zones/130609/libya-general-quits-shield-protests-benghazi

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Libya’s top general quits after protests turn violent, kill 31

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

November 2013
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930