Would you vote for America to go to war with Iran if there were evidence that Tehran is building nuclear weapons, even if such action led to higher gasoline prices.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/13/us-usa-iran-poll-idUSBRE82C19Y20120313
(Reuters) - A majority of Americans would support military action against Iran if there were evidence that Tehran is building nuclear weapons, even if such action led to higher gasoline prices, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday.

The poll showed 56 percent of Americans would support U.S. military action against Iran if there were evidence of a nuclear weapon program. Thirty-nine percent of Americans opposed military strikes.

Asked whether they would back U.S. military action if it led to higher gasoline prices, 53 percent of Americans said they would, while 42 percent said they would not.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll also found that 62 percent of Americans would back Israel taking military action against Iran for the same reasons.

U.S. President Barack Obama has said all options are on the table in dealing with Iran's nuclear program, but he has encouraged Israel to give sanctions against Iran more time to have an effect.

Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful.

Higher gasoline prices, which have risen in part due to tension in the Middle East, have put political pressure on Obama as he fights for re-election later this year.

The president, a Democrat, has also faced criticism from his potential Republican rivals for being too soft on Iran and not supportive enough of Israel.

The poll showed Republicans were more willing to support military action by the United States or Israel than Democrats. Seventy percent of Republicans would back U.S. action, while 46 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of independents said the same.

The breakdown was similar when respondents were asked to factor in gasoline prices or their support of an Israeli military move.

"What we're seeing is kind of a general trend that we always see, that Republicans tend to be more hawkish than Democrats or independents," said Ipsos pollster Cliff Young. "Historically Republicans have been much more security-centric."

A potential conflict with Iran has cast a foreign policy shadow over the U.S. election, which is expected to be dominated by voter concerns over the domestic economy.

Obama accused Republican presidential candidates earlier this month of "beating the drums of war" while failing to consider the consequences.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, one of the top Republican presidential contenders, told the powerful pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC: "If Iran doesn't get rid of nuclear facilities, we will tear them down ourselves."

Despite Americans' signs of tolerance of higher gasoline prices in the poll, Obama's chances of getting re-elected are threatened by rising prices at the pump.

The poll was conducted from March 8-11 among 1,084 adults across the United States. It has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

No.

Although, I wonder if you see a difference between a "war" and a surgical strike/strikes?

I wish for my country to be engaged in a 2 decade long war of attrition against a heavily entrenched foe with one of the worlds largest militarys, over an issue that does not make sense from an ethical or practical viewpoint and serves only the interests of an 'ally' who loves to kill our sailors.

You honestly think Iran would last that long. The war against Iran's military and government would be over in days.

More friendly population?

No.

Obviously 56% of American's haven't figured out that they never found WMD's in Iraq.

They were smuggled into Syria and Iran where they have been hidden under their infrastructure.

Holy shit, I just traveled through a time portal to 2002 and they're saying "You honestly think Iraq would last that long".
Better juice up the delorean, we're going to need more plutoni-

Oh, nevermind, you're talking about Iran, that country with ten times the military clout that Iraq had, who beat them over the head silly in a decade long war already once and now has modern technology while Iraq didn't move an inch.

A war with Iran on ground would likely end in catastrophe for America and its allies.
Aerial strikes are the next worst option, as Iran's defenses are significantly stronger, more defended, and more plentiful then Iraq's.
Long range missiles from Sea is the only viable option. And that won't work very well.

Was curious to see what the vote % would be on jsp vs reuters...

no more war please
not right now
we can't afford it
maybe later
maybe eventually
just not right now