STATS
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Diplomacy, regime change, or war?
11-Dec-2011
The Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans (PAAIA) has released the findings of its third national public opinion survey of Iranian Americans. The 2011 survey follows similar surveys commissioned by PAAIA in 2008 and 2009. The surveys are an integral component of better understanding the Iranian American community and having its voice heard through the availability of on-going accurate scientific data.
PAAIA 2011 Survey Highlights
In October of 2011, PAAIA commissioned Zogby Research Services (formally known as Zogby International) to conduct a public opinion survey of Iranian Americans to gather accurate attitudinal and demographic information about the Iranian American community. The results of the 2011 PAAIA survey indicate that over the past three years, the importance of ethnic heritage to Iranian Americans remains unchanged, with eighty-three percent (83%) believing that their heritage is either very important or somewhat important to them. Iranian Americans continue to retain close ties to family and friends in Iran, although percentages of respondents who say they have family in Iran has dropped off somewhat. Still six in ten Iranian Americans indicate that they communicate with their family and friends in Iran at least several times a month.
Most Iranian Americans (43%) believe that internal developments in Iran and the state of U.S.-Iran relations are at the core of their issues as Iranian Americans. These issues correlate and are at the heart of domestic issues involving Iranian Americans in the United States (e.g., civil rights, discrimination, etc.).
Iranian Americans want the Iranian regime to change. For the above mentioned self-interested reason, two-thirds of Iranian Americans believe that Iran should be a secular democracy. In contrast, only six percent (6%) believe that any form of an “Islamic Republic” would work well in Iran. The survey indicates that from among a list of six issues relating to U.S.-Iran relations, by far the greatest number of Iranian Americans (63%) cite the promotion of human rights and democracy as the most important, followed by thirty percent (30%) who cite the promotion of regime change.
However, though Iranian Americans want to see a democratic Iran that respects human rights, they differ on how the foregoing aspirations can be achieved. Thirty eight percent (38%) believe that diplomatic negotiations or establishing diplomatic relations (each received 19%) are the best foreign policy approaches vis-à-vis Iran that would also be in the best interests of the United States. In contrast, thirty-two percent (32%) of Iranian Americans believe that the promotion of regime change would be in the best interest of the United States. Only three percent (3%) of Iranian Americans favor a military option against Iran.
A large majority of seventy-three percent (73%) of Iranian Americans strongly support or somewhat support the establishment of a U.S. interest section in Iran that would provide consular services and issue U.S. visas. This is in keeping with the 2008 survey results, in relation to the fact that sixty-one percent (61%) of Iranian Americans have traveled to Iran at least once since moving to the United States, and the continued close ties they maintain with family and friends living in Iran.
A significant portion (44%) of Iranian Americans cite restrictions on transferring money between Iran and the U.S as having a somewhat burdensome or a very burdensome impact on their ability to support their families. A similar percentage, forty-seven percent (47%), view U.S. sanctions as not very burdensome or not at all burdensome on them or their family. This, however, does not discount the difficulties that the former group encounters on a daily basis as a result of the sanctions.
A majority (56%) of Iranian Americans now disapprove of President Obama’s handling of relations with Iran, while thirty-two percent (32%) approve of how the President addresses this issue. These numbers have flipped since 2009 when a majority of Iranian Americans viewed President Obama’s handling of relations with Iran favorably. Although their favorable attitude towards the Obama Administration’s policy towards Iran has declined, fifty-five percent (55%) of Iranian Americans indicate that they would vote for President Obama if the 2012 election were held today.
When asked if they would support or oppose the delisting of the Mujahadeen-e Khalq (MEK) from the State Department’s list of foreign Terrorist Organizations, a plurality of Iranian Americans (45%) cite that they are somewhat opposed or strongly opposed, while twenty-two percent (22%) indicate that they strongly support or somewhat support, and one-third were unsure.
Summary of Results
The 2011 survey results can be viewed from a diversity of viewpoints. Clearly, Iranian Americans continue to regard their culture and heritage as an important component of their day to day life and their overall identity within the United States. Their desire and ability to maintain close contact with their families and friends in Iran is a clear testament to this strong affinity. Though they continue to be active and productive participants in the social and civic life within the United States, Iranian Americans’ desire for a different regime in Iran, one that respects human rights and democracy, is clearly manifested in the survey. Although the predominant majority of Iranian Americans are strongly opposed to any military action against Iran, Iranian Americans differ in their views between diplomacy and regime change as the best course of action for the U.S. to take towards Iran. While support for both tightening or removing economic sanctions against Iran as policy options receive little support, a significant number of Iranian Americans find the restrictions imposed by the sanctions as burdensome on them and their families.
Please click here for the complete report
PAAIA's surveys are conducted by Zogby Research Service (formally known as Zogby International), a pre-eminent polling firm, based on successful telephone interviews in English with representative sample of respondents. Zogby Research Service employs sampling strategies in which selection probabilities are proportional to population size within area codes and exchanges. The margin of error for the results of the 2011 survey are +/- 5 percentage points, which is an acceptable margin of error for a survey of this type.
| Recently by PAAIA | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Setting the Record Straight: PAAIA Responds to Unfounded Attacks | 9 | Sep 07, 2012 |
| "The Iranian Americans" Documentary | 2 | Aug 20, 2012 |
| Lawmakers Urge President Obama to Enable Humanitarian Assistance to Iran | 2 | Aug 16, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Dear Alimostofi
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:15 PM PSTI don't want to speculate on things like this. Personally I don't agree with you and could give as many reasons why not. But then you could give me another set of reason. I will stick to voicing my opinion not reading intentions of the USA.
VPK: US loves The Hezbollah
by alimostofi on Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:53 AM PSTVPK: US loves The Hezbollah Party in Iran ....
If the US wanted to it could have used Turkey, to launch an attack on The Taliban of Iran. But it actually used them to justify its presence in the area. The US military is facing cut-backs. It needs a fake war. Without Hezbollah in Middle East there is no need for Uncle Sam. The Shahanshah told them, we are the protectors of democracy against Communism. Once he stopped buying weapons they got rid of him. Same goes for The Hezbollah. They buy weapons and force US government to buy weapons. Elementary my dear Watson.
Ali Mostofi
//twitter.com/alimostofi
Iran is already occupied
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:42 AM PSTand at war so there rest is just a matter of whether your want another party involved. Reasonable arguments against war are:
Neither of these is a blanked "no war" argument. At some point it is possible for each of these to change. So far I see why it is better to avoid it. But the time may come that the pro war argument wins.
That day get nearer all the time. Besides America will do what it wants anyway.
IK: Iranians are in war
by alimostofi on Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:08 AM PSTIK: Iranians are in war already ....
War with Iran is different than war with The Hezbollah Party in Iran. Iranian culture and Hebollah Party policies are at loggerheads.
Ali Mostofi
//twitter.com/alimostofi
the 3% pro war speaks his mind
by iraj khan on Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:02 AM PSTWhen he comments:
"The US and especially the UN do not treat them, same way they treat The Taliban in Afghanistan"
He asks if he's wrong?
The 97% of Iranians who are against war respond:
"Yes you are wrong, War Is Not The Answer"
War and The Hezbollahis
by alimostofi on Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:11 AM PSTWar and The Hezbollahis ....
Our country has been invaded by people who are killing Iranians. The US and especially the UN do not treat them, same way they treat The Taliban in Afghanistan. The moment they start treating them the same way, then Iranians will be free.
None of you seem to say this. Am I wrong?
Ali Mostofi
//twitter.com/alimostofi
Top line
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Dec 14, 2011 09:41 AM PSTWar is not up to any of us. The only parties are IRI and USA. They either work out their differences peacefully or some kind of action will occur.
Good Observation
by iraj khan on Wed Dec 14, 2011 09:31 AM PSTتحولات جامعه راه و رسم خودش را دارد ، مسیر طبیعی خودش را میرود چه همه خوشمان آید یا بدمان ."
Rashid
Bottom line, war with Iran = bad deal for Iran and the world.
by Esfand Aashena on Wed Dec 14, 2011 07:06 AM PSTEverything is sacred
rashid
by Fesenjoon2 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:40 AM PSTپاسخ مورد به مورد میدهم:
مورد اول تان: ایرانیان خارج و داخل با هم ارتباط دارند. ارتباط تنگاتنگی هم دارند. وگرنه رژیم آخوندی مثل خر خودشو خفه نمیکرد تا بی بی سی و صدای آمریکا را دم به ساعت سانسور کنه. و در ضمن این را هم ملاحظه کنید
//iranian.com/main/news/2011/12/13-4
مورد دوم تان: همین نظرسنجی تایید میکند که ایرانی جماعت حاضر است خواهر و مادرش توسط اسلام و روحانیت جلوی چشمانش... شود اما (به گفته این نظرسنجی) حرفی از تغییر نظام نزند. بنظر من این نشان از حماقت و بزدلی اوست. نه از ایرانی بودنش. مسئله ای نیست خب. سی و دو سال دیگر صبر میکنیم تا این جماعت هم سر عقل بیان.
مورد سوم تان: منظورتان افرادی مثل خمینی هست که شونصد سال در نوفل لوشاتو (خارج گود) لابد غاز می چراندند؟
جامعه راه خودش را میرود و ما در خیال خود
rashidTue Dec 13, 2011 10:54 PM PST
دوم این که همین نظر سنجی در همین محدوده باز نشان میدهد ایرانیها تو کره ماه هم بروند باز ایرانیند و میانه ای با سلطه بیگانگان ندارند .
سوم اینکه اکثریت مردم به ظاهر نادان و ندار داخل گود هستند که آینده ایران را رقم خواهند زد و نه گروه های اجتماعی میانه به بالا که در خارج هوس دموکراسی هائی مثل آلمان و فرانسه را در سر میپرورانند .
بروید پای درد دل همان آمریکائیها و فرانسویها و سایر جوامع مثلا دموکرات بنشینید و ببینید خود آنها چه میکشند از این دموکراسی بازی ها ؟
حرف آخر اینکه به فرض همه ایرانیهای داخل و خارج یک چیز را بخواهند ، این دلیل یا تضمین رسیدن به خواسته هایشان میشود ؟ چون همه ایرانیها سی و خورده ای سال پیش آرزوی دموکراسی و پیشرفت و عدالت داشتند ، برآورده شد ؟ یا چون به تازگی مصریها و لیبیائی ها و غیره هم هوس کردند چنان بشود همان خواهد شد ؟
تحولات جامعه راه و رسم خودش را دارد ، مسیر طبیعی خودش را میرود چه همه خوشمان آید یا بدمان .
Dear Vildermose
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Dec 13, 2011 07:18 AM PSTThe most revealing statement to me was that the US does not want Iran to cease those oil fields in Basra
Yes and that is not the only reason. If you were running America would you let IRI get those oil fields? I am surprised anyone would even question this. In fact I think most American would support USA keeping troops to hold on to the oil.
Most complaints I hear from fellow American is USA is not taking some of the Iraqi oil for free! I bet if Obama said he was going to take half the oil for free and use the money to supplement the US budget he will get massive support.
Re: when would USA get in a war
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Dec 13, 2011 07:10 AM PSTMehrdad already gave a scenario.
So, it is conceivable to imagine a type of brutality of grand magnitude being carried out against Iranians at which point they (emphasis is on “they” being Iranian people inside Iran) to seek help from foreign nationals
Next
US would not have entered WWII if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor.
Not really; FDR wanted to get involved and needed a reason. That is why Japan was baited to attack Pearl Harbor. If not they would have found another reason. Because they were not going to let Hitler take Europe and Russia. Then have to face him alone.
USA will do whatever it sees in its best interest and none of us will stop it. Islamic Republic will give them ample reasons to do so if they want to.
They will not ask for a poll or Iranian Americans. Might as well get used to it.
The most revealing
by vildemose on Tue Dec 13, 2011 07:08 AM PSTThe most revealing statement to me was that the US does not want Iran to cease those oil fields in Basra and that's why they have build such a massive infrastructure to protect mecenaries in that area and he also related leaving the area to Iran would impact the "American way of life"....
A state of war only serves
as an excuse for domestic tyranny.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Born December 11, 1918
Regarding Ted Kopple
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Dec 13, 2011 07:01 AM PSTThis is not any news to me. Of course America is not withdrawing 100% from Iraq. They are definitely lowering their "in your face" profile which is wise. But if anyone thought USA was going to leave Iraq they were dreaming.
Americans have many reasons to stick around there: Oil; watching IRI; Russia; Syria; Pakistan; India; protecting Israel; and other issues. They are not going while they got the money to fund troops. If they run low this is among last to give up.
The region is way too important for America to leave. This should be accepted as reality. We may acknowledge it and deal with it. Or people could get upset. I vote for the former because this is not going to change no matter what.
Bavafa jaan please provide an example of when Iranians would ask
by Esfand Aashena on Tue Dec 13, 2011 06:17 AM PSTWhat would be a scenario where Iranian people would ask for "foreign military intervention". Please let's stay with the subject at hand and not generic scenarios where Iran would nuke another country because if Iran was to use a nuclear weapon the response would be immediate and catasrophic.
Islamic Republic is guilty of many crimes but it has not committed genocide. In my book comparing the crimes of Islamic Republic to that of Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot is simply being charitable to those dictators. They have a special place in history. Being charitable to "mass murder" while pushing an agenda against the Islamic Republic is dubious. One of my earliest blogs on this website was about this very issue.
The reason we are facing war in Iran is because Iran is suspected of having a clandestine nuclear program to make a nuclear bomb. This is the reason, not human rights. US would not have entered WWII if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor. That means for all intents and purposes if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, Facists in Germany, Japan and Italy would've taken over Europe, Russia and China and the consequences for human rights galore. Then I suppose US would've had a cold war with another adversary instead of Russia.
Mind you IAEA is in Iran because Iran is a signatory to NPT. I don't know where we'd be if Iran wasn't a signatory.
How would even Iranian people "ask" for foreign military intervention? War in Iran would make the situation far worse and recent examples are proof positive. For example, who is going to intervene in Iraq now if Shiites for example start killing thousands of Sunnis? Or any other atrocity? Who is going to go in Iraq to prevent anything again?
Finally the foreign militaries really don't need any "input" from us. They've done enough that some are on board already! I think it's another case of some Iranians wanting moftkhori! Please remove the ayatollahs for us? Please pretty please?!
Roozbeh, that's what I thought. I won't put any value on your views anymore since admittedly you don't mean anything of them!
Everything is sacred
An eye opening report by
by vildemose on Tue Dec 13, 2011 05:55 AM PSTAn eye opening report by Ted Kopple tonight on rock center with Brian Williams. Though the program was about Iraq but the main topic was Iran and the jingoism was frightening and the issue was not Iran's nuclear weapons..Don't miss it.
//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/45646118#null
//rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/12/9389050-as-us-military-withdraws-from-iraq-questions-remain-about-american-presence#comments
A state of war only serves
as an excuse for domestic tyranny.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Born December 11, 1918
Re: BIAS
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Tue Dec 13, 2011 05:11 AM PSTI will agree that Iranians in general are secretive with strangers. But results also get affected by questions. The results tell m this.
Most Iranian Americans want a Secular Democracy with no regime change or war :-)
Bias = Statistically Invalid
by bahmani on Mon Dec 12, 2011 06:46 PM PSTSorry! Unfortunately you can't call Iranians at their homes, on the phone in the middle of the night, and ask them questions like these. At least you can't expect real answers.
While interesting to brag and talk about, these stats are entirely, and completely statistically invalid as long as there is the slightest chance of introduced real bias. As a result of justified Iranian fears of retribution by the IRI getting your home phone number.
Survey Iranians and their opinions safely and securely (not on the phone) and then maybe you'll get a real answer.
In the meantime, this was all just a fun exercise (for Zogby) and a good chance to post the photo op at the White House.
Wait! You guys actually went to the White House and came away empty handed? What kind of lobby are you!
At least NIAC gets results... wait.... Ah! Shit! NEVERMIND!
To read more bahmani posts visit: //brucebahmani.blogspot.com/
maskhareh, as usual
by Fesenjoon2 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 02:44 PM PST70% of Iranian-Americans hope that things like chopping off hands and feet in Iran would go away by themselves. Maybe if we wait another 32 years they will.
//www.isna.ir/isna/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-1907876
Good point Mehrdad
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Dec 12, 2011 01:27 PM PSTI agree IRI may get to a point where outside help is required. But I don't want MEK; Bolton and *** of his nature. Because they will make it worse.
Devils advocate
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Dec 12, 2011 01:21 PM PSTI am going to play devils advocate here. I know most Iranians are opposed th "war". But how do you present your reasons. Most of the arguments I see are emotional and not logical. Here are some:
As long as people go with emotional arguments they will lose. Because war is not always wrong. The real issue is whether it is wrong in this instance. I will leave that to people to discuss. But to me there is no clear yer or no for war.
Esfand jaan: While I share your distrust of foreign governments
by Bavafa on Mon Dec 12, 2011 01:11 PM PSTAnd their motivation in any conflict with Iran, I would not dismiss the terror that could be inflicted on Iranians at the hand of IRI.
So, it is conceivable to imagine a type of brutality of grand magnitude being carried out against Iranians at which point they (emphasis is on “they” being Iranian people inside Iran) to seek help from foreign nationals.
Having said that, I am firmly and positively against any war/military conflict with Iran that is designed and/or orchestrated by foreign goverments and their proxy groups such as MEK.
'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory
Mehrdad
Esfand, dont read too much into what I say.
by Roozbeh_Gilani on Mon Dec 12, 2011 01:00 PM PSTBecause I say exactly what I think. I am a bit too kheng to try and play with words. Yes, I am 100% against war, and yes I am a realist and see the world as it is rather than the way I want it to be. Makes sense? if not here an example: I am 100% for brittany spears to leave her bf for a one night stand with me, but I highly doubt if it would ever happen unless I do extremely well on my next weekend trip to vegas...
"Personal business must yield to collective interest."
Bavafa jaan what do you mean taking an "absolute position"?
by Esfand Aashena on Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:44 PM PSTI think it is not "hard" at all. The only reason foreign Governments would intervene in Iran is because of oil. Make no mistake about it.
Foreign Governments didn't militarily get involved in Rwanda where 800,000 were massacred or in Darfur when 500,000 were slaughtered or Cambodia when 2,000,000 were massacred and the list goes on.
Imagine foreign intervention where it leads to another ruthless Government which would make IRI a choir boy. Imagine separating Iran into several different satellite countries. Not to mention the bloodshed and carnage that it'll bring. The infrastructure destruction to include drinking water facilities, power plants, roads, bridges and so on.
Bottom line imagine a country left in ruin. How do you think people would end up living? I know you are against the war and my questions to you are not necessarily directed at you, I just didn't understand what you meant by saying it's "hard" to take a position. I did understand your point about actively vs passively opposing a war.
Everything is sacred
Esfand jaan: Actively vs. passively....
by Bavafa on Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:28 PM PSTWhile I agree it is hard to state and take an absolute position in regards to prospect of war against our mother-land, there is vast difference between actively opposing war or passively rejecting it
'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory
Mehrdad
when it comes to Iranian internal affairs
by iraj khan on Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:10 PM PSTonly 11% have stated it as
"MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES TO IRANIAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY".
War or not
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Dec 12, 2011 09:18 AM PSTThere is no general response I can think of because it all depends. There are some times it makes sense or does not. It is like saying "I am 100% opposed to amputation". Well sorry but you may have to or the patient dies.
No one likes amputations but if you have that or gangrene do the first. It is much easier to take a simple position. But reality demands complex and flexible approaches. No it is not always up to a people of a nation to decide. What if a nation decided to eliminate a minority. Hey it is not fantasy it happened. If Hitler had decided just to kill the German Jews but not attack anyone would it mean no foreign intervention? I respectfully disagree.
There are many situations where foreign intervention is moral and required.
Roozbeh you're "100% anti-war"?
by Esfand Aashena on Mon Dec 12, 2011 08:09 AM PSTI am sorry I don't mean to be nit picking but in several recent comments I've seen you take this stand, yet being "100%" against means something. It means that you 100% reject it with no "if" or looking the other way when it happens.
In one of your blogs for example we were discussing war on Iran and how the overthrow of Libya was orchestrated by NATO while the Green movement in Iran was not an NATO orchestrated event. You stated:
Despite my inherent objection to foreign forces intervening in my countries affairs, I can not ignore the fact that not a single fascist dictatorship (Hitler, Mosoulini, Saddam, Gadaffi ) has been dislodged with at least a degree of foreign military intervention.
This doesn't sound like 100% to me, maybe it does to you and others but not to me. To me it sounds like you wouldn't mind foreign intervention to dislodge Khamanei. Hitler and Mosoulini waged a world war, you can NOT compare their actions in this regard to that of Saddam, Qaddafi or Khamanei.
My view point is that getting rid of a Government is the responsibility of the people of that country and a foreign military war to dislodge the Government is wrong, be it Saddam or Qaddafi or Khamanei. Just look at Iraq and the devastating costs of lives that will continue to pain that country and Libya will be a new story to watch. From what I've gathered an MKO type of opposition or worse like Al Qaeda will be heading Libya.
International support is crucial but a foreign military is something totally different and unacceptable to me.
So bottom line, would you say you're 55% against foreign military intervention and war when it comes to Islamic Republic or 70%? It can't be 100%!
Everything is sacred
Guys you missed my point and I made a mistake
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Dec 12, 2011 05:22 AM PSTMy post was about Secular vs regime change not about Monarchy vs Republic. I made a mistake I guess I had "Islamic Republic" on my mind. So I just replaced "Islamice" with "Secular".
I should have said "Secular Democracy". If you prefer replace Republic with Monarchy and move on with the discussion. But my point is still valid. Responses are dependent on how and what you ask people. Now my point:
two-thirds of Iranian Americans believe that Iran should be a secular democracy.
thirty-two percent (32%) of Iranian Americans believe that the promotion of regime change would be in the best interest of the United States.
How do you get any secular regime even a Secular Monarchy without regime change. Maybe they think Secular is good for Iran but not in the interest of America? I don't know; but I saw a possible contradiction.