It should be noted that this Zogby poll showing a pro-war majority is an exception to other recent polls: e.g., the 12-14 October 2007 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll reports that only 29% favor "military action in Iran" and 68% oppose it; and the 4-8 September 2007 CBS News/New York Times poll says that a mere 9% want "military action now," 59% go for "diplomacy now," and 24% even think that Iran is "not a threat" requiring any action ("Iran," PollingReport.com, 31 October 2007).
Why does the Zogby poll show such a dramatically different result than others?
The Zogby poll came out the way it did because it gave another option to support a military strike against Iran beyond a simple three-way choice of "favor, oppose, or unsure," the option appealing to "cruise missile liberals" who don't trust the Bush White House but are waiting for a liberal feminist empire presided over by the next POTUS Hillary Rodham Clinton:
There is considerable division about when a strike on Iran should take place -- if at all. Twenty-eight percent believe the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office while 23% would favor a strike before the end of President Bush's term. Another 29% said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20% were unsure. The view that Iran should not be attacked by the U.S. is strongest among Democrats (37%) and independents, but fewer than half as many Republicans (15%) feel the same. But Republicans are also more likely to be uncertain on the issue (28%). (emphasis added, "Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran," 29 October 2007)Among the four camps of Americans, the No War camp is still the largest, and we'll continue to have an anti-war majority till the end of George W. Bush's term, but we have to think about how to sway, directly or indirectly, the 23% who say "the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office."