Doug Mataconis comments on a new poll for The Hill showing plurality support in the U.S. for attacking Iran:

There will be dissenters, of course, but what numbers like this suggest to me is that the idea of military action against Iran is already so engrained in the American psyche that it’s unlikely that any future President would have to worry about the legacy of the unpopular wars in Iraq or Afghanistan in making their case to the American public for action in Iran.

I have discussed previous polls that showed significant public support for military action against Iran, so I don’t completely disagree with Mataconis here, but what he doesn’t address here is how much weaker support for military action against Iran is than in the past. According to this new poll, just 49% now say that the U.S. “should be willing to use military force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons,” 31% are opposed, and 20% are unsure. This is hardly an overwhelming public endorsement of war with Iran. Looking at The Hill poll’s somewhat garbled crosstabs, 60% of Democrats are opposed (37%) or unsure (23%), and 63% of independents are likewise opposed (38%) or unsure (25%). The poll shows that there is no national consensus for military action against Iran, and there isn’t even majority support for this policy. Major U.S. military interventions have had much higher levels of support than this.

One of the things that probably inflates support for an Iranian war is the mistaken impression that the war would be limited to a series of effective airstrikes that would actually destroy Iran’s nuclear program while having few adverse consequences. The Iran hawks’ habit of “best-casing” the war scenario while “worst-casing” the consequences of not attacking has undoubtedly had some effect in making military action seem like the less costly alternative, but the opposite is true. If the costs and risks of the war were presented to the respondents, including the prospect of an oil shock and slowed economic growth resulting from the war, instead of breezily asking them if they favor an easy military solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, many current supporters would probably not be so ready to endorse the policy. Respondents are being asked if they support an attack to “prevent” Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but what the attack would do is set back the nuclear program by a few years and give Iranian hard-liners every incentive to acquire nuclear weapons. Maybe a polling outfit should ask if Americans want the U.S. to start a third war of choice in ten years with little prospect of lasting success. I suspect the numbers would look a bit different.