Follow us on social

google cta
43103363410_8fb0138e17_o-scaled

Hawkish group won't share questions for its dubious Iran deal poll

United Against Nuclear Iran’s recent survey finding that just 11 percent want any agreement with Tehran is highly suspect.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

A hawkish group that focuses exclusively on derailing the Iran nuclear deal and pushing the United States toward war with Tehran is refusing to release questions it asked in a recently released poll it conducted that claims to have found “overwhelming opposition” to the JCPOA. 

United Against Nuclear Iran announced the results of its poll in a press release last week, which also claims to show that “a majority of voters, including more than two-thirds of Democrats (67 percent), are more likely to support a candidate for the U.S. Senate that favors a longer and more comprehensive agreement than what is presently under consideration by the Biden administration.”

The results of the UANI poll are odd, given that polling on the Iran nuclear deal, since it was agreed to in 2015, has consistently shown that Americans favor the JCPOA, support a U.S. return to the agreement, and that members of Congress who support the accord are unlikely to face political ramifications. 

Most people don’t know a lot about the Iran nuclear deal, so it’s easy to present questions about it with misleading or false information to produce a desired result. That’s why Responsible Statecraft asked both UANI and Moore Information Group, the organization that conducted the poll, for the questions it asked the survey’s respondents. But neither group responded to our inquiries. 

Indeed, the UANI press release offers some clues as to just how misleading its questions were. Among the poll’s purported “key findings,” only 11 percent of respondents purportedly “support lifting economic sanctions as part of a deal that temporarily restricts Iran’s nuclear program.” (emphasis added)

The problem, of course, with that particular framing is that the deal that’s currently on the table will permanently, not just temporarily, restrict Iran’s nuclear program. That the accord expires at some point in the near future is a favored talking point of Iran deal opponents, but it’s completely made up. Moreover, who wouldn’t oppose a deal that only temporarily limits Iran’s nuclear program? It’s a framing designed to generate a result that UANI needs for its political aims. 

Another red flag in the press release is the UANI poll’s finding that “76 percent oppose any agreement with a nuclear Iran.” Aside from the ambiguity of what is meant by “a nuclear Iran,” that result contradicts the poll’s separate finding mentioned above that a majority of voters would be more likely to support a senate candidate “that favors a longer and more comprehensive agreement.” In other words, why would someone who opposes any agreement then turn around and support a candidate for office who favors a better version of the deal that’s currently on the table? 

And again, this particular result — that a whopping three-quarters of American voters oppose any deal with Iran  — completely contradicts the consistent findings of independent polling on this issue. 

“Opponents of diplomacy armed with UANI talking points spent tens of millions of dollars trying to convince Democratic members of Congress that there would be a political cost to supporting the deal,” J Street Senior Vice President Dylan Williams told Responsible Statecraft. “In the end, not one lawmaker who backed the deal lost their seat to someone who opposed it in the 2016 election the year following the vote in Congress. The deal is not only sound policy, it's smart politics in an American electorate with little appetite for more costly wars of choice."

It’s not surprising that UANI won’t share the poll’s questions and methodology because it probably knows they won’t stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny. Indeed, Iran hawks’ goal is war and regime change, and the only arguments they have left to support that outcome are based on lies and vacuous talking points

Perhaps that’s also why UANI was “unable to approve” this reporter’s request for press credentials to cover its upcoming “summit” in person: the foundation of Iran hawks’ entire enterprise will fall apart in the face of fact-based questioning.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo delivers remarks at the United Against Nuclear Iran Summit in New York City on September 25, 2018. [State Department photo]
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.
President Donald J. Trump participates in a pull-aside meeting with the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Denmark Mette Frederiksen during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 70th anniversary meeting Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2019, in Watford, Hertfordshire outside London. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.

North America

The Trump administration dramatically escalated its campaign to control Greenland in 2025. When President Trump first proposed buying Greenland in 2019, the world largely laughed it off. Now, the laughter has died down, and the mood has shifted from mockery to disbelief and anxiety.

Indeed, following Trump's military strike on Venezuela, analysts now warn that Trump's threats against Greenland should be taken seriously — especially after Katie Miller, wife of Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, posted a U.S. flag-draped map of Greenland captioned "SOON" just hours after American forces seized Nicolas Maduro.

keep readingShow less
Trump White House
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump Speaks During Roundtable With Business Leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Washington, DC on December 10, 2025 (Shutterstock/Lucas Parker)

When Trump's big Venezuela oil grab runs smack into reality

Latin America

Within hours of U.S. military strikes on Venezuela and the capture of its leader, Nicolas Maduro, President Trump proclaimed that “very large United States oil companies would go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”

Indeed, at no point during this exercise has there been any attempt to deny that control of Venezuela’s oil (or “our oil” as Trump once described it) is a major force motivating administration actions.

keep readingShow less
us military
Top photo credit: Shutterstock/PRESSLAB

Team America is back! And keeping with history, has no real plan

Latin America

The successful seizure and removal of President Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela demonstrates Washington’s readiness to use every means at its disposal — including military power — to stave off any diminishment of U.S. national influence in its bid to manage the dissolution of the celebrated postwar, liberal order.

For the moment, the rules-based order (meaning whatever rules Washington wants to impose) persists in the Western Hemisphere. As President Donald Trump noted, “We can do it again. Nobody can stop us. There’s nobody with the capability that we have.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.