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.


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
Vietnam War Agent Orange
Top photo credit: Private Fred L. Greenleaf crosses a deep irrigation canal during an allied operation during the Vietnam War. (Photo: National Archives)

Agent Orange is the chemical weapon that keeps on killing

Global Crises

November 30 marks the International Day of Remembrance for all Victims of Chemical Warfare. Established by the United Nations in 2015, the day honors those who have suffered from chemical weapons and reaffirms our collective commitment to ensure these horrors never happen again.

Since the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) entered into force in 1997, 197 nations have ratified it.Israel signed but never ratified; Egypt, North Korea, and South Sudan have not signed. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) announced in July 2023 that all chemical weapons stockpiles reported by member nations, including those in the United States, have been destroyed. It is one of the greatest disarmament achievements in modern history.

keep readingShow less
A House of Dynamite
Top image credit: RELEASE DATE: October 24, 2025 TITLE: A House of Dynamite ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect

You have 19 minutes to decide whether to kill tens of millions

Media

WARNING: This article contains spoilers.

What if you were the president of the United States and you had just minutes to decide how to respond to an impending nuclear attack?

keep readingShow less
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi
Top photo credit: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi 首相官邸 (Cabinet Public Affairs Office)

Takaichi 101: How to torpedo relations with China in a month

Asia-Pacific

On November 7, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could undoubtedly be “a situation that threatens Japan’s survival,” thereby implying that Tokyo could respond by dispatching Self-Defense Forces.

This statement triggered the worst crisis in Sino-Japanese relations in over a decade because it reflected a transformation in Japan’s security policy discourse, defense posture, and U.S.-Japan defense cooperation in recent years. Understanding this transformation requires dissecting the context as well as content of Takaichi’s parliamentary remarks.

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.