I'm comforted by the polling Matt brings up showing Americans overwhelmingly prefer a diplomatic approach to Iran, but I'm not sure the numbers prove that the type of diplomatic rhetoric they'll end up voting for doesn't contain a bit of wild-eyed aggression. A "one best way" poll, after all, is fairly unresponsive to the campaign at hand, wherein all candidates profess diplomatic intentions but some make very clear that they're willing to deploy the B-52s if Iran doesn't capitulate.
All this got me thinking, though. Whatever the polls say, it certainly seems that Americans rarely oppose aggressive foreign policy choices. Has there been a conflict in modern times -- say, since World War II? -- where the president and his party were pushing for a war but the public remained unmoved and the elites finally dropped the subject? In other words, has the public's preference for diplomacy ever overwhelmed a president's determination to strike? I can't think of an instance where it has, though I'd say the current situation with Iran is actually running somewhat along those lines.
