Gung Ho in the Gulf

Despite concern in Congress over the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf, Americans appear to be strongly in favor of that policy. In a poll taken for TIME last week by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman,* supporters of the use of U.S. military escorts for reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers outnumbered opponents by almost 2 to 1. Some of those sentiments, however, are based on erroneous information: 85% said the escorts were important to "protect oil shipments going to the U.S." In fact, most of the petroleum products carried in the U.S.-escorted vessels are bound for Western Europe and Japan.

FOOTNOTE: *Conducted by telephone on Aug. 17-19 among 600 adult Americans. The sampling error is plus or minus 4%. "Not sure" responses are not included.

Do you approve of the U.S. escorting oil tankers through the Persian Gulf?

Approve Disapprove

53% 28%

If a U.S. warship escorting tankers hits an Iranian mine, do you think the U.S. should retaliate militarily?

Yes No

66% 24%

U.S. action in escorting oil tankers in the gulf is likely or unlikely to lead to . . .

Likely Unlikely

More terrorism on Iran's part 59% 29%

A military exchange between

the U.S. and Iran 46% 39%

A full-scale war between the

U.S. and Iran 27% 63%

Are the following reasons for escorting oil tankers through the Persian Gulf very important or not very important?

To protect shipments going Important Not important

to the U.S. 85% 12%

To stand up to Iran 67% 28%

To keep the Soviets out of

the area 67% 27%

To protect oil shipments going

to Europe and Japan 63% 31%

To help Arab allies in the region 56% 32%

To make up for selling

arms to Iran 22% 65%

To help Iraq in its war

against Iran 18% 68%