In recent months the U.S. population has become more “hawkish” according to some polls. A recent Zogby poll found that 53 percent of those polled think the U.S. will mount strikes against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. I’m not so sure it’s due to increasing hawkishness or more an increasing realization that George W. Bush seems bent leaving a legacy of scorched earth — in healthcare, social services, education and war.

But today’s PollTrack from National Journal gives some insight into the topic from a different angle — Beltway insiders — and the breakdown of opinion between parties might surprise you:

Of the 41 Republican insiders surveyed, over half said a strike was ‘not very likely,’ and one in five called it ‘very unlikely.’

In National Journal’s latest survey of 84 congressional insiders, Republicans were much more skeptical than Democrats of the chances the administration would attack Iran, but few members of either party considered an attack to be “very likely.” Whether they were optimistic about the effectiveness of diplomatic pressure and sanctions or merely distracted by the growing foreign policy challenges in Pakistan, respondents were generally less concerned about Iran than is the public at large.

Of the 41 Republican insiders surveyed, over half said a strike was “not very likely,” and one in five called it “very unlikely.” Asked about the chances of attack, one GOP member dismissed the possibility, saying, “The administration swung its bat in Iraq…. They don’t have the energy, backing or resources to attack Iran.” Another Republican who said the U.S. was not very likely to launch a strike added, “Israel will, however.”

Democrats were more convinced that President Bush would attack Iran, with over half saying that attacks were likely. “They’re that crazy,” said one insider. While 14 percent of Democrats said attacks seemed probable, a 49-percent plurality were less sure, deeming military action only “somewhat likely.” “The administration may bomb or attack by air if Congress is in recess; but no invasion, because we lack the troops for that,” said a Democratic respondent.

What do they know that we don’t know? And why won’t they tell us, their constituents why they think it’s unlikely that Bush won’t attack Iran?

there’s the argument that we don’t have enough troops, but we certainly have enough planes and bombs. And what was that bit about Israel? Are these Republicans confident that the U.S. isn’t going to attack because they know there’s a plan to have Israel be the aggressor? And are the Dems less sure because they’re not in on the plan?