It’s been a little over a week since the tentative ceasefire negotiated by President Donald Trump took effect between Israel and Iran.
It appears to be holding, after the Trump administration struck Iranian nuclear sites in late June and then hammered out the peace deal.
Public officials’ responses varied in the days following the start of official U.S. involvement, and Michiganders who responded to an unscientific MLive survey were also split on the decision.
Approximately 35% of respondents were supportive of U.S. involvement in the war between Iran and Israel, which Trump has dubbed the “12 day war.”
Some, like MLive reader Ed, called it a “strategic masterpiece.”
Those in support of U.S. involvement highlighted concern about Iran’s nuclear prospects, as well as the importance of supporting historic ally Israel.
Another 65% of respondents were not supportive. Jean in Grand Rapids called it a “terrible idea.” Others said while they appreciate Trump’s success in negotiating a ceasefire, they’re not supportive of dropping bombs.
Those concerned about U.S. involvement in the war cited the cost of bombing Iran, and expressed concern about Israel’s influence over the United States.
Israel has long considered Iran a threat, but tensions escalated this month when the country accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons and launched strikes on June 13, targeting Iranian nuclear facilities and killing several top military commanders.
Iran launched several retaliatory waves of missiles at targets in Israel, and both sides continued to trade airstrikes for several days before the U.S. entered the war, also striking several nuclear facilities.
Iran retaliated on June 23 by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar, after warning the U.S. they were coming. Thirteen were intercepted and a 14th was deemed non-threatening.
The same evening, Trump thanked Iran for helping the U.S. avoid casualties and later announced a ceasefire deal on Truth Social.
After his initial ceasefire announcement, there were several more attacks, calling into question if it would ultimately hold.
After telling reporters on the White House lawn the same morning that he was unhappy with Israel and Iran, and a subsequent call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump officials confirmed Netanyahu held off tougher action and refrained from additional attacks.
MLive reader Ed, who referred to Trump’s actions as a strategic masterpiece, highlighted the president’s decision to target Iran’s nuclear program, the lack of U.S. casualties in response and the successful ceasefire.
“Iran learned a powerful lesson,” he said.
Several respondents who also supported the decision said it was necessary amid continued concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.
MLive reader Jim said he believes the “entire world will benefit from cessation of hostilities in the Middle East,” and eliminating Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon will help achieve that end.
Westland resident Phil said for the sake of world safety, the U.S. response to Iran’s nuclear program was appropriate. He said while seeking the approval of Congress is an important consideration, “I understand the timing and stealth of the mission required this to take place quickly.”
Some others disagreed about the necessity of dropping bombs, and expressed concern that U.S. involvement signals outsized influence by Israel over the U.S.
Ypsilanti resident Daisy said she feels Trump got played by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “endangering all Americans and others (in) the long run.”
MLive reader Bruce, a self-described conservative, said “We are not the universe police.
“These two countries have been at war against each other for a century, and they will continue to do so endlessly,” he said. “Let them fight each other until they decide to call an end to the war between themselves.”
On June 21, the U.S. entered Israel’s war against Iran, striking nuclear facilities with stealth bombers and an array of support aircraft. The decision came after Trump stated that he would decide “within the next two weeks” whether to strike Iran.
In Saugatuck, reader Jeff said while he’s generally against U.S. involvement in another Middle East war, the strikes could be a positive in the long term as long as there’s no further involvement, like troops on the ground.
He said given that Israel had already damaged Iran’s nuclear capacity, a significant reduction by American strikes could be beneficial.
MLive reader Dick said he also supports Trump’s approach.
“There is no way that Iran should have nuclear weapons,” he said. “President Trump said ‘Enough!’ and dealt with the problem.”
The ceasefire, which the Associated Press reported was based solely on the end of military hostilities, did not include additional conditions about Iran’s nuclear program or economic interests. Trump has acted on the belief that Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons has been crippled.
An early U.S. intelligence assessment produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency found that the strikes likely did not destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and only set it back by months.
The White House and top Trump administration leaders have pushed back on the assessment, however. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said at a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit that the assessment was a preliminary, low confidence report.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe has said the agency obtained “a body of credible evidence (that) indicates Iran’s Nuclear Program has been severely damaged by the recent, targeted strikes.”
Westland resident Phil said if further action needs to be taken, “then so be it.
“This is not a failure of the military, but a strategic implementation of a plan to end the Iranian construction of nuclear weapons.”
Several other respondents expressed concern that future action could risk American lives, however, and come with a high cost for taxpayers.
Joyce in Battle Creek said it feels like the U.S. is fighting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s battles and providing financial support, when a better use of funds could be providing humanitarian aid.
Grand Rapids resident Mary Ann said U.S. intervention was inappropriate, expressing concern about the potential for high financial costs between personnel, operating planes and the bombs themselves.
MLive reader Ed agreed. “It’s too costly,” he said, “with both taxpayer dollars and the potential loss of American lives.”
If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.