The Risky Politics of Trump’s New War With Iran

A monitor plays footage of President Donald Trump announcing U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran in the James Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, D.C.
Photo: Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg via Getty Images

It may take a while for the immensity of Donald Trump’s war in Iran — the U.S.-Israeli military strikes, the scope of the conflict as Iran retaliates against targets across the Middle East, and the risks involved in any war for regime change — to sink in for the general American public. So far their political parties have reacted predictably, with all but a very few Democrats objecting to Trump’s refusal to consult Congress or announce clear war aims, and all but a very few Republicans supporting the action with degrees of enthusiasm varying from guarded optimism to hooting jingoism. Scattered pre-strike polling was mixed. A CBS News poll taken during three days just prior to the attacks showed 51 percent of Americans, and 84 percent of Republicans would favor “military action against Iran to prevent them from producing nuclear weapons,” but that’s a rather loaded premise. The same poll showed that 68 percent of Americans (and even 38 percent of Republicans) thought Trump had not yet “clearly explained” why military action might be necessary.

The first post-strike poll, from Reuters-Ipsos, taken on Saturday and Sunday, shows 27 percent of Americans (and 55 percent of Republicans) supporting “Trump’s attack on Iran” and 43 percent (including 13 percent of Republicans) opposing it. Significantly, 32 percent of Republicans and 38 percent of independents weren’t sure, and many of them probably weren’t fully aware we were in a war. One-day polls on a weekend with Trump’s name in the key question often don’t inspire a lot of confidence, so it could be a while before we can really gauge public reaction. But the odds are good that confirmed partisans will continue to follow their leaders’ reactions.

There’s already a lot of speculation about potential tensions between Trump and his MAGA base over what looks like a violation of America First foreign policy dogma. But as we saw in last summer’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and the more recent decapitation of Venezuela’s regime, MAGA folk will almost certainly fall into line at least initially. They will accept uncritically Trump’s claims that the Iranian nuclear program or its ballistic missiles represent an imminent threat to America, and unless the war fails or descends into a quagmire, they’ll have their leader’s back.

It’s the reaction of the more persuadable parts of the electorate, particularly the swing voters who made Trump’s return to power possible in 2024, but who have notably soured on him ever since, that we should be watching most closely, and that impact may take a while to discern. It’s worth remembering that Trump went into this sudden widespread war at a low ebb of popularity, near second-term lows in job approval. He did little or nothing to shore up that standing during last week’s State of the Union Address, during which he didn’t say much to alert the public of the violence just ahead.

Generally speaking, Americans are skeptical towards military adventures that don’t involve obvious-self-defense before they occur. Once the bombs and missiles begin to fly, though, there is often a surge of support so long as any particular engagement appears to be successful from a military point of view and American casualties are very low (sadly, Americans do not tend to care much about non-U.S. casualties). That’s where we are right now.

Going forward, the five elements for domestic political success in this war among swing voters could be summed up as (1) clarity of war aims, (2) initial success, (3) American casualties, (4) perceived achievement of war aims, and (5) the length of the engagement.

Trump flubbed #1 right off the bat with a video message announcing the attacks that wandered in rationale from revenge for past Iranian misconduct to destruction of nuclear and missile facilities to a demand for an Iranian-initiated regime change. He’s off to a good start on #2 (so far the military operation appears to be on schedule) and #3 (with only three U.S. military deaths so far). #4 and #5 remain to be seen. These “known unknowns” will likely determine whether the whole enterprise is a political blunder, a welcome distraction from Trump’s domestic political problems, or a positive game-changer for this embattled president.

More likely, Trump’s first full-on war will wind up reconfirming everyone’s “priors” about this administration and the GOP, and add an new element of urgency to the judgment voters will render in November.