Analysis: Trump is flirting with strikes in Iran. That could be a tough sell at home.

CNN

4 hours ago

For years now, Americans have been trending in a more isolationist, anti-war direction. Particularly on the right, the ascendant view is that the world's problems are not necessarily ours.
Iran could be about to test that.
President Donald Trump has in recent hours employed increasingly bold rhetoric about involving the United States in Israel's attacks on Iran. On Tuesday afternoon, he wrote on Truth Social that 'we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' He added that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is an 'easy target,' and said, 'We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' He called for Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.'
These comments came as CNN reported he's indeed quickly warming to using the US military to strike Iranian nuclear facilities.
Trump has saber-rattled for effect before, so it's possible this is him employing the 'madman theory' of foreign policy again. But it's also evident that we're closer to a major new military confrontation than we've been in two decades.
So how might Americans view it if Trump did involve the US military offensively? It's complicated.
Americans have in recent years expressed plenty of worry about Iran and even support for hypothetical military strikes. But there is reason to believe military action today could be a bridge too far – for the same reasons Americans have been drifting away from foreign interventions.
Much of the polling here is dated, and views are of course subject to change based on fresh circumstances.
A 2019 Fox News poll is the most recent high-quality survey to ask directly about a situation like the one Trump is contemplating. And it found a significant level of support for using action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
American voters favored that 53% to 30% – a 23-point margin.
The question from there is whether Americans would view that as indeed the purpose here. This is how Trump has billed potential strikes, saying Iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon.
But as recently as March of this year, his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified quite the opposite. She said that the intel community had assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.'
Trump disputed Gabbard's account on Tuesday, but it's not difficult to see her words – and US intelligence assessments about the lack of imminence of an Iranian nuclear weapon – becoming a problem. That's particularly because America's last major military foray, into neighboring Iraq, became so unpopular due how the Bush administration exaggerated the threat it posed.
Americans have appeared open to military action in theory. The question from there is how immediate they view that threat as being.
Some surveys indicate Americans do tend to view Iran as a major threat – and on a bipartisan basis:
The same Fox poll showed 57% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans called Iran a 'real national security threat.'
A 2023 Fox poll showed more than 6 in 10 Democrats and about 8 in 10 Republicans were at least 'very' concerned about Iran getting a nuke.
And Gallup polling last year showed 93% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats described Iran developing nuclear weapons as a 'critical threat' to the vital interests of the United States.
But other surveys suggest that perceived problem might not rank particularly high.
Pew Research Center polling last year showed many more Americans felt China (64%) and Russia (59%) were major military threats than Iran (42%).
Pew data last year also found only 37% of Americans said limiting Iran's power and influence should be a 'top priority.' It ranked lower than limiting Russia and China's power and about the same as North Korea's – while also falling below limiting climate change.
And back in 2020, just 14% of Americans thought Iran was such a threat that it required immediate military action, according to a CBS News poll conducted by SSRS. A huge majority felt it was a threat that could be contained (64%), while 17% said it wasn't a threat.
All of these numbers could change if Trump goes down the path toward the US hitting Iran. He has shown an ability to get Republicans, in particular, to buy into pretty much whatever he says. (Though some prominent conservative voices like Tucker Carlson have strongly rejected the idea of strikes, meaning there could even be some resistance there). Anyway, it's likely we'd see these numbers polarize.
But US intelligence assessments had concluded that not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon — in contrast to Israeli warnings — but that it was also up to three years from being able to produce and deliver one to a target, CNN reported Tuesday.
Trump's history with Iran also looms here. In 2020, he launched a controversial strike that killed a top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani. And polling often showed people leaned in favor of the strike.
But polling also showed Americans said by double digits that the strike made us less safe domestically. And a CNN poll at the time showed Americans disapproved of Trump's handling of the situation with Iran also by double digits, 53-42%.
All of which indicates Americans are concerned about blowback and don't have a particularly high degree of faith in Trump's Iran policies.
The sum total of the data suggest that, while Americans are concerned about the prospect of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, they don't necessarily view it as an immediate problem necessitating the use of the US military. If someone asks you if you are worried about a nuclear foreign country, of course that sounds scary. You might even sign off on a hypothetical in which US military might be needed to combat that threat you fear.
But it doesn't mean you think that's imminent enough to warrant putting US servicemembers in harm's way and setting off a major Middle Eastern war, today.
And there's plenty of reason to believe Trump could – or at least should – approach this idea cautiously.