2003 vs 2025: Why Americans Aren't Rallying Behind War Against Iran

NDTV

22-06-2025

New Delhi:
It was March 2003 when the United States invaded Iraq with the backing of a largely supportive public. Images of "shock and awe" lit up TV screens as American patriotism surged in the wake of 9/11. Polls showed broad approval for the war.
President George W Bush's administration had sold the public a clear narrative: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. For millions of Americans, still raw from the trauma of the attack on the twin towers, war felt justified and overdue.
Two decades later, the world is watching a different kind of war, and a very different American reaction.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump announced that the US had launched precision airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The strikes marked a sharp escalation in a volatile region, but the American public didn't rally behind its president. Instead, social media platforms were flooded with criticism, fear, and rage.
A user wrote on X, "Trump calls Iran the 'bully of the Middle East...' Israel has bombed 5 countries and invaded 3 in the past two years alone. But IRAN is the bully...This man is a pathetic fraud."
Trump calls Iran the 'bully of the Middle East…'
Israel has bombed 5 countries and invaded 3 in the past two years alone.
But IRAN is the bully…
This man is a pathetic fraud. pic.twitter.com/7ES2wQOeV7
— ADAM (@AdameMedia) June 22, 2025
Another wrote, "Trump announces attack on Iran. No congressional approval. At the hands of the self-proclaimed 'anti-war' president."
Trump announces attack on Iran. No congressional approval. At the hands of the self-proclaimed "anti-war" president. pic.twitter.com/SgeJgwrusZ
— Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) June 21, 2025
"This man is insane. With what authorization did the US bomb Iran? What evidence? Trump says the US completed an attack on Iran's nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. Now all is us need to be on alert it high priority US cities like NYC." another said.
This man is insane. With what authorization did the US bomb Iran? What evidence? Trump says the US completed an attack on Iran's nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. Now all is us need to be on alert it high priority US cities like NYC. pic.twitter.com/pK2KPB1ecK
— Fly Sistah ???? (@Fly_Sistah) June 22, 2025
Someone said, "America is officially at war with Iran. F**k Donald Trump."
America is officially at war with Iran.
Fuck Donald Trump.
— Dean Withers (@itsdeaann) June 22, 2025
The Polarity
The contrast with 2003 could not be more stark. Back then, more than two-thirds of Americans supported military action in Iraq. President Bush's speechwriters carefully echoed fears of terrorism and national vulnerability. The mainstream media, from cable news to major newspapers, often echoed the administration's talking points. Protests against the war only gained momentum months later, when the initial optimism faded into the grim reality of casualties and chaos.
In 2025, the opposite is playing out. According to a YouGov/Economist poll conducted just before the strikes, 60 per cent of Americans said they opposed military action against Iran. A separate Washington Post survey found similar trends: 45 per cent opposed, only 25 per cent supported, and 30 per cent remained undecided.
Even Trump's traditionally loyal base is showing signs of fracture. MAGA-aligned figures such as Steve Bannon have publicly warned that a war with Iran would "tear the US apart." On X, Trump's once-staunch defenders questioned his "America First" credentials and criticised the lack of congressional approval.
The scepticism crosses party lines. Democrats remain firmly anti-war, independents lean heavily against it, and even among Republicans, support is tepid. For many, the move to bomb Iran feels like a breach of the very anti-interventionist doctrine Trump once championed.
The Libya Litmus Test
This isn't the first time Americans reacted cautiously to foreign intervention. During the 2011 US-led campaign in Libya to oust Muammar Gaddafi, public support was tentative at best.
A Pew poll found 63 per cent believed the US had no responsibility to intervene, and only 27 per cent supported action. Only 16 per cent backed bombing Libyan air defences, while 82 per cent opposed sending troops.
Support rose slightly after airstrikes began, with a Gallup poll showing 47 per cent approval. Though 79 per cent later told Ipsos/Reuters they supported Muammar Gaddafi's removal, a Pew survey showed only 44 per cent still backed the airstrikes.
From 2003 To 2025
Back in 2003, the post-9/11 landscape made dissent difficult. To question the war was to risk being labelled unpatriotic. The Bush administration's claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction went largely unchallenged in mainstream media. According to Gallup, approval for the Iraq invasion surged to 76 per cent immediately after it began.
By contrast, today's information environment is decentralised, fast, and unforgiving. Misinformation spreads quickly, but so does dissent. Social media allows people to voice outrage in real time, organise rapidly, and question official narratives before they solidify.