Exclusive-Americans worry conflict with Iran could escalate, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
Iran's and U.S.' flags are seen printed on paper in this illustration taken January 27, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Americans are anxious over a brewing conflict between the U.S. and Iran and worry the violence could escalate after President Donald Trump ordered the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday.
Some 79% of Americans surveyed said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes." The three-day poll, which began after the U.S. airstrikes and ended early Monday before Iran said it attacked a U.S. air base in Qatar, showed Americans were similarly concerned about their country's military personnel stationed in the Middle East. Some 84% said they worried in general about the growing conflict.
The poll, which surveyed 1,139 U.S. adults nationwide, underscored deep divisions in America over what Washington should do next and highlighted the political risks faced by Trump, whose presidential approval rating fell to 41%, the lowest level of his current term in office that began in January.
The poll had a 3 percentage point margin of error. The U.S. bombing took place just two days ago and the public's view of the conflict could evolve in the days and weeks ahead.
Only 32% of respondents said they supported continued U.S. airstrikes, compared to 49% who said they were opposed. However, within Trump's Republican Party, 62% backed further strikes and 22% were opposed. Republicans were more deeply divided when asked if they supported an immediate end to U.S. involvement in the conflict with Iran, with 42% saying Washington should end its involvement now and 40% opposed to the idea.
Significant majorities of Democrats were opposed to bombing Iran further and in favor of ending the conflict immediately.
Trump ordered the U.S. military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites on Saturday, a dramatic and risky shift in foreign policy following repeated pledges by Trump to avoid military interventions in major foreign wars.
The president's overall approval rating, down 1 percentage point from 42% earlier in the month, has largely held steady in recent months, but is below the 47% reading in a Reuters/Ipsos poll just after he returned to the White House.
(Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Scott Malone and Alistair Bell)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
57 soldiers rescued after being kidnapped in southwest Colombia
BOGOTA (Reuters) -The Colombian army and police rescued 57 soldiers held for two days in a mountainous southwestern region that is under pressure from leftist guerrillas, the military said on X on Monday. The troops were detained near the village of El Plateado in Cauca province, a strategic area for drug trafficking where security forces launched an operation in October 2024 to expel illegal armed groups. The region is a stronghold of a dissident faction of the former FARC guerrilla group, which rejected a 2016 peace deal. Authorities accuse the group of recruiting minors and pressuring civilians to resist the presence of state forces. (Reporting by Luis Jaime Acosta)
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Supreme Court lifts limits on Trump deporting migrants to countries not their own
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for President Donald Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show harms they could face, handing him another victory in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations. The justices lifted a judicial order that required the government to give migrants set for deportation to so-called "third countries" a "meaningful opportunity" to tell officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination, while a legal challenge plays out. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on April 18. The brief order was unsigned and came with no reasoning, as is common when the court decides emergency requests. In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court's two other liberal justices, criticized the majority's decision, calling it a "gross abuse" of the court's discretion. "Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled," Sotomayor wrote. "That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable." After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. Murphy on May 21 found that the administration had violated his order mandating further procedures in trying to send a group of migrants to politically unstable South Sudan, a country that the U.S. State Department has warned against any travel "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict." The judge's intervention prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti, although U.S. officials later said one of the deportees, a man from Myanmar, would instead be deported to his home country. Of the other passengers who were on the flight, one is South Sudanese, while the others are from Cuba, Mexico, Laos and Vietnam. Reuters also reported that officials had been considering sending migrants to Libya, another politically unstable country, despite previous U.S. condemnation of Libya's harsh treatment of detainees. Murphy clarified that any removals without offering a chance to object would violate his order. As part of its pattern of assailing various judges who have taken actions to impede Trump policies challenged as unlawful, the White House in a statement called Murphy "a far-left activist judge." The administration, in its May 27 emergency filing to the Supreme Court, said that all the South Sudan-destined migrants had committed "heinous crimes" in the United States including murder, arson and armed robbery. A FLOOD OF CASES The dispute is the latest of many cases involving legal challenges to various Trump policies including immigration to have already reached the nation's highest judicial body since he returned to office in January. The Supreme Court in May let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, in April faulted the administration's treatment of some targeted migrants as inadequate under U.S. Constitution's due process protections. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there "without the need for further procedures." Without such assurance, if the migrant expresses fear of removal to that country, U.S. authorities would assess the likelihood of persecution or torture, possibly referring the person to an immigration court, according to the guidance. Murphy found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates due process requirements under the Constitution. Murphy said that the Supreme Court, Congress, "common sense" and "basic decency" all require migrants to be given adequate due process. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 16 declined to put Murphy's decision on hold. In his order concerning the flight to South Sudan, Murphy also clarified that non-citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety. The administration told the Supreme Court that its third-country policy already complied with due process and is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. (Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York and John Kruzel in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham)
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Analysis: NATO summit highlights internal tensions amid Trump's defense spending push, says experts
By Zhao Xiaona, Larry Neild LONDON, June 23 (Xinhua) -- As NATO leaders gather this week in The Hague for the alliance's first-ever summit hosted by the Netherlands, attention is shifting toward the alliance's cohesion and internal dynamics, rather than facing external policy challenges. According to the agenda, although the summit officially runs for two days, from June 24 to 25, the key discussions are expected to take place over the course of a single day. The agenda is narrowly focused on U.S. President Donald Trump's proposal to raise defense spending targets to 5 percent of GDP - a plan that has received a mixed response from European capitals, highlighting deeper concerns about NATO's unity, military capabilities, and long-term strategic direction. "This summit is highly Trump-centric," said Stefan Wolff, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham. "It's been compressed to a single day, with a single agenda item, designed to limit unpredictability. That reflects NATO's institutional anxiety - a defensive effort to retain the U.S. as a participant, even at the cost of long-term planning." Wolff added that the summit's tightly controlled structure underscores fears that Trump might exit prematurely or withdraw support if discussions stray beyond his specified terms. "The structure of this meeting is intentionally risk-averse," he said. "It's not about building consensus - it's about avoiding disruption." Although Trump's demand for higher defense spending dominates the agenda, recent unilateral U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have further diverted NATO's focus from its foundational mission - strengthening Europe's defense architecture. "The U.S. acted alone, and Europe simply wasn't part of that conversation," Wolff said. "Europe still lacks strategic enablers - intelligence, long-range transport, rapid deployment, and command systems. These aren't just budget issues - they are structural gaps." Wolff warned that even if NATO members meet the proposed 5 percent target, without prioritization and coordinated defense-industrial development, such spending risks becoming "financial inflation without strategic output." Internal divisions further complicate the alliance's ability to act cohesively. While some member states push for a more proactive collective defense role, others remain reluctant to commit to common strategies or timelines. "If NATO cannot agree on its main purpose, then even well-funded forces will lack shared direction," Wolff said. "Without unity, the 5 percent target becomes just another political gesture to buy time." John Bryson, chair of Enterprise and Economic Geography at Birmingham Business School, the University of Birmingham, described the summit as a crucial test for Europe's defense ambitions. "This is a test of whether Europe can grow beyond its dependency on the United States and shape a credible defense model of its own," he said. Bryson noted that raising defense spending is not a panacea for NATO. "This is the paradox of deterrence - you spend vast sums on weapons that may never be used, and that doesn't automatically translate into security. " He emphasized that NATO should be a stabilizing force. "It is not a war-fighting alliance, but a war-prevention structure. The moment it loses its cohesion, it loses its meaning." Both Bryson and Wolff agreed that the alliance faces fragile internal conditions. Trump's influence, they said, has driven NATO toward short-term reassurance at the expense of long-term strategic development. Bryson also noted that Washington's growing involvement in Middle East conflicts risks further distracting NATO from its core European focus. "Venturing beyond its geographic scope could dilute NATO's identity as a defensive pact - and that, above all, must be safeguarded," Bryson said.
