By Mohammed Badrul Alam
With the US joining Israel in launching an attack on Iran under Operation Epic Fury on February 28, and the crisis already in its fourth month, the world is witnessing yet another tumultuous situation that has already engulfed a number of countries in West Asia and beyond. With both the US and Iran hell bent on action, reaction, attack, counter-attack, brinkmanship, and counter-brinkmanship, the stakes have been extremely high for all sides to the conflict, including those in the surrounding regional theatre. Some highly regarded opinion polls published in the last few days have exhibited an early assessment of the ongoing conflict in Iran and its repercussions.
Key takeaways from some of the recent opinion polls
In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 27% of the respondents said they approved of the strikes, whereas 43% disapproved of the US strikes on Iran, and 29% were not sure. It is significant to note that 56% of Americans think Trump, who has also ordered military strikes in Venezuela, Syria, and Nigeria in recent months, is too willing to use military force to advance U.S. interests. With President Trump’s overall approval rating currently in the mid-30s range and an NBC Poll reporting President Trump’s approval of his performance at 37% with 63% disapproval, it may signal a perceptible voter anxiety and alarm on the state of affairs facing the nation. In the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research Poll published on April 20, only 33% of adult voters approved of Trump. Seven in ten Americans described the economy as poor and the country as headed in the wrong direction. According to a Washington Post report of May 30, US President Donald Trump’s approval ratings among White working-class voters — the group that had voted overwhelmingly to re-elect him in 2024 by a huge margin, including in key swing states— have dipped sharply, with a disapproval rating of 54 percent, up sharply from 32 percent in February 2025 and 45 percent in February of this year. This group of key voters expressed serious concerns about handling the economy, and there was public wariness and unease over likely spiralling fuel prices, possibly staying above USD $100 per barrel, which, if it happens, may have a cascading effect on the US economy and rate of inflation. In most elections in contemporary US political history, the state of the economy has played a major role in deciding whether a US voter supports the incumbent or the challenger. There is also the possibility that if US casualties become an issue, presidential popularity may nosedive. In mid-1960s, during the zenith of Vietnam War and anti-War protest movement and with his own approval rating plummeting to just 36%, one of the key reasons then President Lyndon B. Johnson decided against running for the 1968 race was because of the high casualty rate of US servicemen in theVietnam front. Another historical marker to note is George W.Bush’s handling of the 2003 Iraq War as it occurred in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, terrorist attack and with 72% of the Americans supportive of Bush’s actions and which paved the way for Bush reelection in the 2004 Presidential election. However, presidential popularity is a tricky and slippery path. For example, during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, then President George H.W. Bush had over 89 % approval rate basking in the success of Operation Desert Strom. However, this popularity waned by the time the election took place a few months later, and he lost the race to Bill Clinton of the Democratic Party on the ground of George H. W. Bush’s handling of the economy, looming recession, sluggish economic growth, and broken pledge of ‘read my lips, no new taxes’.
Major findings from the CNN poll
A recent CNN poll conducted in the last few weeks with 1004 adults and a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points presented some disconcerting news for President Trump and the Republican Party. This CNN poll suggests that few US voters see this military action as likely to reduce the risk the US faces from Iran. Most, 54% say Iran will become more of a threat to the US as a result of this military action, with just 28% saying the strikes will make Iran less of a threat. 59% of Americans disapprove of Iran strikes and most think a long-term conflict is likely and with 60% saying they do not think Trump has a clear plan for handling the situation. 62% of the respondents say, Trump should get Congressional approvals for any further military action. Republican support for President Trump’s actions is mixed. While his MAGA (Make America Great Again) base supports him with 77% approval, among independent voters, only 32% support Trump’s move. Among non-MAGA voters, there is a great deal of disquiet regarding President Trump’s decision to attack Iran without exhausting all options. In the next round of the 2028 presidential election, the support of Arab Americans, who have a sizeable presence in some of the swing states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, with rich electoral college votes of 15, 19, and 17, respectively, and which Trump incidentally carried in the 2024 presidential race, can swing back to the Democrats.
Possible Impact on the forthcoming US midterm election due in November 2026
While the US midterm elections, which are due in November 2026, are still a few months away, as a prelude to the election cycle, the primary election process is already underway. Currently, in the US Congress, in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Republican Party has a razor-thin majority in the low single digits. Historically, in most midterm elections that have taken place in the US since 1945, the incumbent party that holds the White House has lost sizeable seats. Therefore, it is quite probable that Democrats fancy their chances of becoming the majority party again in both the chambers of the US Congress and, at the very least, in one chamber in the midterm election. Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee have significant powers under the US Constitution to question and guide the direction of US foreign policy.
Situating Iran attack with Just War discourse
Just War theory ( jus ad bellum), as propounded by Augustine and Aquinas, presupposes the following characteristics to justify whether a war or military action is justifiable in sync with the basic norms of international law. First, whether a legitimate authority is involved in military operations. Under the US Constitution, Congress is authorized to declare war, whereas the President, as the Chief Executive, is the Commander in Chief. In the case of an attack on Iran, pre-authorization or even authorization during the conflict has not been endorsed by the competent bodies in the US Congress. Second, there is the issue of the right intention. It is still not clear whether President Trump was solely focusing on making Iran desist from acquiring any nuclear weapon capabilities or for regime change or both or for some other wider geopolitical ends which he has not specified. Third, the issue of the last resort. Was the Iran issue used as a last resort by exhausting all diplomatic and peaceful avenues, Including by the United Nations, before embarking on the military option? The next point is the probability of success and its proportionality. According to reports in media outlets, in the initial phase of the war, approximately 200 fighter jets struck targets at over 500 sites spread across Iran. Finally, the Just Cause analogy is based on self-defense. Did the US or Israel face existential or imminent threats due to Iran’s overt and belligerent military posture?
Possibility of unknown variables
As in any war or major military conflict, important and unknown variables often arise that have the potential to change the trajectory of the ultimate outcome. Recently, Pakistan’s mediation efforts between the US and Iran have received considerable attention. It remains to be seen if and when other major powers, such as India, China, and Russia, as well as key countries in the EU bloc, the GCC, and the Global South, may choose to intervene in diffusing the crisis and in finding an off-ramp and terms of negotiated settlement that are broadly acceptable to all sides of the conflict. Also, it has to be seen to what extent the deterrence strategy holds and succeeds, assuming that all sides of the conflict act and operate as rational actors in decision making and in agreeing with what India’s Prime Minister Modi has often said, ‘this is not an era of War’ and in asking all parties to exercise restraint, reduce trust deficit, and embark on paths of dialogue and diplomacy in resolving conflict.
Mohammed Badrul Alam is Formerly Director of Research; Professor and Head, Retd; Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies.
KIIPS is a premiere think-tank that intends to provide a platform to academics, researchers, scholars and experts from across the country and abroad.