little support in the United States for the military offensive launched by Donald Trump against the ayatollah regime

According to a Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted after the attacks began, Only 27% of Americans support the bombings, while 43% disapprove and 29% say they are not sure.. The most significant fact is not only the lack of consensus, but also the widespread skepticism in a year crossed by the November 3 elections, where Trump puts his legislative support at stake and runs the risk of losing the House of Representatives, which would complicate the end of his term.

The survey showed that 56% of Americans think Trump, who has also ordered attacks in Venezuela, Syria and Nigeria in recent months, is “too willing to use military force” to advance American interests.

The vast majority of Democrats—87%—shared this view, as did 23% of Republicans and 60% of people who do not identify with either political party. This last piece of information is relevant because independents are the electorate that usually defines midterm elections.

The survey was conducted during the attacks and closed before the US military announced on Sunday the first US casualties in the operation. Three servicemen have been killed and five more seriously injured since the attacks, which plunged the Middle East into a new unpredictable conflict. Trump promised to “avenge” the deaths of the military, but warned that “unfortunately there will be more American victims” in a war that he estimates would last four weeks.

While 55% of Republicans said they approved of the attacks and 13% disapproved, the Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 42% of Trump’s party said they would be less likely to support the campaign against Iran if it causes “American troops in the Middle East are killed or wounded.”

In legislative elections, foreign policy is rarely the main driving force of the vote, except in scenarios of prolonged war or crises with American casualties. But it can shape perceptions about leadership, stability and priorities.

For Trump, the political risk is not so much the attack itself as an eventual escalation. If the conflict widens, there are a considerable number of American victims or oil prices skyrocket—with a direct impact on inflation—the political cost could grow rapidly.

Historically, presidents can benefit from a brief “rally around the flag,” or a surge in popularity from such an offensive, but that effect is usually short-lived if there are no clear results or if the conflict is prolonged.

“The political risk depends on the result,” Michigan Republican strategist Jason Roe told Politico. “If we break up Iran without terrorist attacks on the United States or harm to allies in the region, it will be a political victory for Trump. … If this turns into a protracted conflict, or ends with troops on the ground, it will be a problem.”

A comparison may be useful with the invasion of Iraq in 2003. At that time, under the presidency of George W. Bush, initial public support was largely overwhelming. Surveys from then showed support levels greater than 60% for military action, driven by the post-9/11 climate and the weapons of mass destruction narrative.

However, that support began to erode as the war dragged on and the promised weapons failed to appear. By 2005-2006, with thousands of American casualties and a bogged-down conflict, public opinion had become overwhelmingly critical. The legislative elections of 2006 ended with a strong Republican defeat and Democratic control of the House of Representativeslargely as a reaction to the attrition of Iraq.

An analysis of the first days after the attacks shows that the president faces attacks on three fronts:

1) Constitutionl, because Democratic opposition legislators maintain that the use of force should have gone through Congress.

2) Strategicas analysts warn of the risk of regional escalation.

3) Electoral and economic because any effect on supply chain or fuel disruption, markets or inflation can erode support in competitive districts.

4) Internalbecause his own Republican Party, which has been showing cracks on various issues such as tariffs, is not firmly behind the offensive. Dissenting voices have emerged even from the MAGA world, which feels that by getting involved in so many external conflicts Trump has betrayed his promise of “America first.”

In fact, about 45% of respondents, including 34% of Republicans and 44% of independents, said they would be less likely to support the campaign against Iran if fuel or oil prices increased in the United States.

Above all, polling data from the past few months continue to show that Americans’ biggest concerns are at home: remain the economy, cost of living, immigration and access to basic services. Inflation, although moderate compared to previous peaks, is a persistent anxiety in the middle class. Employment and salaries weigh more in the voting decision than conflicts abroad, unless these have a direct impact on the pocketbook or immediate national security.

In that sense, the political effect of the attack will depend less on the initial military gesture and more on what happens afterwards: if there are reprisals, if fuel costs increase, if troops are mobilized or if, as Trump promised, the conflict is resolved soon without too many casualties.