WASHINGTON (TNND) — President Donald Trump is weighing new military strikes on Iran in a move that could escalate tensions in the Middle East and trigger major retaliation from Tehran. His decision also carries political risks at home ahead of the midterms, where voters are far more concerned about the economy than foreign conflicts.
Trump has been mulling military action against Iran for a month since its regime violently cracked down on widespread protests over its collapsing economy and killed thousands. While he initially framed concerns around Iran’s violent crackdown on dissenters, focus has recently shifted to Iran’s nuclear program.
On Thursday, Trump said he would make a decision in the next 10 to 15 days. He followed that up on Friday saying he is considering limited military strikes to pressure Iran over its nuclear program with two rounds of indirect discussions not yet yielding a breakthrough.
“I guess I can say I am considering that,” Trump said.
The president hasn’t yet decided to order an attack on any scale but is reportedly considering a range of options from a series of smaller, targeted strikes on specific facilities up to a longer campaign with more disruptive effects.
It comes as the U.S. has drastically built up its presence in the region and raised the prospect of strikes. A second aircraft carrier is nearing arrival along with fighter jets, weapons systems and ammunition. Tensions have also been running high in recent days after Iran conducted military drills it claimed closed the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane where 20% of the world’s oil passes through. A prolonged conflict leading to closures of the strait could lead to a spike in global energy prices that could hit consumers already concerned about inflation.
Iranian leaders have been outspoken about responding aggressively to any new strikes from the U.S., raising concerns among some analysts of drawing the country into another war in the Middle East. Americans have grown wary of foreign entanglements in light of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s. Public support for the Iraq War eroded as the conflict dragged on, contributing to GOP losses in the 2006 midterms.
Trump campaigned aggressively on keeping the U.S. out of what he called “forever wars” and pledged to wind down conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine. Trump has not suggested an operation in Iran would involve boots on the ground, but launching new attacks still carries risks.
“If it becomes a protracted, weeks long or months long, or an even longer event, the backlash will be there. If it’s strike and get out, it may be short-term backlash, but not lasting,” said David McLennan, a political science professor and director of the Meredith poll. “This seems like a risk politically with the midterms right on the horizon.”
Polling has found voters are broadly opposed to striking Iran and are concerned it could lead to another prolonged conflict in the Middle East.
Seventy percent of voters in a Quinnipiac survey released last month said they do not want the U.S. to get involved even if protesters were killed, compared to just 18% who supported it. That includes a majority of Republicans, who were opposed 53-35.
A CBS News-YouGov poll from last month found 67% of voters opposed taking action against the Iranian government to support protesters, though Republicans supported it 60-40. Two-thirds were concerned it would be a long and costly involvement and 61% don’t think the U.S. has strategic interests there.
In both surveys, nearly 80% of voters were at least “somewhat” concerned about a wider war, including 60% of Republicans.
It is also unclear exactly what the objectives for an attack on Iran would be with shifting explanations over the last month. Trump’s attention was first drawn to Tehran’s crackdown on protesters but has since shifted to securing the end of its nuclear program. He has not addressed whether he is seeking regime change or what the long-term objectives are other than that Iran can never obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiators have also sought to curtail Iran’s ballistic missiles program and end its support for proxy militias in the region.
Recent polling has not captured whether Americans believe preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is worth using military force. Voters have been willing to tolerate previous military interventions like the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and last year’s bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, but have historically grown more resistant when missions expand beyond their original intent.
“Without any explanation of what the goals are, it’s kind of hard to know. Is it another strike in the nuclear facilities, or is it regime change, or is it something else?” McLennan said. “Trump puts out snippets of justification, but nothing full-throated like you saw (former President George W.) Bush do with Iraq or previous presidents do.”
