America Strikes Iran: What Can We Expect Now?

• Multiple polls have shown the American public to oppose military intervention against Iran by the United States.
• If these strikes are successful, support for U.S. intervention is likely to increase. However, should objectives not be attained, opposition to continued U.S. involvement will likely grow.
• U.S. domestic opposition may increase if either U.S. interests overseas are attacked or domestic safety or comfort harmed.
• Political support for military intervention is divided, with Republican sentiment largely in favor and Democrat sentiment almost unanimously against.
• Jewish support is divided between legacy mainstream organizations, who support President Trump’s actions, and the more progressive organizations whose public statements are at best lukewarm to Israel’s actions, opposed to Trump’s general agenda and opposed to the U.S. strikes on Iran.
• Trump is not as handcuffed by public opinion as much as most first term presidents would be. Members of Congress, however, would still need public support in any re-election bid, raising the possibility of possible eventual political opposition.
• There is a need for a relatively quick and decisive victory by Israel over Iran, which would include both verification of the crippling of nuclear potential and the cessation of missile attacks.

With the B-2 “bunker buster” strikes by the United States against Iran, it appears that the Trump administration has committed to entering the war against Iran that Israel has been waging. Prior to the U.S. bombing, multiple polls, including our own poll,¹ have reflected sentiment in the American public that supports the notion that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, but opposes the United States joining in the military campaign against it.

While it is too early at this stage to determine how Americans feel now, after the strikes, it is reasonable to assume that if the strikes are seen as successful, approval will go up; and if they are seen as unsuccessful, approval will go down.

The “Theory-Practice” Dichotomy

Explaining the difference between understanding an issue and willing to do something about it is not that difficult. It is very similar to what is known as the “theory-practice” dichotomy² and explains why people who have the knowledge sometimes do not have the ability to apply that knowledge. In daily life, people understand that smoking is harmful, yet they continue to smoke. They understand that crossing a red light is risky, but they nevertheless take that risk. They understand that saving for a rainy day is wise, but they choose to spend what they have now and not worry about what happens later.

Despite understanding that a nuclear Iran is not a good thing, Americans are hesitant to engage in a war to stop it. This is especially true if someone else (i.e. Israel) is fighting that battle. Americans have had negative experiences in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq and those experiences argue against another military adventure. But there are other concerns besides failed experiences that trouble Americans.

The Cost of war

The most obvious cost of war is in human lives. There is an existing risk to U.S. troops³ or Americans living or travelling overseas.⁴ Economic concerns also are critical, as warnings about the rise in oil costs⁵ and other economic effects linger.⁶ On the domestic front, concerns surrounding personal safety and of Iranian “sleeper cells” have also been raised,⁷ and if they actually were activated, would immediately have an impact. Logic would dictate that any of the above scenarios would trigger additional opposition to the U.S. war effort.

Political Risks

President Trump is essentially a “lame duck,” and not up for re-election. As such, he does not have personal reasons for being too concerned about public opinion. However, he does have a large domestic agenda⁸ that requires popular support to be supported by Congress.

Today’s America is divided politically, and this holds true for support for U.S. involvement against Iran. While the majority of congressional Republicans support military intervention, some do not.⁹ And among the populace, a CNN poll found that while both Democrats and Republicans recognize the danger, they are divided on military intervention, with Democrats largely opposed and Republicans, despite a sizable minority against, mostly in favor.¹⁰

This divide appears to be present among some Jews as well, as mainstream Jewish organizations praised President Trump’s intervention¹¹, with progressive Jewish organizations opposing it.¹² Democrat politicians have already strongly come out against the U.S. entry into the war, questioning its legality¹³ and have proposed forcing the administration to abide by the War Powers Act,¹⁴ which would require congressional approval for continued intervention.

If political opposition to military involvement gains traction, and if it is followed by increased public opposition, President Trump may find himself needing to reconsider direct U.S. military involvement. While the president need not worry about re-election, members of congress do need to be concerned and without political support, the military effort may need to be set aside for a more diplomatic approach. If any of the risks noted above become real, popular support for the war will fall, and that would impact on political support as well. Should this occur, Iran would gain an advantage, since while militarily handicapped, they would still retain the ability to negotiate, an area in which they excel.¹⁵ Moreover, they will then have the option of turning to international forums, where opposition to military strikes against Iran is strong.¹⁶

Israeli Reaction

Prior to the U.S. bombing, Israeli leaders undertook what was basically a “hands-off” approach, stating repeatedly that the choice was an American one, while apparently hoping that choice would be to enter the conflict.¹⁷ In retrospect, it appears that there was indeed close coordination between Israel and United States, both prior to¹⁸ and during¹⁹ the actual bombing.

In the wake of the U.S. decision, Israeli reaction was positive²⁰ and even religiously euphoric,²¹ both amongst the public and among political leaders.²² World reaction ranged from support to lukewarm acknowledgement to outright (and predictable, considering the source) opposition.²³

Continued U.S. military engagement would certainly aid in attaining Israeli war aims, but Israel also needs to consider the alternative should American military involvement end or be suspended. Here is where American public opinion may have an effect. Israel needs to consider the price in the American public opinion that will be paid should the United States entry into the war have negative consequences. This price may also have ramifications on the broader issue of Israeli support versus Palestinian demands for an independent state. Our data has consistently shown that support for Israel versus the Palestinians is tepid.²⁴ Should Americans sense that support for Israel versus Iran has resulted in a negative effect on them personally, this may have a natural impact on their feelings relative to Israel and the Palestinians in general. The most serious consequence would be an increase of support for what is still the modal and conventional wisdom choice among Americans, namely the “two-state solution.”²⁵

Practical Implications

Israel’s stated goals include avoiding a protracted “war of attrition” with Iran.²⁶ To the extent that this goal is important, maintaining American public opinion is as well. The longer the war continues, the greater the chances that any U.S. involvement may have an adverse impact on American society, resulting in possible cessation or curtailing of that involvement. That again would place an added burden on Israel and raise the specter of the “war of attrition” that needs to be avoided. Accordingly, insuring both the elimination of Iran’s nuclear potential as well as its ability to launch ballistic missiles as quickly as possible is paramount. Absent this, the Israeli public needs to be prepared for possible consequences, both immediate and more remote, that changes in American public opinion may cause.

* * *

Notes