An American Ceasefire: 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 deemed 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.

With the B-2 “bunker buster” strikes by the United States against Iran, it appeared that the Trump administration 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 reflected sentiment in the American public that supports the notion that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, but opposed to the United States joining in the military campaign against it.

The declaration by President Trump of a ceasefire appears to have limited any negative fallout continued military involvement by the United States would have had domestically.

The “Theory-Practice” Dichotomy

While Americans understood the danger Iran posed, and while they were generally supportive of Israeli goals, they opposed U.S. intervention. 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. These failed experiences as well as other concerns is what may have been behind American thinking.

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. All this argues for a United States interest to end the war and maintain a stable ceasefire.

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 most congressional Republicans supported the U.S. bombings, some did not.⁹ Among the populace, a CNN poll found that while both Democrats and Republicans recognized the danger, they were divided on military intervention, with Democrats largely opposed and Republicans, despite a sizable minority against, mostly in favor.¹⁰

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

With the significant public opposition to military involvement, and the possible political consequences, the administration interest lied in limiting direct military involvement. Hence, the motivation for a quick and stable ceasefire.  While the president need not worry about re-election, members of congress do need to be concerned. If any of the risks noted above became real, popular support for the war would fall to an even greater extent, creating more political consequences.

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.¹⁵ In retrospect, it appears that there was indeed close coordination between Israel and United States, both prior to¹⁶ and during¹⁷ the actual bombing.

In the wake of the U.S. decision, Israeli reaction was positive¹⁸ and even religiously euphoric,¹⁹ both amongst the public and among political leaders.²⁰ World reaction ranged from support to lukewarm acknowledgement to outright (and predictable, considering the source) opposition.²¹

Continued U.S. military engagement would certainly have aided in attaining Israeli war aims, but Israel also needed to consider the alternative should American military involvement have been withdrawn. Israel’s choice to agree to a ceasefire may have been because of war aims being achieved but also had the effect of reducing daylight between itself and United States interests.

Here is where American public opinion may have had an effect. Israel needs to consider the price in American public opinion that would have been paid should the United States entry into the war have had negative consequences. This price may also have had 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.²² Should Americans have sensed that American support for Israel versus Iran resulted in a negative effect on them personally, this may have impacted 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.”²³

Practical Implications

Israel’s stated goals included avoiding a protracted “war of attrition” with Iran.²⁴ The longer the war continued, the greater the chances that any U.S. involvement may have had an adverse impact on American society, resulting in possible cessation or curtailing of American support for Israel in general. Accordingly, while Israel may have been seeking additional goals in a continued war, insuring the elimination of Iran’s nuclear potential as well as their ability to launch ballistic missiles was paramount. Since that was largely if not totally achieved, the cost-benefit ratio regarding coordinating and syncing U.S. and Israeli interests called for agreeing to a ceasefire. For those that argue that Iran’s motivation and ability to harm Israel still exists, the “Hizbullah” ceasefire model, where a “side letter”²⁵ would allow Israel the freedom to enforce any emerging threats, could be applied.

Despite the current apparent matching of interests, the Israeli public needs to prepare for possible consequences, both immediate and more remote, that dependence on U.S. bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites and possible changes in American public opinion may create.

* * *

Notes