Americans are grappling with mixed feelings regarding the United States’ military actions against Iran, particularly in light of President Donald Trump’s recent decision to authorize the use of the largest conventional bombs in strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.
This controversial decision follows a sequence of Israeli airstrikes targeting Iranian military leaders and nuclear sites, alongside retaliatory strikes from Iran against Israel.
A joint survey conducted from June 20–23 by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and Ipsos reveals that a significant number of Americans oppose military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
According to the survey findings, 35% of respondents oppose U.S. strikes on these sites, while support stands at 27%, although a notable percentage remains uncertain about their stance.
The poll indicates that while a narrow majority of Americans support airstrikes if Iran escalates its actions against U.S. forces, there is widespread opposition to deploying troops to overthrow the Iranian government.
This hesitance reflects a broader inclination toward seeking diplomatic solutions to address concerns surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Highlights from the survey underscore that many Americans, often pluralities, lack sufficient information to provide informed opinions on the escalating conflict.
For instance, a plurality of 38% of respondents express that they have not heard enough to determine their views on Israel’s military actions against Iran.
Among those who have formed opinions, slightly more believe that Israel was justified in its attacks (32%) compared to those who disagree (27%).
Public sentiment regarding Iran’s retaliation is closely divided as well, with 30% considering it justified while 27% do not.
Demographic analysis reveals pronounced partisan divides in perspectives on the conflict.
While a majority of Republicans endorse bombing Iran, Democrats and Independents show greater division, with many opposing military action.
The public’s wariness about military force correlates with a long-standing American concern over nuclear proliferation.
In fact, three-quarters of Americans classify limiting the spread of nuclear weapons as a priority in foreign policy, according to the 2024 Council Survey.
Even though a majority perceives Iran’s nuclear program as a significant threat, concerns around this issue have waned since 2010, when 68% viewed it as critical, dropping to 53% in 2024.
The survey conducted just before the U.S. strikes revealed a significant increase in attention to the Israel-Iran conflict following Trump’s announcement of military action.
Prior to the announcement, only 50% of Americans were closely following the news, but this figure rose to 59% afterward, with Republicans among the most engaged demographic.
On the topic of Israel’s actions against Iranian targets, 40% of Americans admitted they did not have enough information to form an opinion.
Of those who did express a view, many consider Israel’s actions justifiable, though perceptions of Israel’s role in the Middle East are increasingly critical.
Only 32% of Americans now believe Israel contributes positively to resolving regional issues, marking a decline from 49% in 2015.
The partisan split has notably widened; 62% of Republicans view Israel’s role positively, contrasting sharply with just 10% of Democrats.
Furthermore, only 16% of Democrats support Israel’s military actions against Iranian facilities, compared to 55% of Republicans.
Overall, sentiments toward Iran have taken a negative turn, with only 9% of respondents believing Iran plays a positive role in addressing Middle Eastern issues compared to 84% who view its contribution as negative.
The division in opinions extends to attitudes surrounding Iran’s retaliatory strikes against Israel, rendering public sentiment fragmented on this front too.
While some respondents believe Iran’s retaliation is justified, substantial portions of the population are undecided.
Interestingly, the partisan divide reflects contrasting views, with Republicans tending to see Iran’s actions in a negative light, while Democrats exhibit a more favorable view toward Iran’s claims of justification.
In the context of military intervention, the public is largely against the use of force as a primary solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
A previous Chicago Council-Ipsos survey conducted in April 2025 indicated a bipartisan consensus against allowing Iran to attain a nuclear weapon, with 79% opposing it.
Instead, the majority of Americans advocate for diplomatic measures, such as increasing economic sanctions or negotiating agreements that limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for the relief of some sanctions.
While only 35% supported sending troops to dismantle Iranian nuclear facilities, majority support existed for employing cyberattacks (59%) and limited airstrikes (48%).
The findings illustrate the American public’s substantial preference for diplomatic overtures regarding Iran, as opposed to military action.
Despite the recent strikes, public opinion remained largely unchanged.
Support for military action rose slightly from 25% to 32% post-announcement, while opposition held steady around 35%.
This indicates a cautious public approach to military responses to the conflict.
In further assessments of potential military actions, should Iran aggress against U.S. personnel, most Americans would endorse airstrikes against Iranian facilities.
The survey reveals that 56% would support airstrikes in retaliation, while targeted assassinations garnered 49% favorability.
However, sending U.S. troops remains highly unpopular among the populace with 55% opposing such actions, highlighting a clear preference for limited military engagement.
Responses indicate that Republicans exhibit more enthusiasm toward military actions compared to Democrats and Independents, with significant majorities of the latter two groups opposing troop deployments.
As the region braces for potential escalation, the question of military versus diplomatic responses linger in public discourse, demonstrating deep national divisions regarding U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Overall, opinions remain complex and fluid, reflecting a nation desirous of effective strategies to address the ongoing threats without further entanglement in military conflict.
image source from：globalaffairs
