Analysis: 7 big political questions about the war with Iran

The war with Iran is now beginning its second full week, with no signs of de-escalation or conclusion on the horizon.

But as the fighting has raged in the Middle East, the political lines have been drawn in the US.

Here are some of the biggest political questions about the war and what happens next.

President Donald Trump’s previous foreign strikes haven’t seemed to measurably hurt him, in large part because of how short-lived they were. Striking Iran’s nuclear facilities last year and ousting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January weren’t popular, but they were one-day operations.

The war with Iran is different, and it’s not clear how long it will last.

Trump and his team have thrown out vastly different timetables, ranging from a few days to four weeks to six weeks to indefinite.

And crucially, the administration has set ambitious goals.

One of them is preventing Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. But that could seemingly involve a lengthier war and possibly measures such as deploying US special forces to seize nuclear materials.

Trump on Friday suggested the conclusion to the war would not be negotiated; rather, it would end only with Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” (Iran has likewise said it has no interest in diplomacy.)

All of which sounds a lot like this could drag on for a while — at least, to the extent Trump sticks to his demands.

And that could certainly test Americans’ apparently limited patience.

This war, like the previous Iran strikes and the Venezuela operation, is not popular. Across surveys from CNN, Reuters-Ipsos, Fox News, The Washington Post and NBC News, it’s an average of 12 points underwater.

It would seem difficult to make it popular any time soon.

A few things that could increase support seem to include if Iran ultimately does surrender and agrees to nuclear restrictions, and if its leadership gives up control of the country.

But the former is more of a long-term goal. And the latter suffered a setback this weekend when we learned that the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, will succeed him.

It seems more likely that the war could become less popular, at least in the near term.

One reason is gas prices. Trump has hailed a modest decline since he’s been back in office as proof of his ability to lower prices. But we’re now experiencing the biggest oil disruption in history and surging prices across the country.

Trump says the higher gas prices are temporary and a “very small price to pay” for peace and security. But it’s not clear that Americans see Iran as enough of a threat to justify the price. And given how much of a problem inflation may be for Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections, some on the right might worry about a prolonged war.

The Reuters-Ipsos poll showed 45% of Americans and even 34% of Republicans said higher gas and oil prices would make them more likely to oppose the war.

Trump has reversed course before when his moves had big financial costs — including on tariffs after the financial markets reacted negatively.

Another big X factor is whether we see more troop deaths and even boots on the ground.

We learned Sunday that a seventh soldier has died in the war, and the administration has made clear it’s quite sensitive to the amount of coverage the first six received. Boots on the ground would risk many more deaths and casualties, but the administration hasn’t ruled out that option.

The Reuters-Ipsos poll showed 54% of Americans and 42% of Republicans said more deaths could turn them more against the war.

And the final big one to watch right now is what we learn about the strike that killed scores of children at an Iranian elementary school.

While we haven’t gotten definitive word about who was responsible — the Pentagon has said it’s investigating — the evidence increasingly points toward the United States.

It’s the kind of episode that could damage people’s faith in the administration to prosecute this war.

Fox News host Laura Ingraham has warned the administration about this, saying Monday that it “must wrap its investigation and address [it] head-on.”

“Horrible unintended tragedy of this war,” she added.

It’s a tired storyline at this point. When Trump has launched military strikes that fly in the face of his past claims to be a noninterventionist, we’ve asked whether MAGA will stand behind him.

Repeatedly now, MAGA voters have been skeptical before those previous strikes but then jumped on board.

But that initial skepticism still matters — as does the apparent softness of the support from Trump’s base for the current conflict.

CNN’s poll, for instance, showed 77% of Republicans said they supported Trump’s most recent strikes, but just 37% supported them “strongly.”

There’s also an uptick in opposition from right-wing influencers — people like Megyn Kelly — relative to previous strikes. It seems possible they could marshal opposition in ways we haven’t previously seen.

That doesn’t mean a majority of MAGA is going to turn on Trump over this. But if support among his base does drop, that would make it difficult to press forward with a prolonged war.

Can the administration settle on a justification — and one that holds up?

Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this war so far is how the administration can’t seem to settle on a justification for it.

About a week and a half in, officials still appear to be road-testing different rationales and seeing what might stick.

Here’s the progression:

Not all of these are mutually exclusive. But most of them are dubious based upon what we know. (For instance, Trump previously said he “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program in the strikes just nine months ago, and US intelligence doesn’t back up the ICBM claim.) Some of the newer claims are odd given they’re the kinds of things you would seemingly have said earlier (if they were true, at least).

To the extent the administration can’t even pin down why the US is fighting this war, that would seem to be a political problem for how it will be viewed over the longer term.

Americans’ support for Israel had already declined markedly in recent months and years.

Just a day before the war began, Gallup released a poll showing that, for the first time in a quarter-century of polling, Americans no longer sympathized more with the Israelis than with the Palestinians. Israel has generally led on that measure by 30 to 40 points.

We’ve also seen growing evidence of antisemitism in the United States, particularly among young people. And some prominent figures on the right have warned about rising antisemitism in their ranks.

Going to war alongside Israel amid all that would seem to open up Pandora’s box.

Israel’s goals in Iran, after all, could be different from the United States’ goals, as could its tolerance for certain tactics. Its weekend attacks on Iranian oil infrastructure, for example, prompted concerns within the Trump administration, and even the hawkish GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham is urging Israel to exercise caution.

While Democrats have been opposed to these strikes and seem to have public opinion on their side, that doesn’t mean the issue isn’t without pitfalls for them.

Some of them are Iran hawks. Four House Democrats voted against limiting Trump’s authority last week. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has also at times been more muted in his opposition to striking Iran than some in the base would like.

And then there’s what Democrats do about a possible supplemental funding bill to support the war.

Do they oppose it outright? Or does that risk looking like they aren’t supporting the military?

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut told CNN’s Manu Raju that opponents of the war shouldn’t “support an additional dollar for Iran.” But Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida had a different view: “The idea of defunding them in the middle of that, that doesn’t seem like the right move to me.”

This funding issue split Democrats when opposition to the Iraq War increased two decades ago. And tough votes could lay ahead.