Until recently Donald Trump cultivated an image as a dealmaker and peacemaker, touting initiatives like a so‑called “Board of Peace” and claiming credit for resolving global disputes. Since US and Israeli strikes on Iran began on February 28, that portrayal has frayed. Actions such as the removal of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro in January and previous air strikes, including on Iran last year, have reinforced perceptions that his presidency is more willing to use force than his earlier rhetoric suggested.
That shift matters politically. Trump built part of his appeal on promises to end “forever wars,” a message that resonated with many in his MAGA base. A US military campaign against Iran therefore poses potential domestic risks for him and for Republican candidates heading into midterm elections.
Public opinion is divided but tilting against the strikes. A CNN poll showed 59% of Americans opposing the decision to strike Iran and 41% in favor. Reuters reported 43% rejecting military action, 27% supporting it and 29% unsure. Most Republican voters still back the strikes, but dissent is visible: former Fox commentator Tucker Carlson condemned the attacks in stark terms, signaling fissures within conservative media.
Analysts warn the political cost could grow as economic consequences become clearer. Johannes Thimm of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) says rising fuel prices and disrupted shipments are putting upward pressure on inflation and will add strain to the US budget, undermining Trump’s pledge to keep living costs down. Jonathan Katz of Brookings argues the conflict refocuses attention on domestic concerns—energy prices, inflation and other pocketbook issues—even as Congress juggles high-profile domestic matters.
Legally and constitutionally, the issue is contested. Democrats introduced a War Powers Resolution to restrict the president’s ability to wage war without congressional authorization, but the measure was largely symbolic and failed in the Senate. The Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress, though past practice allows presidents to dispatch limited military operations for a period (often cited as about 60 days) without express approval. Thimm and other experts contend that major military campaigns since Vietnam have had explicit congressional authorization and that operations directed at Iran should be treated as a major conflict requiring lawmakers’ consent.
The domestic political fallout is uncertain. Thomas Warrick of the Atlantic Council says Trump “will own the outcome” because he launched the campaign without seeking broad congressional or public backing. A successful, limited campaign could give him a modest boost; a prolonged or costly conflict risks damaging his broader agenda and electoral standing. With all House seats and one‑third of the Senate up for election in November, Republicans face a dilemma: support the president and risk being tied to an unpopular war, or distance themselves and fracture party unity. Individual candidates’ fortunes will likely depend on how the situation evolves.
Administration messaging has been mixed. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asserted the US could “sustain this fight easily for as long as we need to” and claimed the US had set the terms of engagement. Still, some military analysts question whether US defenses are adequate against coordinated ballistic missile and drone attacks, especially given global commitments. Within the MAGA ecosystem, voices including Tucker Carlson have accused Israel of pushing the US into conflict—a narrative that has sometimes carried antisemitic undertones.
Brookings’ Jonathan Katz and other observers say the administration has been unclear about strategy, objectives and the operation’s expected duration. Officials framed the strikes as necessary to counter an “acute threat” to Americans, but experts note that the precise nature of that threat remains vague. Many international law scholars view the strikes as raising serious legal questions; the administration’s legal rationale is likely to face intense scrutiny and could increase domestic and international pressure.
In short, the strikes have reshaped perceptions of Trump’s foreign policy, complicated Republican politics ahead of the midterms, and prompted debate over legal authority, strategy and likely economic costs. How the campaign unfolds—quickly and convincingly, or drawn out and costly—will determine whether the domestic political effects are limited or severe.
Originally published in German.