Until recently Donald Trump presented himself as a peacemaker, boasting of settling global conflicts, founding a “Board of Peace” and even suggesting he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize. Since US and Israeli strikes on Iran began on February 28, his image has shifted: actions including the January removal of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro and earlier air strikes — including on Iran last year — make him look less like a peace‑seeking president.
That shift matters because Trump campaigned on ending “forever wars,” a message that resonated with his MAGA base. The domestic political cost of the Iran campaign could therefore be serious.
Polls show a majority of Americans oppose the US attacks on Iran. A CNN survey found 59% against the decision and 41% in favor. Reuters reported 43% rejecting the war, 27% supporting it and 29% unsure. Republican supporters largely back the strikes, but cracks have emerged: ex‑Fox commentator Tucker Carlson called the strikes “absolutely disgusting and evil.”
Analysts warn opposition could grow as economic effects appear. Johannes Thimm of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) says rising fuel prices and blocked shipments are pushing inflation higher and will weigh on the US budget — undermining Trump’s pledge to keep prices down. Jonathan Katz of Brookings notes the conflict will redirect attention back to US domestic worries — energy costs, inflation and other political issues — even as Congress focuses on matters like Jeffrey Epstein and immigration.
Democrats introduced a War Powers Resolution to limit the president’s authority to wage war without congressional approval, but the move is largely symbolic and the Senate rejected it. The US Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress, though modern presidents may conduct limited military operations for up to 60 days without explicit approval. Thimm argues that major conflicts since Vietnam have had congressional authorization and that current operations against Iran should be treated as a major war requiring approval.
The war’s domestic political impact is uncertain. Atlantic Council analyst Thomas Warrick says Trump will “own the outcome” because he did not seek congressional or public backing beforehand: success could yield a modest boost, but failure risks damaging his domestic agenda. With midterm elections in November — all House seats and one‑third of the Senate up for grabs — Republicans face a dilemma: support their president yet avoid being tied to an unpopular war. Individual candidates’ prospects will hinge on how the conflict unfolds.
The administration’s messaging is mixed. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared the US could “sustain this fight easily for as long as we need to” and that “we set the terms,” yet some question whether the military has sufficient defenses against ballistic missiles and drones, given global commitments. MAGA figures including Tucker Carlson have accused Israel of driving the US into the war, a claim echoed by others in the movement, sometimes with antisemitic overtones.
Brookings’ Katz says the administration has been unclear about strategy, objectives and duration, and appears not to have fully weighed consequences such as protecting thousands of Americans in the region. Trump told the nation the strikes were to protect Americans from an “acute threat,” but experts say the nature of that threat remains vague. Many international law scholars consider the strikes a breach of international law; the legal justification will face intense scrutiny and could increase pressure on the administration.
This article was originally published in German.