Aggregator

Trump faces strong public headwinds as he weighs Iran attack

The Blaze
2 weeks 6 days ago


President Donald Trump has made abundantly clear that he is willing to attack Iran. Recent polling suggests, however, that Americans are not particularly keen on getting bogged down in another Middle Eastern conflict.

The tightrope

Trump has long been critical of his predecessors' costly foreign entanglements, indicating both that he would end "the era of endless wars" and that it was not the job of American forces to "solve ancient conflicts in faraway lands that many people have not even heard of."

'Bad things will happen.'

The "peace president," who has in recent years brokered numerous peaceful resolutions between warring parties, has been walking a tightrope with regard to Iran.

The Trump administration's National Security Strategy noted, "We want to prevent an adversarial power from dominating the Middle East, its oil and gas supplies, and the chokepoints through which they pass while avoiding the 'forever wars' that bogged us down in that region at great cost."

Despite skepticism from friends and foe alike, the administration pulled off its clinical strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22 without wavering on the tightrope.

That successful balancing act is, however, now threatened by the apparent lack of progress in America's indirect negotiations with Iran regarding the Shia nation's nuclear program.

The situation

Trump stated at his Board of Peace's first meeting on Thursday that Iran "cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region."

The president said that "bad things will happen" if Tehran doesn't make a deal to limit its nuclear program — something Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran's foreign minister, suggested was possible ahead of the so-far unsuccessful indirect talks this week.

RELATED: Iran strike looms as Trump hosts Board of Peace

The Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group entering the Arabian Sea on Feb. 6. Photo: U.S. Central Command

"We may have to take it a step further, or we may not. Maybe we are going to make a deal. You are going to be finding out over the next, probably, 10 days," added Trump.

Although a decision to attack has not yet been made, Trump has clearly taken steps to ensure that it's a viable option, assembling the greatest U.S. military air presence in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq invasion.

U.S. officials told the Wall Street Journal that this air power would enable America to wage a weeks-long air war against Iran.

Trump has reportedly received several briefings on military options, including decapitation strikes on Iran's political and military leaders with the goal of regime change and/or strikes on nuclear and ballistic-missile facilities.

In the meantime, Iran has reportedly been fortifying its nuclear facilities, repairing missile production sites damaged by Israel's June surprise attack, and participating in military exercises, including naval drills with Russian forces.

The polls

A Gallup poll found two weeks ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq that 59% of Americans favored and 37% opposed the proposed military intervention.

After the media dutifully banged the drums of war and Bush played up the threat of weapons of mass destruction, support for war climbed to 71% by March 19, 2003, according to a poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News.

There is presently nowhere near that level of support for another military attack against Iran.

An SSRS/University of Maryland poll conducted earlier this month posed the question, "Do you favor or oppose the United States initiating an attack on Iran under the current circumstances?"

Altogether, 21% of respondents said they favored an attack, 49% signaled opposition, and 30% said they didn't know.

When broken down by party affiliation, 40% of Republicans, 6% of Democrats, and 21% of independents said they favored an attack. Twenty-five percent of Republicans, 74% of Democrats, and 51% of independents said they opposed an attack.

In a follow-up, pollsters asked, "Whose interests do you think would be most advanced by a war between the U.S. and Iran?"

Only 34% of Republicans, 32% of Democrats, and 29% of independents said American interests would be most advanced.

An Economist/YouGov poll conducted between Jan. 30 and Feb. 2 similarly found that a military adventure in Iran was an unpopular prospect.

The poll found that 28% of respondents supported and 48% opposed the U.S. taking military action in Iran. Respondents who voted for Trump in 2024 were, however, majoritively (57%) supportive of an attack, with only 26% signaling opposition.

When asked about the U.S. using military force to overthrow the Iranian regime, 33% of respondents signaled support and 42% of respondents signaled opposition. Trump supporters were split 58% to 24% on the matter.

A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of American voters revealed last month that the "Israeli-Hamas-Iran conflict" was a top concern for only 1% of respondents. Though it was apparently not regarded as a priority, 59% of respondents still said they think that the U.S. should support regime change in Iran.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Joseph MacKinnon

Democrat showdown: Jasmine Crockett vs. James Talarico

The Blaze
2 weeks 6 days ago


Texas Democrats Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico have found themselves running against each other in the race for the Texas Senate seat — and BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales couldn’t be more entertained.

“There is a cage match a brewin’ between, I’ve got to say, two of the most libtarded people that may have ever existed,” Gonzales jokes.

“In the blue corner, you have Jasmine Crockett, the fake ghetto hood rat herself. And then in the other blue ... corner, you have Texas state Representative James Talarico,” she continues, pointing out that Talarico has become the center of recent controversy after Stephen Colbert claimed an interview with the Texas politician wasn’t allowed to air on CBS.

“That’s actually not true, because CBS has already said that they did not pull Stephen Colbert’s James Talarico interview."


“The Late Show was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Representative James Talarico. The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal time rule for two other candidates, including Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled,” a statement from CBS read.

“It was 'The Late Show' itself that decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal-time options,” the statement concluded.

“There was a lie. It’s just been, actually I think, a ploy to try and prop up this lame soy-boy candidate because the Democrats know that if their candidate is Jasmine Crockett, they’re f**ked,” Gonzales comments.

“Now, I would also argue they’re screwed either way because James Talarico is not winning U.S. Senate in the state of Texas. Like, that’s not happening. But he is less of a train wreck and he is, I guess, less embarrassing," she continues, before showing clips of Crockett calling out Talarico for his claims.

“I think she should just accuse Stephen Colbert of being racist,” Gonzales jokes.

“'He didn’t want to have a black woman on to talk about her Senate race,'” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

BlazeTV Staff