WHY IS THERE STILL UNCERTAINTY ABOUT IRAN WAR AIMS? It is common for polls to show that a majority of people do not believe that President Donald Trump and his national security team have clearly explained the goals of Gulf War III. A recent Washington Post poll, a survey that, by the way, showed slightly rising support for the war, found that 65% of respondents answered in the negative when asked, “Do you think the Trump administration has clearly explained the goals of U.S. military action against Iran, or haven’t they done that?” Just 35% said the administration has clearly explained the goals.
There was a huge partisan divide in the results. Sixty-seven percent of Republicans said Trump had clearly explained the goals, while 91% of Democrats said he had not.
Here’s the question. For at least two weeks now, the administration has made the case that the war has four goals:
- 1. Destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles and production capacity
- 2. Demolish Iran’s navy
- 3. End Iran’s ability to arm proxies and spread havoc beyond its borders
- 4. Prevent Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon
That seems pretty clear. So why do so many people, 65%, think the administration has not clearly explained the war’s goals?
Perhaps it is because they understand the goals, as stated, but do not find them particularly persuasive or compelling. The Post poll asked two other questions that indirectly touch on this issue. One was, “Do you think U.S. military actions in Iran will or will not contribute to the long-term security of the United States?” Fifty-three percent said it will not, while 46% said it will.
The other question was, “Thinking about the goals versus the costs of the war, so far in your opinion has there been an acceptable or unacceptable number of U.S. military casualties in the conflict with Iran?” One could quibble with the wording, in the sense that it could trigger the response that no U.S. death is “acceptable,” but in any event, 63% said the number of casualties so far was “unacceptable,” while 37% said they were “acceptable.”
Put those two answers together, a majority concluding that a war which most people think has already involved unacceptable casualties and will not contribute to the long-term security of the U.S., and it makes some sense that large numbers of people still say the president and the administration have not made the goals clear.
Whatever the core issue is, they’re not sure what should come next. Asked, “Do you think the U.S. should continue military strikes against Iran, or should it stop military strikes at this time?” Thirty-four percent said continue the strikes, 42% said stop the strikes, and 24% said they were unsure.
One conclusion that emerges from these answers is that the administration’s fundamental premise for military action, that Iran has been waging war against the U.S. for 47 years and that it is time for the U.S. to strike back, is not a very convincing argument for many people.
Shortly after the war began, former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen wrote perhaps the strongest case for the “47 years” argument:
For 47 years, the Iranian regime has been waging war against the United States. That war began in 1979, when Iran seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran, taking more than 50 Americans hostage for 444 days. The war continued as Iran orchestrated the 1983 bombings of the U.S. embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 258 Americans. It continued in 1998, when Iran provided “direct assistance” to al-Qaeda for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, training its “operatives about how to blow up buildings,” according to a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
After the 9/11 attacks, Iran provided sanctuary to senior leaders of al-Qaeda fleeing U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and allowed the group to use Iranian territory as a pipeline to move money, facilitators, and operatives from across the Middle East. (It still harbors Saif al-Adel, successor to Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri as leader of al-Qaeda, in Tehran.) Iran also provided training and bomb-making equipment to insurgents in Iraq, including “explosively formed penetrators” that killed and maimed thousands of American troops…The Iranian regime has also attempted terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, including a 2011 plot to set off a bomb in Cafe Milano in Washington to kill the Saudi ambassador, a plot to kill former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other senior U.S. officials, and a plot to assassinate Trump himself.
(It should be noted that Thiessen, as part of his case that Iran has been waging war against the U.S. for 47 years, also included Iran’s backing of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, which killed approximately 1,200 people. That number included 46 Americans, but Oct. 7 was not an attack targeting the U.S., or U.S. military forces, or U.S. officials.)
Is this the case for starting a war in 2026? Many of the offenses listed are decades old. Jimmy Carter was president when the hostages were taken, and Ronald Reagan was president when they were released. It was up to Reagan, as president and commander in chief, to decide what retaliation was necessary. The same was true of the Marine barracks bombing, which also happened during Reagan’s first term.
Bill Clinton was president when the embassies were bombed. George W. Bush was president during Sept. 11 and the insurgency following the American invasion of Iraq. Barack Obama was president when the Cafe Milano and Mike Pompeo plots were uncovered, and Joe Biden was president for the rest. And for any plots involving al Qaeda, the U.S. has been at war against the terrorist organization for 25 years.
What to make of a case for war against Iran that includes events so far in the past, incidents which presidents of both parties considered and did or did not retaliate for, according to their best judgment? Presidents Reagan and Bush and Clinton and Bush and Obama and Trump I and Biden did not see fit to go to war with Iran based on that record. And now it is a sufficient reason for war?
It should not be a surprise that many people are not fully persuaded by the rationale Trump has given. So when they are asked whether Trump has “clearly explained” the reason for going to war, they say no, he hasn’t. In reality, it might be that the president has clearly explained the reasons, and many people just aren’t convinced.