The “unless you’re a MAGA voter” stuck out to me. As a Jew and human I’d like the Iranian regime to be overthrown and depowered, as an environmentalist I’m glad the price of oil is up (basically a less effective carbon tax and prompts alternative energy growth, though don’t love the Russian advantage angle, and I know this war is not a long term strategy), and as a Democrat I’m glad it will probably help Dems in the midterms (though unfortunately probably because people don’t agree with me on the first 2 points)
Most non-MAGA people agree with your first point about wanting the regime gone, they just don't think that's what is actually happening. The trump admin has no plan to accomplish that, and doesn't seem to be stumbling into one.
Suddenly bombing cities and threatening to destroy all civilian power and other infrastructure is a terrible way to foment a popular uprising; I'm not sure an approach like that has ever worked historically.
I can't imagine the war is a net positive from an environmental standpoint. Sure the price of oil going up means less is burned in cars and for heating, but the war itself is massively wasteful and uses huge amounts of fossil fuels. Only US carriers & subs are nuclear powered, the rest of the fleet burns diesel. Fighter jets and support aircraft burn jet fuel. Rockets and missiles burn fossil fuels. Any fires burning from explosions pollute the air and soil with a toxic mess of substances. And of course, should even one oil tanker get hit in the straight of Hormuz and start leaking oil or sink, the environmental toll would be catastrophic.
If you have a broken finger and chop off your hand at the wrist, the finger's not a problem any more, but hard to say it's an improvement. Cheap oil is the broken finger here, and the war is cutting off the hand.
Understand your point, and you may well be spot on, but I still think there's a meaningful chance of an acceleration in the electrification of transport if oil products remain constrained and wildly expensive.
I live in Australia. We've got very few tariffs on cars, and hence have plenty of Chinese, Euro, and Korean EVs on sale, plus Tesla. Rooftop solar uptake is huge in Australia as well. We also import *all* of our refined diesel, petrol and jet fuel.
Both quant and qual measurements of propensity to switch to EV have gone through the roof in the past three weeks in Australia, and that sentiment will only subside when oil prices and fear of supply crunch subside.
What if oil prices and supply crunch only ease in 6 months, or 12 months? Like COVID and working from home, we'd never fully revert to our pre-war hydrocarbon habit.
This is a good point, and would be a silver lining if it happens. The Trump administration is purposely putting roadblocks in front of US companies and states who are trying to convert away from fossil fuels. Which will put the US farther behind the rest of the world than we already were in that respect. So living here it's easy to forget that other nations are acting more rationally to adjust to an inevitable change.
I’m not advocating for war just to raise oil prices, though I would be curious how exactly the increased oil prices weigh out vs direct war activities from an emissions perspective
This war is a moral disaster and a disaster for our country’s foreign policy goals. We won’t get any improvement in the leadership of Iran.
The only upside is that when it inevitably ends in failure, it may cause Democratic politicians to finally drop their support of the apartheid Israeli government.
Notably that's a comment about how things are, not how they should be. A large majority of independents and almost all Democrats disapprove of the war, while almost all Republicans approve of the war. So it's just a true statement that Republicans (and thus MAGA voters) are the group that approve of the war.
Yeah, but if you're sick of the war (and the tariffs) you're likely to stop self-identifying as MAGA anyway. The topline number of total approve/disapprove is the most important here I think.
Indeed there was an article recently - can't recall where, Bloomberg? - in any case about a semi-illusionary analysis of "Trump not losing MAGA" from polling that focuses on voluntary ID as MAGA to pollster. The analysis centered on observation that this takes MAGA ID as a fixed thing whereas there is every sign that ID as MAGA = Trump support and if one is moving away from Trump supporting, there is tendency to drop the MAGA idea (so as often the case, erecting these identity categories as immoveable fixed things even in shorter-terms is an analytical error)
Thinking that the price of oil will drive renewable energy growth is a little pie-in-the-sky, though I'm all for it. Trump has done nothing but destroy clean energy initiatives since he's been president. Meanwhile, there is no reason that the US should use our taxpayer money to fight the war. Israelis get free secondary education and medical care. We don't. Let's use that $200B to give 20 million people the ACA subsidies they deserve and let Israel fight its own damn wars.
It is not pie-in-the-sky as such (Trump action is really just US and even then it's more impacting on areas where Federal permitting is major factor, i.e. off-shore wind)
Rather it's too narrow and focusing on the transport sector and cars (and trucks of course) which is important certainly but not as much as American consumers mental maps.
It also mistakes oil as the main thing whereas in fact it's Natural Gas that's the major hydrocarbon for most electric grid basis. Nearest term he's naively thinking this is helpful but in fact direct substitution is to Coal - turning back on the big dirty baseloads.
Still, the overall message and lesson on the risk factor and volatility on hydrocrabons is going to certainly help a bit on RenEnergy although as an RE financier I'd not have desired this at all as the impact on capital investment for grid may be negative...
ETA: https://www.electrotech-revolution.com/p/the-energy-security-fallout - useful article althogh EMBER NGO is.... too evangelical on RE tech, they take in my view the most optimistic take possible re economics on given technology and its deployment, so one should prudently discount their numbers (says 20%). BUT they are directionally correct albeit heavily on techno-optimism (not in pie-in-sky manner but still s/b more prudent on their economics)
Just one minor suggestion: the graph might be read slightly more intuitively if you make the x-axis at 50% darker or bolder, similar to the 50% line on the Trump Approval graphs.
Only MAGA likes this war, and they only constitute 38-40% of the population, so that's why we're seeing these numbers. They will support Trump even if it kills them. Almost nobody likes the Iranian regime, but why does the US have to be involved? We're $47T in debt, people can't afford a place to live, and 20 million have lost their health insurance. $200B for this war is ludicrous and extravagant.
I'm very much a neocon (knowing full well that in 2026 it's less of a political position and more of a slur), and not at all MAGA, but I'm very much in favor of the war! And was equally happy to see Maduro forcibly removed from power.
My concerns are that I don't love what we did (or rather, haven't done) in Venezuela. And I worry that we won't finish the job in Iran- if that happens, we'll be even worse off than we were before, because Iran and every country around it will operate under the assumption that Iran owns the Strait. Even if you're against the war, we should all hope it's possible to finish the job.
As a non-MAGA neocon you must understand the importance of the US dollar as a global reserve currency. It's impossible to overstate how much of an economic advantage that is, and how devastating it would be to the US economy to lose that advantage.
Currently Iran is accepting payments in yuan to allow ships through the straight of Hormuz. The risk that using yuan instead of dollars for international transactions will become the norm FAR outweighs any potential benefits of "finishing the job" in Iran, no matter how you define that.
Ending this war immediately, on almost any terms, would be less harmful to US interests than continuing it. But I don't imagine there are many members of the Trump administration who even understand how dependent we are on the power of our dollar. I expect they will continue to destroy things they don't understand, like a gorilla smashing priceless artifacts in a museum.
I agree that the administration has taken for granted the benefit we get from the USD being the "currency of the world". I think they've taken other, more significant actions that put that at risk far more than the current situation in Iran.
I'll refer you to my reply below to alguna rubia with regards to the risk.
We all treat action as a decision, but not inaction. Not taking action is its own choice, and the status quo was a powder keg, not a stable situation. Believing that Iran lashing out is the fault of the US is not taking into account the beliefs and actions of the regime, and suggests that they have no agency in the matter- which is certainly not true.
And that's the difference between neocons and the rest of us: for you guys, hope springs eternal that the US is able and willing to "finish the job", whereas most of us don't think that's remotely possible and we are definitely going to be worse off than we were before. The question to me is not are we going to be worse off than we were before with Iran owning the strait, the question is whether we realize that this is the only possible result and get out now while relatively few lives have been lost or do we wait to admit this inevitability until thousands more are dead?
The irony here is that you and I see each other as hopelessly, naively optimistic. The status quo was not a stable, peaceful one. It was Iran methodically trying to destabilize the Middle East, kill thousands, and work its way towards nuclear weapons. It already demonstrated that it has missiles that can reach Europe (despite Iran having claimed it did not develop or have such capabilities).
We were sleepwalking into disaster and would have had to blindly pretend all was ok.
This was going to come to a head at some point- I'd much rather it happen on our terms. My concern is that if we fail to finish the job now, it signals to Iran that they have the leverage they need to hold the region hostage even more aggressively than before, and that the US simply does not have the will to follow through. It fits in with their concept of moghavemat.
All the things you say are great reasons for European and Middle Eastern countries to care, but you haven't actually made any argument about why the US needed to be involved. If those countries had come and asked us to help them deal with Iran, I might have felt differently about it. But why does it seem like only Israel has ever been interested in deposing them?
I've also never fundamentally understood why people believe a nuclear Iran is a threat it makes sense to go to war over. The Iranian regime has never seemed suicidal. They want to get a nuclear weapon for deterrence, which is the same thing every other country gets a nuclear bomb for. If the country that always has people considering going to war with you has the biggest nuclear arsenal on earth, yoh start wanting a strong deterrent. It actually seems more likely that they'd pursue it now than it was before this little adventure.
We have plenty of interests and assets in the Middle East. Additionally, Iran operating as a vassal state of China while having control over a waterway that transits a significant portion of the global supply of oil is definitely a strategic consideration for the US.
Iran actively targets the US with its activities; it's not like they've just been docile NIMBYs hanging out in their corner of the Middle East.
I agree that Europe should care, but they've been particularly spineless in recent years (for all the fears of imminent Russian incursion, they've done precious little beyond sending aid to Ukraine. Even their increased military spending was done under threats from Trump.) I wouldn't interpret Israel being the only country willing to take action as meaning that no other countries in the Middle East wanted Iran defanged (just ask the Saudis).
I think it's a mistake to assume that Iran wasn't suicidal- if they were acting in simple interests of self-determination, then why singularly focus belligerence on Israel and the US for decades? When the regime calls for "death to America" and "death to Israel", why should we not believe them? Every action they've taken has been in an effort to achieve that goal.
Iran is the most significant imperialist power in the Middle East since the British- using proxies to forcibly take control and terrorize populations in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, etc. I think it would be a mistake to assume they weren't working towards their clearly stated goals- the regime is not some technocratic "we just want to be left alone" government; it's ideological, and the ideology it represents and claims to be an avatar of is nihilistic and is effectively a death cult.
I agree they're likely to aggressively rearm and rush to develop nuclear weapons if they're given the chance to- that's why it's extremely necessary to topple the regime now.
The funny thing is, I barely disagree with you on most of these points. But the course of action I would have seen as reasonable is to work directly with allies who saw Iran the same way to undermine the regime, funnel weapons and money to an opposition within the country, and connect that opposition to people in the diaspora. Maybe do some covert ops with plausible deniability to destroy key military assets of theirs. Redo the nuclear deal and do sanctions relief so that their middle class grows in affluence and power and strengthens the opposition to the regime. Attacking them head on with no preparation or allied support seems utterly doomed to me.
Aside from the nuclear deal mention, I fully agree with what you just said. (I think the nuclear deal was unenforceable and gave the regime time and breathing room to focus on expanding their terror network while slow walking towards enrichment; as you can imagine, I was not a fan).
All that said, while I wish we had done more prep, gotten a broader coalition, and had clearer goals and methods- I still broadly speaking support the war, because I support the stated objective. I don't think it's being prosecuted in an ideal way, and I seriously worry about Trump calling it too soon. (To be honest, that was my criticism of Trump last year when the US bombed Fordow- though I was glad we did it, I thought it was a mistake for Trump to make a precondition to Israel that it be the cessation of attacks. Iran was wounded, in chaos, and primed for further degradation of its capabilities).
In any case, we both can Monday Morning QB all we want; my hope now is that we finish the job, because not doing so will lead to a worse outcome.
This great resource would be even more valuable if we could compare it to the change in approval of previous war, especially the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The 40%-52% ratio doesn't look too bad at first, until you remember that the Iraq invasion started with a 70%+ approval. It would be great to be able to see how these numbers evolved over time, similar to the presidential approval comparison charts.
I am more interested on the change of polls when we finally have boots on the ground in coming days. It looks more and more likely they are going to physically secure the strait now.
That's my sense, too. IMO, we can bomb Iran all we want, but, they're playing a game of "chicken" where the only way they surrender is if our troops go in & take Tehran & kill the Iranian religious fanatic leadership. & I think they know that their is no support in the USA for that & there will be even less if we do & larger #'s of American troops start dying.
England in WWII is a good example of bombing not being enough. In fact, it can bring the country together in a "F these guys!" mindset. Vietnam is another similar example where we started with bombing until realizing we needed troops on the ground, so we escalated..& still didn't win.
I hope you'll do some kind of update or article on Adults vs voters vs likely voters as more numbers come in. Just glancing at the current polls, there seems to be a clear and significant gap between the all adults scores, which are much worse, and the RV and LV scores, which get better as you add an LV screen. That would jive with past polling too.
What is up with the polling on this issue (and Trump approval) being all over the place? I've never been of the "polls are biased" conspiratorial mindset, but the disparity between recent polls is crazy.
It may be out of scope for the comment space, but the Harris Analytics +2 result seems hard to understand/believe in the context of all the other polls. Eli/others who watch these things, is there anything in that particular poll (something showing up in crosstabs, for example) that would explain it? Of course, I remember the Selzer/Des Moines Register 2024 poll ...
I should probably just ask my Claude subscription this, but I would be curious to all the ways in which Iran has been involved in proxies against the United States.
I know generally, no specifics, that they were contributing to the insurgency against Americans in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen. I am not even sure if that is all correct, or if there is more, and to what extent.
The White House could help their cause if they made some sort of tally/estimate of American deaths they are responsible for in Iraq and elsewhere, and/or directly linked and emphasized Iran's contribution to the 10/7 attack. You got to really make me hate 'em, and as of right now I do not really hate Iran.
The “unless you’re a MAGA voter” stuck out to me. As a Jew and human I’d like the Iranian regime to be overthrown and depowered, as an environmentalist I’m glad the price of oil is up (basically a less effective carbon tax and prompts alternative energy growth, though don’t love the Russian advantage angle, and I know this war is not a long term strategy), and as a Democrat I’m glad it will probably help Dems in the midterms (though unfortunately probably because people don’t agree with me on the first 2 points)
Most non-MAGA people agree with your first point about wanting the regime gone, they just don't think that's what is actually happening. The trump admin has no plan to accomplish that, and doesn't seem to be stumbling into one.
Suddenly bombing cities and threatening to destroy all civilian power and other infrastructure is a terrible way to foment a popular uprising; I'm not sure an approach like that has ever worked historically.
I can't imagine the war is a net positive from an environmental standpoint. Sure the price of oil going up means less is burned in cars and for heating, but the war itself is massively wasteful and uses huge amounts of fossil fuels. Only US carriers & subs are nuclear powered, the rest of the fleet burns diesel. Fighter jets and support aircraft burn jet fuel. Rockets and missiles burn fossil fuels. Any fires burning from explosions pollute the air and soil with a toxic mess of substances. And of course, should even one oil tanker get hit in the straight of Hormuz and start leaking oil or sink, the environmental toll would be catastrophic.
If you have a broken finger and chop off your hand at the wrist, the finger's not a problem any more, but hard to say it's an improvement. Cheap oil is the broken finger here, and the war is cutting off the hand.
Understand your point, and you may well be spot on, but I still think there's a meaningful chance of an acceleration in the electrification of transport if oil products remain constrained and wildly expensive.
I live in Australia. We've got very few tariffs on cars, and hence have plenty of Chinese, Euro, and Korean EVs on sale, plus Tesla. Rooftop solar uptake is huge in Australia as well. We also import *all* of our refined diesel, petrol and jet fuel.
Both quant and qual measurements of propensity to switch to EV have gone through the roof in the past three weeks in Australia, and that sentiment will only subside when oil prices and fear of supply crunch subside.
What if oil prices and supply crunch only ease in 6 months, or 12 months? Like COVID and working from home, we'd never fully revert to our pre-war hydrocarbon habit.
This is a good point, and would be a silver lining if it happens. The Trump administration is purposely putting roadblocks in front of US companies and states who are trying to convert away from fossil fuels. Which will put the US farther behind the rest of the world than we already were in that respect. So living here it's easy to forget that other nations are acting more rationally to adjust to an inevitable change.
I’m not advocating for war just to raise oil prices, though I would be curious how exactly the increased oil prices weigh out vs direct war activities from an emissions perspective
Given substitution on natural gas front for coal across Asia, massive net negative.
focus on petrol for cars is a huge analytical error
Also given issues on non-transport usages and more energy intensive substitutes (more coal again for industrial processes, etc.)
the only net positive is perhaps in primary energy generation more risk diversification thinking that pushes more RenEnergy overall
The war is about the worse way to do this but if one needs to find a silver lining it is that, it is not emissions
This war is a moral disaster and a disaster for our country’s foreign policy goals. We won’t get any improvement in the leadership of Iran.
The only upside is that when it inevitably ends in failure, it may cause Democratic politicians to finally drop their support of the apartheid Israeli government.
Mfers will really say anything to justify the wanton slaughter of unarmed women and children in the middle east
Notably that's a comment about how things are, not how they should be. A large majority of independents and almost all Democrats disapprove of the war, while almost all Republicans approve of the war. So it's just a true statement that Republicans (and thus MAGA voters) are the group that approve of the war.
Yeah, but if you're sick of the war (and the tariffs) you're likely to stop self-identifying as MAGA anyway. The topline number of total approve/disapprove is the most important here I think.
Indeed there was an article recently - can't recall where, Bloomberg? - in any case about a semi-illusionary analysis of "Trump not losing MAGA" from polling that focuses on voluntary ID as MAGA to pollster. The analysis centered on observation that this takes MAGA ID as a fixed thing whereas there is every sign that ID as MAGA = Trump support and if one is moving away from Trump supporting, there is tendency to drop the MAGA idea (so as often the case, erecting these identity categories as immoveable fixed things even in shorter-terms is an analytical error)
Thinking that the price of oil will drive renewable energy growth is a little pie-in-the-sky, though I'm all for it. Trump has done nothing but destroy clean energy initiatives since he's been president. Meanwhile, there is no reason that the US should use our taxpayer money to fight the war. Israelis get free secondary education and medical care. We don't. Let's use that $200B to give 20 million people the ACA subsidies they deserve and let Israel fight its own damn wars.
It is not pie-in-the-sky as such (Trump action is really just US and even then it's more impacting on areas where Federal permitting is major factor, i.e. off-shore wind)
Rather it's too narrow and focusing on the transport sector and cars (and trucks of course) which is important certainly but not as much as American consumers mental maps.
It also mistakes oil as the main thing whereas in fact it's Natural Gas that's the major hydrocarbon for most electric grid basis. Nearest term he's naively thinking this is helpful but in fact direct substitution is to Coal - turning back on the big dirty baseloads.
Still, the overall message and lesson on the risk factor and volatility on hydrocrabons is going to certainly help a bit on RenEnergy although as an RE financier I'd not have desired this at all as the impact on capital investment for grid may be negative...
ETA: https://www.electrotech-revolution.com/p/the-energy-security-fallout - useful article althogh EMBER NGO is.... too evangelical on RE tech, they take in my view the most optimistic take possible re economics on given technology and its deployment, so one should prudently discount their numbers (says 20%). BUT they are directionally correct albeit heavily on techno-optimism (not in pie-in-sky manner but still s/b more prudent on their economics)
Thank you for providing this.
Just one minor suggestion: the graph might be read slightly more intuitively if you make the x-axis at 50% darker or bolder, similar to the 50% line on the Trump Approval graphs.
[Edit: appears to be fixed now; double thanks!]
Only MAGA likes this war, and they only constitute 38-40% of the population, so that's why we're seeing these numbers. They will support Trump even if it kills them. Almost nobody likes the Iranian regime, but why does the US have to be involved? We're $47T in debt, people can't afford a place to live, and 20 million have lost their health insurance. $200B for this war is ludicrous and extravagant.
I'm very much a neocon (knowing full well that in 2026 it's less of a political position and more of a slur), and not at all MAGA, but I'm very much in favor of the war! And was equally happy to see Maduro forcibly removed from power.
My concerns are that I don't love what we did (or rather, haven't done) in Venezuela. And I worry that we won't finish the job in Iran- if that happens, we'll be even worse off than we were before, because Iran and every country around it will operate under the assumption that Iran owns the Strait. Even if you're against the war, we should all hope it's possible to finish the job.
As a non-MAGA neocon you must understand the importance of the US dollar as a global reserve currency. It's impossible to overstate how much of an economic advantage that is, and how devastating it would be to the US economy to lose that advantage.
Currently Iran is accepting payments in yuan to allow ships through the straight of Hormuz. The risk that using yuan instead of dollars for international transactions will become the norm FAR outweighs any potential benefits of "finishing the job" in Iran, no matter how you define that.
Ending this war immediately, on almost any terms, would be less harmful to US interests than continuing it. But I don't imagine there are many members of the Trump administration who even understand how dependent we are on the power of our dollar. I expect they will continue to destroy things they don't understand, like a gorilla smashing priceless artifacts in a museum.
I agree that the administration has taken for granted the benefit we get from the USD being the "currency of the world". I think they've taken other, more significant actions that put that at risk far more than the current situation in Iran.
I'll refer you to my reply below to alguna rubia with regards to the risk.
We all treat action as a decision, but not inaction. Not taking action is its own choice, and the status quo was a powder keg, not a stable situation. Believing that Iran lashing out is the fault of the US is not taking into account the beliefs and actions of the regime, and suggests that they have no agency in the matter- which is certainly not true.
And that's the difference between neocons and the rest of us: for you guys, hope springs eternal that the US is able and willing to "finish the job", whereas most of us don't think that's remotely possible and we are definitely going to be worse off than we were before. The question to me is not are we going to be worse off than we were before with Iran owning the strait, the question is whether we realize that this is the only possible result and get out now while relatively few lives have been lost or do we wait to admit this inevitability until thousands more are dead?
The irony here is that you and I see each other as hopelessly, naively optimistic. The status quo was not a stable, peaceful one. It was Iran methodically trying to destabilize the Middle East, kill thousands, and work its way towards nuclear weapons. It already demonstrated that it has missiles that can reach Europe (despite Iran having claimed it did not develop or have such capabilities).
We were sleepwalking into disaster and would have had to blindly pretend all was ok.
This was going to come to a head at some point- I'd much rather it happen on our terms. My concern is that if we fail to finish the job now, it signals to Iran that they have the leverage they need to hold the region hostage even more aggressively than before, and that the US simply does not have the will to follow through. It fits in with their concept of moghavemat.
All the things you say are great reasons for European and Middle Eastern countries to care, but you haven't actually made any argument about why the US needed to be involved. If those countries had come and asked us to help them deal with Iran, I might have felt differently about it. But why does it seem like only Israel has ever been interested in deposing them?
I've also never fundamentally understood why people believe a nuclear Iran is a threat it makes sense to go to war over. The Iranian regime has never seemed suicidal. They want to get a nuclear weapon for deterrence, which is the same thing every other country gets a nuclear bomb for. If the country that always has people considering going to war with you has the biggest nuclear arsenal on earth, yoh start wanting a strong deterrent. It actually seems more likely that they'd pursue it now than it was before this little adventure.
We have plenty of interests and assets in the Middle East. Additionally, Iran operating as a vassal state of China while having control over a waterway that transits a significant portion of the global supply of oil is definitely a strategic consideration for the US.
Iran actively targets the US with its activities; it's not like they've just been docile NIMBYs hanging out in their corner of the Middle East.
I agree that Europe should care, but they've been particularly spineless in recent years (for all the fears of imminent Russian incursion, they've done precious little beyond sending aid to Ukraine. Even their increased military spending was done under threats from Trump.) I wouldn't interpret Israel being the only country willing to take action as meaning that no other countries in the Middle East wanted Iran defanged (just ask the Saudis).
I think it's a mistake to assume that Iran wasn't suicidal- if they were acting in simple interests of self-determination, then why singularly focus belligerence on Israel and the US for decades? When the regime calls for "death to America" and "death to Israel", why should we not believe them? Every action they've taken has been in an effort to achieve that goal.
Iran is the most significant imperialist power in the Middle East since the British- using proxies to forcibly take control and terrorize populations in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, etc. I think it would be a mistake to assume they weren't working towards their clearly stated goals- the regime is not some technocratic "we just want to be left alone" government; it's ideological, and the ideology it represents and claims to be an avatar of is nihilistic and is effectively a death cult.
I agree they're likely to aggressively rearm and rush to develop nuclear weapons if they're given the chance to- that's why it's extremely necessary to topple the regime now.
The funny thing is, I barely disagree with you on most of these points. But the course of action I would have seen as reasonable is to work directly with allies who saw Iran the same way to undermine the regime, funnel weapons and money to an opposition within the country, and connect that opposition to people in the diaspora. Maybe do some covert ops with plausible deniability to destroy key military assets of theirs. Redo the nuclear deal and do sanctions relief so that their middle class grows in affluence and power and strengthens the opposition to the regime. Attacking them head on with no preparation or allied support seems utterly doomed to me.
Aside from the nuclear deal mention, I fully agree with what you just said. (I think the nuclear deal was unenforceable and gave the regime time and breathing room to focus on expanding their terror network while slow walking towards enrichment; as you can imagine, I was not a fan).
All that said, while I wish we had done more prep, gotten a broader coalition, and had clearer goals and methods- I still broadly speaking support the war, because I support the stated objective. I don't think it's being prosecuted in an ideal way, and I seriously worry about Trump calling it too soon. (To be honest, that was my criticism of Trump last year when the US bombed Fordow- though I was glad we did it, I thought it was a mistake for Trump to make a precondition to Israel that it be the cessation of attacks. Iran was wounded, in chaos, and primed for further degradation of its capabilities).
In any case, we both can Monday Morning QB all we want; my hope now is that we finish the job, because not doing so will lead to a worse outcome.
This great resource would be even more valuable if we could compare it to the change in approval of previous war, especially the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The 40%-52% ratio doesn't look too bad at first, until you remember that the Iraq invasion started with a 70%+ approval. It would be great to be able to see how these numbers evolved over time, similar to the presidential approval comparison charts.
I am more interested on the change of polls when we finally have boots on the ground in coming days. It looks more and more likely they are going to physically secure the strait now.
That's my sense, too. IMO, we can bomb Iran all we want, but, they're playing a game of "chicken" where the only way they surrender is if our troops go in & take Tehran & kill the Iranian religious fanatic leadership. & I think they know that their is no support in the USA for that & there will be even less if we do & larger #'s of American troops start dying.
England in WWII is a good example of bombing not being enough. In fact, it can bring the country together in a "F these guys!" mindset. Vietnam is another similar example where we started with bombing until realizing we needed troops on the ground, so we escalated..& still didn't win.
It would be good to correlate this to the overall POTUS approval rating
I support the war 100% IF Barron Trump leads the boots onto the ground!
I hope you'll do some kind of update or article on Adults vs voters vs likely voters as more numbers come in. Just glancing at the current polls, there seems to be a clear and significant gap between the all adults scores, which are much worse, and the RV and LV scores, which get better as you add an LV screen. That would jive with past polling too.
What is up with the polling on this issue (and Trump approval) being all over the place? I've never been of the "polls are biased" conspiratorial mindset, but the disparity between recent polls is crazy.
It may be out of scope for the comment space, but the Harris Analytics +2 result seems hard to understand/believe in the context of all the other polls. Eli/others who watch these things, is there anything in that particular poll (something showing up in crosstabs, for example) that would explain it? Of course, I remember the Selzer/Des Moines Register 2024 poll ...
Bomb diplomacy will never be popular, the question is will the people let the government get away with it?
Honestly, I'm surprised it's as high as 40%.
I should probably just ask my Claude subscription this, but I would be curious to all the ways in which Iran has been involved in proxies against the United States.
I know generally, no specifics, that they were contributing to the insurgency against Americans in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen. I am not even sure if that is all correct, or if there is more, and to what extent.
The White House could help their cause if they made some sort of tally/estimate of American deaths they are responsible for in Iraq and elsewhere, and/or directly linked and emphasized Iran's contribution to the 10/7 attack. You got to really make me hate 'em, and as of right now I do not really hate Iran.