The majority of Americans do not support their president on the Iran issue. Only a quarter of Americans explicitly support the attacks, while a clear majority reject them or at least view them with skepticism, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. Even among Republicans, the mood is divided: although a slim majority supports military strikes, 42 percent say they would withdraw their support if US troops lose their lives.

Trump’s popularity ratings are plummeting – that’s extremely dangerous for him

Particularly explosive: A majority does not believe that the president has a clear, long-term strategy for Iran. He himself admitted that the operation could last for weeks.

Trump can’t actually afford that. Because his approval ratings are currently less than 40 percent. This is not a comfortable value for a president in the run-up to the midterm elections in November. On the contrary.

The midterms are traditionally a referendum on the incumbent president. All seats in the House of Representatives and around a third of the Senate seats will be re-elected. With approval ratings below 45 percent, presidents usually lose a significant amount of seats in the House of Representatives. If the Republican majority were to overturn there, Trump’s room for maneuver would be massively restricted. The result would be investigations, blockages in the budget process and aggressive opposition.

His own party feels taken by surprise

His own party is by no means united on the Iran issue. “The constitutional order is that you engage the public before you go to war – unless an attack is imminent. And imminent really means imminent – not something that has spanned a period of 47 years,” said Republican Rep. Warren Davidson.

Things are simmering behind the scenes in Washington, and many of Trump’s party members feel taken by surprise, reports the well-connected media “Politico,” among others. Because in the end, it is precisely those members of Congress who have to face the voters in November and explain to them high gasoline costs and billions in costs for a new war – not Trump himself.

Trump is violating his own campaign promise

Many Americans are also wondering after the Iran strikes whether this is part of a larger pattern of aggressive military policy. In just over a year in office, Trump has authorized military operations in seven countries – even though he consistently vowed during the campaign to end wars and not start new ones. In his inaugural speech, he said his “greatest legacy will be that of a peacemaker.”

It was only at the beginning of the year that President Trump intervened militarily in Venezuela, mobilizing troops and carrying out air strikes and even detaining Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro – a move that sparked widespread criticism in the US and internationally. Fifty-six percent of Americans believe President Trump is too quick to use military force, according to the Reuters poll. This sequence of interventions raises the question among parts of the public: Who is next?

Allies avoid the open breach

The international reactions are comparatively cautious; French President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Friedrich Merz, for example, appeared diplomatic. This can help Trump: If even close partners do not brand the operation as a “red rag,” the foreign policy pressure on the president will also be politically put into perspective internally.

In the end, as always – and especially in the USA – whether the operation ordered by Trump will actually cause lasting damage to him will ultimately depend on money. For Americans, wars outside their borders tend to have more of an economic dimension than a moral dimension. And by setting fire to the Middle East, Trump could quickly set the global economy on fire.

Rising fuel prices are a very sensitive issue in the USA

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important oil transportation routes. Any hint of a blockage drives up prices. The energy markets are already reacting nervously. Rising gasoline prices are highly politically sensitive in the USA – they directly affect the automobile nation and influence perceptions of inflation. In surveys, many respondents said they feared the economic consequences and possible American casualties following the Iran attack.

The crucial variable is therefore time. If the strikes remain limited and selective, Trump could argue to his base that he has shown strength without leading the United States into a long war. However, if the conflict escalates further, public opinion could quickly harden. And a foreign policy maneuver could become a domestic political turning point.