The Real Battle Over Iran Strikes Is Being Waged in Washington
“90% of MAGA voters backed Trump’s decision.”
Nearly seven months after their crushing defeat in November, Democrats are still struggling to reestablish themselves as a serious political force. Yet instead of recalibrating, they remain convinced their current strategy of opposition to anything associated with President Donald Trump is the best path to political revival.
Although their resistance routinely puts them on the wrong end of 80-20 issues and forces them to defend the most indefensible positions — think Kilmar Abrego Garcia — they’re sticking with it.
Most sane Americans applauded Trump’s decision to strike three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend. It neutralized an imminent existential threat to a key ally and made the world a safer place. But aside from Sen. John Fetterman (D‑PA), most Democrats were quick to condemn the move. Their stated reason, that Trump acted without congressional approval, flies in the face of similar military actions ordered by former Democratic presidents and everybody knows it.
A quick Google search of Americans’ reactions to the strikes might give the impression that a majority of the electorate was opposed. Coupled with the fact that the action was taken unilaterally, the Left seized the opportunity to promote the narrative that Trump was dragging the country into another prolonged war in the Middle East. Unsurprisingly, this became the Democrats’ preferred storyline. Meanwhile, their dutiful foot soldiers in the legacy media have gone into overdrive since the attacks to reinforce and even amplify that message.
Here are some recent headlines:
CNN: A majority of Americans disapproves of Trump’s Iran airstrikes, CNN poll finds
Forbes: Trump Approval Rating: Significant Share Reject Airstrikes
The Washington Post: More Americans oppose than support a U.S. airstrike in Iran, poll [finds]
Another narrative being pushed hard by the Left is that the strikes have sparked a civil war among MAGA voters. While it’s true that some Republicans, including Tucker Carlson, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and even Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), have come out strongly against U.S. military action in Iran, the vast majority of Republicans overwhelmingly approve. They also understand the difference between an isolated military strike to remove a threat and starting a war with Iran.
The Washington Free Beacon reported on a new survey from polling and analytics firm GrayHouse, that found 90% of MAGA voters backed Trump’s decision.
The GrayHouse poll, conducted in the immediate wake of the Saturday strikes and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, shows that 76 percent of Trump voters strongly support the attack, compared with 14 percent who somewhat support them.
It’s often said that pollsters can shape the outcome they want simply by how they word their questions. In this case, many pollsters misleadingly equate Trump’s limited, 30-minute airstrikes with launching a full-scale war against Iran—an absurd and inaccurate comparison.
But unlike the majority of pollsters cited by the legacy media, GrayHouse distinguished between the airstrikes and a wider war. They found that 84% “agreed that the strikes were ‘limited military actions, not war.'”
Moreover, “82% called the attack ‘a smarter, more limited operation that can achieve U.S. objectives without leading to a wider war.'”
The Free Beacon reported:
[T]he GrayHouse poll found that 87 percent of Trump voters agree with the statement, “Iran obtaining nuclear weapons would be an existential threat to the United States and our allies that justifies military action to prevent.” Seventy-five percent said the “airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities” make them “more confident in America’s military capabilities,” while 74 percent said they believe the attack made America “much safer” or “somewhat safer.”
On Tuesday, CNN data analyst Harry Enten looked at the average of a CNN/SSRS and a Reuters/Ipsos poll and came to the same conclusion. “Americans are with Trump on this. Tucker Carlson be darned. … The majority of the Republican base is with Donald Trump.”
The verdict is in & the GOP/MAGA base is with Trump on the airstrikes on Iran. Overwhelming approval (76% on average).
This is Donald Trump's Republican Party… Tucker Carlson's be darned. pic.twitter.com/DWfTfWPPFW
— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) June 24, 2025
Given Iran’s fairly weak retaliation for the strikes on Monday followed by the ceasefire announced later in the day, concerns that Trump was starting a wider war appeared unfounded, irresponsible, and unhelpful.
During next years’ midterm cycle, Democrats will be called on to answer for their “irrational” positions. Among the many questions asked will be how they can claim to be fighting for Americans when they opposed ending the nuclear ambitions of the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism, a theocratic regime that has been engaged in a proxy war with the U.S. since 1979.
Admittedly, I’m biased, but it’s hard to deny that President Trump has achieved a number of meaningful accomplishments for the country since taking office in January. From economic growth to foreign policy moves that have reestablished American strength, his administration has delivered results that many voters recognize and appreciate. Until Democrats come to terms with the fact that reflexive opposition to everything Trump represents is not a sustainable political strategy, they will remain in the wilderness — defined more by what they oppose than by any compelling vision of their own.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on LinkedIn or X.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
when the communists tell you they are going to take over believe them
the usa reached that tipping point a few years back and now its official
we are past the 50% point in the destruction of capitalism for that socialist nightmare
tribalism is here and in charge and growing with the black matriarchy having achieved “favored nation” status
the welfare state woe is me victimhood is no longer just a phil donahugh show its a full blown oprah michelle obama cascade
The dramcrats are turds as is the msm.
Massie is an iconclast with no flexibility.
I like Paul but there are things he is rather inflexible about.
MTG is a nutjob who embarrasses repubs whenever she opens her big mouth. She is a repub equivalent to a squad member,
Carson was dropped on his head one to many times in his youth. He is a borderline antisemite at minimum.
They all seem to forget that Iran has been waging a relentless war against US since 1979. When people vow to destroy you time and time again perhaps you should pay attention to them.
all the more reasons to like
mtg
Not based on her rantings about Iran, she isn’t.
Threats should stop being considered imminent after 30 years in my opinion
When threats are at o a 30 year terror campaign it is wise to neutralize the source.
Imminence isn’t an issue. No one claimed there was an imminent threat.
The issue is that this was the only opportunity to do it. First because leaving it any later risked it being too late to stop the weapon development program. And second because the Israeli strikes left Iran vulnerable; leave it for later and they would have repaired their defenses, and would be on the alert.
“Democrats are still struggling to reestablish themselves as a serious political farce”
FIFY.
Oh, they’ve DONE that…
Some in Congress believe it is fine to ‘out’ members of ICE for doing their jobs, so I don’t blame Trump for not giving them a heads up before the attack.
My financial portfolio is up like 7% since Monday morning. WTF. Go Trumpzillia
Kurt Schlichter has a very good column this week laying out how/why legitimate disagreement within our broad coalition is not only expected but should be welcomed. There’s a big difference between disagreement based on consistently applied principle and/or valid concerns v the reflexive anti DJT stance of our political opposition.
And this is how pollsters get their “majority of Americans” claim.
The country is split roughly half and half D and R.
Some of the R object to the attacks on libertarian principles.
All of the D object to the attacks because Donald Trump.
And that’s how you get that figure.
To even be close to that they’d have to find 90 PCT against in Dems and I don’t think they have that. They oversample in urban areas ignoring rural blue voters.
They also resort to poll tricks like asking “Do you think it’s the right time to bomb Iran”
If I wasn’t thinking when I clicked through I might say no because it should have been done like 5 presidencies ago.
True but even then many libertarian minded folks, myself included, don’t have any issue with limited military action to halt an imminent threat …so long as it is successful in achieving the limited stated objective and it doesn’t drag us into a new conflict. Iran has been our adversary for 4 & 1/2 decades and the USA knocking big rocks onto their nuke enrichment sites is totes ok.
The threat doesn’t have to be imminent.
The only relevant question is whether the strikes were in the USA’s interest, and I think there can be no question that they were. That is all.
Most members of congress should be able to remember that the Constitution provides that for the first 90 days the president is expected to act independently to protect the nation while congress has 90 days to debate and decide what to do. By then the president will have notified congress and they must have decided to follow the president or tell the president to stop.. Think Peral Harbor.
Say what?! Have you ever read the constitution? Please don’t try to discuss it until you have.
First, I don’t think they can tell the president to stop (though they can impeach him for failing to do so). Second, this is a pretty useless power because by then the USA would be well and truly at war regardless of what they decide, and they can’t change that merely by deciding not to declare it.
What has Pearl Harbor got to do with it? Congress was informed immediately about Pearl Harbor, and met the next day to declare war. I don’t see how it’s in any way relevant to this discussion.
We know the Ds are losing the public relations battle because of the newest claim that the bomb mission was not effective. DIA claims that enriched uranium was moved before the strikes and their centrifuges survived the strikes.
It is doubtful that DIA has hard intelligence on either issue. These are the same clowns that got the assessment of the Iraq nuclear program completely wrong in 2003. Why should we believe them now?
This is a political hatchet job by the IC. Trump should make sure that heads roll..
After Carlson’s latest unhinged “interview” of Cruz I’m not sure how much of an audience he has anymore.