FAQ

Wearing a MAGA cap in the Situation Room – even from there, US President Trump sent signals to his supporters after the attack on Iran. He had actually promised them an end to"endless wars." Will there be a rift?

What did Trump promise during the election campaign?

One of Trump's central campaign promises was: no US involvement in a new "endless" or "forever war." He meant years- and decades-long operations like those in Iraq or Afghanistan. This aligned him with his largely isolationist MAGA following. One of his priorities, Trump said at the time, was to push back"warmongers" and "America Last Globalists."

And indeed, until a few weeks ago, he had still been counting on nuclear talks with Iran and a"second chance" for the country - even though he himself had withdrawn from the 2015 nuclear agreement during his first term in office.

However, it is currently unclear whether Trump has started a new"endless war" with the attacks on the three nuclear facilities - or whether Iran, for example, is already too weakened for a serious conflict with the USA.

What are the initial reactions in Trump’s circle?

Before the US attack, there had been massive criticism from figures close to MAGA. But they don't seem to be stopping there.

TV host Tucker Carlson, for example, spoke in advance of a possible betrayal of Trump supporters. However, Trump said this week that Carlson had called him and apologized, saying he was"a nice guy."

Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a particularly radical representative of the MAGA wing, had written on X immediately before the attack:"This is not our war." And: "Every time America is on the brink of greatness, we get embroiled in another foreign war." After the announcement, she called on X to pray for peace and the safety of US troops in the region. She did not offer any direct criticism of Trump.

Conservative journalist Charlie Kirk also spoke out against a US attack earlier this week. He now wrote on X:"America stands behind President Trump."

And former Trump advisor Steve Bannon had said before the attack that while he was against intervention, he also believed the MAGA movement would continue to support Trump."We don't like it. Maybe we hate it," the AP news agency quoted him as saying regarding intervention."But you know, we're going to participate."

Among Republicans in Congress, support was crystal clear. House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune unequivocally supported Trump. Johnson declared that the US attack was a clear reminder to the US's enemies that Trump means what he says. Thune also declared that he stands with Trump.

What do Americans think about the attacks?

Fundamentally, Trump is an unpopular president—as he was during his first term. According to calculations by US data journalist G. Elliott Morris, who compiles several important polls, the Republican's recent approval rating was 42 percent and his disapproval rating was 54 percent. Trump's foreign policy, which includes the Iran attack, also had 53 percent disapproval and only 39 percent approval before the attacks.

And when asked specifically about a possible attack on Iran, the position of the US population before last night was clear: no participation in the Israel-Iran war.

In a poll conducted by The Economist and YouGov, 60 percent of respondents opposed interfering in the war. Only 16 percent were in favor. Even among Trump's 2024 voters, only 19 percent were in favor—and a significant 53 percent were against. On June 18, the Washington Post asked more specifically about their opinion on an air strike against nuclear facilities—as actually happened now: 25 percent were in favor, 45 percent against.

And from a historical perspective, the attack in Iran was also very unpopular in the run-up to the attack, according to Morris: While in 2001 88 percent were initially in favor of an intervention in Afghanistan, in 2003 71 percent in Iraq, and in 2014 54 percent in the case of IS, the average of several surveys now shows only a very clear minority of 21 percent - compared to 57 percent who were against.

Now, after the attacks, a somewhat different picture emerged, at least on YouGov: When asked whether they meant greater security for the US in the long term, a clear relative majority of 44 percent still answered: No, the situation had become more insecure. However, 52 percent of Republican supporters answered that the attacks had improved US security.

However, data journalist Morris pointed out, among other things, in X, with reference to the example of Iraq, that the popularity of attacks usually increases temporarily immediately after them, but then steadily declines. Data from other polling institutes should therefore be interesting.