Support in the United States for attacks in Iran is significantly lower than in previous conflicts. Americans are more likely to support military interventions when their country has first been attacked and less when it is the instigator of hostilities.
Published at
American replica
Historically, Americans have tended to be more supportive of strikes when their country was first hit. In the aftermath of the attacks on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, no less than 97% of Americans supported the United States’ entry into the global conflict that had already lasted for two years. Similar scenario in 2001 following the September 11 attacks: 92% of Americans supported the operations that led to the overthrow of the Taliban regime.
Launch an attack
American support is more clear-cut when their government launches an intervention in another region of the globe. In 2003, 76% of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. It must be said that the operation was the subject of a long communication campaign before its launch. Conversely, more than a week after the start of the strikes in Iran, many Americans are wondering about the objectives of the White House.
Getting involved in an ongoing conflict
And when it comes time to send American soldiers into an already ongoing conflict, support can vary widely. A strong majority supported military intervention in the Persian Gulf in 1991 and in Korea in 1950. However, Americans were significantly less likely to support interventions in Kosovo (1999) and Libya (2011). As a general rule, Americans tend to rally around their flag at the outbreak of hostilities, but this support can quickly weaken.
Read “Unlike Past US Conflicts, Iran Attack Is Opposed by Most Americans” (subscription required)
