WASHINGTON — Only about one in four Americans approve of the U.S. strikes on Iran launched alongside Israel over the weekend, while 56 percent say President Donald Trump is too willing to use military force to advance U.S. interests, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. The findings suggest the White House could face growing political pressure as the conflict widens and officials argue the operation is limited and focused on degrading Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities, March 2, 2026.
The poll found 27 percent of respondents approve of the strikes, 43 percent disapprove and 29 percent were unsure. The survey closed Sunday and was in the field while attacks were ongoing, before the U.S. military announced its first American casualties in the operation, according to Reuters.
Polling breakdown on U.S. strikes on Iran
Beyond overall approval, the poll points to deep skepticism about the president’s use of force. A majority of Americans — 56 percent — said Trump is “too willing” to use military force to advance U.S. interests, while 35 percent said he has about the right level of willingness and 5 percent said he is not willing enough, according to ABC News’ summary of multiple surveys.
Partisan differences were stark, but not absolute. Ipsos’ write-up of the same Reuters/Ipsos data says Democrats overwhelmingly disapproved of the strikes, while Republicans were far more supportive, with independents leaning against the action. The poll was conducted Feb. 28-March 1 among 1,282 adults, Ipsos said.
- Approval: 27 percent approve, 43 percent disapprove, about three-in-10 unsure.
- “Too willing” to use force: 56 percent say Trump is too willing to use military force to advance U.S. interests.
- What could move opinion: Many respondents said their support would fall if U.S. casualties mount or if the conflict expands across the Middle East, according to Ipsos’ topline analysis.
Cost-of-living anxieties also appeared to shape views. Reuters reported that 45 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to support the campaign if gas or oil prices rise, underscoring how quickly foreign-policy support can collide with domestic economic concerns.
Casualties, mission goals and the “endless war” question
After the poll closed, the administration faced new scrutiny as casualty counts rose and officials declined to put a firm timeline on the campaign. At a Pentagon briefing Monday, officials warned of additional losses and pushed back against comparisons to past U.S. wars in the region, according to Reuters’ account of the briefing.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued the operation would not become an open-ended conflict, while top military officials said it would take time to achieve objectives. Reuters also reported the Pentagon said six U.S. service members had been killed so far and cautioned Americans to expect more casualties.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested those risks could further erode support: the survey found many respondents — including a sizable share of Republicans — said they would be less likely to back continued military action if U.S. troops in the Middle East were killed or injured.
How today’s numbers echo past Iran crisis polling
While the current polling reflects immediate reactions to the latest escalation, it also fits a longer pattern of volatile, closely divided U.S. opinion during Iran flashpoints — especially when Americans anticipate escalation or retaliation.
- In early 2020, after the U.S. airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, a Pew Research Center survey found Americans narrowly viewed the strike as the right decision, while a majority said the Trump administration’s Iran approach increased the likelihood of major conflict. (See Pew’s January 2020 analysis.)
- A separate Reuters/Ipsos poll in January 2020 found Americans increasingly expected war with Iran and tracked shifts in perceived threat levels as tensions rose. (See Reuters’ January 2020 report.)
- Later that month, an ABC News report on a Post-ABC poll found majority approval of the Soleimani strike, paired with broad concern about escalation and blowback. (See ABC News’ January 2020 coverage.)
Whether support for the current operation changes may depend on what Americans see next: the pace of casualties, any perceived progress toward stated goals, and the domestic impact of energy prices and broader instability.
