More than half of those Americans who supported Donald Trump for president in 2024 don’t think the U.S. military should get involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel.
A new The Economist/YouGov poll conducted on June 13-16 found that 53% of Trump voters said the U.S. should not join the war, versus just 19% who said the U.S. military should. Sixty percent of all Americans surveyed agreed that the U.S. should not get involved.
The poll also found that 63 percent of Trump voters said the U.S. should “engage in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program” while just 18% said the U.S. should not (in total, 56% said the U.S. should talk to Iran).
That result mirrors other recent polling on negotiations with Iran which found that Republicans support talks and comes amid an increasingly bitter battle between those pushing for war with Iran and Trump’s most loyal supporters — including MAGA stars like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson — who are furious that the president didn’t stop Israel from launching its attack on Iran last week and is apparently considering U.S. military involvement.
Ben Armbruster is the Managing Editor of Responsible Statecraft. He has more than a decade of experience working at the intersection of politics, foreign policy, and media. Ben previously held senior editorial and management positions at Media Matters, ThinkProgress, ReThink Media, and Win Without War.
Top image credit: 11.04.2025. Rohuneeme. Estonian authorities detained an oil tanker which forms part of Russia's "shadow fleet" and which had been sailing through Estonian waters in the Gulf of Finland. The vessel Kiwala is not permitted to sail on the open seas. Photo Eero Vabamägi, Postimees VIA REUTERS
The European Union’s latest moves (as part of its 17th package of sanctions against Russia declared in May) to target much more intensively Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers and other vessels illustrate the danger that, as long as the Ukraine war continues, so will the risk of an incident that will draw NATO and the EU into a direct military clash with Russia.
The EU sanctions involve bans on access to the ports, national waters and maritime economic zones of EU states. Ships that enter these waters risk seizure and confiscation. It does not appear that Washington was consulted about this decision, despite the obvious risks to the U.S.
As part of this strategy, on May 15, an Estonian patrol boat attempted to stop and inspect a tanker in the Gulf of Finland. Russia sent up a fighter jet that flew over the Estonian vessel (allegedly briefly trespassing into Estonian waters), and the Estonians backed off — this time. In January, the German navy seized a Panamanian-flagged tanker, the Eventin, in the Baltic after its engines failed and it drifted into German territorial waters.
Sweden has now announced that starting on July 1 its navy will stop, inspect and potentially seize all suspect vessels transiting its exclusive economic zone, and is deploying the Swedish air force to back up this threat. Since the combined maritime economic zones of Sweden and the three Baltic states cover the whole of the central Baltic Sea, this amounts to a virtual threat to cut off all Russian trade exiting Russia via the Baltic — which would indeed be a very serious economic blow to Moscow.
It would also threaten to cut off Russia’s exclave of Kaliningrad, which is surrounded by Poland, from access to Russia by sea.
This is the kind of action that has traditionally led to war. The Swedish assumption seems to be that the Russian navy and air force in the Baltic are now so weak — and so surrounded by NATO territory — that there is nothing Moscow can do about this. However, it is very unlikely that the Swedes would take this step unless they also believe that in the event of a clash, Washington will come to Sweden’s defense — even though the EU and Swedish decisions were made without U.S. approval and are not strictly covered by NATO’s Article 5 commitment.
And despite all the hysterical language about Russia being “at war” with NATO countries, these moves by the EU and Sweden are also based on an assumption that Russia will not in fact lose its temper and react with military force. European policymakers might however want to think about a number of things: for example, what would the U.S. do if ships carrying U.S. cargo were intercepted by foreign warships? We know perfectly well that the U.S. would blow the warships concerned out of the water and declare that it had done so in defense of the sacred rule of free navigation — in which the EU also professes to believe.
EU leaders, and admirals, should also spend some time on Russian social media, and read the incessant attacks on the Putin administration by hardliners arguing precisely that Moscow has been far too soft and restrained in its response to Western provocations, and that this restraint has encouraged the West to escalate more and more. Such hardliners (especially within the security forces) are by far the greatest internal political threat that Putin faces.
It is important to note in this regard that moves to damage Russia’s “shadow fleet” have not been restricted to sanctions. In recent months there have been a string of attacks on such vessels in the Mediterranean with limpet mines and other explosive devices — developments that have been virtually ignored by Western media.
In December 2024, the Russian cargo ship Ursa Major sank off Libya after an explosion in which two crewmembers were killed. The Reuters headline reporting these attacks was rather characteristic: “Three tankers damaged by blasts in Mediterranean in the last month, causes unknown, sources say.” Unknown, really? Who do we think were the likely perpetrators? Laotian special forces? Martians? And what are European governments doing to investigate these causes?
If the Russians do sink a Swedish or Estonian warship, the Trump administration will face a terribly difficult decision on how to respond to a crisis that is not of its own choosing: intervene and risk a direct war with Russia, or stand aside and ensure a deep crisis with Europe. The U.S. administration would therefore be both wise and entirely within its rights to state publicly that it does not endorse and will not help to enforce this decision.
Washington also needs — finally — to pay attention to what the rest of the world thinks about all this. The overwhelming majority of senators who are proposing to impose 500% tariffs on any country that buys Russian energy have apparently not realized that one of the two biggest countries in this category is India — now universally regarded in Washington as a vital U.S. partner in Asia. And now America’s European allies are relying on U.S. support to seize ships providing that energy to India.
The U.S. administration would also be wise to warn European countries that if this strategy leads to maritime clashes with Russia, they will have to deal with the consequences themselves. Especially given the new risk of war with Iran, the last thing Washington needs now is a new flare-up of tension with Moscow necessitating major U.S. military deployments to Europe. And the last thing the world economy needs are moves likely to lead to a still greater surge in world energy prices.
European governments and establishments seem to have lost any ability to analyze the possible wider consequences of their actions. So — not for the first time — America will have to do their thinking for them.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: A rescue personnel walks next to a damaged vehicle at an impact site following missile attack from Iran on Israel, in Ramat Gan, Israel, June 14, 2025. REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
Israel’s war of choice with Iran is proving far less decisive than President Donald Trump initially believed when he praised Israel’s performance as “excellent.” What now appears to be an escalating, inconclusive conflict with no clear end in sight will soon force Trump into a challenging decision: end the war — or enter it.
Israel’s opening strike was undoubtedly a tactical success. Caught off guard by the assumption that Israel wouldn’t act before the sixth round of nuclear talks, Iranian leaders had taken no precautions. Many were asleep in their homes in northern Tehran, alongside their families, when Israeli strikes killed them in their beds. Iran’s air defenses were also unprepared and inactive.
Israel aimed to eliminate as many Iranian commanders as possible to disrupt Iran’s command and control structure and effectively paralyze its military response. Initially, the strikes were so successful — and Iran so subdued — that it was unclear whether Tehran retained any meaningful capacity to retaliate.
Impressed by Israel’s early success, Trump moved quickly to claim credit for the operation, despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio having declared just hours earlier that the strikes were a "unilateral action" by Israel and that the U.S. was not involved. As the saying goes: success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.
But within 18 hours, Iran had restructured its chain of command, activated its air defenses, and, most critically, launched four missile barrages aimed primarily at Israeli air defense systems. Many of the missiles penetrated Israel’s multilayered defenses, lighting up the Tel Aviv skyline as they struck their targets — including a direct hit on Israel’s Ministry of Defense.
That Tehran could mount such a response just hours after losing several top military commanders was the first clear sign that Israel’s initial success would be short-lived.
Although Iran continued to absorb heavy blows on Saturday — including Israeli strikes on oil refineries, Mehrabad Airport in Tehran, and other civilian and economic infrastructure — it responded with additional missile barrages. These were fewer in number but notably more effective. As Israel’s air defenses degrade, Tehran is likely to shift to missiles with larger warheads, increasing the scale of destruction.
Meanwhile, despite inflicting significant damage on the Natanz nuclear site, Israel has failed to penetrate the far more critical and heavily fortified Fordow facility. As a result, the actual impact on Iran’s nuclear program appears limited. Reports indicate that the U.S. military has provided its missile defense capabilities to shoot down Iranian drones and missiles but it has so far not joined Israel in offensive strikes.
It is becoming increasingly clear to Washington that Israel’s war of choice is far from a success, and a decisive outcome may not materialize at all. While Israel likely holds escalation dominance, it faces a critical disadvantage: it has fewer air defense interceptors than Iran has long-range missiles. Israel needs a swift and decisive victory — but a prolonged war of attrition may ultimately favor Iran. And such a victory now seems out of reach.
Unsurprisingly, Israeli officials and their allies in Washington — including groups like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies — have begun lobbying President Trump to bring the U.S. into the war and to join them in offensive strikes. For Trump, this must be a serious letdown. Aware of his reluctance to launch another Middle East war, the Netanyahu government had recalibrated its approach when it pressed Trump earlier in January: rather than urging the U.S. to strike Iran directly, it sought a green light for Israel to act. Through an intense lobbying campaign, Israel appears to have secured at least tacit approval from Trump for this campaign.
Just 24 hours into its war of choice with Iran, Israel was already back in Washington, knocking on Trump’s door with new demands. What began as “Give us the green light and Israel will bomb Iran for America” quickly shifted to “Hurry up, America, and bomb Iran for Israel!”
Israel faces two key challenges with this request. First, seeking America’s blessing to go to war is a far lighter ask than requesting America’s direct military involvement. Trump, unexpectedly, agreed to the former — but it would be exceptionally unwise for him to agree to the latter.
Secondly, as noted earlier, Trump likes winners — and by asking him to intervene, Israel is signaling that it’s losing. It has failed to eliminate Iran’s regime or cripple its nuclear program, and is now absorbing unexpected blows in return (today Iran sent a barrage of missiles during daytime rather than night to throw the Israelis off). Why would Trump risk American lives, endanger his presidency, and join a war he didn’t start — just to rescue Israel from a failed and unprovoked conflict? Trump prefers to take credit for victories, not inherit blame for someone else’s potential fiasco.
After all, it was Israel that persuaded Trump to adopt the zero-enrichment negotiating stance — the very position that led to the diplomatic deadlock Israel later exploited to secure a green light for its faltering military campaign. Had Trump stuck to his original red line — no weaponization — he might now be on the verge of a historic nuclear agreement with Iran.
Trump listened to Netanyahu—just as he did to John Bolton and Mike Pompeo in 2018—and once again, his path to an America First deal with Iran was derailed. This is precisely the outcome Netanyahu sought. If it’s not what Trump wants, he should change course immediately—just as he did in Yemen. Rather than joining Israel’s war, he should compel Israel to end it.
With its unprovoked war, Israel has undermined Trump’s negotiating position in two key ways. First, support for acquiring a nuclear weapon has surged among Iran’s elite and broader society in response to the Israeli bombings. This has raised the political cost for Tehran to agree to limit enrichment to civilian levels, making a deal more difficult.
Second, America’s backing of Israel’s attack — coupled with Trump’s self-congratulatory rhetoric — has led Tehran to believe he deliberately lulled Iran into a false sense of security to boost Israel’s chances. As a result, what little trust remained in Trump as a negotiating partner has further eroded. And the less trust there is, the narrower the path to a deal.
Still, a deal remains possible. But the sooner Trump halts Israel’s war, the better his chances. One thing is certain: if Trump and Iran return to the negotiating table, he must quickly abandon the self-defeating zero-enrichment demand championed by Israel and Bolton — the very stance that gave birth to this needless and messy war.
When Israeli warplanes struckIran this week — violating Iranian sovereignty in a brazen act of aggression, killing scores of civilians alongside top military commanders and nuclear scientists and inviting Iran’s equally indiscriminate retaliatory strikes — Europe’s leaders didn’t condemn the attack.
They perversely endorsed it and condemned Iran for the attacks on its own territory.
The president of France Emmanuel Macron set the tone by condemning Iran’s “ongoing nuclear program” and reaffirming “Israel’s right to defend itself and secure its security.” President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen seemed to have spoken from the same script “reiterating Israel’s right to defend itself,” embellished by some generic platitudes about the need for restraint and de-escalation.
The German foreign ministry went a step further and actually “strongly condemned” Iran for “an indiscriminate attack on Israeli territory” — even before Tehran launched its missiles in response for Israel’s attack on its territory — while fully endorsing Israel’s actions.
This Orwellian rhetoric isn’t just incompetence or ignorance. It’s the culmination of years of European diplomatic malpractice that helped to manufacture this crisis — and exposed the "rules-based order" as a corpse. Europe’s double standards killed its credibility.
Europe’s stance on Ukraine invoked Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter with political clarity: "All members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state." Yet when Israel attacked Iran — with no legal basis for self-defense — Europe de-facto reframed aggression as virtue, and condoned it.
Europe’s moral and diplomatic collapse hasn’t gone unnoticed. Two globally respected voices delivered particularly damning verdicts. Mohamed ElBaradei, Nobel Laureate and former head of the U.N.’s atomic energy watchdog, offered a humiliating crash course in international law to the German foreign ministry.
Reacting to Berlin’s endorsement of Israel’s “targeted strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities” (never mind the hundreds of civilians killed in these strikes), El Baradei reminded it that such strikes are prohibited under the Geneva Conventions to which Germany is a party, and that the use of force in international relations “is generally prohibited in the UN Charter with the exception of the right of self-defense in the case of armed attack or upon authorization by the Security Council in the case of collective security action.”
For her part, Francesca Albanese, U.N. special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, reacting to Macron’s statement, commented that “on the day Israel, unprovoked, has attacked Iran, the president of a major European power, finally admits that in the Middle East, Israel, and only Israel, has the right to defend itself.”
The message of the likes of El Baradei and Albanese is unequivocal: when Europe applauds Israel’s strike while condemning Russia’s invasion, it doesn’t uphold universal rules — it enforces its tribalist identity: “rules” only apply to adversaries, not friends. This is fatal to Europe’s pretense of moral authority — it has been well noticed in the Global South, but also among many European citizens too.
This pretense looks even more detached from reality given that the crisis in the Middle East erupted on fertile ground prepared by serial European failure. First it was the E3 (Britain, France, Germany) failure to uphold the JCPOA following the U.S. withdrawal under Donald Trump’s presidency in 2018. While the EU offered rhetorical support for the nuclear deal, it buckled to U.S. sanctions and refused to shield EU firms willing to engage with Iran. It let the JCPOA die, de-facto creating a vacuum for escalation.
Further, while mediators like Oman and Qatar brokered talks on a new nuclear deal between the U.S. and Iran, the EU pushed for an IAEA resolution censoring Iran days before Israel’s strike, torpedoing de-escalation and contributing to creating a more menacing, dangerous security environment, with the U.N. Security Council sanctions snapback and potential Iran’s withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) lurking in the background.
Each of these failures validated Tehran’s view that it is futile to negotiate with Europe. The E3/EU are now seen not just as a weak party unable to fulfil its commitments under the nuclear agreement, but also an actively destructive player undermining Iran’s security and regional stability.
European powers’ staggering descent into diplomatic irrelevance was starkly illustrated by Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi’s categorical rejection of his British counterpart David Lammy’s pleas to de-escalate. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine why Tehran should heed these calls when they come from parties it sees as actively colluding with the aggressors.
The likely fallout from Europe’s diplomatic self-sabotage is that it incinerated whatever residual trust it still had in Iran and the broader Global South. It all but guaranteed proliferation by giving Iranians — now not just the hardliners — a powerful incentive to seek nuclear weaponization, an outcome that could have been avoided had Europe engaged in serious, good faith talks with Iran on reviving the nuclear deal. Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT is no longer a merely theoretical possibility.
All of these developments dramatically increase the likelihood of blowback against European interests: a regional war in the Middle East means more uncontrolled migration, heightened risks of terrorism on European soil or against European interests in the region, and energy shocks if Iran delivers on its threats to block the Hormuz Straight, the world’s principal oil trade artery.
Absent an urgent but unlikely course correction, such as holding Israel accountable for its regional aggression, Europe’s decay will accelerate. When Brussels exempts allies from rules imposed on rivals, it doesn’t preserve peace — it signs its own geopolitical suicide note.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.