Editorial

The CNN poll released on March 2, 2026, reveals a stark reality: 59% of Americans disapprove of President Donald Trump’s decision to launch military strikes against Iran, with only 41% approving. Strong disapproval stands at 31%, nearly double the 16% who strongly approve. This snapshot, taken amid the early days of escalating conflict, underscores deep public skepticism—not just about the initial action but about the path forward. Majorities express doubts: 60% believe Trump lacks a clear plan, and 62% insist he should seek congressional approval for further operations. Trust in his handling of force appears eroded, reflecting broader wariness after years of Middle East entanglements.

This disapproval aligns with other surveys. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed just 27% approval and 43% disapproval, with 56% viewing Trump as too quick to use military force. The Washington Post found 52% opposition. Even pre-strike polls indicated limited appetite for escalation, suggesting the strikes have not triggered a significant “rally ’round the flag” effect. Public fatigue from past conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan lingers; Americans fear prolonged engagement, rising casualties (already reported), economic fallout from disrupted oil flows, and unintended consequences like wider regional war. Trump’s dismissal of the polling—“I don’t care about polling”—highlights a disconnect. While he frames the strikes as necessary retribution and regime pressure, the public sees risks without rewards. Only 12% favor ground troops, per related findings, signaling reluctance for deeper involvement. Partisan divides persist—Republicans show more support—but even within his base, fractures appear, with some MAGA voters wary of endless wars.

This moment tests democratic accountability in foreign policy. The Constitution requires congressional oversight for sustained military action, yet the administration has proceeded unilaterally. The poll’s call for congressional approval echoes historical precedents where unchecked executive power led to quagmires. If the conflict drags on—as most respondents expect—disapproval could harden, pressuring lawmakers and potentially influencing midterms or policy reversals.

Ultimately, the data warns against overreach. Public opinion is not fickle; it reflects lived experience with the human and financial costs of intervention. Trump must either persuade Americans of a viable endgame or risk alienating a majority already skeptical of his approach. In a democracy, wars fought without broad consent rarely endure. The administration ignores these signals at its peril—and at the nation’s.

The Middle East has once again lurched toward a wider, more devastating conflict. What began as a targeted U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iranian leadership and military assets has metastasized into a sprawling war involving state and non-state actors across the region — and with Lebanon now a frontline.

This latest escalation reached a grim new stage as Israeli airstrikes hit the southern suburbs of Beirut, traditionally a Hezbollah stronghold, in direct response to rocket and drone fire from the Iranian-allied Lebanese militia. The strikes have killed dozens and wounded many more — including civilians — underscoring the tragic human cost as battle lines broaden beyond their original scope.

For years, Lebanon has lived in the shadow of its powerful militia, Hezbollah, whose arsenal and political weight have made Beirut a cauldron of competing pressures. Now, Hezbollah’s choice to enter the war more overtly — firing missiles at Israeli targets in retaliation for the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader — has upended both domestic politics and the country’s fragile neutrality. Lebanese leaders have condemned the group’s actions and formally banned Hezbollah’s military operations, highlighting an internal rift between state authority and militia autonomy.

But bans on paper do little to stop missiles in practice. As Israel intensifies its military campaign, residents of Beirut and southern Lebanon have fled their homes, seeking safety from bombardment that has obliterated neighbourhoods and forced tens of thousands into displacement and shelters. The spectre of an all-out Lebanon war — one that could dwarf even the intense exchanges of recent years — now looms large.

This widening conflict is not isolated. Iran’s allied militias are striking U.S. and Israeli interests across the Middle East, from the Gulf to Cyprus, meaning instability is spilling over national borders with alarming speed. Oil markets are jittery, regional economies are disrupted, and diplomatic avenues appear increasingly fraught.

The humanitarian implications cannot be overstated. Civilian lives are caught in the crossfire of geopolitical brinkmanship, with ordinary families bearing the brunt of strategic decisions made far above their streets. As casualties climb and cities come under fire, the urgent need for de-escalation and international mediation grows ever clearer — not just for the warring parties, but for all who fear a wider Middle East conflagration.

• SAS Kirmani