Emily Ekins and Hunter Johnson
As open military strikes erupt between Israel and Iran, Americans are not ready for another war in the Middle East. Put simply: Americans are exhausted. New surveys show that few Americans support getting the US military involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. Instead, most would prefer diplomatic pathways, sanctions, or even cyberattacks on computer systems before sending weapons or US troops. And if military intervention were deemed to be necessary, they’d rather that other countries lead.
YouGov finds that only 16% of Americans think the US military should get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. Six in 10 (60%) say it should not, and 24% aren’t sure. Majorities of Democrats (65%), Republicans (53%), and independents (61%) all agree they do not want the US military involved.
At the same time, an overwhelming majority (85%) of the public does not want Iran to get or develop a nuclear weapon, Harvard-Harris found. These views are bipartisan—nearly identical shares of Democrats (86%) and Republicans (85%) don’t want this to happen. But only a minority (24%) of Americans believe that Iran’s nuclear program currently presents an “immediate and serious threat” to the United States.
Thus, Americans hope that other means short of military intervention will be enough to stop Iran’s nuclear development program:
First, Americans favor opening up diplomatic negotiations with Iran (83%) to persuade them to stop their nuclear program, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs-Ipsos found. Despite this, few anticipate a positive outcome from a deal. Harvard-Harris found a plurality (45%) believe no deal could be achieved, and 23% thought only a bad deal would be reached.
If diplomacy were not enough, 80% would support imposing sanctions on Iran. A majority (59%) would also support cyberattacks against Iran’s computer systems to stop their nuclear program. This also has bipartisan support, with 88% of Republicans and 79% of Democrats agreeing.
Consensus becomes tenuous and partisans polarize when it comes to more overt forms of intervention, particularly in terms of sending weapons or troops to the region. Support also varies depending on the explicit purpose given.
For instance, the 2025 Chicago Council on Global Affairs-Ipsos survey found that 55% favor sending military aid to Israel “until the hostages [in Gaza] are returned,” while 49% supported sending military aid “until Hamas is dismantled or destroyed.” Cato’s own Swing State Foreign Policy Survey in 2024 also found marginal support for sending weapons and aid to Israel, but wanted conditions put on the military aid.
Partisans are also divided on sending military weapons and supplies to Israel. While 72% of Republicans support sending Israel aid until Hamas is dismantled or destroyed, only 32% of Democrats and 47% of independents agree.
A little less than half (48%) of Americans would support the US conducting airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. And even fewer would support sending US troops to destroy nuclear facilities (35%). However, Americans would be more supportive (60%) if, instead of the US, Israel made efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Partisans are starkly divided in their attitudes here as well. Republicans are about twice as likely as Democrats to support the US conducting airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities (69% vs. 36%) and to favor sending US troops in to destroy facilities (52% vs. 27%). Even when it comes to the US supporting an Israeli effort to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Democrats are less supportive than Republicans (47% vs. 78%).
Ultimately, Americans want to avoid another war in the Middle East. At the same time, while strong majorities oppose US military involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran, there is also overwhelming bipartisan consensus that Iran must not obtain nuclear weapons. Only 16% say the US should accept this.
This dual posture of opposing war while demanding results helps explain public support for diplomacy, sanctions, and even cyberattacks as preferred tools of influence. But support for more forceful measures, such as airstrikes or sending troops, remains limited and highly conditional. Americans are looking for peaceful solutions but are also watching closely, hoping that global leaders can keep the region from sliding into a wider war.