Republicans' views on US troops on the ground in Iran revealed in new poll
By: Mandy Taheri (Newsweek vis MSN)
DEFINITE MAYBE?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Republicans are split on putting U.S. troops on the ground in Iran according to a poll released Thursday.
Why It Matters
Americans largely backed diplomatic actions in Iran before the strikes, with polls indicating few supported initiating attacks. Polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans do not back putting ground troops in Iran.
Republicans have largely supported Trump’s military action in Iran, but there have been divisions among some Make America Great Again base who emphasize an “America First” platform. The war comes as many Republican lawmakers are gearing up for midterm elections and hoping to maintain majorities in the House and Senate.
The U.S. and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran on February 28, notably killing the country’s longtime Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Since then, Israel and U.S. forces have carried out sustained bombardments across the country, including strikes on military facilities, as well as energy and civilian infrastructure.
What To Know
The White House is considering deploying thousands of U.S. troops amid the ongoing war in Iran, Reuters reported on Wednesday, adding that sources do not believe ground forces in Iran would be imminent.
“There has been no decision to send ground troops at this time, but President Trump wisely keeps all options at his disposal,” a White House official told the outlet on condition of anonymity.
Any move to insert U.S. ground forces—whether to secure maritime traffic at the world’s most critical oil chokepoint or control Iranian energy or nuclear-related sites—would escalate the scope and risks of a war already disrupting global energy supplies and raising domestic political stakes for Trump.
A Data for Progress poll of 1,259 U.S. likely voters conducted between March 13 and 15 found that while a majority of voters, 68 percent, oppose the U.S. deploying soldiers in Iran, Republicans are evenly split on the matter, at 48 percent.
Twenty-one percent of Republicans said they “strongly support” deploying U.S. troops on the ground, while 27 percent said they “somewhat support.” Similarly, 28 percent said they “somewhat oppose” deployment and 20 percent said they “strongly oppose.” Four percent of Republicans say they don’t know.
Across all political backgrounds, 68 percent of participants oppose sending U.S. troops on the ground, n
while 26 percent support it. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Among Democrats, 85 percent oppose troop deployment, while 10 percent support it.
Prior polling from Quinnipiac University found that most voters oppose military action involving U.S. ground troops in Iran, with 74 percent of voters opposed and 20 percent in support. The poll surveyed 1,002 people.
Among party lines, 52 percent of Republicans are opposed to sending U.S. troops to Iran, while 37 percent back such a move. Nearly all Democrats oppose the measure, 95 percent, with 3 percent supporting it. Three-quarters of independents would oppose the move, 75 percent, compared to 19 percent who support it.
The poll was conducted between March 6 and March 8 and has a margin of error of ±3.8 percentage points.
What People Are Saying
Tim Malloy, Quinnipiac University polling analyst, said in the Quinnipiac poll: “Voters are unenthusiastic about the air attack on Iran and there is overwhelming opposition to putting American troops on Iranian soil to fight a ground war.”
Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said on March 2: “We have to have the humility to acknowledge the fact that U.S. servicemembers have already lost their lives and been injured, that we could face serious consequences in the loss and death of our troops, serious consequences in instability in the region, serious consequences in rising energy prices for Americans.”
Senator Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican, said in a March 12 statement: “I think that the American people don’t want to see boots on the ground. I think that we can achieve objectives without that, and I would hope that’s the end product.”
What Happens Next
Trump said in the Oval Office on Thursday, “No, I’m not putting troops anywhere. If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you.”
The timeline for the war in Iran remains uncertain, with Trump at times signaling it could end soon while also doubling down on certain thresholds.
Be a good human. Grossly derogatory comments, blatantly inflammatory comments, excessive trolling, mean-spirited taunting and insults, scamming, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed in compliance with the site's Terms of Service and the Code of Conduct. The moderators have the final word.
Tags
Who is online
83 visitors
President Trump will land troops in Iran just to prove he can.
Field Marshal Bone Spur knows more than any general does. Damn the wussy torpedoes, full speed ahead!
"They'll be home for Christmas, if only in their dreams."
He is leaving his options open
There may be small actions needed
I'm with the fictional Gen Jack Ripper on this one
I'll give you a 14 Megaton head start, so let's get going and let us destroy the enemy!
You do know General Ripper was insane , don't you?
I think we should wait until the facts are in.
What options?
Iran is the clear loser. Israel is the clear winner. Trump is just trying to cover his ass.
Once that regime is gone everyone wins: The Iranian people, the Arab states, Israel, Europe and the US.
And if and when it happens, China & Russia will have lost a key asset.
You say the oddest things. In the movie General Ripper started a nuclear war.
It was only a movie. One that was made from the liberal perspective.
Israel will certainly win. The Arab states win. What does the United States get out of it?
Trump has opened the Middle East for industrial development. The United States has lost the ability to do industrial development and massive infrastructure projects. The United States only destroys things and destabilizes regions.
The Arab states value stability. The United States has been a destabilizing influence in the Middle East. By removing the "threats to American interests" in the Middle East the Arab states no longer need the United States. And the United States no longer has a reason to be there.
You know that answer. We won't be attacked by nuclear weapons, and we won't have to place so many military assets in the middle east.
Trump has opened the Middle East for industrial development. The United States has lost the ability to do industrial development and massive infrastructure projects. The United States only destroys things and destabilizes regions.
Trump has built alliances in the Gulf states. You know, the more rational Arabs.
The Arab states value stability. The United States has been a destabilizing influence in the Middle East.
You are wrong. The problem was the insane strategy of Barack Obama. He thought a fanatical regime should offset the democratic state of Israel. Obama saw it from the angle of those he thought were "oppressed" and he helped Iran become a behemoth. Stability = the end of radical Islam.
By removing the "threats to American interests" in the Middle East the Arab states no longer need the United States. And the United States no longer has a reason to be there.
The United States shouldn't be there once this regime is KILLED OFF. American interests lie in our own hemisphere and the Pacific.
Are you competent? YOU are the one who said you agreed with Ripper about something. Just about everything he said in that movie was bat shit crazy.
Well, Iran being a nuclear treat against the United States is a bullshit excuse. Destroying Iran does absolutely nothing to remove the threat of nuclear attack. Trump has said as much. Trump's plans for a massive Golden Dome that requires annexing Greenland has nothing to do with an Iranian nuclear threat.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a Jew. Trump could turn Ukraine into the "Israel of Eastern Europe". Putin has nuclear weapons and has directly threatened both the "Israel of Eastern Europe" and the United States. When does Trump head for Moscow?
Or is the 'nuclear threat' excuse just another Trumpian lie?
What has Trump offered? The United States is not going to buy Middle Eastern oil. In fact, the US is a competitor to the Arab states. Has Trump offered weapons to the Arabs? The threats to Middle Eastern stability have been destroyed (except Israel). Did Trump offer money to rich countries for industrial development and divestment from an oil economy?
Trump has destroyed the reasons for those security alliances.
Israel won. Trump has turned Israel into the dominant threat in the Middle East. Iran has been destroyed. Hegseth has been pissing his pants over the destruction. Radical Islam has been defanged if not destroyed.
Obama did what prior Presidents have done. US policy was intended to deliberately create instability in the Middle East as a means of retaining influence over the region. The United States needed Iran to be a threat to justify security alliances in the Middle East. The threat of Iraq and Iran were diplomatic tools used by the US.
The interest of the United States has always been to rebuild commercial competitiveness. Not to bankrupt the US pursuing hostile takeover of competitors. Trump has spend a lot of treasure to make the need for security alliances a moot point. Attacking Iran has made the United States weaker, not stronger.
The immediate future of the United States has been entrusted to the Arab states controlling the petrodollar. And the Arab state have less need for a security alliance with the US. Trump handed his big lever to the Arab states and now they can threaten the US.
By starting this war on Iran, Trump has assured a landslide victory for the Democrats in the upcoming midterms.
(The price of gasoline isn't going to come down anytime soon . . .)
There's always a Hungary up for grabs ...
Let's face it, the dems are going to win. Nonetheless I advise everyone to vote.
Especially when FDR & Harry Truman were so willing to give it away.
If you want to take away Iran’s uranium stockpiles, you probably need to actually send soldiers.
A commando style raid
Hmmm, scattered commandos seeking the scattered uranium Netanyahu claims is now dust. Someone call Hegseth,[✘]
I don’t think they’re keeping it on the beach, ya know? The reporting I’ve seen is that it’s deep underground, hundreds of miles inland.
Maybe an IDF commando team.
The only thing a commando style raid could do is verify location and condition of the enriched uranium. Commandos could not seize and remove the stockpiles. Commandos destroying the stockpiles would create a radiological disaster.
I feel you’re vastly underestimating the complexities of these issues - kinda like the administration.
They're busy in Lebenon right now.
Going up against Iran on their home turf will result in heavy U.S. casualties.
(I wonder if Trump has been aware of how that will effect GOP results in the upcoming midterms?)