Two Wars

And One Divided Country

Most wars generate division. That’s rarely true at the outset. Now, however, the U.S. is going to war against Iran with the U.S. more bitterly divided at the outset than it has been for any foreign war in recent history.

An Economist-YouGov poll taken in April, during the initial ceasefire, showed only 30 percent of Americans endorsing the view that the decision to go to war with Iran was the right decision. According to Gallup, U.S. public support for military action against Iran ``was among the least favored at the outset of those [wars] Gallup has measured since the 1980s.’’

The U.S. has a powerful tradition of isolationism. We did not even enter World War II after Europe was conquered by the Nazis. The U.S. entered the war only after Pearl Harbor, when the U.S. was attacked by Japan. A Reagan Institute Summer Survey, taken in May and June of this year, found the public split over what the U.S. is now fighting for in Iran. Some 39 percent said the objective is a negotiated settlement that leaves Iran’s current government in place and places ``verifiable limits’’ on its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. About the same number (36 percent) said we were fighting to replace Iran’s Islamic regime with a new government more favorable to U.S. interests.

By two-to-one, Republicans (especially MAGA Republicans) believe we are fighting for regime change, not just a negotiated settlement. By a similar margin, Democrats see the U.S. objective as a negotiated settlement rather than regime change. (Many of those Democrats appear to have forgotten the vicious suppression of protests by Iran’s theocratic rulers.) After the initial ceasefire was announced, President Trump told reporters, ``I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe. If you kept this going, that could have happened.’’

Predictably, approval of U.S. military action was ``significantly higher among Republicans (79 percent) than among Independents (26 percent) and Democrats (8 percent).’’

President Trump continues to express resentment at the failure of NATO allies to support the U.S. war with Iran. ``I’m not happy with NATO,’’ Trump said repeatedly. He was especially tough on Spain because of its refusal to allow the U.S. to use its airspace for attacks on Iran. (The current ruling party in Spain is the Socialist Workers Party.) ``Don’t talk to them,’’ Trump advised. ``They’re hopeless. They’re bad people.’’

Nevertheless, the overall impression from the NATO summit and subsequent meeting with Western allies was one of great satisfaction. Why? Largely because of reduced tension as the allies have acceded to Trump’s demands. Despite differences on Iran, the recent NATO summit was a ``love fest’’ between President Trump and the NATO allies. Most NATO countries have increased their military spending under pressure from the U.S. to spend more on defense.

Comments by the allied leaders sounded a lot like the extravagant praise Trump elicited from Cabinet members at their first full Cabinet meeting in June 2017. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said in Ankara, ``There is a feeling of love in the air.’’ Trump’s response? ``They said, `We love you, sir, we love you.’ These are grown people saying that. Isn’t that nice? There was a love in that room. It was great,’’ President Trump said. ``This was a tremendously successful summit.’’

It happened not because NATO allies agreed with President Trump on everything (certainly not on his demand for a U.S. takeover of Greenland) but because Trump acknowledged the Allies’ independence on key issues that Trump doesn’t care about as much as the Iran war.

One of those issues is Ukraine. Western allies are solidly aligned with Ukraine in its resistance to Russian invasion. After all, the NATO alliance was formed at the beginning of the Cold War in 1949 to counter Soviet expansion and military aggression in Europe. Support for Ukraine is entirely consistent with that historic NATO objective.

President Trump has been somewhat less enthusiastic in his sympathy for Ukraine. It’s another issue where Trump is not fully in line with U.S. public opinion. Americans are overwhelmingly more sympathetic to Ukraine than to Russia. The April Economist-YouGov poll found 62 percent of the American public more sympathetic to Ukraine and only 2 percent to Russia.

President Trump has sometimes been ambivalent about the conflict. Trump admires strongmen, and he seems to recognize in Russian President Putin a fellow strongman. President Trump has occasionally praised Putin, calling him ``smart’’ and ``a strong leader.’’ Trump has even described Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as ``genius’’ and ``savvy.’’

Everyone remembers the cool reception Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky got when he visited the White House in February 2025. At the time, Ukraine’s prospects against Russia looked fairly bleak. Trump urged Zelensky to pursue a ceasefire with Russia and to show more gratitude for U.S. military aid. ``Without us, you don’t have any cards,’’ Trump said.

Thet was then. This is now. Now Ukraine’s prospects look noticeably better, as Russia faces bombardment of major population centers by homemade Ukrainian drones, plus huge troop casualties and a serious crisis of manpower.

Trump likes winners. So when he met with Zelensky this month at the NATO summit in Turkey, the atmosphere was different from what it was last year in Washington. Trump admired Ukraine’s war effort and offered Zelensky’s beleaguered country generous new military assistance in the form of a license to produce U.S.-designed Patriot air defense systems to protect Ukraine from bombardment by Russian ballistic missiles. Ukraine would become one of the few allied countries licensed to produce Patriot anti-missile defense weapons.

``We’re going to give a license to you to make Patriot missiles,’’ Trump said. President Trump, who can’t resist self-congratulation even when complimenting someone else, added, ``Look, [Zelensky’s] been very effective, and he’s had the best equipment because he’s had our equipment.’’