NEED TO KNOW

• Multiple polls show 43–59% of Americans disapprove of the U.S. strikes on Iran, while six U.S. service members have already been killed in Iranian retaliatory attacks
• A bipartisan war powers resolution led by Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Thomas Massie would require congressional authorization before further military action — with Massie calling it "not America First"
• Nearly 70% of Americans across party lines say President Donald Trump needs congressional approval to continue military operations, which he did not obtain before launching Operation Epic Fury

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — In the days since the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury against Iran on Feb. 28, 2026, an old and loaded question has resurfaced in American political life: can you support the troops without supporting the war? Polling data, the voices of military families, and a growing bipartisan bloc in Congress suggest the answer is yes — and that millions of Americans are already living that distinction in real time.

What the Polls Actually Show

The gap between public opinion and political rhetoric on the Iran conflict is stark. A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted over the first weekend of hostilities found that only 27% of Americans approved of the strikes while 43% disapproved and another 30% were undecided. A CNN poll fielded Feb. 28 through March 1 put disapproval higher — at 59% — with strong disapproval outpacing strong approval by nearly two to one, 31% to 16%.

Those numbers hold firm even before factoring in the human cost. The Pentagon has confirmed six U.S. service members killed in Iranian retaliatory strikes, with four of them — Capt. Cody A. Khork, Sgt. 1st Class Noah L. Tietjens, Sgt. 1st Class Nicole M. Amor and Sgt. Declan J. Coady — identified as Army reservists from the 103rd Sustainment Command who handled logistics and supply operations. They were not combat specialists. They were the people keeping other soldiers fed and equipped.

"As the president warned, an effort of this scope will include casualties. War is hell and always will be." — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

Hegseth's comment did not sway public skepticism. The CBS News/YouGov poll found more than 60% of nearly 1,400 American adults said the Trump administration had not provided a clear explanation of its goals in Iran. Six in ten Americans told CNN pollsters that Trump does not have a clear plan for handling the situation. And 75% said they were concerned about the possibility of a full-scale war — with 4 in 10 saying they were "very concerned."

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The pre-strike polling told the same story. A University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll conducted Feb. 5–9, before the launches, found only 21% of Americans favored initiating an attack. Among Republicans, the number was 40% — a plurality, but well short of a consensus even within the party most aligned with the president.

The Question Politicians Keep Avoiding

What the polls reveal, and what political leaders rarely say plainly, is that opposition to a war is not the same as opposition to the men and women fighting it. The distinction has deep roots in American history — it was the contested terrain of Vietnam, of Iraq, of Afghanistan — and it is alive again today.

Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, put it directly when speaking to Al Jazeera as the first casualty reports emerged.

"Americans, by a very large margin, don't want to be tied up in an ongoing conflict in the Middle East. The fact that Americans have died suddenly shows this is not just a video game from the standpoint of America." — Doug Bandow

That framing — that questioning the policy is a form of care for the people executing it — is gaining traction in communities where it would have been unwelcome just years ago. Near Fort Campbell, the sprawling Army installation straddling the Tennessee-Kentucky border, military families are openly divided. The base is home to the 101st Airborne Division, one of the most storied units in U.S. military history, and its surrounding communities have sent men and women to every major American conflict since World War II.

Army veteran Chris McFarland deployed three times — to Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan — and now leads the nonprofit Veterans for All, which advocates for veteran healthcare. The day Operation Epic Fury launched, he had a sign made and took it to a major thoroughfare in Clarksville, Tennessee.

"It is 100% unnecessary. It is unconstitutional. Literally, our own Congress didn't even approve of this. This was done without anyone's acknowledgement at 3:00 in the morning to murder people over in Iran." — Chris McFarland

McFarland said drivers had shown him both hostility and support, with many pulling over wanting more information. They were, he said, "in shock, confused, concerned."

Not every veteran in those communities shares his view. Army veteran Juan Munoz, who served in Afghanistan and now works as a career counselor for departing soldiers, told the Associated Press he views the conflict as a necessary step because Iran has been supplying America's enemies and threatening U.S. forces and allies in the region. Army veteran Edward Bauman, who spent 23 years in service across three theaters, said his support rests on trust in the commander in chief.

"My takeaway is there had to have been some reason for him to bomb them. I don't think he would have just went out of his way to just, 'I'm going to bomb these people.'" — Edward Bauman

Both positions exist simultaneously, in the same towns, among people who have actually served. The political narrative that frames any skepticism of the war as disrespect to the troops does not survive contact with the communities most affected.

Where the Bipartisan Fault Lines Run

Congress is where the distinction between supporting troops and supporting the war is most consequential — and most contested. Within hours of the first strikes, Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) — an unusual left-libertarian alliance — demanded Congress convene immediately to vote on their pre-existing war powers resolution.

"Congress must convene on Monday to vote to stop this." — Rep. Ro Khanna

"I am opposed to this War. This is not 'America First.' When Congress reconvenes, I will work with @RepRoKhanna to force a Congressional vote on war with Iran. The Constitution requires a vote, and your Representative needs to be on record as opposing or supporting this war." — Rep. Thomas Massie

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a libertarian-leaning noninterventionist who frequently clashes with the administration, posted his own statement on X: "My first and purest instinct is wish Americans soldiers safety and success in their mission. But my oath of office is to the Constitution, so with studied care, I must oppose another Presidential war."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a former combat pilot, drew on his own service record to make the distinction explicit.

"After promising to keep America out of war and instead focus on lowering costs for families, Donald Trump has launched a large-scale military operation against Iran. When I launched on my first combat mission during Operation Desert Storm 35 years ago, I understood the mission and the end goal. So did Congress. So did the American people. That's the minimum level of leadership this country deserves." — Sen. Mark Kelly

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) pushed back hard against the effort to force a war powers vote, calling it a danger to the mission.

"The idea that we would take the ability of our commander in chief, the president, take his authority away right now to finish this job, is a frightening prospect to me." — Speaker Mike Johnson

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, predicted the war powers resolution would fail in the face of Republican support for the president.

"I suspect you'll see overwhelming support from elected Republicans in the Congress." — Sen. Tom Cotton

Even among Democrats, the picture is complicated. Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and a handful of centrist colleagues introduced an alternative war powers resolution that would give the administration 30 days to end hostilities rather than require immediate congressional authorization — reflecting concern that the Khanna-Massie measure might restrict defensive operations and intelligence activities.

"There is a concern that the Khanna–Massie War Powers Resolution currently requires the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces." — Rep. Josh Gottheimer

What Experts Say About the Framing Itself

Trita Parsi, a foreign policy analyst who has tracked U.S.-Iran relations for two decades, argued in interviews following the strikes that the administration's shifting justifications reveal a policy without a stable foundation — a point that critics from both parties have echoed.

"It's very clear that Trump has a tremendous difficulty finding a justification for this war of choice that he's embarked on. The reality is that if this goes on for another week or two, this is going to become a political disaster." — Trita Parsi

Alex Vatanka, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Newsweek that without a coherent endgame, airstrikes alone are unlikely to achieve the political transformation the administration appears to be seeking.

"Without a wider, intelligence-driven plan for political transition, airstrikes alone are unlikely to generate sustained internal momentum against the Khamenei–IRGC leadership, particularly in the absence of an organized opposition ready to act." — Alex Vatanka

The polling data adds further weight to expert skepticism. The CNN survey found 54% of Americans believe Iran will become more of a threat to the U.S. as a result of the military action — not less. Only 28% said the strikes would make Iran less dangerous. Among those most closely watching the conflict, support for sending ground troops into Iran stands at just 12%, with 60% opposed.

And the constitutional question hangs over all of it. Nearly 70% of Americans said Trump needs congressional approval to continue military action — approval that was never sought before the first bombs fell.

The Distinction That Data Cannot Settle

The data draws a clear picture: most Americans do not support this war, many are deeply worried about where it leads, and a substantial bipartisan minority in Congress believes it was launched without constitutional authority. At the same time, the men and women now at U.S. military installations across the Middle East — in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Iraq and beyond — are doing their jobs, some at the cost of their lives.

Capt. Cody Khork's family described him as "the life of the party, known for his infectious spirit, generous heart, and deep care for those who served alongside him." Sgt. Declan Coady was 20 years old. He had enlisted in the Army Reserve in 2023 as an information technology specialist. He was posthumously promoted.

Their service and their sacrifice are not diminished by questions about the decision that placed them in harm's way. If anything, those questions — about mission clarity, congressional authorization, strategic endgame, and proportionality — are the ones people who actually care about troops are asking loudest.

"There's nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the president to do this. If we're going to put lives at risk, we need to say what the boundaries are for the engagement and what success looks like so that they can come home when it's over." — Rep. Thomas Massie

As casualties climb and the operation extends toward the administration's projected four-to-five week timeline, what standard of evidence should Americans require before deciding that opposition to this war is itself a form of support for the people fighting it?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from Reuters/Ipsos polling, the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll, and polling by CNN and CBS News/YouGov, ground reporting from military communities by the Associated Press, Pentagon casualty reporting from PBS NewsHour and Military Times, congressional reporting by NPR, NBC News, and The Hill, expert analysis via Newsweek, and operational reporting by Stars and Stripes and ABC News.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10