New Poll Reveals Growing American Pessimism Towards War with Iran

Washington Message

Washington – Said Arikat - 5/6/2026

News Analysis

The results of a new poll conducted by the University of Maryland in cooperation with Ipsos reveal growing concern within the United States regarding war with Iran, an indicator reflecting an increasing gap between stated foreign policy goals and American public perceptions of the outcomes of such a war and its repercussions on national interests.

According to the results of the "Critical Issues Poll" supervised by the renowned researcher Shibley Telhami, the majority of Americans believe that the war with Iran has harmed American interests more than it has achieved gains. This comes at a time when questions are increasing within political and academic circles about the utility of continued military involvement in Middle East conflicts, and Washington's ability to achieve clear strategic objectives through them.

The results show clear partisan differences in evaluating the war, with 84 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents saying that the war's effects were more negative than positive for the United States. Among Republicans, the picture appeared less severe but still leaned towards pessimism; 33 percent believed the war's outcomes were negative, compared to only 25 percent who considered them positive.

This indicator is particularly important because Republicans typically form the political base closest to adopting more hawkish foreign policies, and they represent the segment most supportive of President Donald Trump. Nevertheless, the poll results suggest that doubts about the war's utility are no longer confined to the Democratic or independent camps but have extended to segments of Republican voters themselves.

The results also reveal a deeper crisis related to Americans' perception of the war's trajectory and its actual outcomes. According to the poll, fewer than one in six Americans believe that the United States has won or is on its way to winning. In contrast, the largest number of participants said that neither side could be considered victorious or decisively ahead in the conflict.

Telhami believes that these results reflect growing popular fears that the United States is not achieving tangible gains from the war, regardless of the objectives declared at its outset. He points out that the absence of a sense of victory among various segments of public opinion, including older Republican demographics, makes it difficult to imagine that extending or expanding the war would change the general direction of popular attitudes.

These results reveal a recurring phenomenon in American political history: the decline of popular support for wars as they drag on and lack clear indicators of success. Americans may accept military involvement in the early stages of conflicts under the influence of a sense of threat or out of a desire to defend national interests, but the continuation of military operations without tangible results often leads to the erosion of public trust. Current figures suggest that the war with Iran has begun to enter this phase, where the discussion revolves more around cost and return than political slogans and stated objectives.

In a separate but equally important context, Telhami, in another study prepared in collaboration with researchers Calvert Jones and Marc Lynch, discussed the results of the current spring's "Middle East Scholars Measure," which focuses on the assessment by academic specialists in regional affairs of the impacts of artificial intelligence and its professional uses.

The study indicates that artificial intelligence has already entered the field of Middle East studies, but in a heterogeneous manner and accompanied by varying degrees of concern and reservation. Most participants reported that this technology has not significantly affected their teaching methods so far, yet those who confirmed an impact described it, almost collectively, as mostly negative.

This stance reflects growing concerns within academic circles about the impact of AI tools on the quality of scientific research and students' critical thinking levels, in addition to the risks associated with producing inaccurate or misleading content whose sources are difficult to verify.

The academics' concern does not stem from the technology itself, but from the speed with which it permeates the production and circulation of knowledge. Educational institutions typically need many years to develop ethical and methodological standards for dealing with new tools, while AI is spreading at an unprecedented pace. Many researchers fear that excessive reliance on these tools will weaken independent analytical skills and original research, which are the fundamental pillars of academic work. Therefore, the current hesitation appears to be a reflection of a transitional state rather than a definitive rejection of the technology.

One of the most prominent findings of the study was a striking disparity between researchers' assessment of the impact of artificial intelligence and their assessment of the role of social media in shaping American public opinion on the Palestinian issue and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

25 percent of academics believed that AI-generated propaganda and misinformation contributed to shifting American public opinion towards more pro-Israel stances, while only 13 percent believed it fostered sympathy for Palestinians.

In contrast, 64 percent of participants said that social media platforms, such as "X" and "TikTok," contributed to shifting American public opinion towards greater sympathy for Palestinians. Thus, a large number of researchers believe that the impact of the two technologies moves in opposite directions when addressing political issues related to the Middle East.

This paradox reveals a new battle unfolding in the digital space over the formation of public consciousness. Artificial intelligence tends to produce massive amounts of organized and steerable content, making it an effective tool in influence and propaganda campaigns. Social media, on the other hand, provides a wider space for the spread of direct testimonies, images, and videos coming from the field. Hence, many researchers believe that American public opinion is now influenced by two different sources of information; one institutional and organized, and the other popular and interactive, which explains the contradiction in the trends observed by recent studies.

The results of both studies conclude that the American mood is undergoing rapid transformations on two parallel levels: the first relates to increasing popular doubts about the utility of foreign wars, and the second is linked to the profound changes brought about by new digital technologies in shaping knowledge and public opinion. In both cases, it appears that the United States faces growing challenges in convincing its citizens of the utility of traditional policies, whether on battlefields or in information arenas.