People across the United States are beginning to feel the economic impact of the Iran war, which began on Feb. 28 when U.S. and Israeli forces launched strikes on Iran.
Roselyn, who was filling her car at a Costco in Houston's Bunker Hill area on March 28, said premium gasoline was selling for $4.27 a gallon ($1.13 per liter) — about $1 higher than on the day the war started. The increase represents a roughly 32 percent rise from a baseline of about $3.23 a gallon.
A nurse at a nearby clinic, Roselyn said she struggled to understand why the government was spending billions on the war while many households were already under financial strain.
Pentagon officials told lawmakers in a closed-door briefing that the first six days of the conflict cost more than $11.3 billion. Analyses by organizations, including the Center for American Progress, estimate the war's monthly cost at about $25 billion to $30 billion as of late March.
"Some of our patients are insured through the Marketplace under the Affordable Care Act, and I have heard them complaining about the huge hike in medical costs," Roselyn said, adding that out-of-pocket expenses for many patients have doubled or even quadrupled. Roselyn, who described herself as politically independent, said she opposes the war.
Miller, a former teacher who retired two years ago, said he and his wife are concerned about the economic fallout from the conflict.
"We noticed slight price upticks on some items in the grocery stores since the Iran war broke out," Miller said. "A prolonged military operation will surely drive up the prices more."
He added that the couple is considering canceling a cruise planned for this fall as both airfares and cruise prices have risen.
Roselyn and Miller are not alone. Recent polls show broad public disapproval of both the war and the government's handling of it.
A late-March poll by Pew Research Center found that 61 percent disapproved of President Donald Trump's handling of the conflict, while 37 percent approved. Nearly 60 percent said military action against Iran was the wrong decision, compared with 38 percent who viewed it as the right one.
The survey also found that 40 percent believe the war will make the U.S. less safe in the long term, while 22 percent think it will improve security.
Another mid-March poll by CBS and YouGov found that 68 percent of 3,300 respondents said the government had not clearly explained the goals of attacking Iran. Many said they did not see Iran as posing an imminent threat, nor did they view regime change there as meaningful for the U.S..
There is also a sharp partisan divide. Among self-identified Republicans, 79 percent approve of how the administration is handling the conflict, while 92 percent of Democrats disapprove.
Although a minority overall, about 90 percent of MAGA Republicans — Trump's core base — support the war.
Generational split
A generational split has also emerged within Trump's coalition. Older Republicans tend to back the president more strongly, while some younger conservatives say they feel betrayed by his decision to strike Iran.
The divide was evident at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference in Texas, The Associated Press reported.
The report said younger conservatives expressed "disappointment and even betrayal" over the strikes, while older attendees defended the action as "a pragmatic act forced by threats to the United States".
"We did not want to see more wars," Benjamin Williams, a 25-year-old marketing specialist with Young Americans for Liberty from Austin, Texas, was quoted by the AP as saying. "We wanted actual America-first policies, and Trump was very explicit about that."
With more than 90 percent of Democrats opposing the war, divisions among prominent Republicans and conservatives have drawn more attention.
Joe Kent, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned on March 17 in protest.
"I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby," Kent, once a Trump loyalist, posted on social media.
The split extends to the elites and experts. Supporters argue that a weakened Iran significantly benefits U.S. national security.
Saeed Ghasseminejad, a senior Iran and financial economics adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said forging "a strategic partnership with a democratic Iran could yield over $1 trillion in revenue for American firms over the next decade", with the energy sector alone generating $300 billion in non-ownership revenues.
Others question the war's rationale, with some calling it a "war of choice".
Tom Ginsburg, an international law scholar at the University of Chicago, told the university's newspaper in mid-March that there was no indication Iran was preparing an imminent attack on Israel or U.S. military bases in the Middle East.
"I have not seen any legal justification for the war. That's not surprising, but it should be disturbing," Ginsburg said. "It suggests that there is no conception of any restraint in using force abroad."
At a University of Chicago discussion, panelists shared their consensus that the U.S. did not consult European countries or Gulf states before the strike, which led to their reluctance to fully support U.S. efforts.
Instead of using the moment to build a coalition, the U.S. approach has instead created hesitation and, in some cases, distrust, said Paul Poast, an associate professor of political science at the university.
U.S. allies, especially those that host U.S. military bases and have been attacked by Iran, are questioning Washington's reliability and decision-making, he said.
Trump was weighing the option that could put U.S. troops inside Iran one day, then he said, "we will leave very soon", the next day. Such contradictory signals have been seen by critics as evidence that the administration lacks a clear exit plan.
京公网安备 11010202009201号