Trump spoke of the “strength of the U.S. military” and claimed that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been destroyed in a 12-day war, even as some representatives and senators left the chamber, sending a clear signal of their dissatisfaction. At the same time, figures such as John Thune stressed the necessity of consulting Congress before any military action, underscoring that even within the Republican Party there is no clear consensus for entering a new conflict.

A Quinnipiac University poll shows that 70 percent of Americans oppose military action against Iran, while only 18 percent support it. A University of Maryland survey likewise emphasizes that only one in five Americans backs an attack. A majority of Democrats, independents, and even 60 percent of Republicans either oppose such action or remain uncertain. These figures suggest that American society is no longer receptive to costly foreign adventures.

Moreover, opposition from senior generals to the military option reflects a rift within the U.S. national security decision-making structure—one that raises the political cost for the White House of any hasty move.

Public Opinion; A Barrier to War-Making

Trump sought to rally public opinion by highlighting Iran’s missile threat and advancing human rights allegations. However, field data point in the opposite direction. Seventy percent of Americans believe the president must obtain congressional approval before taking any military action—signaling a renewed demand for legal oversight over decisions of war.

In this context, 25 American organizations—including the Center for International Policy, J Street, Just Foreign Policy, and the National Iranian American Council—have called for support of war powers resolutions concerning Iran. Such civil alignment reflects the erosion of social capital behind the military option.

From a strategic perspective, this situation mirrors a broader public awareness of the costs of war—costs that would not only fail to guarantee U.S. security but could expand the scope of crisis across the entire region and even beyond. Globally, many publics view the Israeli regime as the principal threat to regional stability and show little willingness to align with a war against Iran—an indication of a weakening of American soft power.

Costly Ultimatums and the Risk of Miscalculation

Trump’s insistence on issuing successive ultimatums aimed at compelling Iran’s surrender in negotiations has not only failed to yield results but, according to some U.S. officials, has led to expressions of surprise at Iran’s “refusal to capitulate.” This maximum pressure policy heightens the risk of miscalculation.

Repeated ultimatums could reinforce in Tehran the perception that an attack is imminent. Under such circumstances, the likelihood of preemptive action or a broad regional response increases. This is precisely the scenario many American elites fear: an unintended confrontation spiraling beyond control.

In other words, Trump’s domestic critics worry that aggressive policies could draw the United States into a cycle of escalation whose consequences would not be limited but widespread and unpredictable.

Reality on the Ground; Mutual Deterrence

Contrary to certain assumptions, realities on the ground suggest that in the event of a proxy war, no actor would remain untouched. Iranian military officials have stated that any use of other countries’ bases, radar systems, or logistical capacities against Iran would be regarded as participation in aggression and treated as a legitimate target.

This deterrent message has prompted many regional governments to question the notion of a “limited strike,” as past experience has shown that the concept of limited war in interwoven security environments is, in practice, unsustainable. Any confrontation could rapidly expand and place critical infrastructure at risk.

Under international law, military or logistical assistance to an aggressor may expose the host country to lawful countermeasures in self-defense. These legal and security considerations have further constrained the scope of regional alignment with the military option.

In such an environment, diplomacy appears to be the only low-cost and rational option before Washington—particularly given that a majority of Americans show no appetite for another war and express criticism of unconditional relations with the Israeli regime.

The strategic conclusion is that Iran’s deterrence posture, America’s internal divisions, and regional-legal considerations have collectively narrowed the space for Trump’s military option.