Polls Show Opposition To Trump’s Iran Actions

New polls have worrisome numbers for the Trump Administration. Despite Iran’s retaliation (thus far) being modest for the killed of a top military figure, some 56% of Americans say they disapprove of President Trump’s handling of matter with Iran, according to an ABC News poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. The polls shows that the effort to portray Democrats as supporting a terrorist have not worked. Nor should they. It is entirely unfair to portray Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “trying to defend” Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani. She denounced Soleimani but reasonably objected to the lack of conferral and evidence behind the attack. We can have a disagreement over such killings without suggesting that some are supporting terrorists by raising constitutional powers and obligations.

What should worry the White House the most is that polls are showing 57 percent of the key independent block as opposing the Iranian actions.

Part of the problem continues to be embarrassing shifts in the narrative, facts, and recently some bizarre claims like the Nobel comments of the President. When the Administration is trying to get people to trust their accounts, such conflicts and controversies undermine their position. These polls indicate that it is not just foreign but domestic skepticism that results.

The good news for the White House is that polls in states like Iowa do not show a worsening situation on impeachment. Indeed, in Iowa only 43 percent favor impeachment. Moreover, the bets are still favoring reelection. Other polls show him topping likely Democratic rivals.

223 thoughts on “Polls Show Opposition To Trump’s Iran Actions”

    1. Maybe after using Sputnik News as a source, Jill will use the Tehran Times as another source.

        1. You should learn to distinguish between state media and media that is not owned and controlled by government.
          Currently, you do not seem to know the difference, Fishwings.

          1. What Trump sez every morning after watching FOX, or what Trump sez and what FOX sez after, somebody is using someone.

      1. Anonymous:

        “Not self defense, not imminent threat= war crime:”
        You think Jill wears the Mao jacket, the Fidel cap, the Stalin tunic or all three around the house?

    2. “Sputnik (Russian pronunciation: [ˈsputnʲɪk]; formerly The Voice of Russia and RIA Novosti) is a news agency, news website platform and radio broadcast service established by the Russian government-owned news agency Rossiya Segodnya.”

      Russian active measures – to distribute anti-American propaganda in order to weaken the country, and our opposition to Russian expansion. Such propaganda includes claims of American racism, colonialism, imperialism, as well as claims that every move we make is wrong and immoral.

    3. Jill, you really are spreading false propaganda. You’ve even included a blatant Russian propaganda site as one of your sources. That’s why you posted an article with wild accusations that ISIS was a US terrorist organization, and Trump hit Soleimani to help Israel act like Nazi Germany.

      This is really crazy stuff.

      The question is if you are aware that it’s propaganda, and actively seek to spread it, or if you are completely unaware of what you’re doing. Are you also posting as djinn?

      1. And yet you and others repeat Russian propaganda about Hillary and Ukraine, and see nothing wrong.

  1. This once academic legal blog is being driven by the same +/-10 people many of which are Anonymous (2-3 people). Add to this the few people who use many aliases (Seth/Enoch/peter and Anon/Jinn/bythebook, etc) and it is fair to say

    The blog is a joke


    1. mjmichaels2 – the blog is moderated. And you could join in more. The more the merrier. 😉

    2. MJ,
      The content of Turley’s posts have remained for the most part about legal issues. That being said, blogs are always going to have that handful of people you would never spend 5 minutes with face-to-face. There will also be that handful that are serious thinkers. And then there are the few that want to treat it like their own chat room. That means there’s something for everyone.

    3. Yeah, M.J., the blog’s a joke because too many commenters are determined to wage personal attacks against other commentors.

      1. Peter, you have to take responsibility for your own incivility and using more than one alias.

          1. Seth:

            “Alan, I’m not changing names by choice.” Of course you are. No one is physically forcing you to keep changing your avatar.

            I suspect that when you keep losing arguments, you wish to start afresh. Over and over again. Don’t blame others.

            Why not just keep one avatar, and own your past comments? Pretending to be someone else means you want to distance yourself from what you’ve written in the past. That’s disingenuous.

            1. Karen, you are delusional in asserting that I change names after ‘losing arguments’.

              Most of ‘your’ arguments are so long and convoluted that even your fellow Trumpers aren’t reading them. No one has time to read meandering What Abouts that are pointless in scope.

              But one imagines that Karen kids herself into thinking that meandering What Abouts are slam-dunk arguements.

              1. Most of Karen’s arguments are pretty solid Peter. Her length is a bit time consuming but that doesn’t explain why you change your name with such frequency.

                Karen has a point. Your new names seem to forget the argments proven against your old names. That tells a lot.

          2. “Alan, I’m not changing names by choice.”

            Of course you are. If it is a WordPress problem then all you have to do is make a minor change like DSS. You could also notify everyone when you do change the name but using the same name with a new number keeps people honest. You do want to be honest Peter, don’t you?

            1. Peter, you didn’t answer whether you would rectify the problem or not. A simple answer would do. Without that acknowledgement one can only say that Karen is right and you get so embarrassed by what you say that you feel the necessity to change your name.

  2. Polls say Hillary will WIN!
    “but reasonably objected to the lack of conferral and evidence behind the attack”
    Everyone remember this next time you sit on a jury, past misdeeds are no reason for Justice.

  3. I have voted in15 presidential elections and have never participated in a poll. I do not believe in any of them as they are made up according to is paying for the poll. Look at the 2016 polls. Lot of bullpoopy!

    1. Ordinarily polls predict more accurately. But polls are not the final vote.

      Similar, somewhat, to weather prediction.

  4. A post at 4:24 pm quotes a post at 4:04 pm which now does not appear to exist on this thread. What’s up?

  5. You must not have seen the clips of her saying Soleimani was the second highest government official of Iran, not a terrorist.

    1. Anonymous at 8:15 PM,
      If you are referring to Sen .Warren, it looks like she was against calling Soleimani a terrorist before she was for calling him a terrorist.

        1. That NBC link is from 2003. It states that they were consolidating terrorist lists.
          In the wake of 9-11, it became publically known that someone could be on one agencies list if terrorists, but that info might not be shared with other agencies.
          Two of the 9-11 hijackers were on a terrorist watch list ( the CIAs, I think) but not on immigration (INS) list.
          That’s how they were able to legally get visas to enter the U.S., under there real names.
          Sen. Warren’s flip- flops in alternatively calling Soliemani a “senior military official” than later, “a terrorist”, are on the record.
          I don’t know if the way she categorizes Soleimani is still “evolving” for the sake of political expediency, or if she’ll stand by her statement that Soleimani was a terrorist.

          1. No, the link is from 2019 — but only a cached version is available now. The cached version appears to be from 2013. Approximately 4600 Americans are on the watchlist.

            The following link is what I posted, but now I’m getting a 404 error.

            “Terrorist ‘watch lists’ consolidated – US news – Security | NBC …
            http://www.nbcnews.com › us_news-security › us-terrorist-watch-lists-consolidated
            Sep 16, 2019 – The government announced Tuesday the creation of a Terrorist Screening Center intended to consolidate a dozen different so-called “terrorist …”

              1. The number 4600 for the total number of Americans on a terror watchlist actually sounds low.
                Leaving that aside, the initial topic of this exchange was Sen. Warren’s “evolving” position in describing Gen. Soleimani.
                It doesn’t sound like you read the link from the Washington Examiner, so I’ll try to post it again.
                The specific issue is whether a political figure considered Soleimani to be a terrorist.

  6. A decidedly biased article against Trump, on Obama’s legacy. Remember all those articles of Turley on Obama’s uber presidency? It’s an interesting perspective.

    “Using drones to kill American citizens without trial, collecting the email and phone records of millions of Americans on a daily basis, and grabbing militants off of the streets of foreign cities and imprisoning them indefinitely — these are all powers that Obama has bequeathed to his successor.

    Presidents George W. Bush and Obama both dramatically expanded the power and authority of the executive branch, particularly in the realm of national security. In addition to having nearly unlimited power to start wars without Congress’s approval, presidents now have the power to order drone strikes on US citizens abroad without charges or trial, gather millions of Americans’ emails and phone records with minimal judicial oversight, and radically redefine what does and does not constitute “torture” without fear of ever being prosecuted for war crimes.”


  7. Since the MSM.(print and brosdcasr) portrayed the POS as a cross between Churchill and the Beatles all the while assuring everyone we were on the brink of war, these polls should surprise no one.

  8. The U.S. State Department released the following fact sheet on Soleimani following his death:

    Since 1998, Qassem Soleimani commanded Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force (IRGC-QF), the terror arm of the Iranian regime. The IRGC-QF is tasked with planning and executing terror and military operations outside Iran’s borders. Under Soleimani’s command, the IRGC-QF has fueled destabilizing sectarian conflicts throughout the Middle East for decades.

    The IRGC-QF continues to wage an illegal campaign of terrorism, assassinations, and violence. At Soleimani’s direction and with his oversight and guidance, the IRGC-QF has planned and conducted terrorist attacks across six continents and inside the United States.

    The United States designated IRGC-QF a Foreign Terrorist Organization for its activities, and the United States designated Soleimani as a Specially-Designated Global Terrorist.

    As the leader of the IRGC-QF, Qassem Soleimani was directly responsible for arming, funding, and training proxy groups in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Operations carried out by these proxy groups have led to the death and suffering of tens of thousands, including many hundreds of Americans. These proxies routinely target and kill civilians, intensify sectarian conflicts, and prolong the suffering of innocent men, women, and children.

    Soleimani personally directed and provided arms to militias in Iraq for more than a decade. These militias undermine the sovereignty of the Iraqi state, threaten the legitimacy of Iraq’s security forces, and target American citizens and forces. With Soleimani’s support and lethal assistance, proxies of the IRGC-QF targeted and killed over 600 Americans between 2003 and 2011.

    We can confirm that in the past several days, General Soleimani had been traveling in the Middle East coordinating further imminent large-scale attacks against U.S. diplomats and service members. These threats were highly credible and the intelligence is sound. General Soleimani’s travel also violated the ban imposed by the United Nations Security Council.

    Recent orders given by General Soleimani dramatically escalated Iran’s campaign of violence and terrorism against Americans and American interests in the Middle East. He orchestrated a series of attacks against American forces in Iraq in the past several months, culminating in the rocket attack on December 27, 2019, which resulted in the death of an American citizen, wounded four American service members, and threatened the lives of many more American personnel. General Soleimani also ordered the assault on the American Embassy in Baghdad. General Soleimani continued to command Iranian supported proxies in Iraq, which posed an escalating threat to the lives of Americans.

    For his actions, Soleimani had been designated and sanctioned by the United Nations, European Union, and United States and is banned from international travel by United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231. In defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, however, Soleimani continued to travel to Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon directing and coordinating lethal actions that pose a threat to regional peace and security.

    Some key international and United States designations of Soleimani include:
    Designated a Tier I terrorist as part of the Department of State designation of the IRGC as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 2019.
    Designated under U.S. Executive Order 13224 as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist in 2011.
    Designated under U.S. EO 13572 for human rights abuses in 2011.
    Designated under U.S. EO 13882 for providing material support to terrorists in 2007.
    Sanctioned by the United Nations under UNSCR 1747 for involvement in Iran’s nuclear program in 2007.
    Designated by the European Union in EU 442/2011 for support to the Syrian regime in 2011.


  9. “Paul C Schulte says:January 12, 2020 at 4:04 PM

    Anonymous – show me your evidence or shut up.”

    This is typical of Paul.

    (Paul, The “evidence” is obvious and easily found. No one here is your Google monkey. And no one has to show it to you or “shut up.”)

    1. Anonymous – so, you have no evidence, you just make sh*t up. Who put the burr under your saddle today?

      1. No one is your “Google monkey,” Paulie. And there’s is more than one person posting anonymously.

  10. Only 3 Months Ago Trump Supporters Praised..

    Trump’s Sudden Withdrawal From Syria

    That was another occasion when Trump just suddenly acted alone. He abruptly pulled the rug out from our Kurdish allies in northern Syria. That move was a godsend to the Assad regime which is backed by Russia and Iran. Trump’s move gave Assad a much better chance of recovering territory he might never have gotten otherwise.

    Below is a link to Professor Turley’s column regarding the sudden pullout from Syria. On the comment thread one sees our familiar Trumpers saying how wise Trump is to be scaling back in the Middle East. They even note that Obama had gotten us more involved than we should have been. And not one Trumper was concerned that Trump’s pullout would benefit Iran, let alone Russia. What a difference 3 months makes!

    In retrospect it’s hard to see how our drawdown in Syria compliments in any way the strike on Soleimani. Again if Trump was worried about Iran’s influence in the region, abandoning the Kurd’s was a curious move to make.


    1. Seth, as was explained to you at the time, there was a planned operation with Russia in Syria against the separatists, with Syria’s permission. It was either go to war with Russia, or withdraw. I like the Kurds, and this move did bother me. However, I was also not keen to get into a multinational military dispute when we were not threatened. The Kurds were promised land that was not delivered, a hundred years ago. There needs to be a solution. I do not see Russia, Syria, or Jordan giving up land to the Kurds. The Kurds are not treated like equal citizens. One faction of the Kurds is socialist. So, what is the solution? Can the US force other countries to divide land because the British and the French promised it, when none of those countries are at war with us? It’s not like the Ottoman Empire has crumbled all over again, and is available for Europeans to redraw the map.

      The way I saw it at the time, the options are for the Kurds to negotiate a peace with Syria (under a murderous regime infamous for abusing human rights), or to emigrate elsewhere. I do not see a path forward for the Kurds to get land, because I don’t think any of the involved countries will be willing to give it up. I also don’t see the Kurds giving allies a reason to go to war with those countries to force them to give it up.

      This is a very difficult issue. If you have insight, other than abandoning-the-Kurds-sucked, then let us know. I certainly don’t have a good answer on this.

      As I said earlier, if Congress wants to go to war with Russia, or engage in any other war, it has the power to do so. If Trump had engaged in war with Russia, without going to Congress, they would have presumably complained.

      So, instead, they complained that Trump did not go to war with Russia.

      If Congress wants a war, all they have to do is declare it.

      1. I forgot to add that Turkey was planning to invade Syria to battle the Kurds, as well.

        All we’re missing is a Serbian assassin.

    2. “In retrospect it’s hard to see how our drawdown in Syria compliments in any way the strike on Soleimani.”

      this is a good question

      in my mind, the strike on Sulemani is a not only valid for whatever the official reason is, but behind that, it’s a cautionary lesson for Iran and every other regional actor, that we have deep and wide intelligence and ability to terminate bad actors from the sky. This actually facilitates our ground level military disengagement, because, it increases our deterrence profile.

      “Again if Trump was worried about Iran’s influence in the region, abandoning the Kurd’s was a curious move to make.”

      Not at all. The bigger check on Iran is Turkey.

      Turkey is a regional rival of Iran. And they are aligned with us, a major NATO power, and getting in the way of their invasion would have been spitting on a stronger ally in favor of a weaker ally, thus, strategically unsound.

      Moreover, if anything ,the invasion of Western Syria by Turks, brought them into sharper conflict with Iran, if only by the Turks engagin in direct military conflict with their quasi-ally, Syria.

      Personally, I dislike Erdogan and a lot of thing about Turkey, and I admire the Kurds long holdout against Turkish bullying over centuries time, but, the strategic facts in this equation add up precisely as Trump reckoned them.

      But thanks for the questions nonetheless

  11. Here’s another poll, in which more approve of the Solemaini strike than disapprove. That’s the thing about polls. Results hinge upon how they are worded, and polling fields.

    “President Donald Trump’s approval rating has ticked up substantially since he launched a targeted strike, killing Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and striking a significant blow against Iranian involvement in destabilizing the fledgling Iraqi government.

    Real Clear Politics reports that Trump’s overall approval rating, culled from several separate polls, has risen sharply over the last several weeks and ticked up significantly after the United States killed Soleimani — a move that leftists derided as overly aggressive and indicative of a potential “World War III.”

    “The president’s rating rebounded considerably since dropping during the several months that House Democrats investigated his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,” the Washington Examiner reported Sunday. “Trump notched a 45.3% approval mark, matching a local high recorded on Sept. 24, 2019, according to RealClearPolitics. His disapproval rating is down to 52.3% from a high of 58.1% on Dec. 16, 2017.””

    “The president’s approval numbers seem to track with overall American approval of the Soleimani strike. According to The Hill, to Morning Consult, and to YouGov, which conducted a poll on the matter last week, a plurality of Americans — 47% — approve of the president’s decision to eliminate the head of Iran’s Quds Force, while around 40% disapprove.”


    1. From the same article:

      “Later polls showed a breakdown of support, but only when respondents were asked if they approved of Trump’s handling of the Middle East conflict overall. Most of those polls were taken before tensions cooled late last week, amid allegations that Iran shot down a Ukrainian airliner with an errant anti-aircraft missile.”

    2. As for assertions that Soleimani is an Iranian hero:

      “Just this weekend, however, Iranians opposed to the rogue nation’s leadership took to the streets to protest the Ayatollah and the Iranian government and celebrate Soleimani’s death.”



    Yes, Obama allowed numerous drone strikes throughout his presidency. But the vast majority of those strikes were against ISIS and Al Qaeda personnel. Those groups are known as ‘non-state actors’. There was no chance of starting a war with a major nation. And there was no chance of Iraq getting caught in a conflict that it wasn’t already locked in.

    1. Seth:

      #1 Discussing precedent is not a “what about”
      #2 Obama used drone strikes against terrorists. Soleimani had been designated a level one terrorist.
      #3 No chance of starting a war? I beg to differ. There were arguments at the time against conducting drone strikes on foreign soil without that country’s permission. It would be like if Germany deployed a drone strike against a terrorist in NYC, with our civilians walking around. It’s certainly not without controversy.
      #4 Are you saying that we should not take out the terrorist arm of Iran which plots attacks against the US? If so, why?
      #5 Soleimani was funding and directing rebels in Iraq already. Iran was already locked in a conflict with Iran, and had a long history of conflict with Iran. Shiite. Sunni.

        1. Sure thing, Seth. Obama constantly engaged in military action abroad. By the end of his presidency, Russia and China were a far larger threat than they ever were before. The Middle East was destabilized. Even the LA Times admitted it will take a generation at least to resolve these issues. Plus he called ISIS the JV, and allowed them to come to power and wreck murder and carnage.

          “U.S. military forces have been at war for all eight years of Obama’s tenure, the first two-term president with that distinction. He launched airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.”

          “Yet the U.S. faces more threats in more places than at any time since the Cold War, according to U.S. intelligence. For the first time in decades, there is at least the potential of an armed clash with America’s largest adversaries, Russia and China.”

          “We know that in some form this violent extremism will be with us for years to come,” Obama said. “In too many parts of the world, especially in the Middle East, there has been a breakdown of order that’s been building for decades, and it’s unleashed forces that are going to take a generation to resolve.”

          As for Obama’s crowning glory, the Iran Nuclear Deal, at some level, even Democrats acknowledge that the deal was a total failure. Otherwise, if the deal worked in stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and making the country behave better, then there would not be this concern that Iran could launch a nuke within 6 months. Really 6 months? What did that deal accomplish then if Iran is 6 months or less away from a nuke?

          Answer: nothing. one of Soleimani’s jobs was to gather forbidden technology, weapons, and material. Iran developed advanced centrifuges all this time.

  13. The polls will go the other way big time after the first Iran nuke goes off in the US.

  14. Most Democrat politicians were for drone strikes before they were against them today. The fact that they didn’t demand consultation on each of the strikes authorized by presidents prior was because the strikes were targets of opportunity and timing was often of the essence, as this was a great factor in this latest one.

    I’m willing to give the US military some credibility in determining that this general was leading a clear and present effort to attack American citizens and our embassies, especially given the relationship this man had with prior attacks against the same people and others. The Iranian government throwing such a shit storm over this is because for once it is the leadership of its designated foreign terrorist organization, (the Quds Force) that was targeted not just some individual soldier on a mission that is expendable. I think if we have to prosecute a military action it is often better to hold only those in charge as accountable rather than putting hundreds or thousands of individual soldiers or civilians in jeopardy by conventional warfare strikes, but if a leader of a foreign government authorizes an attack on the US, then the American military should take them out and spare everyone else.

    Most prior military conflicts result in belligerent leaders getting away and their countrymen paying the price. So even if their nation loses the battle, they live on to fight another day. Screw that. They order the terroristic killing of American citizens, they die. It’s that simple. Why should innocent people on both sides be put unnecessarily in harms way?

    There would be a lot less threat made against our people if foreign officials knew that if they ordered a military or terrorist attack on Americans, they would expect a visit from a Hellfire Missile with their name on it.

    1. That’s a great post, and it points out the benefit of reducing the risk to our men and women in uniform.

  15. Paul, I answered your question although I think you should have taken the time to do your own research and even told you where to find the information. Why are you unwilling to do this research? Isn’t this issue important enough for you to research for yourself?

    As you are a libertarian I will also refer you to Ron Paul. He has been consistent on the unlawful murders of other people which Obama and Trump claim they may engage in.

  16. The MSM pushes a communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat) narrative then takes a poll of anti-American hyphenate invaders.

    The American Founders, as did the originating Greeks and perpetuating Romans, restricted the vote, in their case, to include European, males, 21 with 50 lbs Sterling/50 acres, and four times required that citizens be “…free white person(s)…” in their Naturalization Acts of
    1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802, representing their “original intent” and their “intent in perpetuity” (a la Vatican City, Qatar, Liechtenstein, Japan, China, Russia, Kuwait, Switzerland et al.) for the composition of the United States.

    It’s no wonder that “polls” reflect the popularity of obtaining entry into and “free stuff” from the United States and “…levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

    The Deep Deep State made the destruction of the United States by way of “fundamental transformation” official when it ensconced the ineligible son of a foreign citizen, with deep and abiding foreign allegiances ($150 billion in palletized cash to Iran), in the White House.

Comments are closed.