"The political animal should not be underestimated": with the war in Iran, will Donald Trump alienate his voters?

Since February 28, 2026, Donald Trump has led the United States into its most significant conflict in decades. The man who promised to avoid any new war claims he acted because he "felt" Iran was going to strike. With the midterm elections just months away, can Trump alienate part of his electorate? Since February 28, 2026, Donald Trump has led the United States into its most significant conflict in decades based on a mere "feeling." It is not his political opponents who are saying this, but the White House itself. The man who promised during his campaign not to drag America into new wars claims to have acted because he had "the feeling," in his words, that Iran was preparing to strike American positions. Just a few months before the midterm elections in November 2026, the military intervention seems far from being unanimously supported. According to a poll published on March 4 by NBC, 52% of American voters say they oppose war in Iran. Is Donald Trump alienating part of his electorate?

To discuss this, Le Titre à la Une welcomes Lauric Henneton, lecturer at the University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, a specialist in US politics and history.

What is bothering public opinion: the deaths of American soldiers or the economic consequences on gas prices and inflation?

They were already largely against it before the intervention, and this has been confirmed. It's not so much the deaths of Americans, even though that was a foreseeable prospect. It's all these negative expectations regarding gas prices and the fact that it's expensive. It shouldn't be forgotten that this costs billions of dollars. One of the complaints leveled against American interventionism since the George W. Bush era is that this money is "burned" outside the United States when it could be invested domestically. This is an argument used by Democrats for increased social spending. In European history, before World War I, there was precisely the same type of debate between spending on empires and social spending. In the United States, this argument resonates, particularly in a country where Donald Trump had positioned himself as the one who wanted to put an end to this interventionism and reckless spending. Donald Trump is the first president of the polling era to commit the country to a conflict without public support. Does public opinion no longer matter to him?

For the second Gulf War, there was 9/11 and the effect of consensus behind the flag and the president, which no longer exists. On the one hand, there hasn't been another 9/11, and on the other hand, Trump is particularly divisive, which prevents this type of unity.

He starts with public opinion already against him. Moreover, he doesn't listen to anyone, and there's no one left to tell him things that might upset him. During his first term, there were generals and diplomats who could tell him that something wasn't necessarily a good idea, or who didn't do exactly what he said. This form of internal resistance no longer exists during his second term; He gets everything he wants, for better or for worse.

His Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is interventionist, while Vice President J.D. Vance is hostile to it. Are those who could provide a counterweight finally being silenced?

J.D. Vance has a significant record against interventionism, as does Trump, whose past tweets against interventionism in Iran are resurfacing. Vance was still saying recently: "We are the ticket to peace." However, he has his sights set on the presidency for November 2028. It is therefore incongruous for him to put himself at odds over an ideological issue with the presidency of the United States. He is changing his narrative by saying that war is peace.

It goes against his ideology, but he has shown he is capable of changing it, he who compared Trump to Hitler in 2016. The White House is worth a few U-turns. There's a contest between Vance and Rubio, and Trump is playing them off by asking advisors who he sees as his successor. The atmosphere can't be very serene in the White House.

How is the MAGA (Make America Great Again) base, initially elected on an anti-interventionist "America First" platform, reacting to this war in Iran?

It's a very interesting phenomenon. The MAGA base is primarily loyal to Trump the man, more than to his ideas. Polls show that if they are MAGA supporters, they are in favor of the war because they are, first and foremost, Trump supporters.

We are seeing a rift between the MAGA right (the bulk of the electorate) and influencers like Tucker Carlson or Marjorie Taylor Greene, who are longtime anti-interventionists who have remained true to their values. This influence is crucial for the midterm elections in November. Will this conflict affect the results? The conflict itself won't, because Trump is always right with the MAGA electorate. However, the consequences of the conflict, particularly regarding fuel prices, could have an impact. Polls show that the MAGA right remains loyal, but if the president, who championed purchasing power, is no longer loyal, a segment of the electorate (Hispanics, etc.) might feel betrayed. They might vote Democrat or not vote at all, which would be a loss for Republican candidates. The Senate could then flip to the Democrats, something unthinkable a few weeks ago.

Donald Trump's economic record isn't all that great, despite inflation that could rise again?

When public opinion is negative, numbers no longer matter. If Trump, who boasted of being the president of peace and purchasing power, becomes the president of war and high gas prices, this perception of being a "loser" could have serious consequences at the ballot box.

Can he reverse the situation, for example, if the Iranian regime falls and gas prices drop?

That's the scenario where everything falls perfectly into place, but it's very unlikely. We're seeing a hard line in Iran, not a scenario of popular uprising. Trump always rewrites the narrative to suit his own purposes. There's a resilience to the American economy, and to Trump in particular. We absolutely mustn't underestimate the political animal that is Trump.