After the assassination of Lt. General Qassem Suleimani, the late commander of the Quds Force on Iraqi soil by US forces which was responded by the Islamic Republic’s missile attacks on US bases in Iraq, the question is raised as to whether American public and politicians are in agreement with the current trend or not? Also, given that the escalating tensions between Tehran and Washington have made the possibility of military option hot news, the question arises whether the Congress and the American people would agree with such action.
It should be noted that opinion polls show that the vast majority of the American people do not want war with Iran, and only a small percentage support war. Of course, this is not a complicated issue – in the sense that when asked if they support war, the majority of the American people would oppose it, but if the question is: American troops would be killed in Iranian invasion and the American option against this act would be an inevitable war, the American support the military option may increase.
So the conditions of starting the war and how Iran would deal with this issue can change the statistical indicators.
As for politicians, it should be noted that there is now a confrontation between the Republicans and the Democrats; the Democrats strongly condemn Trump’s order to assassinate General Suleimani. While the Republicans do not condemn it as much, there has been some controversy over whether Commander Suleimani’s assassination was necessary in particular, after Iran’s missile strike against US bases in Iraq and rising tensions and the likelihood of war, the Republicans have also criticized Donald Trump for taking an adventurous or unnecessary action.
It should be noted that the Democrats and the Republicans agree that martyr Suleimani was against US interests and responsible for the casualties of the US military, so they are happy he was assassinated, but their concern is over the consequences of this American action. There has been a rift among the Republicans since Iran took retaliatory action and hit Ain al-Assad base in Iraq. As we have seen, even some of the most hard-line Republican figures, such as Lindsay Graham and Mark Rubio, have called Trump to exercise self-control, saying they do not want war.
So, the Republicans would continue to point their finger at Iran as long as there is no war, but they will act as soon as they feel the war is imminent because they do not want to start a new war that could have huge losses and impose financial burdens on the US administration, they are likely to leave Trump alone because they do not want Donald Trump to have firm Republican support for a new war.
Of course, all of this depends on the type of Iran’s actions and response. This would still be the case if Iran’s retaliatory measures did not include killing of American troops, but if Iranian retaliatory measures lead to losses among the US army, the US president could hardly resist the bloodthirsty sentiments that would unfold in American society. Even under such circumstances, anti-war Democrats are likely to side with Trump because they cannot keep silent about killing of American soldiers.
Finally, it is sometimes argued that the recent events may have a positive or negative impact on Trump’s impeachment, but this will not have an impact on the impeachment simply because the Republicans are waiting for a court hearing to immediately vote for Trump’s acquittal.
It should be noted that the impeachment has been carried out and Donald Trump has been named “Third Impeached President” in American history. So far the Democrats have done their job and the rest is for the Republicans to take care at the court proceedings. So no matter what the President of the United States is doing during this time, the Republicans would not vote for Trump as a Republican to be ousted. Thus, the recent developments will not play a decisive role in the impeachment court.