A growing divide inside the U.S. political establishment is sharpening as Washington expands its military footprint across the Middle East, with Russian outlet Izvestia reporting that American public opinion is turning decisively against any potential war with Iran. The article, written by Kseniia Makushnikova, argues that a large-scale conflict could fracture the Republican Party and undermine President Donald Trump’s political standing at home.
Expanding U.S. Military Power in the Region
According to the Financial Times, U.S. forces have significantly increased their air presence in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, deploying F‑35s, F‑15s, A‑10s, and electronic warfare aircraft. Satellite imagery cited in the Russian report shows at least 66 combat aircraft at a Jordanian base alone. The Wall Street Journal estimates that this is the largest U.S. air grouping in the region since the 2003 Iraq invasion, with up to 40–50% of U.S. air power positioned for a potential strike on Iran.
The White House is reportedly weighing whether to target Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leadership if diplomacy fails, a scenario described by CNN and echoed in the Izvestia analysis.
Diplomatic Efforts and Internal Pushback
Despite the military buildup, Trump has not authorized force. The article highlights warnings from Gen. Dan Kane, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who reportedly cautioned that a campaign against Iran could become a prolonged and costly conflict. Axios sources claim Kane believes U.S. losses could exceed those of Iran—an assessment Trump publicly denied.
A notable coalition of Republican figures is urging restraint. According to Izvestia, Vice President J.D. Vance, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, and conservative commentator Tucker Carlson are among those advocating diplomacy. Analyst Andrew Napolitano told TASS that Carlson is personally lobbying Trump to avoid war. Even Secretary of State Marco Rubio, long known for hawkish positions, is described as unusually quiet.
Hawks Still Press for Action
Yet influential voices continue to push for a harder line. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insists that “all options remain on the table,” while pro‑Israel commentator Ben Shapiro argues that U.S. firepower would overwhelm Iran’s missile capabilities. He contends that fears of mass American casualties are overstated, noting that Washington has strengthened regional defenses since the 2025 “Midnight Hammer” operation.
One of the most striking elements of the Izvestia report is the depth of public opposition. A Quinnipiac University poll found that 70% of American voters oppose a war with Iran, with only 18% in favor. Political analyst Malek Dudakov argues that any conflict would likely become a “years‑long quagmire,” damaging Trump politically and destabilizing the region.
The U.S. has already deployed two carrier strike groups and up to eight destroyers armed with hundreds of Tomahawk missiles. While this arsenal could inflict heavy damage, Dudakov notes it is unlikely to topple Iran’s government.
Risks of Regional Escalation
Western intelligence agencies fear that Iran could respond through allied groups across the Middle East, potentially targeting U.S. bases in Europe and the region. The New York Times has reported similar concerns. Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, has warned that Tehran would strike U.S. bases if attacked, calling such retaliation an act of self‑defense.
Middle East specialist Dmitry Bridge suggests that the U.S. military buildup may be intended as leverage rather than preparation for war. But he cautions that the stronger the U.S. signals become, the more likely Iran is to harden its own negotiating stance.