US strikes Iran: Trump’s gamble could spark wider Iran war

• The United States has launched massive strikes on Iran, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, with the stated goals of ending Tehran's nuclear program and ousting the regime.
• A recent poll shows that most Americans are not yet persuaded that an attack on Iran is in the country's best interest.
• In response to the U.S. assault, Iran has launched retaliatory missile strikes on Israel and American bases throughout the region.

WASHINGTON − The potential payoffs for the massive U.S. strikes on Iran are historic: Ending Tehran's nuclear ambitions and even ousting a regime that has been the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.

But the risks are also huge.

"The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties; that often happens in war," President Donald Trump said in a middle-of-the-night video posted on social media Feb. 28, wearing a white cap that read "USA." "But we're doing this not for now; we're doing this for the future, and it's a noble mission."

While the fundamentalist Islamic government has few defenders in the West, critics warn that the military assault dubbed Operation Epic Fury could spark a wider regional war − one that could ensnare the United States in a long and costly conflict.

In the nearly half-century since the Islamic Republic gained power, it has bedeviled a string of U.S. presidents.

As explosions shook Tehran, and Iran retaliated with missile attacks on Israel and U.S. bases in the region, there are three fundamental questions the president will face in the weeks and months ahead. And maybe longer.

Are Americans on board?

Most Americans aren't persuaded − at least, not yet − that a U.S. attack on Iran makes sense.

In a University of Maryland poll in February, only 1 in 5 (21%) said they favored the U.S. initiating an attack on Iran. Half (49%) opposed it. Almost a third (30%) said they didn't know.

Republicans were more supportive than Democrats and independents, but even among the president's partisans, support fell well short of a majority, with 40% backing the idea. Nearly as many in the GOP, 35%, weren't sure.

The survey of 1,004 adults, taken Feb. 5-9, has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

Trump's suggestion in recent months that he was contemplating action against Iran has divided his political base. Many Republicans backed the president, but some "America First" supporters have argued that it risks the sort of "forever war" he vowed during his political campaigns to avoid.

"We said 'No More Foreign Wars, No More Regime Change!' We said it on rally stage after rally stage, speech after speech," former Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Trump ally-turned-critic, posted on the social-media platform X. "Another foreign war for foreign people for foreign regime change. For what?"

Critics say Trump hasn't clearly articulated his goals and hasn't coherently explained to Americans why an attack is in U.S. strategic interests. That is something policymakers generally have considered crucial since the Vietnam War, which polarized the nation.

Before the first Gulf war and the second Gulf war, President George H.W. Bush and then President George W. Bush embarked on public-relations campaigns across the country to make the case for those conflicts.

Now, Americans aren't at all sure whose interests would be most advanced by a war with Iran.

A third (33%) said in the University of Maryland poll that they didn't know, a stitch more than the 31% who cited U.S. interests. Another third divided among the interests of Israel, the Iranian people and Arab states.

How will Iran and Iranians respond?

During his second term, Trump has ordered bombing strikes on a half-dozen other places: Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, Syria, Venezuela.

But Iran's size and military muscle dwarf those countries. It has active-duty forces estimated at more than 600,000, thousands of short- and medium-range missiles and a formidable arsenal of drones.

While its military response was relatively restrained when the U.S. bombed its nuclear facilities in June, this attack was more far-reaching and the retaliation instantly fiercer. Within hours, Iran launched missile strikes on Israel and on U.S. military bases in Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, hailed by Trump as a triumphant achievement, is likely to intensify the determination of his followers to seek revenge on Israel and the United States.

In his video address, Trump called on the Iranian people to take the opportunity to overthrow the government. There have been widespread protests on Iran's streets this year, prompting a brutal government crackdown that reportedly killed thousands.

"When we are finished, take over your government; it will be yours to take," Trump declared. "This will be probably your only chance for generations."

What does history say?

The lessons of history are sobering.

Since the U.S.-backed shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979, the Islamic Republic has frustrated the best-laid plans of several American presidents.

President Jimmy Carter was unable to win the release of 52 hostages being held in the U.S. embassy, a failure that contributed to his defeat for a second term in 1980. The biggest policy scandal of President Ronald Reagan's tenure was the Iran-Contra Affair, which included a secret outreach to Iran.

President Barack Obama tried sanctions diplomacy to win a multinational agreement to limit Iran's nuclear program − a deal Trump judged so wanting that he canceled it during his first term. Hours before the new strikes, Trump warned he was "not happy" with the lack of progress of his own attempts at diplomacy.

"Sometimes you have to use force," he said then.

Will Trump's war be different?

Susan Page is the Washington Bureau chief of USA TODAY. She's covered 12 presidential campaigns and seven White House administrations, and she's interviewed the past 10 presidents.