Spars and strikes: Who backs Iran war?

What It Covers

The Economist's Intelligence examines three converging stories: the U.S.-Iran war on day six of Operation Epic Fury, domestic political fallout for Trump as support sits at just 30-40%, France's nuclear expansion and new European defense partnerships, and why MAGA-branded consumer products consistently underperform commercially.

Key Questions Answered

• •War support baseline: Public backing for the Iran strikes sits at 30-40% — historically low for an early-stage conflict. Compare this to Afghanistan in 2001, when 90% of Americans approved. Analysts warn this number will likely fall further once U.S. casualties mount, giving Trump an unusually fragile political foundation for a sustained military campaign.
• •Strategic ambiguity risk: Military operations in Iran are described as operationally successful — missile launchers destroyed, an Iranian frigate sunk by U.S. submarine in the Indian Ocean, roughly 80 killed — yet no coherent end-state has been articulated by Trump, Hegseth, or Netanyahu. Without defined objectives, determining when the war ends becomes structurally impossible.
• •Alliance fragmentation: European allies, including the UK and France, declined to offer military bases for initial Iran strikes. However, escalation is drawing them in regardless — France deployed the Charles de Gaulle carrier to the Eastern Mediterranean, Britain sent HMS Dragon to Cyprus, which itself absorbed an Iranian strike attempt this week.
• •French nuclear doctrine shift: Macron announced France will increase its nuclear warhead count — reversing decades of doctrine holding that warhead quantity is irrelevant to deterrence effect. He also named seven countries, including Germany and Poland, as partners in formalizing a European nuclear dimension, framed explicitly as a hedge against uncertain U.S. commitment to NATO.
• •MAGA brand economics: Consumer brands targeting Trump voters — including pro-life diapers, MAGA beer, and conservative pillows — consistently underperform despite addressing roughly half the U.S. electorate. The core problem: most politically aligned consumers do not want visible consumer choices broadcasting political identity. MAGA influence is more effective as boycott pressure on existing brands than as demand for new ones.