Support for the strike extends across various GOP factions: Some 85 percent of Republican voters backed the decision to kill Soleimani, according to a POLITICO/Morning Consult survey conducted this past weekend. At the same time, overall support for the strike is tepid, with nearly seven-in-10 voters saying it makes war with Tehran’s Islamist regime more likely, including 58 percent of Republicans.
“I think people are genuinely greatly pleased that the president has taken action against this monster who has killed probably over 700 Americans directly,” said former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. “Why anybody would think this is less-than-stellar is beyond me.”
Trump administration officials have said the decision to kill Soleimani, who was targeted by a U.S. Reaper drone while visiting Baghdad, came amid indications that he was plotting new attacks on Americans. It also followed a series of strikes by Iranian-backed militias in Iraq against U.S. troops based there, including one that killed an American contractor.
Iran’s cleric-led government has vowed revenge over the killing of Soleimani, who by some estimations was second in power only to the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Iranian regime has held massive processions in Soleimani’s honor in an attempt to show the depth of anger over his death at U.S. hands. And on Tuesday, Iran retaliated by sending a barrage of missiles at U.S. installations in Iraq, though early reports suggested no Americans were killed.
The attack on Soleimani was a stunning escalation in the spiraling showdown between Tehran and Washington. That feud has ramped up since Trump took office, left the Iran nuclear deal and began re-imposing economic sanctions targeting the Iranian government.
In many ways, Iran has been a singular focus of ire for Trump and his aides. It’s a favorite rhetorical target of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who often makes sure to refer to Iran by its full name: “the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
But the administration’s sanctions-heavy “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran—which also involves beefing up the U.S. troop presence in the Middle East—has led some Trump supporters to fear that the president will go against past pledges to avoid ground wars in that region.
Fox News’ Carlson has become the de facto leader of anti-interventionist Republicans in the Trump era. “America appears to be lumbering toward a new Middle East war,” he said in response to last week’s attack, and has continued to highlight the potential pitfalls of a confrontation.
But with other anti-interventionist elements of Trump’s base, the killing of Soleimani has been more popular than missile strikes Trump ordered against Syria in 2017 and 2018. Those strikes provoked criticism from several prominent pro-Trump media figures and activists.
“Sad warmongers hijacking our nation,” tweeted radio host Michael Savage about a U.S.-led April 2018 strikes against Syrian government targets in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack near Damascus.
In stark contrast, Savage greeted this month’s strike against Soleimani with jubilation, calling it a “win for free people.”
Right-wing social media agitator Mike Cernovich, an influential figure in pro-Trump online circles, critized the Syria attacks, calling the president “Donald Bush” in response to the 2018 strikes, an unflattering comparison to George W. Bush’s ill-fated Iraq invasion.
But the Solemaini strike does not worry him, he said in an interview: “I don’t know that I’m for it, but I’m certainly not against it, and I’m not freaking out.”
Cernovich said that he, and many other Trump supporters, viewed the Syria strikes as meddling in a civil war, and that he believed they could draw the U.S. further into a quagmire. “I knew this would escalate immediately if there wasn’t pushback from the base,” he said.
He, like other well-known Trump supporters, views the Soleimani killing as a justified retaliation for the deaths of Americans. Cernovich said he would vocally oppose further escalation.
After Iran announced it had fired missiles aimed at U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Charlie Kirk, a White House surrogate who promotes Trump’s message on college campuses, tweeted: „This president proclaimed clearly and boldly that GREAT nations do not fight endless wars. I trust @realDonaldTrump will do the right thing as Commander-In-Chief and not entangle the United States in yet another commitment in the Region of Sand and Death.“
Seth Weathers, an Atlanta-area Republican strategist who briefly served as the Trump campaign’s Georgia state director in 2015, said he would support continued airstrikes if Iran retaliates over Soleimani.
But he drew the line at a ground war. “That would piss a lot of people off,” he said.
One group in the Republican base that is especially wary of Iran is evangelical Christians. Many evangelicals view Iran’s Islamist-led government as a threat in religious terms; and many link the need to neutralize Tehran with the need to protect Israel. Iran supports various armed groups that oppose Israel, from Hamas in the Palestinian territories to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Earlier this year, Pompeo, an evangelical Christian, said in response to a question from the Christian Broadcasting Network that it is “possible” that Trump is a modern-day Queen Esther, a biblical figure who persuaded a Persian king not to annihilate the Jews.
Among self-identified evangelical voters, 56 percent approve of the strike that killed Soleimani, 10 points higher than the overall electorate, according to the POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.
In support of the strike, Atlanta-based evangelical activist Alveda King, a Trump supporter, cited Daniel 7:4, a biblical prophecy that begins, “The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings.” She said the eagle represents the United States and its strength, which the president was justifiably exercising.
“I would prefer peace to war,” she said. But “we cannot be wishy-washy.”
King, a niece of Martin Luther King Jr., said the potential for escalation does not concern her. “I have confidence in God, so I know that as the president of the United States he’s going to have God’s direction. So, I’m going to continue to trust God. So, no, I’m not worried.”
But, according to the poll, voters are concerned about the prospect of war with Iran. Roughly one-in-three voters, 32 percent, say the airstrike that killed Soleimani will make the U.S. safer, while 50 percent say it will make the U.S. less safe. In a subsequent question, 69 percent of voters polled said the airstrike makes war with Iran more likely.
While Trump’s base is solidly behind him, the POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows voters more broadly aren’t rallying to the president’s side.
His overall approval rating is 41 percent, virtually unchanged from the last poll, just before the holidays. A bare majority of voters, 51 percent, say they would approve of the Senate removing him from office in the upcoming impeachment trial, while 43 percent oppose Trump’s removal.
The POLITICO/Morning Consult online poll was conducted Jan. 4-5, surveying 1,995 registered voters. The margin of error is plus or minus 2 percentage points.
Morning Consult is a nonpartisan media and technology company that provides data-driven research and insights on politics, policy and business strategy.
More details on the poll and its methodology can be found in these two documents: Toplines | Crosstabs
Source: politico.com
See more here: news365.stream
