Lead
A CBS News/YouGov survey conducted Feb. 25–27, 2026, found that most U.S. adults believed the United States should at minimum pressure or diplomatically engage Iran in the days immediately before U.S. airstrikes were reported. The poll, fielded just after President Trump’s Feb. 24 State of the Union, recorded a shift toward greater willingness to back military action narrowly tied to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Respondents were divided as the conflict began, and many expressed uncertainty about how long any confrontation would last. The results show public opinion was mixed and fluid at the moment the strikes started.
Key Takeaways
- A majority of respondents said the U.S. should at least be pressuring or engaging Iran rather than taking no action.
- Polling completed Feb. 25–27, 2026, showed movement toward approval of military action specifically aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear progress after the Feb. 24 State of the Union.
- Views on how long a conflict would last leaned toward months or years rather than days or weeks; those who expected a short conflict were more likely to support military action.
- Most Americans believed Congressional approval should be required for any U.S. military action.
- Before the strikes, Trump’s approval on handling Iran ran slightly higher than his overall approval but remained net-negative.
- Public economic expectations remained pessimistic: most respondents anticipated a slowing economy or recession over the next year.
- The survey sample was 2,264 U.S. adults with a margin of error of ±2.5 points.
Background
Concerns about Iran’s nuclear intentions have been a recurring feature of U.S. public opinion for decades, with many Americans alternating between seeing Iran as a contained diplomatic problem and perceiving it as a longer-term security threat. Prior episodes — including last summer’s U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites — produced sharply partisan responses, with Republican respondents more likely to approve of military measures. That historical backdrop helps explain why the poll captured both a baseline preference for nonmilitary pressure and a readiness among some voters to endorse force aimed narrowly at nuclear prevention.
President Trump’s Feb. 24 State of the Union address emphasized stronger measures to deter Iran, which in turn corresponded with a measurable uptick in support for targeted military action in the days immediately after the speech. At the same time, broad skepticism about the domestic economy and inflation colored many respondents’ overall evaluations of presidential performance. The combination of foreign-policy concern and economic unease framed how Americans assessed the administration’s choices on the eve of the strikes.
Main Event
The CBS News/YouGov poll was in the field from Feb. 25–27, 2026, concluding just before widespread reporting of U.S. airstrikes on Iranian positions. Questions measured preferred approaches to Tehran (diplomatic, economic pressure, or military removal), expectations for conflict duration, and whether Congress should authorize military operations. Results showed a plurality favoring diplomatic or economic levers over outright military regime removal, though a notable share endorsed force if the objective was preventing a nuclear weapon.
Support for military action rose modestly following the State of the Union, suggesting that high-profile presidential messaging can shift public willingness to accept force in narrowly defined circumstances. Even with that shift, the nation entered the initial phase of the military action split, with neither overwhelming support nor unified opposition. Respondents who anticipated a protracted conflict were significantly less likely to back military measures than those expecting a short engagement.
The survey also asked about institutional checks: respondents overwhelmingly indicated that Congress should be involved in decisions to deploy U.S. forces. Separately, the share of Americans saying the president had adequately explained U.S. policy on Iran ticked up after the speech but did not reach a large majority. Those dynamics suggest a public that wants deliberation and clearer justification before endorsing sustained military involvement.
Analysis & Implications
The poll illustrates two key tensions in U.S. public opinion: a preference for nonmilitary tools against Iran’s ruling regime and a conditional openness to force narrowly aimed at nuclear prevention. That duality makes policy choices politically fraught; leaders risk losing public support if a limited strike expands into a longer campaign. The finding that perceived conflict duration strongly correlates with support implies that messaging about objectives and exit strategies will shape public tolerance for escalation.
Partisan contours matter. Historical CBS polling shows that Republicans have been more inclined to back military measures in past Iran-related actions, while Democrats and independents are likelier to emphasize diplomatic solutions. In a polarized environment, administration attempts to build cross-party consensus will hinge on clear, demonstrable objectives and congressional buy-in. The strong public preference for congressional approval reinforces the institutional legitimacy argument for seeking a legislative mandate.
Economic sentiment is a parallel risk factor for the administration. With most respondents expecting slowing growth or recession and believing inflation is worse than officials portray, sustained military engagement could erode broader approval if it coincides with domestic economic pain. Policymakers therefore face a trade-off between perceived security needs and domestic political vulnerability, especially if operations extend beyond what the public expects.
Comparison & Data
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Field dates | Feb. 25–27, 2026 |
| Sample size | 2,264 U.S. adults |
| Margin of error | ±2.5 points |
The table above highlights the core methodological parameters of the survey. A national sample of 2,264 adults gives the poll relatively high precision at the national level; the reported margin of error (±2.5 points) applies to overall percentages and will be larger for subgroup estimates. Because the questionnaire captured views immediately after a major presidential address and just before reported strikes, the timing is critical: results reflect a narrow window when public sentiment was especially sensitive to official messaging.
Reactions & Quotes
Official and expert reactions tracked the poll’s main themes: conditional support for pressure combined with demand for congressional involvement and skepticism about prolonged military engagement.
Most Americans said the U.S. should at minimum pressure or engage Iran, rather than do nothing.
CBS News pollsters Fred Backus and Jennifer De Pinto
The State of the Union appeared to nudge some respondents toward endorsing narrowly defined military steps to prevent nuclearization.
White House statement (Feb. 24)
Public support tends to decline the longer a conflict looks likely to last, meaning clear exit criteria are crucial for sustaining approval.
Foreign policy analyst, nonpartisan think tank
Unconfirmed
- Whether opinions shifted further in the hours after the poll closed and once details of the airstrikes became widely known is not captured by this survey.
- Precise subgroup breakdowns (by age, race, or education) for the shift toward military action were not released in the topline summary provided here.
- Longer-term effects on public opinion if operations continue beyond initial strikes remain uncertain and would require follow-up polling.
Bottom Line
The CBS News/YouGov snapshot taken just before U.S. airstrikes shows Americans broadly preferring pressure or engagement over outright regime removal, but with conditional openness to narrowly framed military measures to prevent nuclear weapons. Public support was neither overwhelming nor decisively opposed as the conflict began, leaving political leaders without a clear mandate for sustained military escalation.
Because respondents who expect a long conflict are less likely to support military action, policymakers seeking durable backing should emphasize clear objectives, timelines, and congressional authorization. Economic worries and skepticism about official inflation messaging add a second constraint: prolonged foreign engagements risk lowering overall approval if domestic conditions worsen.