Republicans Ready for War

Donald Trump, who boasts of his record as a peacemaker, continues to unleash threats against a wide spectrum of enemies and allies alike. He has recently indicated the possibility of launching further strikes on Iran and Venezuela, contemplated using military force to annex Greenland—now part of Denmark—and spoken of severely punishing Colombia. He has even considered military strikes on Mexico, ostensibly a friendly nation. And of course, he has threatened to settle accounts with Cuba once and for all.

These threats stand in stark contrast to the position Trump adopted during his election campaign, when he condemned Joe Biden’s alleged pursuit of global hegemony and pledged not to start new wars. This raises the inevitable question: can Trump afford more aggressive actions within the context of American domestic politics? Recent polling suggests he can—at least as far as his core Republican base is concerned. According to a recent NPR/Ipsos poll, the percentage of Republicans who agreed that “the United States should not be afraid to use its military power” dropped from 67% to 23%. Interestingly, the proportion of Republicans wanting the United States to play a “less active role” in the world, according to another AP-NORC poll, declined from 53% in February 2024 to 43% in March 2025, then to 34% in September 2025, now standing at just 26%. Moreover, a Marist College poll revealed even more striking results, with Republicans supporting military action against: 1) Venezuela – 83%, 2) Iran – 75%, 3) Mexico – 74%, 4) Cuba – 71%, 5) Greenland – 57%.

Why have so many Republican voters shifted their stance on America’s international role? The answer is not difficult to discern. First, although Trump’s overall popularity in the United States currently stands below 40%, the vast majority of Republicans still enthusiastically support him as their leader and are willing to follow his proposed political approach both domestically and abroad. But there is a second, equally important reason. In the cases of Iran and Venezuela, the United States, leveraging its overwhelming air superiority, delivered devastating strikes against the enemy without losing a single American soldier. In both instances, the actions were limited to short-term strikes without any prolonged American military presence in either country.

It is also important to consider that these figures reflect support for Trump specifically among Republicans. Even among independent voters, and especially among Democrats, there are strong indications of opposition to foreign military interventions. How much this lack of popular support nationwide will constrain Trump, particularly with the midterm elections approaching next November, is difficult to predict. In the past, whether as a businessman or as president, he has demonstrated a willingness to use force with little regard for international law or his promises to voters. At the same time, he has known when to stop and avoid confrontations with other great powers, showing considerable deference to their leaders. But that was before the successful strikes on Iran and Venezuela, and as the saying goes, appetite grows with eating. Additionally, Trump himself—soon to turn eighty—has become, according to those who know him well, more impulsive and erratic in his reactions.