...
By Newsweek Editors
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
From the moment U.S. and Israeli strikes began, much of the coverage assumed it would be a catastrophe: a spiraling regional war, global chaos, and an American disaster in the making.
Within hours of the strikes, articles speculated Trump could be impeached, questioned his justification for the war, and mocked his focus on election grievances rather than the conflict itself.
Headlines warned of an uncontrollable escalation. But the opening phase of the campaign appeared more precise than some worst-case predictions implied, even as the broader campaign quickly expanded. The immediate killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and strikes on missile and drone sites were presented by the administration as precise operations aimed at weakening the regime’s leadership and military capacity. Whether that strategy succeeds, of course, remains to be seen.
Read More on Analysis
The public reaction has also been described too simply. Some commentators expected a patriotic rally behind the president, while others predicted widespread backlash. Instead, the response has mostly followed America’s usual political divide. Republican voters largely support the strikes, while Democrats mostly oppose them. The country looks split, rather than united in either direction.
Predictions of economic panic have not played out. Because Iran plays an important role in global energy markets, many analysts expected a sharp market drop. But, while there has been market volatility and oil prices have increased, there has been no major global financial shock.
There were also warnings that the United States would be isolated. In reality, while European leaders have urged restraint, with some openly criticizing the move, there has been no mass break with Washington. Israel is America's key partner in the campaign, and most Western allies have avoided openly confronting the United States.
Congress, too, has not stepped in to stop the war. Despite concerns about presidential war powers, lawmakers have so far allowed the operation to continue.
1. Treating It Like a Catastrophe From Start
Much media coverage has treated the U.S. strikes on Iran as automatically plunging the world into an irreversible catastrophe. Headlines warn of a spiral of violence, a widening regional war, and a dangerous new era of conflict.
The New York Times has pushed the narrative that Trump does not have a clear end game, and has framed the operation as a risky escalation rather than a strategic move. It has also highlighted the major role played by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the decision to strike Tehran.
A Washington Post opinion piece warned about the "dangerous rise of decapitation warfare" after the strike that killed Khamenei, criticizing the strategy and its long-term consequences.
However, that narrative overlooks what actually happened. The strike itself was a highly targeted operation aimed at Iran’s top leadership. Intelligence tracking and precise timing allowed U.S. and Israeli forces to hit a compound where senior officials were meeting, eliminating Khamenei and several key figures in a single attack.
Khamenei was not just another head of state. He presided for decades over a regime responsible for repression at home and proxy warfare abroad. His removal represents a major strategic blow to the Islamic Republic’s leadership and command structure.
Any media rush to predict catastrophe also ignores early signals that the operation achieved its immediate objective. By the administration's account, the mission moved faster than expected and struck at the very center of Iran's power.
That doesn't mean the conflict carries no risks. But portraying the strike only as reckless escalation misses another possibility: that a carefully planned decapitation strike removed one of the world’s most hard-line leaders.
2. Does the Public Support Action?
Several polls have reported that the public is against Trump's war on Iran. For example, a recent NBC News poll found 54 percent disapproved of Trump’s handling of Iran, while 41 percent approved and 5 percent said they were unsure.
However, Trump's standing among swing voters has surged by 25 points in just two weeks, fueled by the U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran, according to new data.
According to Impact Social, a Washington, D.C.-based marketing firm that tracks online conversations among about 40,000 identified swing voters, Trump’s sentiment score has risen by roughly 25 points in just two weeks. The shift marks his strongest position with swing voters since early November and the largest short-term improvement the firm has recorded.
Trump’s sentiment rating moved from 47 points underwater in late January to around 20 points underwater now, indicating a significant improvement in how these voters are discussing him online, even though overall sentiment remains negative.
3. No Markets Disaster
Despite dire warnings of economic chaos, the Iran war has not triggered a market disaster.
Financial markets have been volatile, but far from catastrophic. U.S. stocks have fluctuated modestly rather than collapsing, with the S&P 500 slipping about 0.6 percent and the Dow falling roughly 1.6 percent on Thursday. These moves are notable, but hardly historic crashes.
Oil prices have risen as investors factor in geopolitical risk, yet they remain well below the levels seen during past energy crises.
After some early jitters, markets quickly steadied as fears of major disruptions to global oil supplies eased. Instead of panic, the reaction has looked more like a typical geopolitical shock: brief volatility, higher energy prices, and investors shifting money between sectors. For now, the global financial system appears to be absorbing the conflict rather than spiraling into crisis, suggesting the economic fallout from the strikes may be far less dramatic than early predictions suggested.
4. Allies Fell Into Line (More or Less)
Predictions that the United States would be isolated after striking Iran have not really come true. While some allies initially urged caution, many have either aligned with Washington or avoided openly challenging the operation.
The United Kingdom is a clear example. Prime Minister Keir Starmer authorized the U.S. to use British military bases for limited defensive strikes on Iranian missile sites, saying the move was necessary to protect civilians and prevent further attacks in the region. Britain has also deployed additional Typhoon fighter jets and naval forces to help defend allies and secure regional airspace.
Other Western and regional partners have taken similar steps, focusing on protecting shipping lanes, intercepting missiles, and supporting U.S. operations rather than openly opposing them. In practice, the pattern looks familiar: allies may voice concern publicly, but when a crisis unfolds, most still cooperate with Washington rather than risk a major strategic split.
5. Congress Didn't Vote It Down
Congress had the chance to block the Iran operation, but it didn’t. Both chambers voted on measures this week that would have limited Trump’s war powers and forced the administration to end or seek authorization for the conflict. The Senate rejected the resolution 53-47, while the House narrowly defeated a similar measure 212-219, largely along party lines.
These votes meant Congress chose not to intervene, allowing the military campaign to continue. Even some lawmakers who raised concerns about presidential war powers ultimately stopped short of shutting down the operation, highlighting the political reality in Washington: criticism of the strikes exists, but there was not enough support in Congress to stop them.
Real Test Is To Come
None of this means concerns voiced by some media are entirely misplaced. Wars rarely unfold the way their architects predict, and the risks of escalation in the Middle East remain real. Iran still retains significant military and proxy capabilities, and the long-term consequences of removing its supreme leader are far from clear.
But early coverage often treated catastrophe as inevitable rather than possible. So far, the war has produced a more complicated picture: a targeted opening strike, divided public opinion, stable markets, cautious allied support, and a Congress unwilling to intervene. The real test of the strategy will come in the weeks and months ahead, not the first headlines.
If American boots are deployed on the ground, that would fundamentally change the conflict, and risk the kind of Iraq War nightmare of yesteryear.
Hey gang, Carlo Versano here. I hope you enjoyed this article. As Newsweek's Director of Politics and Culture and editor of the 1600 newsletter, I'm keen to hear what you think. Now, Newsweek is offering a new service to allow you to communicate directly with me in the form of a text message chat. You can sign up and get a direct line to me, as well as the reporters who work for me. You can shape our coverage.
As a Newsweek member, we're offering this service to you for free. You can sign up below, or read more about how it works here. Let's talk!
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines