Information War

Americans are deeply divided along party lines, and this could partly stem from being exposed to different information environments, as well as their level of trust in the Trump administration. The president himself has claimed several goals for the war with Iran, including destroying Iran’s nuclear program, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and regime change. He also declared victory or suggested the war’s end was imminent at least 32 times since its start in February 2026.¹

President Donald Trump has proclaimed Iran was on the verge of collapse at various points throughout the conflict. As early as April, he announced “total and complete victory” over Iran after announcing a two-week provisional ceasefire.² Iran has similarly declared victory over the United States, touting its continued control of the Strait of Hormuz.³ We asked Americans which country, if any, has the advantage in the current conflict.

Six months into the war, Americans see no clear advantage for either the United States or Iran.

A plurality of Americans (37%) say the United States has the advantage in the war against Iran, while a quarter say Iran holds the advantage (25%). That there is no majority favoring either side seems to mirror the deadlock of the conflict itself. After six months of multiple rounds of strikes, fruitless talks, and an expired memorandum of understanding, Americans are divided as to which side has the advantage.

The partisan breakdown reveals stark disagreements between Republicans and Democrats. Most Republicans (68%) think the United States holds the advantage, while only 13% of Democrats agree. Democrats are more split among themselves than Republicans, with no outright majority. Still, more than four in ten Democrats (43%) say Iran is better positioned in the conflict. Independents are the least likely to see a clear winner. Just 28% give the advantage to the United States and 23% give it to Iran, while 35% say either that both sides are about the same (18%) or that neither side has the advantage (17%). Nearly one in five Democrats (19%) also think neither side has the advantage.

The most politically engaged Americans are more likely to think Iran currently has an advantage over the United States.

How closely people follow politics and current events also influences their views on the conflict. The most attentive Americans are the most likely to think Iran holds the advantage. Among Americans who follow government and public affairs “most of the time,” a plurality (42%) say Iran currently has the advantage and 35% say the United States. The share who see Iran ahead falls as attention decreases — 21% among those who follow “some of the time,” 7% among those who follow “only now and then,” and 5% among those who follow “hardly at all.” Conversely, the share giving the United States the edge rises, from 35% to 38% and then 44%. Only among the least attentive does it dip (30%), and that’s because a third of Americans who hardly follow government and public affairs are not sure.

The most politically engaged Democrats more often say Iran is winning; the most politically engaged Republicans most often say the United States.

Even within political parties, the degree people pay attention to politics shapes their views on the conflict. Among Democrats who follow government and public affairs “most of the time,” 64% say Iran has the advantage, compared to 35% of those who follow “some of the time” and 9% who follow “only now and then.” Republicans skew in the opposite direction: the most attentive among them more often think the United States is winning (79%) — though no more than 9% of any Republican group gives the edge to Iran.

One of the deadliest incidents of the US-Iran war was when a missile struck a girls’ school in Minab, Iran, killing at least 156 people, most of them students.⁴ Though the US and Israel initially denied responsibility, later evidence suggested a US missile was likely responsible; the school had appeared on a US target list and may have been mistaken for a military site, raising questions about the role of AI-enabled targeting in the strike.⁵ American casualties have also climbed over the course of the campaign.⁶ As of late August, at least 18 US service members have been confirmed killed and more than 750 wounded since the war began.⁷ However, an investigative report found the Pentagon has changed its casualty-counting methodology in ways that may understate the true toll.⁸ Despite the scale and duration of the conflict, public attention to these specific episodes, and the ethics of the tactics involved, has varied widely.

We asked Americans about their awareness of various components and casualties associated with the US military campaign against Iran: the Minab strike; US troops killed; the military’s use of AI; and the impact of US military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

A plurality of Democrats report hearing “a lot” about the girls’ elementary school strike in Iran, while a plurality of Republicans have heard “nothing at all.”

More than half of Democrats have heard “a lot” (39%) or “some” (27%) about the strike on the girls’ elementary school in Iran. Among Republicans, only 11% reported hearing “a lot” about the strike, whereas 40% report having heard “nothing at all,” implying a significant partisan information gap with regard to this particular incident. One-third of Independents also reported hearing “nothing at all.” Overall, half of Americans reported having heard “some” or “a lot” about the incident.

Most Americans have heard some or only a little about US troops killed in the war with Iran.

Roughly six in ten Americans (62%) have heard “a lot” or “some” about US troops killed in the war with Iran. Across the political spectrum, the percentage of Americans who report hearing “a lot” does not surpass 26%.

Most Americans have heard “only a little” or “nothing at all” about the military’s use of AI in the war with Iran.

The US military has used artificial intelligence in the war with Iran at a scale no previous American war has seen. The Pentagon’s Maven Smart System sifts intelligence collected from satellites, drones, and intercepted communications to detect and prioritize targets. It has run on advanced versions of commercial AI models, among them Anthropic’s Claude. According to The Washington Post, Maven helped the military strike more than 1,000 targets in the first day of the war.⁹ Other frontier AI companies whose software is used by millions of Americans, like OpenAI, Google, and xAI, hold government contracts of their own. Our survey findings, however, suggest a disconnect between the actual involvement of artificial intelligence tools in the war and the general awareness of the American public.

Only 8% of Americans overall have heard “a lot” about the military’s use of AI in the war with Iran, including 11% of Democrats and 6% of Republicans. The majority of Americans (63%) have heard “only a little” or “nothing at all” about the military’s use of AI in the war with Iran, and more than four in ten (42%) have heard “nothing at all.”

Even among Americans who pay close attention to government and public affairs, the military’s use of AI has not registered. Only 11% of those who follow public affairs “most of the time” have heard a lot about it. By contrast, a third of these avid observers have heard a lot about US troops killed (34%) and about strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities (32%), and four in ten about the school strike (43%). AI is the only topic we asked about on which the most attentive Americans are more likely to have heard nothing at all (39%) than a lot (11%).

Young Americans are more aware of how the military is using AI than older Americans

Awareness of the military’s use of AI skews young. Fourteen percent of 18-to-29-year-olds have heard a lot, compared with 5% of those 65 and older, who most often reported having heard nothing at all (48%). It is the only topic we asked about on which the youngest Americans are ahead of the oldest — on every other topic, older cohorts are at least as likely as younger ones to have heard a lot.

About twice as many Americans age 65+ report hearing “a lot” about the impact of US military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities than do Americans age 18-29.

Older people tended to be more aware of US military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Only 13% of Americans age 18-29 reported hearing “a lot” about the topic; 18% of 30–44-year-olds reported hearing “a lot”; 20% of 45–64-year-olds reported hearing “a lot”; with 24% of Americans 65 or older reporting as such.

Beyond awareness of specific incidents, the war has reignited debate over the legality and morality of how the United States fights its wars. Under both US and international law, the military may not deliberately strike civilians and must take feasible precautions to avoid harming them.

Harder cases arise when the target is not people but places: power plants, bridges, fuel depots, and other so-called dual-use infrastructure that serves civilians and militaries alike. Such sites can be lawful targets if they contribute to military operations and the expected harm to civilians is not out of proportion to the military gain. Whether such strikes can be morally justified is a separate and highly contested question.

Iran has struck desalination plants and data centers in the Gulf during the conflict, and the United States has threatened Iran’s power plants and desalination plants — actions Amnesty International and other human rights groups say amount to war crimes.¹⁰ Both sides describe such targets as legitimate, and President Trump has made the threat repeatedly. In April, he posted that “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran did not meet his deadline for a deal, and in July he vowed to destroy a bridge or a power plant for every Iranian attack on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.¹¹ To gauge how Americans feel about such threats, we asked how morally acceptable they would find it for the United States to deliberately strike electricity, fuel, or water systems used mostly by civilians.

One in ten Americans find it “very acceptable” for the US to deliberately strike electricity, fuel, or water systems used mostly by civilians.

A majority of Americans (56%) say it would be unacceptable for the United States to deliberately strike critical civilian infrastructure, including 37% who say “very unacceptable.” Fewer than a third (29%) find it acceptable, and just 11% say “very acceptable.” Fifteen percent are not sure.

Few questions in the survey reveal as stark a partisan split. Three-quarters of Democrats (77%) say it is morally unacceptable to strike electricity, fuel, or water systems used mostly by civilians, and a majority (60%) say “very unacceptable.” Independents lean the same way: 61% find such strikes unacceptable, including 40% who say “very unacceptable.” Republicans are the only partisan group in which a majority (52%) finds striking civilian infrastructure morally acceptable — 23% “very acceptable” and 29% “somewhat acceptable” — while 31% say it is unacceptable and 16% are not sure.

Nevertheless, there are splits among Republicans. More Republicans call such strikes “somewhat” than “very” acceptable, nearly a third call them unacceptable, and one in six are unsure — among the largest shares of undecided Republicans on any question in the survey. The results suggest another tension within the president’s Republican base: between a Jacksonian tradition that demands decisive action, unshackled by international law, and another that regards rules as necessary constraints on the destructive impulses of states.¹²

The United States and Iran reached a provisional ceasefire in April and, in June, signed a 14-point memorandum of understanding that set a 60-day window to negotiate a final deal. It unraveled within weeks: the two sides resumed trading strikes, Trump walked back his earlier enthusiasm for the agreement and declared it “over” in July, and it formally expired on August 17 without a diplomatic resolution to permanently end hostilities. We asked Americans how confident they are that either the United States or Iran would honor the terms of a ceasefire, if one were reached.

Americans think the United States is more likely than Iran to honor the terms of a ceasefire.

Nearly a third (29%) of respondents have “a great deal” of confidence that the United States would honor the terms of a ceasefire with Iran, but only 4% say the same about Iran. About a fifth (19%) of Americans have no confidence at all that the United States would honor ceasefire terms and about a third (34%) say the same about Iran.

Republicans are much more confident than Democrats that the United States would honor the terms of a ceasefire. A majority of Republicans (56%) have “a great deal” of confidence compared with just 12% of Democrats and 14% of Independents. Roughly half of Republicans (48%) report no confidence at all that Iran would do the same. Meanwhile, Democrats have about as much confidence in Iran as the United States to honor a ceasefire.

Most Americans do not trust the Trump administration to provide accurate information about the war with Iran.

Amid the ongoing conflict with Iran, President Trump has declared victory at various points and insisted that the Strait of Hormuz was fully open and operational, even as ship traffic remained a tiny fraction of its pre-war volume. The Pentagon’s reporting on the number of American service members injured in the war has also been called into question.¹³ We tried to get a sense of how much respondents trust the Trump administration to provide them accurate information about the conflict.

Only about a third of Americans (37%) trust the current administration “a great deal” or “somewhat” to provide accurate information about the war with Iran. Twenty percent say “not much” and a plurality (39%) say “not at all.” Democrats and Independents have much less trust in the administration than Republicans. A majority of Democrats (66%) and a plurality of Independents (43%) don’t trust the Trump administration at all.

Fewer Republicans are as confident in their trust than Democrats are in their distrust. About a third of Republicans (32%) trust the administration “a great deal,” while 37% trust it “somewhat,” 17% “not much,” and 9% “not at all.” Even though most Republicans continue to approve of the military campaign against Iran, about a quarter are not sold on the war or the Trump administration’s handling of it.