Recent findings from the Economist/YouGov poll (June 15–18, 2025) offer a striking snapshot of how public opinion in the United States on the Israel-Iran conflict is deeply structured by race and gender. Far from being neutral assessments of foreign policy, these perceptions reflect entrenched and intersectional social hierarchies and identity-based distinctions that call for introspection and critical scrutiny.
Take, for instance, support for President Trump’s handling of Iran:
· 46% of men approve, compared to only 29% of women.
· 44% of white respondents approve, versus just 15% of Black and 25% of Hispanic respondents.
Similarly, perceptions of Iran as an “enemy” show pronounced disparities:
· 56% of men see Iran as an enemy, compared to 44% of women.
· Again, whites lead with 57%, while only 26% of Black and 39% of Hispanic respondents share this view.
Even when it comes to negotiation strategy—particularly the aggressive option of threatening military force—men (24%) are almost twice as likely as women (13%) to endorse it. The racial breakdown mirrors a hierarchy of militaristic preferences: white respondents (20%) are more than twice as likely as Black respondents (10%) to favor this approach. For Hispanic respondents, this percentage is 14%.
This pattern continues with views on Israel.
· 43% of men approve of Trump’s Israel policy (vs. 31% of women), and 43% of white respondents support it, compared to just 15% of Black and 28% of Hispanic individuals.
· The label of Israel as an “ally” is more common among men (43%) than women (29%), and again more among white (40%) than Black (21%) or Hispanic (32%) Americans.
How do we make sense of these patterns?
Using an intersectionality lens, we see that white men—positioned at the intersection of racial and gender dominance—are most likely to support militaristic and pro-Israel stances, reflecting compounded privilege. In contrast, women of color show markedly lower support, revealing how intersecting identities shape resistance to hegemonic foreign policy narratives.
From a critical race theory (CRT) lens, these disparities underscore how race continues to structure access to political narratives and the legitimacy of voice. The fact that Black and Hispanic respondents are less likely to view Iran as an enemy or support military threats reveals a critical distancing from dominant, racialized security discourses.
Finally, drawing on postcolonial theory, we see that the view of Israel as an unproblematic “ally” and Iran as an inherent “enemy” reflects residual colonial binaries of “civilized” versus “uncivilized,” “rational ally” versus “rogue actor.” These binaries are most internalized by dominant identity groups (white men), while subaltern groups (such as women, Blacks and Hispanics) tend to offer more nuanced, less militarized perspectives.
Taken together, this data reveals that U.S. public opinion on the Israel-Iran conflict is far from homogenous; rather, it is shaped by deeply embedded structures of race, gender, and imperial history. The dominance of white male voices in supporting militaristic and pro-Israel positions reflects not just individual belief but a broader system of social conditioning rooted in privilege and historical power. In contrast, the more restrained and critical views expressed by women and racial minorities highlight the value and potential of marginalized perspectives to challenge and reframe dominant foreign policy discourses.
(Author: Jawad Syed, Professor, Lahore University of Management Sciences / South Asian Academy of Management – jawad.syed@lums.edu.pk)
South Asian Academy of Management 