Recent polling reveals something extraordinary-and deeply troubling.
A majority of Americans oppose the war with Iran. According to a March 2026 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 59% oppose the conflict, with only 37% supporting it. A CNN poll shows nearly identical numbers. At the same time, a Quinnipiac survey found that 55% of Americans believe Iran did not pose an “imminent threat." An Economist/YouGov poll goes further: only 25% believe the threat was immediate, while another 38% say it was a threat-but not imminent.
And yet, these same Americans consistently express concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its terrorism, and its long-term danger.
They recognize the threat.
They reject the timing.
They oppose the solution.
This is not just contradiction. It is strategic blindness.
At the center of this confusion lies a single word: imminent.
We are told that because the threat was not imminent, action was unjustified.
This is not strategy. This is intellectual collapse.
Consider the logic.
A patient is diagnosed with early-stage cancer. It is contained. It is treatable. The doctor recommends immediate intervention. But the patient refuses: “It is not imminent."
So nothing is done.
Later, the cancer spreads. Now it is imminent. Now it is deadly. Now the same voices ask: “Why didn’t we act earlier?"
Iran is that cancer.
Its nuclear program is advancing. Its ballistic missiles are improving. Its global terror network is active and expanding. These are not distant risks-they are unfolding realities.
The only thing “non-imminent" about them is that the final, irreversible stage has not yet been reached.
And that is precisely why action matters now.
Waiting for imminence is not caution-it is surrender in slow motion.
Even more astonishing is the psychology behind public opinion.
They reject action-until action is no longer possible, then they demand it, blaming leadership for not taking care of it early.
They want safety, but reject the mechanisms that create it. They want deterrence, but oppose enforcement. They want threats eliminated-but only after those threats become undeniable.
That is not policy.
That is magical thinking.
Leadership does not operate at the level of comfort. It operates at the level of reality.
And reality does not wait.
The recent actions against Iran were not impulsive, nor were they the result of external pressure. And the claim that the United States was dragged into conflict by Israel is simply false.
The strategic interests of both countries converge naturally.
Israel acted because it must. The United States acted because it must.
Both face the same trajectory: a regime steadily advancing toward nuclear capability, backed by long-range missiles and a global network of proxies.
This is not about helping an ally. It is about confronting a shared, escalating threat.
That is not entanglement. That is alignment.
It is also a matter of leadership-of recognizing danger before it becomes unavoidable.
Both Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu understood the consequences of inaction. They did not wait for the threat to become obvious, undeniable, and irreversible. They acted when action was still possible.
That is the difference between reacting to history and shaping it.
Critics call this reckless.
History calls it necessary.
If you wait for a threat to become imminent, you are not managing risk-you are scheduling disaster.
Had Iran been allowed to proceed unchecked-combining nuclear capability with delivery systems capable of reaching far beyond its region-the future outrage would be unanimous:
“Why didn’t anyone act when there was still time?"
We have asked that question before.
Too many times.
The uncomfortable truth is that preventing catastrophe rarely looks reasonable in the present. It looks premature. It looks aggressive. It looks unpopular.
Until the catastrophe arrives.
Then it looks obvious.
By the time a threat becomes “imminent," it is often already irreversible.
The choice is never between action and no action.
It is between early action and late regret.
This time, leadership chose early action.
And that may be the only reason the catastrophe never comes at all.
Dr. Avi Perry is a former professor at Northwestern University and a former researcher and executive at Bell Labs. He served as Vice President at NMS Communications and represented the United States on the UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Standards Committee. He is the author of the thriller novel “72 VIRGINS", and of “Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks." Recently, he published “Unlocked: A Practical Guide to Learning and Applying Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Solve Real-World Problems" as well as “A Winner’s Playbook: How to Win by Spotting and Using the Rules Governing Human Behavior," practical rules that guide the path to success. He is a regular op-ed contributor to The Jerusalem Post and Israel National News