MANCHESTER, New Hampshire, March 4 - The U.S. strikes on Iran and reports of the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei prompted a complex mix of reactions from a group of young men at Saint Anselm College who voted for President Donald Trump in 2024. Interviewed on a student panel, they voiced both approval for the removal of a long-time adversary and apprehension that the United States may lack a clear strategy to manage the fallout.
Michael Leary, a 19-year-old student who cast his first presidential ballot for Trump, said the strikes left him conflicted. He welcomed the news of Khamenei’s death yet questioned whether the action aligned with Trump’s campaign promise of "America First." Leary said he feared the moves could entangle the country in a prolonged Middle East quagmire even as he hoped the joint operation with Israel would be quick and minimize American casualties.
"One of my things with Trump was it was going to be ‘America First.’ That was the rhetoric he was running on," Leary said. "It’s not that I disagree with the war or the strikes ... We need to learn more and see what’s going to happen. But it felt like a step back from what he was saying."
The mix of support for the elimination of Khamenei and unease about an extended military commitment was echoed by five other Trump voters on the panel. Their reactions offer an early glimpse into how some young male voters are processing the strikes and how those responses could influence political support amid a widening regional conflict that has spread to Lebanon, affected global markets and pushed oil prices sharply higher.
John Fitzpatrick, 20, a politics major and chair of the Saint Anselm College Republicans, spoke firmly in favor of the action. He used forceful language to describe his view of the Iranian leadership and characterized Iran’s retaliatory moves as a last-ditch effort.
"It would be nice to see regime change - not that we should have boots on the ground or be as deeply entrenched as we were in Iraq," Fitzpatrick said. "I think it’s overall positive."
Artemius Gehring, 20, framed the strikes as an effort to bring closure to a conflict he traced back to the 1979 hostage crisis. "I think what he’s trying to do is just end it," Gehring said. "It’s the right move."
Not all voices on the panel were wholly supportive. Tyler Witzgall, a 20-year-old sophomore, stressed his concern over what he described as an absence of a concrete plan to fill any power vacuum in Iran, warning that the lack of an end game could trigger instability or even civil war.
"He’s telling the people of Iran to rise up and take over the government, and that’s easier said than done," Witzgall said. "Why are we taking these actions when there’s no specific plan right now or none that we know of?"
Witzgall also pointed to what he sees as an overemphasis on foreign policy initiatives, citing the Iran strikes and the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro in January as examples. He said his vote for Trump reflected a desire for stronger domestic economic performance and that he would prefer the administration direct more attention toward domestic priorities.
The students’ divided responses come against a backdrop of shifting youth voting patterns. Young male voters were among the unexpected drivers of Trump's 2024 performance, swinging toward him after several cycles in which Democrats dominated youth turnout. Exit polling analyzed by the Pew Research Center shows Trump won 46% of men ages 18 to 29 in the 2024 election, compared with 51% for the Democratic nominee, former Vice President Kamala Harris. That represented a marked change from 2020, when Trump trailed young men by 14 points, 53% to 39%.
However, more recent polling indicates those gains may be eroding. Reuters/Ipsos polling over the weekend found that only one in four Americans supported the U.S. strikes, and Reuters/Ipsos polling comparisons showed approval among men aged 18-29 for Trump’s overall performance fell from 43% in February 2025 to 33% in February of the current year.
How the crisis unfolds may have political and market consequences. Analysts and participants at the student panel suggested a rapid conclusion to hostilities could bolster Trump's image as a decisive commander in chief. Conversely, a protracted conflict could alienate the young men who helped power his 2024 resurgence and potentially dent his approval ahead of the November midterms.
A CNN poll of 1,004 Americans cited in the discussion indicated particularly strong opposition to the strikes among younger voters: 71% of respondents ages 18 to 34 said they disapproved.
Concerns extended beyond political standing to economic considerations. Leary warned that sustained involvement in Iran could mirror past long-term engagements, saying, "It could absolutely turn into the right move, or we could stay in Iran for 30-plus years, spend a ton of money - money that could have been spent at home."
The students’ perspectives underscore a central tension for the administration: balancing a forceful foreign policy posture that some voters see as necessary for national security with the domestic priorities and fiscal restraints that motivated at least some Trump supporters to vote for him in the first place.
While the Saint Anselm panel represents a small and localized sample, its comments align with national polling that shows limited public support for the strikes and a potential cooling of enthusiasm among key demographic groups. The outcome of the Iran crisis, whether it resolves quickly or becomes a protracted engagement, could shape voter sentiment among younger men and have wider implications for energy markets, financial markets and political calculations heading into the midterm elections.
Key points
- Young male Trump voters at Saint Anselm College expressed both support for the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and concern about the absence of a clear post-strike plan.
- Polling shows limited public support for the strikes and a decline in approval among men aged 18-29, raising political stakes for the administration ahead of the midterms. Sectors impacted include financial markets and the energy sector due to higher oil prices.
- A swift resolution could bolster the president’s image as a decisive commander in chief; a prolonged conflict risks alienating a demographic that was pivotal in 2024.
Risks and uncertainties
- Absence of a clear end game in Iran - could fuel instability or civil conflict and impact geopolitical and security conditions. This uncertainty affects defense planning and international stability.
- Protracted U.S. involvement - could result in long-term fiscal costs and redirected spending away from domestic priorities, influencing government budgets and economic policy.
- Political fallout among younger voters - declining approval among men ages 18-29 and strong disapproval among 18-34 year-olds could have electoral consequences for Republicans in the midterms, with implications for policy continuity and market expectations.