Andrew L. Urban
According to the latest Newspoll survey published in The Australian on Monday, March 30, 2026, 50 per cent of those surveyed strongly disapproved of military action against Iran and almost as many strongly disapproved of sending ships to support the US.
On the question of whether Australia should join allied nations in supporting the US to keep the Strait of Hormuz open for international shipping, 63 per cent of voters opposed sending naval vessels, while 30 per cent supported it, and 7 per cent didn’t know.
It is a bit meaningless and simplistic to equate yes/no opinions as political assessment. I’m not attacking Newspoll; it’s doing its job, taking a simple snapshot of surface opinions.
But we don’t know the meaningful answer until the next question is answered. WHY? The answer would provide the all-important context that delivers the complete answer. It is context that gives us usefully complete information. In this specific instance, the reasons for opposing the war against Iran would elicit a range of responses that we could individually accept as rational or at least arguable – or reject as uninformed, politically biased or irrational.
Once we hear the individual reasons, we are equipped to assess the opinion against our own opinion. For example, I would not count a negative opinion about the US/Israel war against the Islamic Republic of Iran if the reason given was that it was ‘racist’. Or that it was ‘starting a needless war’.
My intention here is not to open a debate about the merits or otherwise of the war, but to raise the issue that unless each response is teased out as to the reason for it, it’s like simply asking if the respondent is for or against Donald Trump … ooops, could that be a reason … and the only reason?