On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel began a coordinated offensive against the Iranian Islamic regime, targeting its leadership and military infrastructure (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2026). In the weeks since, Iran has sustained frequent drone and missile barrages at various American and Israeli targets throughout the Middle East and has closed the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery of global commerce. The conflict as a whole has sparked a new wave of concern regarding the global state of affairs, and, interested in how Wheaton College students view these developments, the Center for Applied Christian Ethics polled the student body from March 11 to 20 to break down the issue here at home.
The survey asked students to self-identify themselves politically (1 = most left-of-center; 5 = most right-of-center), report their primary sources of information on the conflict, record their agreement to certain propositions in a six-item scale (e.g., “Using military force against Iran may be necessary to protect U.S. national interests”), and provide a brief synopsis of their positions with Christian ethical principles they think reinforce their views. The options to each statement in the six-item scale (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Somewhat Agree, Agree, and Strongly Agree) were assigned point values that were summed to assess respondents’ approval of the conflict—one point for strong disagreement to six for strong agreement. Two items in the scale were reverse-coded to maintain honesty and reliability. Aggregate scores from 6–14 represented strong opposition to U.S. involvement in Iran, 15–21 signaled more cautious or moderate resistance, 22–28 indicated moderate support, and 29–36 marked strong endorsement.
Respondents (n = 192) were relatively evenly spread across classes (including graduate students), with just under 70% identifying as White/Caucasian and 50% as male (see figures 1–3). General political orientation across the dataset was very centered according to the five-point scale (M = 3.085, SD = 0.996), but the results of the conflict approval scale weighed heavily in favor of opposing U.S. involvement in Iran (see Table 1).
Fig. 1. Respondent Sex
Fig. 2. Respondent Classification
Fig. 3. Respondent Race/Ethnicity
Table 1. Conflict Approval Scale
| (n) | (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Strong Opposition | 69 | 35.9 |
| Moderate Opposition / Caution | 45 | 23.4 |
| Moderate Support | 47 | 24.5 |
| Strong Support | 28 | 14.6 |
| NA | 3 | 1.56 |
A linear regression analysis was done to examine whether race/ethnicity, political orientation, traditional news media consumption, and sex predicted trends in conflict approval scores. Three individuals were excluded from this procedure due to incomplete data. Holding other variables constant, political orientation emerged as the strongest significant influence: each one-point shift toward the political right corresponded to an average increase in overall scores by 4.4 points. Students of color likewise expressed higher levels of approval, averaging 2.40 points above their white peers. In addition, men exhibited modestly elevated totals in comparison to women, with scores exceeding theirs by 2.04 points on average. There was, however, no conclusive effect on scores based on the kind of news media respondents use to fetch their information. (See Table 2.)
Table 2. Predictors of Conflict Approval*
| Predictor | 𝝱 (SE) | 95% CI | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race (Students of Color vs. White) | 2.40 (0.72) | 0.97 – 3.83 | 0.001 |
| Political Orientation | 4.04 (0.51) | 3.04 – 5.04 | <0.001 |
| Non-Traditional News Media vs. Traditional News Media |
0.99 (1.15) | -1.29 – 3.27 | 0.394 |
| Sex: Male (vs. Female) | 2.04 (1.01) | 0.04 – 4.04 | 0.045 |
*n=189
In the free-answer portion, participants were asked to briefly summarize their stance on the issue to extract some of the nuances that are not clearly seen through the previous items.
The dataset featured about twice as many respondents who articulated opposition or mistrust than those who felt positively about U.S. involvement. Most who fell into this category expressed a lack of justification and transparency on the part of President Trump’s administration (~20–25 responses). Meanwhile, others cited preferences for diplomacy over military action (~12–15) and general anti-war sentiments due to the human cost of fighting (~10–12). Another considerable portion of answers gave mixed feelings, acknowledging that the Iranian regime is brutal but pushing back against U.S. intervention (~15–20).
Those who favor U.S. military operations generally see it as “necessary to protect national and international security,” as one answer put it (~12–14). Along these lines, thwarting Iran’s attempts at possessing a nuclear weapon was most commonly invoked as justification. Others, meanwhile, emphasized a moral dimension, seeing it as liberating an oppressed Iranian people (~8–10). Anti-terrorism (~6–8), strength and deterrence (~4–5), and a more mixed or conditional support (~8–10) were also seen in the response pool.
Later free-response questions lifted the hood on the exact Christian ethical reasoning behind these positions. Specifically, peacemaking and nonviolence dominated answers that were critical of the conflict (~18–22). The Christian principles of “seeking peace,” “loving enemies,” “turning the other cheek,” and even Jesus’ personal title, “Prince of Peace,” was common response language. Related to this, other students explained how the sanctity of life is grounds for condemning all hostility (~12–15). The primary vein of thought connecting these responses was a view that Christian pacifism is fundamentally incompatible with violent conflict. Interestingly, though, about 10 to 12 responses acknowledged that war can theoretically be justified, but that in this particular case the criteria are not satisfied.
On the other side, versions of Just War Theory were most frequently cited, and responses submitted that war is justified if it restrains evil, protects the innocent, and is conducted under legitimate authority (~8-10 responses). Respondents in this camp also commonly referred to “loving neighbors,” although in this case participants emphasized protecting the vulnerable (~5–7). Still others described an ethical responsibility of governments to protect their constituents, seeing U.S. intervention as accomplishing security for Americans (~3–4). Finally, another portion of respondents conceded that war is not ideal but is sometimes—and in this case—necessary in a fallen world (~5–6).
The survey’s last question, “What do you wish Christians would do or say in a time like this?” was designed to place all respondents on common, Christian ground. And, indeed, there was a lot of commonality between participants on all sides of the issue. Overall, emphasis on spiritual responses, such as praying for peace, God’s will, the wisdom of leaders, and the comfort for those suffering, was the primary and unifying theme. Students from both sides also advocated for rejecting political division and blind agreement. Especially among those with ambivalence toward the issue, respondents encouraged Christians to thoughtfully engage tensions between justice and peace.
Reading these responses, I was encouraged to find a common thread—a shared Christian instinct—of presenting everything we do not understand, or cannot control, to God. Even if our conclusions differ, our callings do not. So let us pray for peace: that God would comfort those who suffer, mend what is broken, and, in His time, come again in glory to set all things right.
Asa Thurstone
CACE Student Fellow
References
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2026, March 6). 2026 Iran War: Explained, United States, Israel, Strait of Hormuz, map, and conflict. Encyclopedia Britannica.