As a fragile ceasefire took shape following six weeks of strikes between the United States and Iran, people across the U.S. were grappling with what the confrontation means for daily life and the economy. Reuters spoke with 16 residents in Indiana, New York, California, Georgia and Colorado to capture a cross-section of views - from those who back the military response to those who see it as unnecessary - and to understand how concerns about fuel prices, potential deployments and news fatigue are shaping public sentiment.
Context and public mood
Launched without congressional approval, the U.S. military action against Iran has proved broadly unpopular even as opinions vary sharply by party affiliation. A Reuters/Ipsos poll published on March 31 found that 60% of Americans opposed U.S. military strikes on Iran; within that split, 74% of Republicans supported the action while just 7% of Democrats did so. The interviews were conducted a day after the United States and Iran agreed to a ceasefire and before planned talks in Pakistan.
The voices collected underscore several recurring themes: divergent views of justification and strategy, acute concern about rising gasoline costs, anxiety about longer-term implications including deployments and possible retaliation, and mixed habits around following international news.
Views on justification and leadership
Among those who consider the military response justified is Don Smith, 65, a Marine veteran and small business owner in Mead, Colorado. Smith said the strikes addressed a threat he believes Washington ignored for decades. Recalling the 1983 bombing in Beirut that killed U.S. service members - an event he says shaped his views - he argued that Iran has a long record of supporting terrorism and causing American casualties. "I think Trump’s just doing what needs to be done right now," Smith said.
At the other end of the spectrum, 82-year-old retired businessman Terry Lemoine voiced strong disapproval while sitting outside a Carlsbad mall. Lemoine called the war "stupid" and said he believed former President Donald Trump acted selfishly and at the behest of Israeli leadership. "It never should have happened. He just does what he wants to do. He doesn’t care about anybody, just himself," Lemoine said.
For some, the conflict continues to feel abstract. Antwuan Bannister, 32, a cook in downtown Atlanta, described the war as distant: "You only see it on TV, so you don’t feel like it’s real. It’s not here." He added a critical view of the decision-making behind the strikes: "Trump is a macho man, that’s why we’re at war. He wants to run the world. This will backfire on our country."
Others questioned campaign promises of peace in light of the violence. Chad Gard, 50, who sells baked goods at a farmers market in Chesterton, Indiana, said he was not surprised former President Trump initiated military action despite earlier pledges of détente. Gard, who voted for Kamala Harris in the last presidential election, said he viewed the U.S. role as damaging to international standing: "We’re ruining our position in the world, we’re being the bad guys."
Economic pressures - gasoline and small business strains
Concerns about the economic fallout of the conflict were widespread, particularly the impact on fuel prices and daily living costs. A 22-year-old junior at Clark Atlanta University, Christian Anderson, called the war "pointless" and said it is harming the economy. "I’m no economist, but I’m not particularly happy. This pointless war is destroying our economy," he said.
Don Smith in Colorado linked current price moves to the conflict, while also contrasting recent years under different administrations: "Prices have been going up ever since the Biden administration - under Joe Biden, the prices were through the ceiling. They went down in the first year of Trump’s return, and are rising now because of Iran. Still, prices now are nothing more than they were three or four years ago, so there isn’t much difference."
Small business owners reported acute effects. Melanie Curtis, owner of Gene Catering and Desserts in Chicago, described rising fuel costs as a direct hit to her operations. Curtis travels to roughly seven Midwestern farmers’ markets each week; with higher gasoline prices she said her annual revenue target of $100,000 no longer covers expenses. "With this war going on, and with everything that we have going on in politics, $100,000 is not enough," she said. "We’re still underwater, we’re still struggling, we’re still trying to make ends meet."
Retired New York City firefighter Walt Moran, 69, who commutes by ferry to Staten Island, expressed concern that disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz could have lingering impacts. He cited recent local pump prices as evidence of volatility: "Even two weeks ago, (the gas price) was $3.50 a gallon, and a couple of days ago, it was $4.19." Moran added that reopening a closed strait would not immediately restore supply chains, pointing to the backlog that can persist even after transit routes are cleared.
Anxieties about extended conflict and deployments
Beyond economic worries, personal fears about escalation and deployment surfaced repeatedly. Dana Cuffy, 32, a registered behavior technician in Atlanta, said her sister in the Army Reserves was told she could be deployed to Kuwait in August or sooner. "It’s horrible worry all the time," Cuffy said, adding that her sister tells the family "not to worry but how can we not. We try not to show it."
At the Chesterton market, Aaron Klug, 34, who sells produce with family members, said he would feel vulnerable if he lived on the coasts and worried about retaliation targeting Americans. "I would worry if I was on the coasts. I would feel very concerned about that, knowing that you are the easy target on the edge unfortunately," he said.
Kenneth Flowers, 63, a retired healthcare worker, warned that prolonged conflict could change public opinion. Sitting in Atlanta’s Centennial Olympic Park, he predicted Americans would "wake up" if the war did not end soon and said he believed Mr. Trump sought an exit rather than an extended ground campaign - a step he was skeptical other Republicans would back.
Not every respondent believed the confrontation would end quickly. Patrick Armstrong, 20, an AI engineer shopping in Carlsbad, said he expected the conflict to continue. "I don’t think it’s gonna stop. I think this will go on for a long time," he said.
Following the news - from constant monitoring to selective tuning out
How people consume information about the war varied by generation, habit and personal circumstance. Carrie Sherk, who runs a florist shop in Mead, said her household remains attentive because her husband served in the Air Force and is "glued to the TV." Sherk said the story hits close to home for military families.
By contrast, several younger interviewees described a sense of detachment. Christian Anderson said the absence of missiles or direct attacks on U.S. soil made the war feel distant. "Because we don’t have missiles flying our way here at home, we don’t see the actual consequences of what’s really going on," he said.
For some, social media algorithms govern exposure to the conflict. Christyna Kay, a 38-year-old freelance entrepreneur, said her reliance on TikTok and Instagram shapes what she sees and that she intentionally limits deep dives into international coverage to preserve her personal life. "I would like to watch news and be on social media, but I give myself a moment to cut that time off because I also need to live and enjoy my life," she said. "The fact that I’m aware of it is important to me... Do I deep dive? I have my limits."
A common thread at public gatherings was curiosity about how the confrontation might resolve. At the farmers market, Klug said, "That’s what a lot of people were talking about: Is it going to keep going? Is it going to stop? What’s going on? What are we doing? Are we going to make everybody mad at us?"
Moran, the retired firefighter, described a personal habit of close news consumption that he associated with earlier generations: "My parents taught me from the time I was a kid: follow the news. That was like, you know, part of your obligation," he said. "I know other people don’t like that, but... I’ve always been the kind of person who reads the paper every day." He acknowledged that this attentiveness may not be shared broadly among younger cohorts.
What residents say matters most to them
The interviews reflect a mix of immediate concerns - inflationary pressure on essentials such as fuel, disruption to small business operations, and the fear of further military engagements - alongside deeper political divisions over the legitimacy and goals of the strikes. For some, military action is a long-overdue response to perceived threats; for others, it is an unnecessary escalation driven by leadership motives.
Across the board, practical anxieties surfaced: covering higher household and business costs, the logistics of disrupted shipping routes, and the personal impact of potential deployments. How those factors evolve will continue to shape opinions as officials pursue diplomatic talks and manage the fragile ceasefire.
Methodology note
The individuals featured in this article were interviewed in five U.S. states on a single day following the announcement of a ceasefire and ahead of planned talks in Pakistan. Their comments reflect personal perspectives and circumstances, including military service, small business ownership, student status and retired public service.