标签： Asia

Two major new public opinion polls from the United States and Israel have revealed widespread dissatisfaction with the outcome of the 2025 US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, just months after the signing of a 60-day cessation of hostilities agreement between Washington and Tehran. The findings paint a stark picture of shifting geopolitical attitudes among voters in both countries, underscoring deep divisions along partisan lines in the US and broad consensus against the war in Israel.

The conflict began on February 28, when former US President Donald Trump launched joint military operations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, framed as a mission to eliminate what the leaders called an imminent threat from the Iranian regime. Stated core objectives included the total destruction of Iran’s nuclear program and key military infrastructure, with Trump also positioning the campaign as a path to regime change, telling the Iranian people they would have a generational opportunity to take control of their government. Despite the assassination of long-time Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of other top Iranian officials, the regime change effort collapsed: Khamenei was succeeded by his son Mojtaba, who reportedly survived the strike that killed his father despite severe injury. In the end, the US publicly conceded it had failed to eliminate Iran’s ballistic missile program — another core war aim — and even formally acknowledged Iran’s right to maintain the program.

The resulting Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which paused active hostilities for 60 days to allow negotiations on a permanent end to the war, has triggered a sharp reversal in US public opinion toward the conflict, according to a new national survey from Quinnipiac University. Overall, 60 percent of registered American voters say the US military campaign against Iran was “not worth it”, with dramatic partisan splits shaping the results: 93 percent of Democratic voters and 66 percent of independent voters view the war as unjustified, while 75 percent of Republican voters still say the conflict was worth waging. Scepticism extends to the diplomatic truce itself: 59 percent of all US voters report they are either “not so confident” or “not confident at all” that the MoU will lead to a lasting peaceful resolution. Once again, partisan views diverge sharply, with 76 percent of Republicans saying they hold at least some confidence in the deal’s success.

Across key security outcomes, even partisan gaps shrink: 61 percent of all US voters believe Iran remains likely to develop nuclear weapons, a view held by a majority of voters in both major US political parties. The war has also shifted public views of US global standing, with 45 percent of voters concluding the conflict has left the United States weaker on the world stage.

Public anger has been fueled by tangible economic harm resulting from the war: after Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz at the outbreak of hostilities, the three-month campaign cost the US an estimated $60 billion in direct military spending, according to reporting from Middle East Eye, and pushed average US household fuel costs up by more than $447 annually. The poll also captured a steady shift in US public attitudes toward Israel, America’s key partner in the conflict: 48 percent of US voters now say the US is too supportive of Israel, the highest share recorded since Quinnipiac began tracking the question in 2017. That view is held by just 20 percent of Republicans, compared to 66 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents.

The Quinnipiac poll surveyed 1,165 registered US voters between June 18 and 22, carrying a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

In Israel itself, public sentiment toward the war outcome is even more overwhelmingly negative, according to a joint survey conducted by the Agam Institute and Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Fully 92 percent of Israeli respondents believe Iran emerged as the winner of the conflict, and 86 percent hold a negative view of the final truce agreement. Eighty-three percent say the campaign has weakened Israel’s long-term national security, a view echoed by many current and former Israeli political and military leaders who warn the outcome represents a pivotal blow to Israel’s regional influence.

Seventy-two and a half percent of Israelis reject Netanyahu’s public claims that the war delivered significant gains and eliminated an existential threat to the country, a sentiment that has fueled growing uncertainty over the Prime Minister’s political future. Only 12 percent of respondents say Israel achieved all of its stated war objectives: 56 percent rate Netanyahu’s management of the campaign as poor or an outright failure.

Notably, broad discontent with the war outcome has not translated to support for withdrawing Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, a key sticking point in ongoing US-Iran negotiations. Tehran has insisted the ceasefire cannot become permanent until Israel ends airstrikes in Lebanon and withdraws all troops from positions inside southern Lebanese territory, where Israel says its campaign targets Iran-aligned militant group Hezbollah. Even so, 48 percent of Israeli respondents support continuing the military campaign in Lebanon, with most of that group saying they back the operation even if it sparks a confrontation with the Trump White House.

The Israeli poll surveyed 3,644 Israelis aged 17 and older between June 17 and 20, with a weighted sample designed to reflect the full Israeli population and a maximum sampling error of 2.2 percent at a 99 percent confidence level.

Two and a half years after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the sprawling Ram Temple in Ayodhya, one of Hinduism’s most sacred sites, the shrine has become the center of a bitter public controversy over claims that tens of millions of rupees in devotee donations have been misappropriated.

The temple’s location carries decades of charged religious and political history. The new structure, built across 2.7 acres in the flashpoint northern Uttar Pradesh city, replaced the 16th-century Babri Masjid mosque, which was torn down by Hindu nationalist mobs in 1992. That demolition triggered countrywide religious riots that left nearly 2,000 people dead. Following a years-long legal battle, India’s Supreme Court granted the disputed site to Hindu petitioners in 2019, clearing the way for construction of the Ram temple. Since its formal opening in January 2024, the three-story temple complex — which includes six smaller shrines — has cemented its place as one of India’s most visited pilgrimage destinations, drawing an estimated 50 million annual visitors, with between 70,000 and 80,000 devotees arriving on ordinary weekdays, and crowds swelling to three times that size on weekends and major religious festivals.

The current controversy stems from claims of mishandling of cash, jewelry, gold, and silver that devotees leave as offerings in roughly 35 donation boxes scattered across the temple grounds. Managed by the independent Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, the temple reported an annual income of 3.27 billion rupees (approximately $35 million) for the 2024-2025 fiscal year, making it one of India’s highest-earning religious sites. The first allegations of misconduct came from Mahipal Singh, a former supervisor of the trust’s accounting team who has emerged as the whistleblower in the case. Singh has publicly stated he was removed from his position after raising internal concerns about the handling of cash offerings and precious gifts. When contacted by BBC Hindi, Singh declined to comment further, citing death threats and overwhelming pressure, saying, “I have received death threats. I am under immense pressure and stress. I am not in a position to say anything. Whatever I have said in public so far, please accept it as my word.” A former local legislator has gone on to claim more than 70 million rupees (around $740,000) in donations have gone missing.

Trust officials have forcefully denied all allegations of wrongdoing. In a public video statement posted to Facebook, the trust’s general secretary Champat Rai explained that all donation counting processes, conducted in a dedicated counting room with participation from trust trustees, workers, and assigned employees from the State Bank of India, are subject to regular internal audits. “This work continues for several days. This is what is happening nowadays. No-one has noticed any discrepancy yet,” Rai said.

The long-running religious dispute over the Ayodhya site has fundamentally shaped modern Indian politics. The campaign to reclaim the land for a Ram temple was a central rallying cry for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that fueled the party’s rise to national power in the 1990s, and construction of the temple was a core election promise that helped Modi secure a third term in 2024 general elections. That political history has turned the embezzlement claims into a major national political issue. Opposition parties have openly called on Modi and the BJP, which holds power both nationally and in Uttar Pradesh, to answer for the allegations. Samajwadi Party leader and former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav first brought the claims to widespread public attention on June 7, demanding transparency and a formal investigation. His party’s Ayodhya Member of Parliament Awadhesh Prasad has gone further, calling for trust members to be suspended during any investigation and for an inquiry overseen by the courts. Even some local BJP leaders have joined calls for a full probe into donation management practices.

Longtime Ayodhya residents have expressed widespread shock and disappointment over the claims. Vijay Lakshmi, a local resident, told BBC Hindi: “The offerings are meant for the temple’s upkeep and for the welfare of pilgrims. It’s not meant for people to take home.” Another local, Santosh Puri, called the allegations “a fatal blow to our religion.” While some locals said they found it hard to believe long-time trust associates would engage in misconduct, many described the claims as a stain on the temple and the government, demanding urgent action to prevent future abuses.

In response to growing public and political pressure, the Uttar Pradesh state government formed a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the allegations. The SIT submitted an interim report to the government this week and requested additional time to complete its full inquiry, with no official findings released to the public to date. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has called on anyone with evidence to share it with investigators, saying the inquiry will uncover the full facts and urging devotees to avoid pre-judging the outcome. “People who had waited centuries for the construction of the Ram temple can wait a few more days for the SIT to complete its work,” Adityanath said.

Despite the state-led investigation, there is growing public and legal pressure to transfer the probe to India’s federal Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under court supervision. Multiple petitions have already been filed in the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court of India requesting a formal criminal complaint and judicial oversight of the investigation. A prominent senior Indian Supreme Court lawyer has even written directly to the prime minister, chief minister, and chief justice of India urging a CBI probe to restore public faith. “These were not ordinary commercial receipts, but sacred offerings,” the lawyer wrote. “Any diversion or embezzlement of funds constitutes a profound betrayal of the faith reposed by millions of devotees in one of the most sacred institutions of Hindu faith.” As the inquiry proceeds, the controversy continues to test public trust in one of India’s most politically and religiously significant institutions.

Less than a week after inaugurating its most advanced naval warship to date, North Korea has carried out a series of high-stakes weapons tests that have underscored leader Kim Jong Un’s accelerating push to expand both nuclear and conventional military capabilities, according to state-run media reports from Pyongyang.

State media KCNA confirmed Friday that Kim personally observed four separate weapons trials held Thursday, which were designed to validate key technical upgrades for multiple frontline weapons systems targeting potential enemy positions along the inter-Korean border. The tests included a new “special mission” warhead for tactical ballistic missiles, an updated multiple rocket launcher system, and extended-range artillery rounds for self-propelled howitzers.

Kim stated that the successful trials confirm significant technological advances that will allow North Korea to revise its combat fire posture along the southern border, a statement widely interpreted as confirmation that all tested systems are engineered to strike critical targets in South Korea, including major U.S. military installations located across the country. The special-purpose tactical warhead, KCNA added, is explicitly designed to inflict catastrophic damage on high-priority enemy targets including military airfields, commercial ports, and key national power infrastructure.

Under Kim’s current national defense doctrine, Pyongyang’s self-defense strategy now centers on building a “deadly and destructive offensive posture” that will deter potential adversaries from choosing military confrontation. “To make the enemies feel constant uneasiness and fear is just an important aspect of the exercise of war deterrent,” Kim told military observers at the test site, per KCNA.

The latest round of tests aligns with a years-long shift in Pyongyang’s security and diplomatic posture that began after high-profile denuclearization talks between Kim and former U.S. President Donald Trump collapsed in 2019. Since that breakdown, Kim has prioritized rapid expansion of the country’s nuclear and missile arsenals, while also ramping up investment in modernized conventional weapons capabilities. While Kim has left the door open to a resumption of diplomatic talks with Washington, he has made clear that negotiations will only move forward if the U.S. abandons its longstanding demand that North Korea commit to denuclearization as a precondition for any diplomatic progress.

Relations with South Korea have deteriorated even more sharply in recent years: Kim has officially labeled Seoul Pyongyang’s “principal enemy” and has overseen the construction of additional military fortifications along the heavily militarized inter-Korean border. The weapons tests come just three days after Kim presided over the commissioning of the Choe Hyon, a new 5,000-ton guided-missile destroyer that Pyongyang frames as a tangible symbol of its growing naval and nuclear-powered strike capacity. The Choe Hyon is the most advanced warship ever deployed by the North Korean Navy.

In recent years, Kim has also worked to expand North Korea’s diplomatic and military ties abroad, most notably building a much closer partnership with Moscow that has included open support for Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Just two weeks before the latest weapons tests, Chinese President Xi Jinping made his first visit to North Korea in seven years for a high-profile summit with Kim, a meeting that highlighted growing alignment between the two neighboring authoritarian states amid rising regional tensions with the U.S. and its allies.

In a shocking political upset that has sent shockwaves through the U.S. Democratic Party, candidates backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani claimed major primary election wins across New York City this week, unseating three incumbent congressional Democrats and flipping five local legislative seats. The surprising results have ignited a fierce national debate over shifting party priorities, the growing influence of pro-Palestine sentiment among Democratic voters, and the future of the party’s long-standing alignment with pro-Israel interest groups.

Among the most high-profile upsets, former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, running with Mamdani’s support, defeated two-term incumbent Congressman Dan Goldman in Brooklyn’s 10th congressional district. In another major shakeup, first-time candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier ousted long-serving veteran Congressman Adriano Espaillat, while Claire Valdez secured victory in an open congressional primary. Five additional Mamdani-backed candidates, including Palestinian-American activist Aber Kawas, won their New York State Senate primaries. If Kawas holds her seat in the November general election, she will make history as the first Palestinian-American member of the New York State Senate.

Competing narratives have quickly emerged to interpret the results. Factions of the Republican Party, alongside moderate establishment Democrats, have sounded the alarm over what they frame as a socialist takeover of the nation’s largest city and a growing anti-Jewish mobilization within New York’s political landscape. On the other side of the debate, pro-Palestine advocates and left-wing activists frame the primary sweep as clear evidence that rank-and-file Democratic voters are hungry for candidates willing to break from the party establishment’s unwavering pro-Israel stance.

Beth Miller, political director of JVP Action, the advocacy and electoral arm of Jewish Voice for Peace, called the results a clear warning to the Democratic Party establishment. She argued that the wave of wins was built on massive grassroots organizing, and hailed what she described as a pro-Palestine sweep across New York City, noting that voters are demanding candidates that back bold progressive priorities: taxing the wealthy, abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and advocating for Palestinian freedom. Miller also emphasized that the results exposed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as a toxic brand within the Democratic Party, adding that voters have grown weary of lawmakers who defend what pro-Palestine activists characterize as Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Mainstream media outlets have echoed this framing: The New York Times framed the results as proof of a measurable leftward shift within the Democratic Party on Israel policy, while The Times of Israel argued that the primary sweep has cemented anti-Zionist politics as a permanent force in New York, home to the world’s largest Jewish diaspora community. Even some establishment figures have reacted sharply: U.S. Senator John Fetterman, a centrist Democrat, dismissed the winning candidates as part of what he called the “dirtbag left.”

Yet many political observers and even some pro-Palestine activists warn that framing the results as an outright, decisive victory for the Palestinian liberation movement overstates their significance. While three incumbents backed by AIPAC fell to candidates critical of Israel’s war in Gaza, and several pro-Palestine democratic socialists won local seats focused on bread-and-butter issues like rent stabilization, healthcare access, and eviction protections, analysts argue the results reflect a broader coalition of discontent rather than a single-issue mandate.

Critics of the dominant progressive narrative note that voter frustration with the Democratic establishment runs far beyond the Israel-Palestine issue. A 2025 Data for Progress poll confirms that New York City voters rank domestic economic concerns — particularly affordable housing and the rising cost of living — as the top issues shaping their votes, with just 27% of voters identifying U.S. foreign policy and relations with Israel as a key motivating factor for their choice. Mamdani, who rose to office on a platform of working-class economic transformation, has emphasized this coalition building, reiterating in a recent MSNBC interview that the only viable majority in American politics is a cross-ideological coalition of working-class voters united around economic justice.

“One of those tools is using your political capital to ensure that the people who will fight hardest for that same agenda are going to be there, whether it’s in Albany or whether it’s in DC,” Mamdani told host Chris Hayes, acknowledging that Palestine played a major role in the winning candidates’ support, but tying that support to his broader project of making New York affordable for working people.

Aber Kawas, the history-making primary winner, framed support for Palestine as a broader marker of a candidate’s willingness to challenge power: “Expressing support for Palestine is a signal that you are willing to speak out and speak truth to power, and I think that’s what people want out of their local politicians. What you are saying is, I’m going to fight for the most marginalised, forgotten communities that so many politicians don’t centre,” she told Middle East Eye earlier this month.

Still, critics within the pro-Palestine movement push back against framing the primary wins as a major win for Palestinian liberation. They argue that the movement’s focus has been narrowed to simply opposing AIPAC, rather than demanding a full end to U.S. complicity in Israel’s occupation and military campaign, and that many of the winning candidates fall far short of embracing full Palestinian self-determination.

The most prominent example of this tension is Lander, the winning congressional candidate who defeated Goldman. While Lander has stated he will oppose Israel’s occupation and actions in Gaza, he remains a self-identified Zionist who has previously opposed the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, and as city comptroller oversaw an increase in New York City pension fund investments in Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer. Niaz Kazi, a professor at Stockton University and observer of U.S. Palestine politics, notes that Lander’s framing as a left-wing hero highlights the danger of diluting the Palestinian struggle into a broader economic critique.

“There’s something surreal in seeing self-identified Zionist Brad Lander’s face on schnazzy posters rendering him not the lesser evil, but a legitimate hero for the left,” Kazi told Middle East Eye. “At a time when those in the Palestine solidarity movement who disrupted the operations of Elbit Systems face the harshest of state crackdowns, it’s a sucker punch to see elements of the same movement celebrate Lander, given his own involvement with the arms manufacturer Elbit.”

Kazi added that the results ultimately prove that “Zionism can absolutely flourish without AIPAC,” arguing that the Democratic establishment is adapting to shifting public opinion by allowing a veneer of Palestine solidarity that does little to change on-the-ground policy for Palestinians. Local pro-Palestine group Within our Lifetime echoed this criticism, noting that Lander “proudly defended investing in genocide just last year,” casting doubt on his recent shift in rhetoric.

For its part, AIPAC pushed back on narratives of defeat, noting Wednesday that 180 of its endorsees across the country won their primaries and will advance to the November general election. The mayor’s office had not responded to requests for comment as of publication. As parties continue to battle over what the New York primary results mean for the future of the Democratic Party, one thing remains clear: the battle for the soul of the Democratic majority is just getting started.