Iranian military action is a polling mystery.

Pollsters are doing their best to make sure people lose complete faith in them.

So let's be clear. There is no circumstances where one pollster can find that 59% of respondents disapprove of a military action while another pollster asking pretty much the same questions at the same time find that 54% approve. You are literally looking at a 35% difference in the underlying polling results.

Now, I get that some of these polls are just polling adults, while others are polling registered or likely voters, but it is nearly impossible to conclude that this is a valid reason for this sort of discrepancy.

Here is an example of the questions:

Q. What is your opinion of President Trump’s decision to use military air and naval resources to disable the leadership of Iran and disable their potential effort to rebuild their nuclear efforts and their ballistic weapons?

Approve: 54%

Disapprove: 37%

Undecided: 9%

The first is from Insider advantage, while the second was from CNN. The Insider Advantage does suggest the reasoning for the strikes, while the CNN just refers to it as military action. I suppose someone might see "strikes" and "military action" differently. So far, we do not have any boots on the ground, so I believe referring to the action as "strikes" is accurate enough. But the CNN poll suggested that most of the people taking the poll were keeping up on the news, so they should know what is actually happening and the justification for it, at least in theory. But the difference here is extremely puzzling, unless some people are not paying attention but suggesting they are.

Even odder, is the fact that the CNN respondents believed that Iran would somehow be more of a threat after strikes that have eliminated much of their military, killed most of their leadership, and put any potential leaders into hiding. I don't know how to justify that sort of answer with any perceived logic.

Funny thing, but the same people who demanded that Iran would become a huge threat because we bombed their nuclear facility a few months back ended up dead wrong. Yet, here they are again, making the same sorts of claims regarding the latest strikes. So far, their retaliatory responses have been rather muted, with the exception of the one missile that ended up killing some Americans. The longer this goes on, the more weakened they become. Not sure why anyone would logically conclude that it makes them either stronger or more of a threat.

I think the end result will matter here more than anything else. If Iran comes out of this as a military has-been with new leadership that is less anti-American and less-Islamic, then I think most people will need to see it as a success. There are obviously going to be people who in a kneejerk fashion will argue against anything Trump does, regardless, but there is no pleasing those.