Pulse: The United States-Israel-Iran War

This Pulse survey, conducted in March 2026, explores perceptions of the ongoing war and its potential trajectories, focusing on expectations around its duration, outcomes, and broader regional and global implications. The findings reveal a high degree of uncertainty, with no clear consensus on how or when the conflict will end, reflecting the complexity and fluidity of the situation.

Starting with expectations around when the current war will end, the largest share of respondents (46%) believe it will continue for a few more weeks. This is followed by 22% and 20% who think the conflict will either be prolonged or effectively never-ending, or that it could conclude within days. The smallest group (12%) believes the war will end imminently. While it is often useful to focus on the largest percentage, it is particularly noteworthy here that a significant portion of respondents anticipate a prolonged or even indefinite conflict. This may reflect perceptions of a war that fluctuates between periods of escalation and de-escalation, or of a drawn-out, inconclusive military engagement without a clear resolution or exit strategy. Overall, the responses reveal a lack of clear consensus. There is no dominant or even near-unified view on whether the war will end quickly or persist over a longer period, highlighting uncertainty and divided expectations among respondents.

A majority of respondents (51%) believe that the countries involved will reach a stalemate, ultimately forcing an end to the fighting without a clear victory for any side. Meanwhile, a significant proportion (40%) expect a more optimistic outcome in the form of a negotiated ceasefire. This sentiment may have been influenced by recent statements from Trump regarding the possibility of negotiations with Iran.

Only small minorities—7% and 2%, respectively—anticipate a decisive victory for either the U.S. and Israel or Iran. This distribution underscores the perceived complexity of the conflict and the widespread expectation that no party is likely to achieve a clear or decisive win.

Unsurprisingly, a clear majority of respondents (65%) identify the economic impact as the most significant consequence of the war. Rising energy prices and broader market instability appear to be affecting all stakeholders. Developments such as Iran’s targeting of Gulf countries and threats to close the Strait of Hormuz have been perceived as attempts to trigger global economic disruption and internationalize the conflict—effects that many believe have already been felt by both the U.S. and the wider international community.

The expansion of regional military tensions ranks second (23%), reflecting concerns over the involvement of proxy actors and the spillover of conflict into countries such as Lebanon. Finally, only 13% view the involvement of global powers as the most significant impact, suggesting that it is either seen as less immediate compared to economic and regional effects, or not as strongly anticipated by respondents.

Assessing whether the war’s objectives will be achieved is inherently complex, largely because, as 63% of respondents indicate, those objectives are not clearly defined. This perception reflects uncertainty surrounding the strategic goals of leaders such as Trump and Netanyahu, with ambiguity over whether the aims involve regime change in Iran, the destruction of nuclear capabilities, the dismantling of missile arsenals, or a combination of these objectives.

A further 20% believe the objectives are partially achievable, suggesting an expectation that certain goals—such as weakening the regime—may be realized, even if a full or clearly defined victory remains unlikely. Meanwhile, 12% are confident that the objectives will be achieved, while only 6% consider this unlikely. Overall, the responses highlight a prevailing sense of ambiguity, not only about outcomes but also about the very goals driving the conflict.

Interestingly, three of the four options received almost identical levels of support (28%, 29%, and 29%). Respondents are divided between expectations that regional tensions will largely remain the same, that there will be a significant shift in the regional balance of power, or that the region will become more unstable. Only 13% believe the outcome will lead to greater regional stability. It is important to note that these three leading perspectives are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. This suggests that the future regional landscape may reflect a combination of these dynamics—where persistent tensions coexist with shifts in power and increased instability—rather than a single, clearly defined outcome.

When considering a potential turning point in the war—whether one that could bring it to an end, deliver victory to one side, or trigger further escalation—respondents largely point to economic factors. Consistent with earlier findings, a majority (60%) believe that economic pressure will be the most likely catalyst for such a shift. A major military strike that alters the balance of power ranks second (17%), though with a noticeable gap compared to economic factors. This is followed by internal political pressure within one of the involved countries (13%), suggesting that domestic dynamics are also seen as a potential driver of change.

Finally, diplomatic intervention by global powers (11%) receives comparatively limited support, indicating that respondents place less confidence in external mediation as a decisive turning point in the conflict.