People dispense fuel at the pump at Costco Petrol Station in West Thurrock, Essex. The conflict in Iran has caused a surge in oil and gas prices, March 5, 2026
Campaigners warn soaring oil and gas prices are pushing households into another cost-of-living crisis
TEN straight days of high oil and gas prices are pushing households into another cost-of-living crisis, campaigners warned today, as costs suffered from the US-Israel attack on Iran.
The warning came as Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she had asked the competition watchdog to “crack down” on “rip-off” fuel prices ahead of a meeting with energy bosses to warn against war profiteering.
Ms Reeves insisted she “will not tolerate” firms exploiting uncertainty in the Middle East for excess financial gain.
The government has promised to intervene if companies engage in “unfair” practices that would hit customers facing a rise in the price of home heating oil, which is not covered by Ofgem’s energy price cap.
Rural communities which rely on oil to heat their homes are already being hit hard, according to charity Rural Action Derbyshire (RAD), which runs an oil-buying scheme.
The heating oil market is closely connected to the daily market for jet fuel, meaning price rises are typically passed directly to customers.
RAD said homes in Derbyshire saw the cost of 500 litres jump from around £300 to £700-800 in the week after the conflict.
For an average household, 500 litres lasts two to three months.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
U.S. Navy warplane takes off from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln during Operation Epic Fury targeting Iran in the Gulf of Oman, on March 01, 2026. [U.S. Navy / Handout – Anadolu Agency]
After the 12-day war in May last year, it was clear that both sides would be face-to-face soon. They restarted on 28th February 2026. Israel-US adopted the same pattern of targeting the top brass, including the Grand Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on the very first day, thinking that in the absence of these officials, the Iranian administration would be like a rudderless ship. This would create confusion and provide an easy opportunity for regime change.
Thirteen days have passed, yet there are no visible signs of either the fall of the regime or a pause or ceasefire. Despite US-Israel’s anguish, Iran selected Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader – an act of defiance.
Both sides continue to bombard each other’s vital infrastructure, including civilian and military targets. Energy installations such as oil depots and refineries have become primary targets. Under a tit-for-tat policy, Iran has also declared that financial centers, banks, and offices of major technology companies such as Google, YouTube, and Microsoft could be the next targets. Already 26 US bases have been targeted. Following the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the conflict rapidly expanded from a limited confrontation into a regional war, and with the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, its effects are now visible in the global economy and in the daily lives of ordinary people. Approximately 130 oil ships are anchored, stopping 20% oil which passes through the narrow strait of 33 km. Already four ships were targeted which tried to bypass the warning.
Among the GCC countries, the UAE faced the highest number of attacks.
Iran’s aggressive response and selection of Mojtaba, a hardliner, as Ayatollah, appear to indicate that Iran is prepared for a prolonged conflict, whereas the United States and Israel seem eager to conclude the war quickly. Meanwhile, President Trump’s plan to send Kurdish Peshmerga into Iran via Iraq seems like another disaster.
Tehran had been closely and patiently observing military buildups in the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Oman, and the Mediterranean Sea for several weeks. The United States mobilized a substantial part of its defence capabilities, including naval armadas and two aircraft carriers, Abraham Lincoln and Gerald Ford. Hundreds of fifth-generation stealth fighter jets were deployed along with advanced air-defence systems such as THAAD and large stockpiles of interceptors.
In addition, the United States strengthened its military presence across several bases in the Gulf region, including Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq.
Israel also appeared determined to launch what it described as a “fight-to-the-finish” war with the Islamic Republic. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly stated that he had been waiting for such a war for nearly forty years. Iran, on the other hand, has long maintained that it began preparing for such a scenario after the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and the fall of Saddam Hussein.
The earlier conflict in May had already revealed the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. However, the current course of the war suggests that the US–Israel alliance underestimated Iran’s military capabilities, particularly its missile and drone systems, careful planning, and effective use of its military resources.
Compared with the US–Israel alliance, Tehran appears to possess a clearer understanding of its adversaries’ strengths, limitations, and operational constraints.
Iran was also aware of its own limitations. Its air force cannot match the capabilities of US and Israeli fighter jets, and its airspace remains vulnerable to aerial attacks. As the conflict expanded, these vulnerabilities became evident. At the same time, the United States and Israel appeared to have an incomplete assessment of Iran’s capabilities. Although they possessed precise intelligence about the locations of Iranian leaders and senior officials—they killed several commanders and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-they appeared to lack detailed knowledge of Iran’s missile infrastructure, drone networks, and underground silos developed over several decades.
It also appears that the US–Israel side underestimated the possibility of indirect assistance from Russia and China, relying heavily instead on air superiority and defensive shield systems.
Iran’s war strategy
A detailed military assessment would require expert analysis, but developments in the conflict suggest that Iran followed a three-stage strategy.
First, Iran responded to the US-Israel attacks by deploying large numbers of drones, many reportedly stored since 2011 and 2013. These drones forced US–Israel defence systems to respond with expensive interceptors. In financial terms, this created an asymmetric dynamic: Iranian drones costing between $20,000 and $50,000 were intercepted by missiles costing between $1 million and $2 million. As the wave of drone attacks continued, interceptor stocks began to decline, gradually exposing the airspace of US bases and Israel to greater risk.
Second, once defensive systems were strained, Iran launched more advanced missiles targeting radar installations, communication centres, satellites, and data facilities. Reports indicate damage to communication and data infrastructure at the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar and at military installations in Bahrain. Such attacks disrupted surveillance and communication systems that coordinate missile defence networks such as THAAD, David’s Sling, Arrow, and Iron Dome. Command and monitoring centres that once gathered and transmitted military data across thousands of kilometres became severely limited in their operations.
Third,
Iran escalated its attacks using hypersonic missiles while adopting a tit-for-tat strategy. These strikes targeted refineries, military bases, and strategic infrastructure in Israel. Some reports suggest the use of the Khorramshahr-1 missile equipped with submunitions capable of dispersing dozens of warheads over a wide area, complicating interception efforts.
Meanwhile, attacks on naval assets reportedly forced aircraft carriers operating in the Gulf of Oman to reposition farther from the Iranian coastline.
After weakening regional defence systems, Iran announced a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. This strait is one of the world’s most critical energy corridors, through which roughly 20 percent of global crude oil and a similar share of liquefied natural gas passes.
At present, around 130 oil tankers are reportedly anchored in the strait. Iran claims effective control over the Hormuz chokepoint.
It has targeted four vessels, including one linked to India, that attempted to pass through. Iran has reportedly deployed underwater tunnels and small, agile boats to intercept or attack ships that violate the blockade.
At the same time, attacks on energy facilities in Saudi Arabia and the temporary closure of Qatar’s Ras Laffan gas facilities disrupted global energy supplies. As a result, gas prices in Europe rose sharply while crude oil prices increased from about $62 per barrel to more than $100. Some analysts warn that if the conflict continues, oil prices could rise further, potentially reaching $200 per barrel. Such developments could trigger inflation, supply-chain disruptions, and rising unemployment worldwide.
Future of the War
Iran appears determined to pursue its objectives and may not halt operations even if a ceasefire is proposed by the United States or Israel. The selection of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme authority signals continuity of leadership, consolidation of political control, and a claim of legitimacy within the existing system.
Large public gatherings during funeral processions and demonstrations suggest that, at least during wartime, sections of the population have rallied around the leadership.
Reports have also mentioned proposals to deploy Kurdish Peshmerga forces into Iran through Iraq. However, the region’s history suggests that such operations would face significant geographical and logistical difficulties. During the Iran–Iraq War, Saddam Hussein also attempted to advance through the mountainous terrain of the Zagros region but faced serious constraints.
Some Iranian sources have claimed the capture of US special forces personnel and the killing of several Israeli officials during the conflict, although many of these claims remain difficult to verify independently.
Chances of a Ceasefire
Iranian authorities have reportedly outlined three conditions for a ceasefire. First, all military attacks by the United States and Israel must stop immediately. Second, Tehran seeks assurances that such attacks will not be repeated in the future. Third, Iran demands recognition of its sovereignty and compensation for damages caused during the conflict. These conditions are not easy. Who will ensure that the U.S. and Israel would not attack in the future? Second, who will pay the reconstruction cost, etc.? It is true that regional problems can be resolved only when the issue of Palestine is resolved in a fair and just manner. Lebanon and Yemen, Syria also need attention.
Future Trajectory-Palestine solution is the only solution
Even if the present war stops, regional stability will remain uncertain. Long-standing political and security disputes remain unresolved. Israel is unlikely to abandon its strategic objectives, Greater Israel, while tensions involving Hezbollah and Hamas are likely to persist. The United States may also increase pressure on Gulf states to revise their security arrangements so that regional partners become more directly involved in future conflicts.
Implications for India
For India, energy security remains a major concern. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz could affect oil supplies and trade routes. Approximately 50% oil passes through the route, while Houthis are there to choke off the Red Sea navigation.
India must also prepare contingency plans for the evacuation of its 9 million workers from the region and strengthen logistical arrangements to safeguard trade and shipping routes in the event of prolonged instability. Chemical fertilizers are another major concern for India. The region provides the bulk of fertilizers and ensures food security. Disruption in supply line has significantly affected the supply of fresh vegetables, perishable items including agriproducts , poultry and meat products
In the long term, India is to sign a long term energy agreement with the US. At the same time, India needs a more coherent West Asia policy and must avoid being drawn into the region’s strategic conflicts. The region is sensitive as well as vital to India’s economy and geostrategy. India needs a careful policy.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Climate science denier Donald Trump says that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateeringDonald Trump explains why he established his Bored of PeaceDonald Trump warns against following the https://onaquietday.org blog, says that it’s easy atm, she only needs to report war crimes supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
People take part in a protest and march gathering at Times Square on Al-Quds Day, to oppose the joint U.S.–Israel war on Iran in New York City, United States on March 13, 2026. [Mostafa Bassim – Anadolu Agency]
War is not a violation of the international order. For a select few, it is the international order working exactly as intended; a machine that converts human suffering into corporate profit, political advantage, and generational wealth. The bombs that fall are not random. They are a calculated strategy, and behind every calculation sits a balance sheet.
In 2024, the world’s top 100 arms manufacturers generated a combined $679 billion in revenue; the highest figure ever recorded in human history. American firms alone accounted for $334 billion of that total. That wealth was not created in a vacuum. It was built, contract by contract, on the rubble of Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, and now Iran.
When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, geopolitical tensions surged and a war of survival began on both sides. Ukraine rushed westward, particularly toward the United States, for aid and military hardware. What followed was framed publicly as an act of solidarity. What it actually triggered was one of the most profitable procurement cycles in modern American history.
Raytheon’s CEO Gregory Hayes stood before investors shortly after the invasion and declared the conflict would be “very, very good” for the company’s bottom line. He was not speculating. He was reading the market. Raytheon reported a record $180 billion order backlog in the months that followed. Lockheed Martin posted net earnings of $6.9 billion in 2023; a 21 per cent increase over the previous year, while sitting on $160.6 billion worth of unfulfilled weapons contracts. The US arms export figure hit $200.8 billion in fiscal year 2024, up sharply from $157.5 billion the year before.
These are not incidental numbers. They are the architecture of a system; one that political philosopher Max Weber identified more than a century ago. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber argued that Protestant; particularly Calvinist theology provided capitalism with its moral foundation. Wealth, in this tradition, was not greed. It was divine confirmation. Accumulation was virtue. Profit was blessing.
That theological inheritance echoes loudly in the American defence industry today. A $6.9 billion profit is not merely a financial result. Within the cultural logic that shaped Western commerce, it is evidence of righteousness. And every missile fired is not a tragedy to these corporations. It is an invoice, one paid in human blood, invoiced to the taxpayer, and deposited into shareholder accounts.
The mechanism that sustains this system is not secret. It operates in full public view, protected by its own normalisation. It is called the revolving door; the seamless rotation of senior personnel between the Pentagon, the US Congress, and the private defence industry.
A 2021 report by the Government Accountability Office found that 1,700 senior US government officials had moved into arms industry positions over just five years. Over 80 per cent of retired four-star generals and admirals went directly onto defence company boards or into lobbying roles, men who spent their careers making war decisions, now paid to ensure those decisions keep coming.
In 2023, Lockheed Martin deployed 65 lobbyists in Washington. 48 of them were former government insiders. The company spent $14 million on lobbying that year alone. Since 2001, the weapons industry has collectively spent more than $2.5 billion lobbying the US Congress; roughly 700 lobbyists per year whispering into the ears of the men who decide where American bombs fall next.
The men who vote for war and the men who profit from war are, with remarkable frequency, the same men. Or they were last year. Or they will be next year.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower understood this danger intimately. In his farewell address of January 1961, he warned the American public of what he called the military-industrial complex, an alliance between the defence industry and the military establishment that, left unchecked, would corrupt democratic governance and manufacture the conditions for permanent war. He was right. The warning went unheeded. The complex grew.
Now observe what is happening in real time because theory without evidence is merely opinion, and the evidence today is overwhelming.
In the final days of February and the opening days of March 2026, the United States and Israel launched nearly 900 strikes against Iran within a single 12-hour operational window. The US military is burning through an estimated $890 million to $1 billion per day in expenditure. Iran has retaliated with hundreds of ballistic missiles and over 2,000 drones targeting US bases and Israeli territory. More than 1,700 people have been killed in eleven days of exchanges.
The economic consequences have rippled immediately across the globe. Oil prices crossed $100 per barrel for the first time since the Russia-Ukraine war. The Strait of Hormuz: the narrow chokepoint through which 20 per cent of the world’s oil supply passes is under direct threat of closure. LNG prices in Asia more than doubled in a single week after Qatar Energy declared force majeure at the world’s largest liquefaction facility. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost over 1,000 points in a single session. Global food prices are climbing again, driven by supply chain disruption and fuel cost surges.
Civilians across Iran, Israel, Lebanon, and the Gulf are paying with their lives and livelihoods. And somewhere in Bethesda, Arlington, and the corridors of Capitol Hill, the shareholders are watching the numbers go up.
This is the economics of war in its most brutal form. One conflict. One superpower and its defence industry. One shared outcome, an entrenched elite that profits from permanent conflict, sustained by institutions too compromised, too invested, and too structurally captured to stop it.
The revolving door keeps spinning. The lobbying budgets keep growing. The order backlogs keep lengthening. And with every new conflict, every new theatre of war, every new headline about missiles and drones and civilian casualties, another procurement cycle begins.
The missiles point outward. The money flows inward, upward, always upward, toward the architects of the machine. And the machine, as long as it keeps paying, will never stop.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Climate science denier Donald Trump says that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateeringDonald Trump explains why he established his Bored of PeaceDonald Trump warns against following the https://onaquietday.org blog, says that it’s easy atm, she only needs to report war crimes supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion.
Trump and Netanyahu have a problem of their own making in Iran | Joe Raedle/Getty Images
The US president’s claim that the war is ‘very complete’ was little more than wishful thinking
“I think the war is very complete, pretty much,” was Donald Trump’s assessment of the Israeli-American war in Iran earlier this week, after nearly a fortnight of death and destruction.
“[Iran has] no navy, no communications, they’ve got no air force,” the US president continued. “Their missiles are down to a scatter. Their drones are being blown up all over the place, including their manufacturing of drones.”
Iran thinks otherwise: it struck three merchant ships near the Strait of Hormuz days later.
The US military’s recent actions are also in contradiction with Trump’s boasts of success. Having depleted its stocks of missiles and anti-drone weapons, the Pentagon is making plans to move reserves from South Korea, to the evident concern of the government in Seoul. In a further unexpected twist, the US is even turning to Ukraine to supply it with cheap anti-drone defences made locally and costing a tiny fraction of the commercial systems.
For Israel and the US, which began the war with surprise airstrikes on Iran on 28 February, Tehran’s ability to survive is proving far greater than expected. More than 1,000 Iranians have been killed, including the former supreme leader, but the regime is still able to respond to attacks.
As the war intensifies with no end in sight, two key elements are emerging.
The first is that Binyamin Netanyahu, in particular, has fallen into a trap of his own making.
Israel’s prime minister likely imagined Israel and the US would be able to quickly declare victory after assassinating Iran’s supreme leader, bolstering his approval ratings ahead of this year’s Israeli general election.
But with the supreme leader’s son now appointed as his successor, a victory for Israel can only involve completely destroying Iran’s ability to resurrect a nuclear weapon programme. Anything short of this, and its resurrection will be the first aim of any surviving regime – leaving Israel in an even less secure position than before it attacked Tehran.
This total destruction is proving harder than expected, not least because of Iran’s extensive network of tunnels, which I noted in openDemocracy last week. Footage released by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps last year, which purportedly shows a tunnel full of naval drones, anti-ship missiles, and sea mines, resurfaced this week after the attacks on the merchant ships.
The second issue is more surprising and has emerged only in the past few days.
Having failed to terminate the Iranian regime in the first leadership assassination, Israel and the US are falling back on the Dahiya Doctrine, an Israeli military tactic rooted in wrecking a neighbourhood, a city or even a country to undermine public support for a recalcitrant leadership. In theory, it forces the enemy leadership to give up and thereby lose the war.
The two nations have embarked on an expanded bombing campaign that increasingly targets Iran’s civilian population. As well as the spiralling death toll, thousands of residential properties have been destroyed, displacing more than a million people from their homes.
Civil infrastructure has also been targeted, including banks needed to pay wages. There are numerous reports of hospitals and health centres being hit.
Israel and the US’s use of the Dahiya Doctrine is unsurprising; Israel first used the tactic to attack Hezbollah’s stronghold district of Dahiya in southern Beirut in 2006, and it has since become a valuable tool in its arsenal. Despite Hezbollah’s survival – indeed, 20 years on, Israel is again pummelling Dahiya – Israel used the same approach in four assaults on Hamas in Gaza between 2007 and 2021, and it has been its main policy in the devastating war in Gaza since 2023.
In Iran, expect many more attacks from Israel and the US, killing or maiming many thousands more. Yet a remarkable sting in the tail is emerging that is already changing everything.
Put bluntly, Iran is using Israel’s Dahiya Doctrine against Israel itself.
Iran cannot defeat the combined military power of the US and Israel, but what it can do, and is already doing, is engage in economic warfare on a global scale by targeting the 20% of the world’s oil and gas that originates in the Persian Gulf and passes through the Strait of Hormuz.
Its aim is simple: cause such problems in world energy markets that, in a matter of weeks, there will be huge pressure on Trump and his people to force a pause in the fighting, whatever Netanyahu says.
And the International Energy Agency has already described the situation as one of “dire straits’, warning that “the war in the Middle East is creating the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market”.
It continued: “With crude and oil product flows through the Strait of Hormuz plunging from around 20 mb/d before the war to a trickle currently, limited capacity available to bypass the crucial waterway, and storage filling up, Gulf countries have cut total oil production by at least 10 mb/d. In the absence of a rapid resumption of shipping flows, supply losses are set to increase.”
The implication is that a very difficult time of global energy shortages lies ahead.
So while Trump may say the war is “very complete”, it’s far from it.
The Gallup Poll announced this month it would no longer measure presidential approval or other national leadership ratings. It was a surprise to pollsters and journalists who report on public opinion, because George Gallup was the pollster who initiated presidential approval ratings in the 1930s. Over the past nine decades, the organization has developed the most extensive database available, allowing journalists to compare approval ratings among all presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt at various stages of their tenure.
In fact, that very ability may have been the catalyst for Gallup dropping the ratings. Last November, Gallup (11/28/25) reported President Donald Trump’s approval rating as the lowest in his second term (36%), just barely above his lowest rating ever in January 2021, after he fomented the insurrection in an effort to avoid leaving office. His average approval rating in his first term was the lowest of any president since such polling began.
The November report also noted that Trump’s net approval ratings had dropped significantly on several items since the previous February/March: immigration (-9 points), situation in the Middle East (-7), economy (-6), federal budget (-12) and the situation in Ukraine (-10).
The December report (12/22/25) was not any better. Trump’s approval rating remained at 36%, while ratings on seven other personal characteristics were at a new low or near a new low:
Also problematic for Gallup was that its approval ratings consistently showed numbers below the average of other polls. Across ten approval ratings Gallup published in 2025, the net rating averaged 8.7 points lower than the average that Nate Silver (formerly of 538 and now of Silver Bulletin) compiled from other polls.
These are especially bad numbers. Trump doesn’t like bad numbers. He still has a lawsuit against an Iowa pollster whose pre-election numbers he didn’t like. And Gallup has extensive contracts with the federal government. It’s a no-brainer to infer that Gallup’s polling results may have caused the Gallup organization to re-evaluate the utility of continuing to report numbers that Trump hates.
No one knows if the White House let its dissatisfaction be known, or if the leaders at Gallup evaluated the zeitgeist on their own and took steps to mitigate possible financial problems with the US government. When asked by the Hill (2/11/26) “if Gallup had received any feedback from the White House or anyone in the current administration before making the decision,” the organization’s spokesperson apparently did not deny such an intervention, but said, “this is a strategic shift solely based on Gallup’s research goals and priorities.” Sounds like a yes to me.
The decision feels like the exclamation point marking the end of the Gallup Poll as envisioned by its founder.
The rise of Gallup
The Literary Digest (10/31/1936) predicted that Alf Landon would get 370 electoral votes and defeat Franklin Roosevelt in the 1936 election. He won eight, and did not.
On October 20, 1935, the Washington Post published a new column, “America Speaks!” by Dr. George Gallup, who had recently founded the American Institute for Public Opinion. (See Chapter 2, “America Speaks,” in David W. Moore, The Superpollsters, 1995.) It would report on the first “scientific” measurement of the voters’ minds. And, Gallup guaranteed, he would predict the outcome of the 1936 election between Alf Landon and President Franklin Roosevelt closer than the famed, and highly respected, Literary Digest poll.
While the latter poll based its results on responses from 10 to 20 million ballots it had sent to voters across the country, those voters had been targeted because their names were on a “tel-auto” list—a marketing list of people who owned cars and telephones. Gallup surmised that those voters would be disproportionately of the upper socioeconomic strata, potentially biasing the results in favor of Republicans. The “scientific” sampling he used was intended to identify voters all across the socioeconomic spectrum, to obtain a truly representative sample of the whole population. Based on his knowledge of statistics, he recognized that such a sample need not be as gargantuan as the Literary Digest sample.
As it turned out, Gallup’s prediction was indeed closer than that of the Literary Digest poll. As were the results of two other “scientific” pollsters—Elmo “Bud” Roper and Archibald Crossley. The Literary Digest poll predicted a landslide victory for Alf Landon, while the three upstarts all correctly predicted a landslide victory for Roosevelt. The “scientific” method of sampling had shown that relatively small samples of voters, chosen carefully to include all varieties of voters, could accurately represent the larger population.
All three pollsters had their own organizations, but Gallup was the most aggressive advocate for this new way of polling. More so than the others, he engaged in frequent polling on policy matters, and thus became the leader of the new public opinion polling industry. Newspapers subscribed to his columns, and for four decades, his polling results were the most significant influences in defining what the public was thinking on major issues.
Of course, he continued his election polling as well, because he believed that accurate election predictions were essential to developing public confidence that polls could represent public opinion more generally. And he developed ratings of political leaders, initiated in 1938 with his presidential approval rating question: “Do you approve or disapprove today of Franklin Roosevelt’s job as president?”
Election polling, public policy polling and leadership ratings were the three signature aspects of the Gallup Poll.
New owner, new strategy
In the mid-1970s, the three major broadcast networks began to develop their own polls, each partnering with a major newspaper—ABC with the Washington Post, CBS with the New York Times and NBC with the Wall Street Journal. In the ensuing decade, other national polls emerged as well, such as the Los Angeles Times poll, and occasional polls by Time and Newsweek.
By the late 1980s, the Gallup Poll had all but disappeared from national news stories. Few major newspapers continued to subscribe to Gallup’s polling service, because most newspapers got their poll results for free, recycled from the newspapers and television networks that conducted their own polls. George Gallup had died in 1984, and his two sons—Alec and George, Jr.—did not have the charisma or business acumen of their father. They waited until their mother had passed, in 1987, and then put the Gallup Poll up for sale.
The company that eventually bought Gallup was founded by Donald O. Clifton, a psychology professor at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, who designed questions that would help match people with specific types of jobs. Based on his research, he eventually founded Selection Research Inc. (SRI) to help companies hire employees. (See pp. 19-21, David W. Moore, The Opinion Makers, 2008.)
Among Clifton’s four children there was one son, Jim, who became president and CEO of the new Gallup Organization. One of his most brilliant moves came shortly after he assumed his new position. He was able to persuade Ted Turner, owner of CNN, to have the network join in a one-year polling partnership with Gallup for the 1992 election. The agreement included USA Today, which had been an occasional CNN partner.
It was an ideal arrangement for all three organizations. Gallup was finally back in the news, because its poll results were immediately published by both partners. And the two media organizations benefited from the credibility of the Gallup Poll. The arrangement worked well during the campaign, and subsequently was renewed in a multi-year contract.
(It was at this point, March 1993, that I joined Gallup as a vice president and managing editor of the Gallup Poll. My immediate supervisor was Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll. I remained with Gallup until April 2006.)
With Gallup back in the news, the company’s marketing business took off. When SRI acquired Gallup, it was like one guppy eating another—the annual revenues from SRI were only slightly larger than the annual revenues from Gallup (in the $12–15 million range). A decade later, SRI-Gallup’s revenues were estimated to exceed $200 million.
The strategy was clear: The “Gallup Poll” part of the company—the part that conducted opinion polls, as opposed to the marketing business of the new Gallup Organization—was the advertising that helped bring in clients. If the “Poll” were to lose credibility, that could hurt the business. And, slowly, the “Poll” did begin to lose credibility.
‘Gallup vs. the World’
Harry Enten (538, 10/17/15) noted that when Gallup stopped doing electoral polling in 2015, it took away the best tool for judging the accuracy of its opinion polling.
Despite the extensive public policy polling and widespread dissemination of Gallup’s results, its election polling was often controversial. In 2012, Nate Silver wrote an analysis, “Gallup vs. the World” (New York Times, 10/18/12), describing numerous times when CNN/USA Today/Gallup’s results significantly diverged from the average of other polls, and even from final election results. From the beginning of the partnership, the election polling was erratic, he noted, with results showing “implausibly large swings in the race.” As he wrote, “In 1996, Gallup had Bill Clinton’s margin over Bob Dole increasing to 25 points from nine points over the course of four days.”
Then in 2000, it found “a 26-point swing toward Mr. Gore over the course of a month and a half. No other polling firm showed a swing remotely that large.” Silver pointed out that Gallup’s polling swung again, back toward Bush, putting him 13 points ahead on October 27―”just 10 days before an election that ended in a virtual tie.”
The problems continued. In 2015, 538‘s Harry Enten (10/7/15) wrote that Gallup had suffered
two consecutive elections in which its results were way off. Gallup’s final generic congressional ballot in 2010 had Republicans winning by 15 percentage points; they won by 7 points.
He also noted that in 2012, Gallup’s final poll showed Romney winning by one point. Obama won by four.
The partnership had begun to break apart in 2006, when Gallup dropped CNN. USA Today and Gallup continued working together, but in 2008, 2010 and 2012, the final elections polls on Real Clear Politics list results under Gallup’s name alone, despite earlier polls in those years when the results were listed as USA Today/Gallup. The official breakup came in early 2013, when Politico (1/18/13) announced that “USA Today and Gallup, the polling organization, have announced a mutual decision to end their 20-year partnership.”
Gallup’s decline
“We believe to put our time and money and brainpower into understanding the issues and priorities is where we can most have an impact,” Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport told Politico (10/7/15) in 2015.
That wasn’t the only bad news. In 2012, the Gallup Organization was sued by the federal government for bilking it out of millions of dollars, and for violating the Procurement Integrity Act by agreeing to hire a federal employee only if he could first increase the size of a government contract for Gallup.
In July 2013, the suit resulted in Gallup having to pay a $10.5 million fine for its transgressions, and—according to the Omaha World Herald (8/17/13)—removed Clifton from “authority over the company’s government division” as part of an agreement that allowed the company to “continue to compete for federal contracts.” It’s ironic that after such success in reviving the Gallup brand, Clifton was the one to tarnish it so profoundly.
After a bad election year in polling and the overbilling and procurement scandal, Gallup ultimately decided to give up election polling altogether. As Politico (10/7/15) wrote:
After a bruising 2012 cycle, in which its polls were farther off than most of its competitors, Gallup told Politico it isn’t planning any polls for the presidential primary horse race this cycle. And, even following an internal probe into what went wrong last time around, Gallup won’t commit to tracking the general election next year.
And it didn’t.
With no media partner, Gallup’s public policy polling also declined. It’s rare these days when Gallup conducts a poll that gets cited about some current national issue.
But Gallup did continue with regular polls on presidential approval and favorability ratings of political leaders. Until now. With the recent announcement, it no longer does regular election polling, public policy polling or leadership ratings—the three signature characteristics of George Gallup’s original vision of “American Speaks.” America continues to speak, but with respect to voter preferences, citizens’ views on controversial public policy issues, and how they view their leaders—Gallup is no longer listening.
The Gallup Poll still functions, of course. Its extensive data base is still available to journalists. It continues to conduct polls of Americans related to its Social Series, started in 2000. The surveys track attitudes in a variety of areas over time, but they do not focus on current controversial public policy issues.
No questions, for example, about Epstein, tariffs, immigration enforcement and ICE, war with Iran, the capture of Venezuela’s president, vaccine mandates, housing policy, the war in Gaza, ways to address “affordability,” the use of presidential pardons, healthcare subsidies, Ukraine, crypto currency, and other policies that ask respondents to take a position in favor or opposed. Gallup apparently doesn’t want to offend, so virtually all of its questions are general in nature. It has become a shadow of its former self.
‘A big deal’?
“Gallup’s…88 years of data give historical context to what amounts to a monthly snapshot of Americans’ views,” wrote the New York Times (2/11/26). “Political and news media analysts have come to rely on the poll to understand shifting trends in the country over time.”
Does it matter?
Some media observers think so. The Washington Post (2/11/26) called it “a big deal,” with the paper’s polling director saying Gallup is “leaving Americans with a dimmer view into our politics.” Ruth Igielnik of the New York Times (2/11/26) bemoaned the loss of Gallup’s “high-quality surveys” and “record of accuracy.” Both cite Gallup’s long history and its use of telephone, rather than online, surveys.
But telephone surveys’ primacy is no longer undisputed (Data for Progress, 3/11/21; Pew, 4/19/23). Indeed, while the Gallup Poll is still a high-quality polling organization, it is not the leader in the industry. Nate Silver rates polls by comparing their predictions with actual election results; Gallup gets a B+, better than average, but Silver finds at least 25 pollsters to be more accurate.
Despite their disappointment with the Gallup announcement, both Clement and Igielnik note that the New York Times tracked 51 polls measuring Trump’s approval rating in January—so many, Clement concludes, “that poll watchers may not have noticed the absence of Gallup’s monthly figures.”
When Gallup announced it would no longer conduct pre-election polls in 2015, Harry Enten (538,10/7/15) gave a similar reaction:
There are still plenty of good polls, and Gallup’s decision, by itself, doesn’t change the overall polling landscape that much…. ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News have all published live-interview primary polls in the past couple of months. (They all have a better track record than Gallup, according to our ratings.)
The Gallup Organization is a highly successful business, with an estimated annual revenue of $500 million, employing over 2,000 employees. The Gallup Poll was always, as Silver notes, a “loss-leader,” essentially the organization’s advertising for its business. After SRI bought the Gallup name and its reputation, the Poll—focusing on George Gallup’s vision of election polls, public policy polls, and leadership ratings—was instrumental in stimulating business. Over the years, the controversies surrounding the Poll’s performance and results seemed to have hurt the business more than help it. Abandoning Gallup’s vision of “American Speaks” was a logical business decision.
The truth is, with all the other polls that exist today, hardly anyone seems to notice. Except, perhaps, the president of the United States. The “big deal” about Gallup’s announcement, then, has much less to do with the loss of one poll than with the pressure a US president is apparently exerting on the polling industry.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.Climate science denier Donald Trump says that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateeringDonald Trump warns against following the https://onaquietday.org blog, says that it’s easy atm, she only needs to report war crimes supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion.
People dispense fuel at the pump at Costco Petrol Station in West Thurrock, Essex. The conflict in Iran has caused a surge in oil and gas prices, March 5, 2026
