With tensions rising between the US and Iran, the long-term consequences will largely depend on the nature of Iran’s response to the attack and the intensity of any conflict that follows.

If the end result is a US withdrawal from Iraq, the politics of the situation could be turned on its head, with hawks doing the howling and non-interventionists celebrating.

In the short term, however, there are already some possible implications both for the Democratic presidential primaries that begin in less than a month and November’s general election contest.

Traditionally, a US president facing a major foreign policy crisis benefits from at least a short-term bump in public support.

The “rally around the flag” effect boosted George HW Bush’s standing during the 1991 Gulf War. George W Bush saw his approval surge to record levels in the days after the September 11 attacks and subsequent bombing of Afghanistan.

Those were massive military engagements, however. When the stakes have been lower, the tangible political benefits – at least in terms of polling – are harder to discern.

Barack Obama saw no change in his approval ratings during the 2011 air war in Libya. When Donald Trump fired missiles at a Syrian air base in response to that nation’s use of chemical weapons, the slight increase in his ratings appear in hindsight to be little more than statistical noise for a man whose approval has been relatively stable throughout his presidency.

The first survey following the Soleimani strike suggests the public will be as sharply divided on Trump’s handling of the situation as it has been on everything else this president has done. A slim plurality approve of the action, but a similar plurality also express concern that the president did not “plan carefully enough”.

Short of a stunning military victory or a protracted bloody fight, the end result could be simply more of the same when it comes to views on the Trump presidency.