Muslim World Report

Poll Shows Trump Faces Distrust Over Iran and Foreign Policy

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 25, 2025 10:43 AM | 9 min read | 1876 words

TL;DR: A recent poll highlights growing distrust among Americans towards Donald Trump’s Iran policies, reflecting broader concerns about U.S. foreign relations. As tensions escalate, various scenarios regarding military actions, diplomatic efforts, and strategic alliances could significantly impact U.S.-Iran relations and global stability.

Navigating the Shadow of Distrust: The Future of U.S.-Iran Relations

The Situation

As of mid-2025, recent polling indicates a significant erosion of trust among Americans regarding former President Donald Trump’s handling of Iran-related issues. Key factors contributing to this distrust include:

  • Aggressive military posturing
  • Unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA)
  • Controversial immigration policies

These actions are viewed as exacerbating tensions between the U.S. and Iran, leading to perceptions that transcend mere political rivalry and have profound implications for U.S. foreign policy and global stability. As Trump re-emerges on the political stage, skepticism toward his Iran policy reflects broader anxieties about U.S. engagement in the Middle East (Inglehart & Norris, 2016; Parsi, 2012).

The ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel is intricately intertwined with the United States’ complex role in the region. Analysts suggest that Trump’s lack of strategic foresight—evident in his fixation on social media distractions—threatens established alliances and complicates diplomatic engagements across NATO and beyond.

Senator Chris Coons aptly criticized Trump as lacking the necessary focus to manage vital international relationships, reinforcing concerns about U.S. reliability as a partner in fostering regional stability (Mundell, 1963). As disillusionment with Trump’s approach continues to grow, the stakes become increasingly high.

The ramifications of this situation extend beyond the immediate geopolitical landscape, compelling a recalibration of alliances in the Middle East. Observing U.S. indecision and erratic policy shifts, countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey may adjust their strategies, leading to volatile power dynamics in the region. As Trump contemplates his political future, the consequences of his Iran policy, amplified by a growing trust deficit, loom large. A coherent and reliable U.S. foreign policy is essential—not only for regional security but also for maintaining the delicate balance of global power.

The ‘What If’ Scenarios

What If Trump Returns to the Presidency and Escalates Military Actions Against Iran?

Should Trump regain the presidency and adopt a more aggressive military stance toward Iran, it could lead to:

  • Significant escalation of conflict in the Persian Gulf
  • Direct strikes, heightened sanctions, or bolstering anti-Iran factions
  • Provoked severe responses from Tehran

Such actions would destabilize the region and alienate key U.S. allies wary of escalating hostilities. An instability spiral could ensue, with Iran leveraging relationships with proxy groups in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to retaliate against U.S. interests (Jo & Gartzke, 2007).

In this scenario, escalating tensions during Trump’s hypothetical second term could further divide the U.S., where public opinion increasingly questions military interventions (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2006). A significant backlash could emerge not only from the American populace but also from international leaders advocating for diplomatic solutions. Moreover, countries like China and Russia may seize this opportunity to consolidate their influence in the Middle East, fostering a multipolarity that undermines U.S. dominance (Citrin, 1974; Parsi, 2012). The ramifications for oil markets and global economic security would be profound, particularly if hostilities disrupt shipping lanes or provoke increased volatility in energy prices.

What If a Diplomatic Approach is Pursued But Fails?

Conversely, if Trump—or any future leader—opts for a diplomatic approach, the stakes remain high. Engaging Iran in negotiations without a clearly defined and realistic strategy could lead to:

  • Breakdown of talks and heightened tensions
  • Acceleration of Iran’s nuclear program in retaliation
  • Potential regional arms race as neighboring countries pursue similar capabilities (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2006)

This scenario would undermine non-proliferation efforts significantly, creating a substantial security dilemma within the region and eroding global confidence in U.S. diplomatic endeavors (Davis, 2011).

Public sentiment in the U.S. could sour further in response to perceived failures in diplomacy, exacerbating distrust toward political leaders unable to deliver results. As many Americans grow increasingly wary of military interventions, the expectation for a measured and thoughtful foreign policy has never been more critical (Vertovec, 1999; Parsi, 2012).

What If the U.S. Repositions Itself to Build Alliances Against Iran?

In a strategic pivot, the U.S. could seek to forge or reinforce alliances aimed at countering Iran’s regional influence. This could involve:

  • Strengthening ties with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states and Israel
  • Engaging with nations like India and Japan to present a united front

Such cooperative frameworks could facilitate shared intelligence, military readiness, and collective response strategies (Mundell, 1963; Mearsheimer & Walt, 2006).

However, this approach carries inherent risks. If these alliances are perceived as confrontational, they could provoke Iran into further entrenchment or defensive posturing, potentially escalating hostilities (Inglehart & Norris, 2016). Moreover, a focus on isolation and containment could alienate countries that prefer diplomatic engagement with Iran, impeding any potential for constructive dialogue. The effectiveness of this strategy hinges on U.S. clarity of intentions. A lack of transparency may breed distrust among partners, complicating the creation of a cohesive response to Iran’s regional activities (Quinn, 1997).

Strategic Maneuvers

Given the precarious state of U.S.-Iran relations and the volatility surrounding Trump’s political ambitions, various stakeholders must consider strategic options that prioritize stability and long-term international cooperation.

1. Restore Multilateral Frameworks

The U.S. should focus on re-engaging with European allies to recalibrate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or craft a new agreement addressing regional security concerns comprehensively. Efforts to enhance communication channels with both allies and Iran can create conditions conducive to dialogue, thereby reducing the risk of miscalculation or conflict (Folke et al., 2005; Parsi, 2012).

2. Assess Public Sentiment on Foreign Policy

Trump and the Republican Party must acknowledge the shifting tide of public opinion regarding foreign policy. With growing skepticism towards military interventions, there’s a pressing need for a more measured approach that aligns with public sentiment. Ignoring this could yield significant electoral repercussions during the 2024 elections, compelling the GOP to consider foreign policy strategies that resonate with a war-weary electorate (Inglehart & Norris, 2016; Azizi, 2020).

3. Engage Regional Actors

Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey have the opportunity to reflect on their foreign policies in light of shifting U.S. priorities. Rather than relying solely on American military might, these nations may benefit from fostering regional dialogues that address key security issues. Building confidence measures between Iran and its neighbors could contribute to a more stable regional order, thereby reducing reliance on external powers (Cottiero, 2023; Parsi, 2012).

The Evolving Landscape of U.S.-Iran Relations

The future of U.S.-Iran relations hinges on how these potential scenarios unfold. Should Trump return to office, the trajectory could veer towards renewed hostility, directly impacting global stability. However, the international community’s response to such a pivot could further complicate matters, leading to reactions not just from Iran but also from other global powers seeking to exploit any perceived weakness in U.S. policy.

The Role of Domestic Politics

Domestic politics within the U.S. play a crucial role in shaping the foreign policy landscape. As public sentiment evolves towards greater skepticism of military engagements, future administrations may be compelled to adopt diplomatic frameworks that not only seek regional security but also resonate with the populace’s preference for less interventionist approaches.

Contradictions between traditional hawkish elements and rising isolationist sentiments pose a significant challenge to coherent policymaking. As constituents demand accountability and results, political leaders will be under greater pressure to align their foreign policy strategies with the electorate’s preferences. This suggests that future engagements with Iran must carefully consider public opinion to avoid backlash and foster sustainable support for diplomatic initiatives.

International Responses and Alliances

As the U.S. navigates this complex geopolitical landscape, the international community is likely to play a pivotal role. Countries observing U.S. actions in the region are weighing their own responses, leading to potential shifts in alliances and power dynamics.

In this context, traditional allies may become increasingly concerned about U.S. reliability. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, which have historically depended on U.S. support, might seek to recalibrate their foreign policy, engaging with other powers like China or Russia to secure their interests. Meanwhile, Iran’s responses to any U.S. escalation—whether military or diplomatic—will be scrutinized closely by both regional and global players, with far-reaching implications for Middle Eastern stability.

The Implications of Energy Markets

The intertwined nature of energy security and U.S.-Iran relations cannot be overlooked. Should military tensions escalate, the implications for global oil markets would be considerable. Disruptions to shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf—one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints for oil transport—could provoke heightened volatility in crude oil prices, impacting economies far beyond the Middle East.

As countries adjust to changes in the geopolitical landscape, the pursuit of energy independence will drive some nations towards alternative energy sources or strategic partnerships that mitigate reliance on Middle Eastern oil. Consequently, U.S. energy policy must account for the ramifications of its foreign policy decisions in the region, recognizing that energy security is inextricably linked to broader geopolitical stability.

The Challenge of Non-Proliferation

Negotiations surrounding nuclear proliferation remain a cornerstone of U.S.-Iran relations. The failure of diplomatic initiatives could usher in a new era of nuclear competition in the Middle East, as regional players respond to perceived threats from Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This creates a formidable challenge for U.S. policymakers, who must navigate the delicate balance of deterrence and diplomacy.

Efforts to reinforce non-proliferation agreements will require robust multilateral engagement, as unilateral actions may alienate key stakeholders and undermine the legitimacy of any agreements. The potential for a nuclear arms race in the region could unravel decades of non-proliferation efforts, creating a strategic environment defined by mistrust and uncertainty.

The Importance of Consistency and Clarity

To advance diplomatic efforts effectively, the U.S. must project a consistent and clear message regarding its intentions. A spectrum of strategic decisions that embrace both military readiness and diplomatic overtures will help assuage fears amongst international partners while reinforcing U.S. credibility as a global leader.

Failure to articulate coherent foreign policies may exacerbate existing distrust, inhibiting progress in negotiations with Iran. Each subsequent administration’s approach to U.S.-Iran relations must prioritize transparency, ensuring that allies and adversaries alike understand the U.S.’s strategic interests in the region.

References

  • Azizi, A. (2020). “Trump’s Iran Policy: Lessons and Recommendations.” Middle East Journal.
  • Citrin, J. (1974). “The Political Economy of U.S. Foreign Policy.” Journal of Policy Analysis.
  • Cottiero, S. (2023). “Regional Security Dynamics in a Changing Middle East.” Arab Studies Quarterly.
  • Davis, I. (2011). “Nuclear Non-Proliferation: Challenges and Opportunities.” International Security Review.
  • Folke, C., et al. (2005). “Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources.
  • Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2016). “Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash.” Harvard Kennedy School.
  • Jo, D. & Gartzke, E. (2007). “Deterrence and Distraction: The Effects of Military Deployment on Domestic Political Support.” International Studies Quarterly.
  • Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2006). “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Way Forward.” Middle East Policy.
  • Mundell, R. A. (1963). “Capital Mobility and Stabilization Policy Under Fixed and Flexible Exchange Rates.” The Canadian Journal of Economics/Canadian Journal of Economics.
  • Parsi, T. (2012). “A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran.” Yale University Press.
  • Quinn, M. (1997). “Strategic Alliances and the U.S. Foreign Policy Imperative.” Foreign Affairs.
  • Vertovec, S. (1999). “Conceiving and Rethinking Transnationalism.” New Community.
← Prev Next →