Key points
- Most Americans say they distrust **Donald Trump’s judgment on using military force, even though many view **Iran as a serious threat.
- Polls show limited public appetite for initiating an attack on Iran: roughly one-fifth support a U.S. strike while nearly half oppose it.
- Partisan split: Republicans are far likelier to back Trump’s posture; independents and Democrats are skeptical and favor diplomacy as talks resume in Geneva.
- The public also worries about broader consequences — troop commitments, regional escalation and rising costs — which tempers support for military options.
Quick explainer (What Americans think)
As indirect talks between U.S. and Iranian negotiators restart in **Geneva, Americans show a mix of concern and caution. While many view Iran’s nuclear program as dangerous, surveys find low trust in the president’s instincts on when and how to use force — a key political constraint if diplomacy collapses.
What the polls say (short bullets)
- AP-NORC polling finds only about 3 in 10 Americans trust the president’s judgment on military matters — trust is much higher among Republicans and much lower among Democrats.
- A University of Maryland poll shows ~21% would favor a U.S.-initiated attack on Iran today, while 49% oppose such a move.
- Reuters and other outlets note the same dynamic: the White House’s pressure tactics raise fears of escalation and do not translate into broad public mandates for war.
Why Americans are cautious
Three practical concerns shape public skepticism:
- Escalation risk. Many worry a strike could trigger wider regional conflict and U.S. casualties.
- Costs and distraction. Voters prioritize domestic issues (economy, health care) and worry that new combat operations divert attention and money.
- Trust in decision-making. Repeated use of force or bellicose rhetoric without clear strategy erodes confidence that leaders will weigh risks prudently.
What this means politically and for policy
- Politically, low public trust narrows the administration’s space to pursue kinetic options without building a clear, bipartisan case. Congressional support would be crucial — and polls suggest swing lawmakers face voter skepticism.
- For policy: diplomats still have an opening. The preference for negotiation in many segments of the public gives extra leverage to negotiators in Geneva to pursue a deal that avoids military escalation.
Bottom line
Americans broadly see Iran as a threat but remain doubtful about the president’s judgment on military action. That gap — strong concern paired with weak trust — makes immediate, large-scale military moves politically fraught and leaves diplomacy as the path with the most public backing as talks resume.