Donald Trump’s approach to the conflict with Iran during his presidency was marked by significant communication failures, both domestically and internationally, according to Clifford Young, president of Ipsos in the U.S. This strategic misstep led to a notable erosion of credibility for the Trump administration among the American populace, who struggled to grasp the underlying rationale for military intervention in the Middle East.
Research conducted at the time revealed a broad lack of public understanding regarding the intervention. “You do the surveys and people don’t understand. Americans don’t really understand the reason for this intervention,” Young stated in an interview.
Throughout the initial phase of attacks against Iran, then-President Trump offered a range of justifications that often contradicted one another. His rhetoric oscillated from calls for Iranian citizens to revolt against their government, signaling a push for regime change, to later proposing negotiations with remaining leaders. Days later, this stance abruptly shifted to an demand for “total surrender” from the Iranian leadership.
## Communication failures undermine public trust
Young, a seasoned observer of political communication, delivered a stark assessment of Trump’s performance in this specific area. “Trump, in my opinion, is an extremely talented politician in political communication. But, in the case of Iran, I would give him a zero. Because he didn’t justify (the conflict), he didn’t create consensus internally,” he asserted.
Beyond these internal communication missteps, the American public has long expressed weariness with the White House’s foreign interventions. These overseas engagements frequently prove costly, both financially and in terms of human lives, with significant casualties among soldiers and other personnel.
The concept of “Forever Wars” has become a national trauma, particularly after the prolonged conflicts in Vietnam and Iraq. During his electoral campaign, Trump explicitly promised to steer clear of such protracted foreign entanglements, vowing to concentrate instead on domestic economic issues, a pledge that significantly boosted his electoral appeal. However, once in office, his administration pursued actions like attacking Venezuela and threatening intervention in Greenland, measures that garnered little public support according to polls.
## Domestic concerns overshadow foreign policy in 2025
The sentiment described by Clifford Young highlights a persistent disconnect: issues like Iran, Venezuela, and even anti-narcotics efforts remain distant from the average American’s primary concerns. The overarching focus for the public, especially in 2025, remains the “cost of living.”
“The American population is not in favor of military interventions at this time, because the cost of living is much more important to them. They are looking at domestic issues, about the ability to put food on the table, to pay the bills,” Young detailed. This enduring focus on economic stability continues to shape public opinion on foreign policy.
Ipsos reports in 2025 continue to identify the economy as a critical vulnerability for political figures, a primary driver of shifts in popularity. Special attention is often drawn to fuel prices, which, despite occasional fluctuations, can have a profound and immediate impact on household budgets and consumer sentiment.
## Rebranding the conflict: a retrospective challenge
Faced with a skeptical public and rising domestic costs, including gas prices which reached record highs in late 2023 and early 2024, Trump’s administration later attempted to reframe the narrative around the Iran conflict. Vinícius Rodrigues Vieira, an economics and international relations professor, observed that the republican leader sought ways to “share” the costs and moral burden of the conflict.
This revised strategy aimed to present the decision to confront Iran as a defense of Western interests, imbued with a “much broader purpose” than mere personal or nationalistic aims. However, this retrospective justification faced significant hurdles. “Since he didn’t prepare the communication strategy, now he seemed to want to find a perfect excuse for Americans for having started the conflict – that it wouldn’t be a cause solely of the U.S., that it wouldn’t be what he explicitly promised not to do, unlike other presidents. But he failed to coordinate with the Europeans,” Vieira noted.
## Allies sidelined, consensus elusive
The lack of consultation with European allies was a major point of contention. The United States did not inform or consult either NATO or individual European nations about the initial strikes on Tehran. This unilateral approach alienated key partners.
Yet, when Iran subsequently threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which approximately 20% of the world’s oil supply passes, the Trump administration pressed NATO and European nations like France, Germany, and the United Kingdom for assistance. The response from most leaders was a firm rejection.
French President Emmanuel Macron declared that France would “never” participate in an operation to unblock the Strait. German officials echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that the conflict was not a NATO war and therefore did not warrant their involvement. This failure to forge a consensus with allies was a significant miscalculation, according to Young.
When reflecting on past interventions, Young drew a contrast: “When we think of Bush Sr. and Bush Jr., at least they tried to create consensus with allies regarding Iraq – which was not done in the case of Iran.” This historical context underscores the uniqueness of Trump’s solitary approach.
This lack of support extended globally and domestically. Surveys across Europe consistently showed extremely low credibility for the U.S. in this context, while domestically, only a third to 40% of Americans supported the intervention. “In my opinion, Trump’s domestic agenda was dead or dying. So, we cannot fail to understand this international intervention as some kind of reaction to problems he was facing with the domestic agenda,” Young concluded.
