Trump’s entry into a new war and military confrontation with Iran has come at a time when American society remains scarred by years of costly and fruitless military engagements in the Middle East. Widespread war fatigue has created fertile ground for deep public discontent. The most visible manifestation of this dissatisfaction has been the numerous and large-scale demonstrations across the United States in recent days. In these protests, citizens, rallying around the central slogan “No King,” have expressed their explicit opposition to the concentration of unchecked power in the hands of the president and to unilateral decision-making processes—particularly in matters of war. The slogan reflects concern over violations of the spirit of the Constitution, underscoring the principles of separation of powers and institutional oversight.
Within the American political system, the legitimacy of presidential decisions—especially in the sensitive domains of foreign and military policy—derives not only from legal authority but also, inseparably, from public consensus and support. When that consensus is undermined, legal authority itself faces a crisis of legitimacy. By adopting an aggressive posture and disregarding warnings and concerns from Congress, intelligence agencies, and even allies, Trump has effectively reinforced the narrative of a “war-driven president”—a narrative that, in America’s historical memory, has often carried negative consequences for both authority and popularity.
Recent polling data supports this assessment. According to the latest surveys, following the onset of the United States’ new aggression against Iran, the president’s approval rating has dropped sharply to its lowest level. The steep decline in Trump’s popularity after the escalation with Iran strengthens the argument that an aggressive foreign policy, under current conditions, no longer serves to restore domestic authority. On the contrary, by intensifying economic pressures, generating social anxiety, and deepening distrust in government institutions, it exacerbates the crisis of legitimacy. This situation points to a widening disconnect between White House policies and the fundamental demands of the American public for peace and internal stability.
This is not the only blow to the credibility of Trump’s war decisions. Now, after a month of war with Iran, he is also facing the collapse of their global legitimacy—something that has led to diplomatic isolation and a decline in America’s soft power. The first international test of Trump’s military decisions unfolded in Europe. The United States’ long-standing and traditional allies in the European Union not only declined to support military action against Iran but explicitly described it as contrary to an international order grounded in diplomacy and multilateralism. This deep rift between Washington and European capitals has left the United States facing significant diplomatic isolation on the global stage. This isolation stems not from military or economic weakness, but from a loss of moral credibility and the absence of a convincing rationale for military action.
In the post–World War II era, American hegemony and global leadership were built on foundations that emphasized “soft power” over “hard power”: moral leadership, meaning the defense of democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law at the international level; institutional leadership, meaning the promotion and strengthening of multilateral bodies such as the United Nations and international economic organizations; and mutual trust, meaning allies’ confidence in America’s rationality, predictability, and commitment to shared values. Trump’s unilateral action, lacking international backing, has severely shaken all three pillars. Many European countries are now reassessing the level of their strategic and security dependence on the United States and are moving toward establishing independent defense and diplomatic mechanisms. This shift signals the beginning of a process whereby America’s domestic legitimacy crisis rapidly evolves into a crisis of global hegemony.
The gradual erosion of both domestic and international legitimacy in Washington’s decisions will carry profound and multifaceted strategic consequences for the global order and for America’s position within it:
Erosion of internal cohesion and effectiveness: The widening rift among the executive branch, Congress, and public opinion over foreign policy may paralyze decision-making processes and create uncertainty about future US policies, thereby reducing the country’s ability to respond effectively to complex global challenges.
Marked decline in soft power and model appeal: Any military action lacking strong moral and legal justification damages America’s international image and weakens its ability to attract allies and exert cultural and ideological influence, leaving space for rival powers to expand their reach.
Shift from a unipolar to a multipolar order: US diplomatic isolation and the movement of traditional allies toward strategic autonomy may accelerate the transition from a US-led unipolar world to a more pluralistic, multipolar international order, shifting the global balance of power in favor of emerging actors.
Heightened instability and risk of regional conflicts: Reduced confidence in US leadership may embolden certain regional actors, leading to increased tensions and localized conflicts, as American security guarantees appear less reliable.
The current crisis goes beyond a mere political disagreement; it clearly signals a gradual breakdown of public trust in collective judgment and accountability at the highest levels of governance. The slogan “No King” should be understood not simply as a protest, but as a symbolic expression of a deeply held public belief: that the true legitimacy of power arises not from coercive instruments or sheer authority, but from transparency, accountability, and participation. When power operates outside institutional constraints and public opinion, even the most legitimate legal instruments become vulnerable to erosion.
Trump may have sought, in the short term, to consolidate America’s position on the geopolitical stage through displays of military force. In the long term, however, his decision has fundamentally targeted the backbone of American power: trust. This trust—said to have formed the social and political capital of the United States over decades—is now at risk of being consumed in the fires of military tension and a crisis of legitimacy. This process marks a turning point in the history of US foreign policy and signals the end of an era of uncontested American leadership in the global order.
Trump’s recent and explicit remarks that he would like to take direct control of Iran’s oil constitute the latest and most unambiguous evidence that the foundation of his war-driven decisions is nothing other than domination over the wealth resources of other nations, including Iran. With this admission, he has shown that everything he has said thus far about the reasons for initiating the war has been little more than pretext, and that his primary objective in the aggression against Iran has been the seizure of its national oil wealth. The slogan “No King,” voiced by the American people, is a rejection of such decisions.
NOURNEWS