Connect with us

INTERNACIONAL

New poll reveals where Americans stand after Trump agreement with Iran

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FIRST ON FOX: Americans are nearly evenly split between favoring Iranian regime change and a negotiated U.S. settlement with Iran, according to a new survey. 

Advertisement

Some 39% of respondents favor a negotiated settlement where Iran’s current government remains in place, with verifiable limits on its nuclear and missile programs, according to the findings of the Reagan Institute Summer Survey, while 36% favor replacing Iran’s current government with one more favorable to the U.S. 

Another 16% favor a weakened regime where the current government stays in place but is significantly diminished militarily and economically, and 8% responded that they don’t know. 

The findings underscore the political challenge facing President Donald Trump as his administration pursues a newly signed memorandum of understanding with Iran. While the agreement seeks to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions through negotiations, Americans remain divided over the ultimate objective of U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic.

Advertisement

Americans are nearly evenly split between favoring Iranian regime change and a negotiated U.S. settlement with Iran, according to a new survey.  (Mandel NGAN / AFP via Getty Images)

AMERICANS AGREE WITH TRUMP THAT IRAN POSES THREAT TO UNITED STATES: POLL

Republicans who responded to the survey favored replacing Iran’s government by a 2-to-1 margin over a diplomatic deal. 

Advertisement

Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to favor a more aggressive outcome in Iran. Half of Republican respondents said they would prefer to see Iran’s current government replaced with one more favorable to the United States, compared to 25% who said they would favor a negotiated settlement that leaves the regime in place in exchange for verifiable limits on its nuclear and missile programs.

The findings were nearly identical among self-identified MAGA Republicans, 51% of whom favored regime change while 25% backed a negotiated settlement.

SHARP PARTISAN DIVIDE EMERGES OVER IRAN STRIKE, TRUMP’S STRATEGY: POLLS

Advertisement

Democrats, meanwhile, largely favored diplomacy. A majority, 52%, said they would prefer a negotiated settlement with Iran’s current government, while 25% favored regime change. Another 14% favored leaving the regime in place but significantly weakened militarily and economically.

The Reagan Institute Summer Survey was conducted May 26 through June 3 among 1,555 respondents nationwide and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The survey used a mixed-mode methodology that included live telephone interviews, an online panel and text-to-web responses.

A tall column of smoke rising over Tehran after an explosion

Smoke rises over Tehran following an explosion amid ongoing U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iranian targets on March 2, 2026. (Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Mojtaba Khamenei

The findings underscore the political challenge facing President Donald Trump as his administration pursues a newly signed memorandum of understanding with Iran. (Hamid FOROUTAN / ISNA / AFP via Getty Images)

Iranian missiles are seen targeting Israel during the recent conflict.

Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to favor a more aggressive outcome in Iran.  (Pool via WANA/Reuters)

To better reflect the U.S. population, the results were weighted using demographic benchmarks from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2023 American Community Survey, including age, gender, race, region and education levels. The poll also included an oversample of 331 MAGA Republicans under age 30, a group with a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Advertisement

The Reagan Institute is a Washington-based policy organization that advocates the Reagan foreign-policy tradition of «peace through strength» and sustained American leadership abroad.

The findings come as Trump has defended a newly signed memorandum of understanding with Iran as a way to reduce tensions and create a pathway toward a broader agreement addressing Tehran’s nuclear program.

The memorandum establishes a 60-day negotiating period during which the United States and Iran will attempt to reach a more comprehensive deal. The agreement also includes provisions aimed at restoring commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and provides limited sanctions waivers tied to continued negotiations. Several of the most contentious issues, including the long-term future of Iran’s nuclear program, are expected to be addressed in subsequent talks.

Advertisement

Trump has described the arrangement as a means of avoiding a wider conflict while pursuing what he called a «great settlement» with Tehran. He has also argued that the agreement could help stabilize energy markets by reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route, while creating an opportunity to negotiate additional restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The president added that he agreed to a settlement to avoid «economic catastrophe.» 

Advertisement

«I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe. If you kept this going, that could have happened,» he told reporters at the G7 Summit in France. 

war with iran, iran, treaties, polls, republicans, democrats

Advertisement

INTERNACIONAL

The surprising hidden cost quietly adding nearly $132K to new home prices revealed

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Government regulations are adding nearly $132,000 to the cost of newly built houses, according to a new report released as Americans struggle to become homeowners.

Advertisement

The findings show that more than one-quarter of the final prices of newly constructed homes come as housing affordability remains a top concern nationwide, with elevated mortgage rates and limited inventory putting homeownership out of reach for many families.

The issue is also expected to be a key focus heading into the 2026 midterm elections, as lawmakers face growing pressure to address high housing costs and the affordability crisis overall.

AMERICA’S HOUSING MARKET COULD RUN OUT OF SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN HOMES

Advertisement

Housing industry leaders say states that have prioritized homebuilding have been better positioned to accommodate population growth and economic expansion. (Joshua Lott/Bloomberg/Getty Images)

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), which commissioned the report, argues that regulations imposed by federal, state and local governments have become a major driver of the nation’s housing shortage and affordability challenges.

The study found regulations add an average of $131,734 to the cost of a newly built home, representing 26.4% of the final sale price. The estimate, based on the average new-home price of $499,500, marks the largest increase between consecutive NAHB surveys since the organization began tracking the data in 2011.

Advertisement

Regulatory costs have climbed a whopping 40% since 2021.

«We update our study every five years and this reinforces what we have been saying all along — that the cost to build a single-family home in this country continues to escalate and exacerbate the housing affordability crisis,» NAHB President and CEO Jim Tobin told Fox News Digital. «We’re up 40% over the last five years, and now regulatory burdens at every level of government are totaling more than $130,000 for the cost of a new home.»

NAHB estimates the U.S. faces a structural housing shortage of 1.2 million homes, arguing rising regulatory costs make it more difficult to increase supply.

Advertisement

Tobin said regulatory costs vary across the country, with states in the Southeast, including Texas, Florida and the Carolinas, generally maintaining a lower-cost regulatory environment than states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois.

AMERICANS KEEP MOVING TO TEXAS AND FLORIDA — BUT ONE OTHER RED STATE IS GROWING EVEN FASTER

A home under construction at the Cold Spring Barbera Homes subdivision in Loudonville, New York.

The NAHB report comes as housing affordability remains a top concern nationwide, with elevated mortgage rates and limited inventory putting homeownership out of reach for many families. (Angus Mordant/Bloomberg/Getty Images)

He also said he expects regulatory costs to continue rising, but believes policymakers can help slow the pace through reforms.

Advertisement

«Anything we can do to lower that cost, I think would be really important,» Tobin said.

He pointed to the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which would streamline permitting, reduce barriers to new construction and expand financing tools intended to increase the nation’s housing supply.

The White House and the Department of Housing and Urban Development did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on the report’s findings.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

NAHB said the study is not intended to argue that all regulations should be eliminated but to quantify their cumulative effect on housing affordability.

«While regulations are important, they can go too far,» Tobin told Fox News Digital. «We need to make sure health and safety are protected while getting rid of the more onerous and costly regulations that do nothing more than drive up costs and keep Americans out of homeownership.»

Advertisement

The analysis is based on surveys of 54 land developers and 337 single-family builders conducted in March 2026.

housing, economy, regulation, politics, midterm elections, costs

Continue Reading

INTERNACIONAL

El colapso del alto al fuego con Irán complica la agenda exterior de Trump

Published

on


A meses de las elecciones, el presidente analiza nuevas acciones militares y económicas mientras crecen las dudas sobre los objetivos iniciales de la guerra.

Hace apenas dos semanas, al inaugurar la Gran Feria Estatal Estadounidense, el presidente Donald Trump declaró triunfalmente:

Advertisement

“Por primera vez en 3000 años, vamos a tener paz en Medio Oriente”.

Era la típica fanfarronada de Trump.

Pero la “paz” que celebraba —el alto al fuego con Irán que el miércoles declaró “terminado” tras menos de un mes— ya empezaba a desmoronarse.

Advertisement

El resultado era quizás previsible para un memorando de entendimiento de 14 párrafos que eludía temas importantes y que se redactó a toda velocidad para que Trump pudiera decir que había llegado a un acuerdo, cualquier acuerdo.

Ahora, Trump parece estar enfrentándose a las consecuencias de su precipitación y de su suposición —fruto de su experiencia en el sector inmobiliario— de que su adversario antepondría los beneficios económicos a la ideología revolucionaria que ha impulsado su política desde la revolución iraní de 1979.

Esto lo ha dejado ante una serie de opciones poco atractivas en medio de puntos de fricción aparentemente insuperables sobre el destino del programa nuclear iraní, por no hablar de su programa de misiles, su apoyo a grupos terroristas y la represión de su propio pueblo.

Advertisement

En la cumbre de la OTAN celebrada el miércoles en Ankara, Turquía, después de que ambas partes hubieran intercambiado ataques, amenazó con nuevas operaciones de combate a gran escala.

Entre ellas figuraban la toma de una isla clave para el procesamiento de petróleo iraní y el ataque a la infraestructura del país y a las plantas desalinizadoras, lo que, según los expertos, podría constituir un crimen de guerra (Trump dijo que no le gustaba la idea de atacar las instalaciones de desalinización).

Sin embargo, Trump ya ha lanzado amenazas de este tipo sin llevarlas a cabo, y el miércoles añadió que no preveía una vuelta a la guerra a gran escala.

Advertisement

Oposición

Una medida así cuenta con escaso apoyo interno, y algunos de los aliados republicanos de Trump temen las consecuencias económicas y políticas a menos de cuatro meses de las elecciones intermedias.

Nadie es más consciente de ese calendario, ni de la reticencia de Trump a repetir la experiencia de la primavera, que los dirigentes iraníes.

Advertisement

En su lugar, el mandatario podría volver a imponer el bloqueo estadounidense de los puertos iraníes, en un intento de cortar el sustento económico del país.

Pero eso requeriría una presencia estadounidense continua e intensa en la región, y aunque Trump afirmó en abril que eso provocaría el colapso económico de Irán, su imposición del bloqueo no lo consiguió.

O bien podría optar por vivir en un mundo ni de guerra ni de paz, una era de escaramuzas esporádicas en el golfo Pérsico, con algunas negociaciones periódicas, y con el tráfico por el estrecho de Ormuz —una ruta clave para el transporte de petróleo— muy reducido respecto a la estimación de 130 barcos que pasaban a diario antes de la guerra.

Advertisement

Lo más probable es que los mercados energéticos se adapten; en cierta medida, ya lo han hecho.

Pero para un presidente que prometió un enfrentamiento rápido y sin costos con un viejo adversario —“de cuatro a seis semanas” era la predicción de la Casa Blanca en las primeras semanas—, un conflicto prolongado equivaldría a un fracaso casi total de la misión que se propuso inicialmente.

Y el precio sería astronómico:

Advertisement

el Pentágono ya ha pedido al Congreso unos 70 mil millones de dólares para cubrir las primeras operaciones en torno a Irán, y el costo aumenta cada semana.

“El problema es que todas las opciones —aguantar, intensificar el conflicto o llegar a un acuerdo— son poco atractivas, cada una a su manera”, dijo el miércoles Richard Fontaine, director ejecutivo del Center for a New American Security y antiguo asesor del senador John McCain.

“El resultado más probable es una serie continua de ataques de baja intensidad y de represalias, seguidos de una diplomacia frenética por parte de los mediadores, la aparición de un nuevo y frágil alto al fuego y, después, probablemente otra ronda de ataques”.

Advertisement

“Será una larga oscilación entre la guerra fría y una guerra caliente de baja intensidad”.

Muchos de los problemas a los que se enfrenta Trump se vieron agravados por el propio acuerdo de alto al fuego.

Dejó sin resolver, para una negociación posterior en la que ahora Trump dice que tiene poco interés, el destino de las reservas iraníes de combustible nuclear casi apto para bombas, la razón más destacada entre las cambiantes justificaciones del gobierno estadounidense para atacar Irán el 28 de febrero.

Advertisement

El acuerdo parecía otorgarle a Irán al menos cierto control sobre el paso por el estrecho de Ormuz, esa “superarma” que Teherán —y, concretamente, el Cuerpo de la Guardia Revolucionaria Islámica (IRGC, por su sigla en inglés)— ha sabido manipular hábilmente para hacer subir los precios del petróleo, y que ahora ha utilizado para justificar los ataques contra petroleros y buques de carga que no respetan sus nuevas normas.

“Lo que estamos viendo ahora es que Irán, y más concretamente el IRGC, intenta ejercer control sobre el estrecho y declara que ese control es su derecho soberano”, dijo Kevin Donegan, un vicealmirante retirado de la Armada que sirvió como comandante de la Armada en Medio Oriente.

“Esa es la carta principal que tienen para jugar y, como resultado, podemos esperar que sigan intentando interrumpir cualquier tráfico marítimo que use rutas diferentes a las que ellos han publicado”.

Advertisement

El acuerdo no decía nada sobre el arsenal de misiles de Irán, el tema clave para Israel. Además, dependía de un alto al fuego en el Líbano, aunque las partes en ese conflicto, Israel y Hizbulá, no eran signatarias del acuerdo.

Y fijaba un plazo poco realista, de 60 días, para abordar diplomáticamente esas y otras cuestiones que meses de combates intensos no habían logrado resolver.

Incógnitas

Advertisement

Por supuesto, aún quedan muchos giros en este drama. Trump volvió a amenazar el miércoles con intentar tomar la isla de Kharg, donde los petroleros gigantes recogen el petróleo de Irán y se dirigen a los mercados mundiales.

Es posible que intente hacerse con el material nuclear enriquecido al 60 por ciento que se encuentra a gran profundidad bajo tierra en Isfahán, una misión para la que las fuerzas de Operaciones Especiales se han entrenado a fondo, aunque el miércoles descartó que fuera necesario.

“Ya tenemos el material nuclear, porque está muy profundo bajo tierra”, dijo, señalando que los iraníes no tienen la maquinaria pesada necesaria para desenterrarlo.

Advertisement

Si Trump tiene razón en eso —y muchos expertos nucleares coinciden en que sería tremendamente difícil recuperar ese material—, surge una pregunta fundamental: si el combustible nuclear quedó enterrado con éxito tras el bombardeo estadounidense de junio de 2025 contra tres importantes instalaciones nucleares, ¿por qué entró en la guerra para empezar?

Su declaración del miércoles, una repetición de los comentarios que ha hecho varias veces en los últimos meses, socava el argumento que esgrimió en los días posteriores al ataque inicial de febrero, según el cual existía una amenaza “inminente”.

Esa justificación inicial ha quedado desmentida por contradicciones posteriores.

Advertisement

Trump ha elogiado periódicamente a los nuevos dirigentes iraníes, incluso a su nuevo líder supremo, Mojtaba Jamenei, el hijo del ayatolá asesinado, calificándolos de más “razonables”.

Dijo muchas veces que, a diferencia de sus predecesores, los nuevos dirigentes abrirían el estrecho y reducirían el arsenal nuclear porque les convendría económicamente.

El vicepresidente JD Vance se expresó exactamente en esos términos el mes pasado, cuando firmó el memorando de entendimiento en Suiza.

Advertisement

“Lo mejor de los avances que hemos logrado en las últimas semanas es que ves cómo gente dentro del sistema iraní, altos mandos e incluso responsables del Cuerpo de la Guardia Revolucionaria Islámica, dicen:

‘¿Sabes qué? Es posible que tengamos cierta animadversión, es posible que haya desconfianza, pero reconocemos que la forma en que hemos hecho negocios con Estados Unidos durante 47 años ha sido un error’”, dijo.

El miércoles, Trump tuvo otras palabras para esos líderes: “escoria”.

Advertisement

“Son gente enferma. Los dirigen personas enfermas, y son gente cruel y violenta”, dijo.

Y luego añadió: “Por lo que a mí respecta, tratar con ellos es una pérdida de tiempo”.

Eric Schmitt colaboró con reportería.

Advertisement

David E. Sanger cubre el gobierno de Donald Trump y una amplia gama de temas relacionados con la seguridad nacional. Ha sido periodista del Times durante más de cuatro décadas y ha escrito cuatro libros sobre política exterior y retos de seguridad nacional.

c. 2026 The New York Times Company

Advertisement
Continue Reading

INTERNACIONAL

With US unleashing attacks, Iranian official threatens that the Islamic Republic will deliver a ‘hard slap’

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

An Iranian official warned that the Islamic Republic will deliver a «hard slap» while another blatantly threatened the U.S. that «if you strike, you’ll get hit,» according to automatic translations from the two men’s Persian-language posts on X.

Advertisement

Ebrahim Rezaei, whose profile on the social media platform indicates that he is a representative in Iran’s Parliament and the spokesperson for the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, wrote in a post on X, «The martyred Khamenei taught us not to fear America and showed that ‘falsehood will perish.’ Await the hard slap from the Iranians.»

The speaker of Iran’s Parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, warned, «America still hasn’t learned that bullying and breaking promises are no longer cost-free. Let me put it plainly: if you strike, you’ll get hit. Don’t flail around pointlessly, or you’ll sink even deeper: the Strait of Hormuz will only open with ‘Iranian arrangements,’ not American threats.»

Both of the men issued their posts on Wednesday after U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced more strikes against Iran.

Advertisement

«At the direction of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command forces have started conducting additional strikes against Iran to further degrade their ability to threaten freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States is holding Iran accountable for recent unjustified aggression against commercial shipping and civilian crews freely navigating a vital international waterway,» CENTCOM had noted in a post on X.

TRUMP SAYS IRAN CEASEFIRE DEAL IS ‘OVER’ AFTER NEW ROUND OF STRIKES

People gather at the Imam Khomeini Grand Mosalla for a farewell ceremony for Iran’s late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on July 4, 2026, in Tehran, Iran. (Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Advertisement

The U.S. military later provided more information about the attacks.

«U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces completed an additional round of strikes against Iran, July 8, to further degrade Iran’s ability to attack commercial shipping and innocent civilian mariners in the Strait of Hormuz,» CENTCOM noted on Wednesday night.

«U.S. forces struck approximately 90 Iranian military targets including air defense systems, coastal surveillance assets, missile and drone storage sites, naval capabilities, and military logistics infrastructure along Iran’s coastline. The latest strikes follow successful execution of offensive strikes in Iran the night before,» the announcement noted. «CENTCOM forces hit approximately 80 Iranian military targets July 7, including more than 60 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps small boats, to impose heavy costs for Iran violating the ceasefire by attacking three commercial vessels navigating the Strait of Hormuz.»

Advertisement

TRUMP DEMANDS END TO TRADE WITH KEY US ALLY, CALLS IT A ‘WASTED CAUSE’

President Donald Trump indicated on Wednesday that, as far as he was concerned, the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding ceasefire was «over.»

Kuwait and Bahrain have both reported coming under attack.

Advertisement

The Kuwait Army noted in a Thursday post on X, which was written in Arabic, «The Official Spokesman for the Ministry of Defense, Major General Saud Abdulaziz Al-Otaibi, stated that the armed forces detected, at dawn today, (3) ballistic missiles, (1) cruise missile, and (10) hostile drones within Kuwaiti airspace, which were successfully intercepted and dealt with.»

TRUMP SAYS ‘IRAN LIES AND CHEATS’ AS IRGC EMERGES AS DOMINANT FORCE IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH US

President Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks as he meets with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, on July 8, 2026. (SAUL LOEB / AFP via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The Bahrain Defense Force noted in a post that was in Arabic, «The General Command clarifies that, with firm resolve and high combat readiness, the Bahrain Defense Force’s air defense systems confronted, intercepted, and destroyed several treacherous Iranian aerial attacks this morning, Thursday, July 9, 2026 CE.»



politics, war with iran, iran, military, world

Continue Reading

Tendencias