Typically, foreign policy is a government’s strategy in dealing with other countries (Stevenson 2010). In the case of U.S it may also refers to decisions made within the United States that are affected by entities outside the US (Kaufman 2017). In recent times, plans made by the US do not affect other Nation States and countries alone but also several bodies and organizations such as the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Researchers, scholars, and think-tanks have produced works that seek to tackle diverse angles of foreign policy and terrorism, and its impact on people around the globe and in the American society. Several states have either added or expanded laws connected to terrorism within their jurisdictions and others are considering doing so (Keenan and Rojas 2024).

There are prevailing situations of lack of resolution by governments to take effective action against terrorism, weak punishment of terrorist by countries, violations of international law by terrorists, promotion of terrorism by some nations, and high cost of security in democracies (Schmid 2004). These are issues that raise concerns in the American society and around the globe.

The nonexistence of one single definition has encouraged the continuation of double standards. Anthony Quainton, the former Director of the Office for Combatting Terrorism at the United States’ State Department said, ‘this problem of definition has bedeviled the development of an effective counter-terrorism strategy at both the national and international levels (Schmid 2004).” According to Boaz Ganor, the international community does not understand what terrorism is; there is no consensus on the definition of terrorism; as a result, enforcement against terrorism globally is impossible; extradition of political crimes is overtly removed by countries in bilateral and multilateral agreements in connection to offenses; common definition of terrorism is pivotal to fighting terrorism globally (Schmid 2004).

In this light, the uncertainty of terrorist attack is palpable in a locality, district, region, or state in the American society. Hence, there is the need to forecast the product of terrorism, specifically the aspect of human injury and fatality. The output of this forecast may portray the future of terrorism to the US government and policymakers. Also, it is believed that graphic presentation of the forecast may go a long way to convince stake holders who otherwise, underestimate the effects of terrorism in the United States to strategize toward abating or eradicating it.

With a large amount of data obtained from the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) and its complexity, a thirty-year range of the data was employed for the forecast, having removed the outliers. To render the forecasting process as simple as possible, the Forecast Sheet tool was used to produce results that are tabulated in Table 1 and 2. Table 1 palpably demonstrates the strength of the chosen confidence interval (95%), the forecast values (F) fall within the two sided bound. Thus, ninety- five percent (95%) of fatalities of terrorism in the USA lie within the Lower Confidence Bound (LCB) and Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) with 2.5% less than LCB and 2.5% more than the UCB. As the years progress to 2044, the incidence of fatalities may abate to -31.4, which is laudable.

The negative values for the LCB implies that there exists the likelihood of no terrorism in the USA in the future if dogged determination and ironclad measures are implemented. On the other hand, the UCB values for fatalities may rise and continue to rise to 114.09, which is not good. This increase means the USA must employ counter-terrorism measures as the years go by to reduce these values. Generally, the average (forecast) values for fatalities are likely to increase by nearly 88% from the year 2021 to 2044 if drastic measures are not taken to curb the incident of terrorism. While the LCB could increase by 38%, the UCB could increase by 21%.

Table 1 Forecast Output for Terrorism Fatalities in the USA

Table 2 vividly demonstrates the strength of the chosen confidence interval (95%), the forecast values (F) fall within the two sided bound. Thus, ninety- five percent (95%) of injuries of terrorism in the USA lie within the LCB and UCB with 2.5% less than LCB and 2.5% more than the UCB. As the years Progresses to 2044, the incidence of injury may abate to -157 incidences of injury, which is relatively good. On the other hand, the UCB injury may rise and continue to rise to 688, which is not desirable. Generally, the average (forecast) values for injury are likely to increase by nearly 77% from the year 2021 to 2044 if drastic measures are not taken to curb the incident of terrorism. While the LCB could increase by 42%, the UCB could increase by 20%. These changes in relation to that of fatalities are not all that different, as both incidences are geographically and temporally connected.

Table 2 Forecast Output for Terrorism Injury in the USA

Previous data regarding terrorism values on fatalities heightened to 177 incidences in USA in the year 1995, and subsided for twenty-two (22) years, and rose to 84 incidents in the year 2017 and dropped again. Evidently, the average (forecast) values lie within the LCB and the UCB. Also, the UCB depicts that fatality incidence over time will rise to over 100 incidences towards the year 2044 if terrorism is not curbed in the USA. Conversely, LCB depicts that Fatalities will fall to – 31.40 incidences toward the year 2044 if terrorism is curbed in the USA within the period. Yet on average, as depicted in Figure 1, by the average (forecast) values for fatalities resulting from terrorism will lie in between UCB and LCB with up to 41 incidents towards the year 2044.

This research conducted the forecast of terrorism in the USA, considering broad data (from the year 1991-2020) on incidence of injuries and fatalities. It was evident that the forecast predicted is a general increase in terrorism if the necessary counter-terrorism measures are not enforced. On the other hand, the predicted results show that the incidence of terrorism is likely to be eradicated from the USA.

The forecast sought to examine the following research question: ‘Considering the incidence of terrorism and devastating product on the people of the United States of America, how will the future product of terrorism look like?’. Evidently, the forecast has answered this research question by showing the trend (rise and fall) of terrorism from 2021 to 2044.

The results from the forecast have confirmed the the following theories stated in the previous section: (I) The study theorizes that terrorism leading to fatalities and injuries will rise over time if counterterrorism is not embraced and intensified. (II) The study theorizes that terrorism leading to fatalities and injuries will abate if counterterrorism is embraced and intensified.

This research recommends to all stakeholders, based on the outcome of the forecast on fatalities and injuries of terrorism and encourages policymakers to make informed decisions. It is noteworthy that, the United States’ foreign policy and international relations cannot be underemphasized because of United States’ hegemony around the globe because of its influence. Thus, the US should be circumspect in its foreign policies and foreign relations.

Nevertheless, the use of pretext by the US in its foreign policies to some extent has created enemies for the United States (Gibbs 2004) and can be perceived to have contributed to terrorist groups elsewhere. Affirmatively, terrorism adversely affect not only man but also natural or ecological environment and infrastructure (Tahir, Burki and Azid 2022). Hence, the research recommends foreign policies devoid of pretext to policy makers. In addition, there should be a consensus on the definition of terrorism among member countries of the United Nations and the USA, which will remove any ambiguity of the definition of terrorism. Considering the trend of terrorism in the USA, counter-terrorism agencies should be proactive rather than being reactive, and collaborative.