Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1901959372

Won't get fooled again: Gen Z all done with old rationales for war

After a 20-year GWOT, financial collapse, and pandemic, the last thing this young generation wants is war with Iran.

Analysis | Washington Politics

As negotiations between Iran and the United States on a return to the 2015 nuclear agreement continue, neoconservative commentators are scrambling to undermine diplomacy and advocate for a war they’ve wanted all along. But the Biden administration and hawks in Congress should be careful not to overestimate the American public’s support for an open military conflict with Tehran.

In particular, Washington policymakers should consider that the opposition to such a confrontation grows more politically powerful each year and nowhere is it stronger than in the generation born between the late 1990s and the early 2010s, known as Gen Z. 

The conventional wisdom that young people don’t vote appears increasingly inaccurate. The 2020 presidential election saw a 50 percent turnout among 18-29 year-olds, an 11-point increase from 2016 — more than double the overall increase in turnout by all other age groups. Gen Z played a key role in President Biden’s victory, and with each year that passes, this demographic comprises a bigger share of the American electorate. 

Gen Z has also shown an enormous propensity for grassroots organizing and political protest. We’re on track to be the most racially and ethnically diverse and best-educated generation ever. In other words, it is a key segment of the electorate, and our political power is only going to grow

Additionally, Gen Z cares immensely about foreign policy. Just look at the mass mobilization of young Americans last May protesting Israel’s airstrikes on Gaza and the violence in East Jerusalem. According to a nationwide online survey conducted by the Center for American Progress in 2019, two-thirds of Gen Z voters say that the foreign policy decisions the government makes matter to them and their families. 

Gen Zers have also grown up navigating the fallout of the post-9/11 wars. The same survey found that over 70 percent of these voters, a higher proportion than any other age group, agree that “the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan were a waste of time, lives, and taxpayer money and they did nothing to make us safer at home.” And two-thirds of Gen Z voters believe that the United States “should prioritize economic and diplomatic efforts, rather than military action, to protect our interests around the world.”  

This healthy skepticism about military intervention translates into concrete policy preferences on Iran. According to a poll taken in the last days of 2021, Gen Z approves of the Iranian nuclear agreement by a 40-point margin, the largest spread of all generations polled. Steps to promote diplomacy, such as lifting all sanctions on Iran to jumpstart nuclear negotiations or responding with increased diplomacy if negotiations don’t succeed, enjoy a higher approval rating than military interventions among both the general public and Gen Z voters. 

And while advocates of the military option insist that striking Iran’s nuclear facilities will be a simple, one-shot operation, doing so would almost certainly ensnare the United States in a broader regional conflict. Iran, in conjunction with its strategic partners including Hezbollah in Lebanon and militias in Iraq, would likely retaliate by attacking Israel and U.S. forces in the region. 

According to General Kenneth McKenzie, Commander of U.S. Central Command, Iran has ballistic missile capabilities that enable it to “strike effectively across the breadth and depth of the Middle East” with accuracy and volume. The consequences of taking the military option could be a regional war on multiple fronts, which the former Iran team chief at the Department of Defense assessed as potentially “so much worse than Iraq.” It’s a scenario that is very unlikely to appeal to people my age, let alone those who would be most directly engaged.

Indeed, it’s easy to underestimate how unpopular a war with Iran might be with young voters like me, because we have little representation in the foreign policy discourse and in the media. With the oldest members of Gen Z turning 25 this year, you’re not likely to see our voices among the foreign policy elite, but you will hear us at the ballot box and in the streets. 

The idea that military action is the key to defending American lives rings deeply hollow for a generation that has seen many of their families battered by two historic recessions, a pandemic that soon will have killed one million Americans, and the impacts of accelerating climate change. We have grown up in a nation perpetually at war and watched our country reap what those wars have sown: the suffering of our veterans and the diversion of desperately needed funds to maintain basic infrastructure and the social safety net to the Pentagon and military contractors, the excessive militarization of police departments, massive fossil fuel emissions, and the fracturing of American democracy itself. 

Young voters are unlikely to look kindly on an administration or a Congress that chooses to embroil the United States in yet another war, leaving our generation saddled with the consequences for decades to come. Policymakers ought to worry less about the political cost of concessions that may be necessary to reach an agreement with Iran, and more about the political costs, particularly with young voters, of the alternative. 


BublikHaus/Shutterstock
Analysis | Washington Politics
Trump tariffs
Top image credit: Steve Travelguide via shutterstock.com

Linking tariff 'deals' to US security interests is harder than it looks

Global Crises

In its July 31 Executive Order modifying the reciprocal tariffs originally laid out in early April, the White House repeatedly invokes the close linkages between trade and national security.

The tariff treatment of different countries is linked to broader adhesion to U.S. foreign policy priorities. For example, (relatively) favorable treatment is justified for those countries that have “agreed to, or are on the verge of agreeing to, meaningful trade and security commitments with the United States, thus signaling their sincere intentions to permanently remedy … trade barriers ….and to align with the United States on economic and national security matters.”

keep readingShow less
Kurdistan drone attacks
Top photo credit: A security official stands near site of the Sarsang oilfield operated by HKN Energy, after a drone attack, in Duhok province, Iraq, July 17, 2025. REUTERS/Azad Lashkari

Kurdistan oil is the Bermuda Triangle of international politics

Middle East

In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that a strong Kurdistan Region within a federal Iraq is a "fundamental and strategic component" of U.S. policy. Two months later, that policy was set on fire.

A relentless campaign of drone attacks targeting Iraqi Kurdistan’s military, civilian, and energy infrastructure escalated dramatically in July, as a swarm of Iranian-made drones struck oil fields operated by American and Norwegian companies. Previous strikes had focused on targets like Erbil International Airport and the headquarters of the Peshmerga’s 70th Force in Sulaymaniyah.

The attacks slashed regional oil production from a pre-attack level of nearly 280,000 barrels per day to a mere 80,000.

The arrival of Iraqi National Security Advisor Qasim al-Araji in Erbil personified the central paradox of the crisis. His mission was to lead an investigation into an attack that Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) officials had already publicly blamed on armed groups embedded within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF)—components of his own government.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Sudanese protester stands in front of a blazing fire during a demonstration against the military coup, on International Women's Day in Khartoum, Sudan March 8, 2022. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Sudan civil war takes dark turn as RSF launches 'parallel government'

Africa

In a dramatic move last week, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) announced the selection of its own prime minister and presidential council to compete with and directly challenge the legitimacy of the Sudanese government.

News of the new parallel government comes days before a new round of peace talks was expected to begin in Washington last week. Although neither of the two civil war belligerents were going to attend, it was to be the latest effort by the United States to broker an end to the war in Sudan — and the first major effort under Trump’s presidency.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.