Follow us on social

Fewer Americans willing to fight and die for other countries

Fewer Americans willing to fight and die for other countries

Recent polling paints an encouraging picture

Analysis | Media

A July poll shows that a majority of the American public does not support sending U.S. troops to defend Taiwan or Ukraine, sentiment that lines up with findings from other recent surveys on these heated subjects, which suggests that Americans appear to be warming to restraint and non-interventionism in international affairs.

Indeed, another poll, conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in February found that a majority of Americans (56%) do not believe that the United States should pick a side in Israel’s war on Gaza. And a more recent survey from Council this month found that just four in ten support the United States sending troops to defend Israel if attacked by its neighbors.

Similarly, Americans’ suspicions of foreign intervention were uncovered in a recent YouGov poll, which found that 79% said that they only support intervention if the U.S. were directly threatened (that number significantly dropped to 49% if an ally were attacked). In the same study, the only recent war that a majority of Americans viewed as justified was World War II. 

Despite these findings, Washington continues to push forward with fanning the flames of war around the world, whether being slow to work toward peace settlements in Ukraine and Gaza, stoking conflict with China, or throwing gargantuan amounts of money, unnecessarily, at the Pentagon and thus, the weapons industry.

"The general through line of the polling data is there is a disconnect between official U.S foreign policy and the preferred policies of the American people,” Tucker Kass, spokesman at Defense Priorities which conducted the July survey, told Responsible Statecraft concerning their findings. “The policy coming out of D.C. is interventionist but the American people, at least based on the answers we received, support a more judicious, more discerning policy that would frankly be wiser than current policy."

The Defense Priorities poll also found that just 22% of those surveyed support the United States defending Ukraine. Forty-six percent opposed while 32% were neutral. Thirty percent said they support America militarily defending Taiwan against China, while 37% opposed and 33% were neutral. Additionally, a plurality of Americans surveyed, 44%, agreed that avoiding war with China is more important than Taiwan’s autonomy.

Meanwhile, Americans have been increasingly less likely to support U.S. military aid being sent to Ukraine. A 2022 survey from the Chicago Council found that 79% of Americans supported sending military aid to Kyiv, but that number shrunk to 63% in the Council’s September 2023 poll. Defense Priorities’ July survey found that only 20% of Americans supported continued unconditional support for Ukraine.

Other surveys also found that Americans have opposed the U.S. militarily defending Taiwan against a Chinese attack. In addition to the previously mentioned Defense Priorities poll, a survey from November 2023 by the Chicago Council found that only 39% would support defending Taiwan, rising to 43% in 2024.

Support among Americans for defending Israel militarily has also been trending downwards. According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, support for using U.S. troops to defend Israel has hovered just over 50 percent from 2015 through 2021, but dropped to 41% in 2024.

The American public appears to be questioning U.S. military involvement in world affairs more generally. Support for U.S. military bases in Germany, Turkey, Poland, Baltic partners, Japan, South Korea, and Australia is down across the board from 2022 to 2023.

Despite these apparent trends, there are some caveats. As seen in the Defense Priorities poll from July, Americans don’t tend to follow U.S. foreign policy closely, leading to large shares of neutral or “don’t know” responses to related polling questions. Polls also have the potential to differ widely. For example, some polls have shown support for America defending Taiwan, including one survey from the Global Taiwan Institute showing 61% in support as recently as 2022. Additionally, the public can be swayed by conflict or strong media driven narratives. For example, after the September 11th attacks, the media helped to normalize the idea of deposing Saddam Hussein. By January 2002, 73% of the American public supported the use of force in Iraq, believing what the Bush administration said about the presence of WMDs in the country. After years of hindsight, only 32% of Americans considered the Iraq War the right thing to do according to a 2024 survey.

Americans today are now able to see alternative opinions on social media and non-mainstream outlets, leading to perhaps more skepticism towards official Washington perspectives. As polling has shown, Americans have appeared to be able to see through pro- war narratives on Taiwan, Israel-Hamas, and Ukraine.

“Presidents and other interventionists often win short-term public support for military adventurism by moralizing and scaremongering,” Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, told RS. “However, when the effects of these tactics begin wearing off — and Americans start coming home in body bags — public enthusiasm typically wanes. Hence eventual popular disgust with the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and more.”


U.S.Army PFC Brad Johnson hugs his wife Michelle and 14 month old daughter Alysha goodbye September 18, before leaving Fort Hood, Texas for Kuwait in 1996. Some 3,500 troops from Fort Hood are due to leave as part of the ground support deployment in the Gulf. USA IRAQ TROOPS (Reuters)
Analysis | Media
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

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.