Follow us on social

Poll: Most Americans would support war with China

Poll: Most Americans would support war with China

But the news isn't all bad. A vast majority want nuclear talks with Iran, and a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine.

Analysis | Washington Politics

The Eurasia Group Foundation's latest survey report, titled “Order and Disorder: U.S. Foreign Policy in a Fragmented World,” covered a range of issues from sanctions and arms sales to drone strikes and the war in Ukraine, and it contains several notable findings about how Americans perceive different aspects of U.S. global engagement.

According to the report, Americans are very open to diplomacy with hostile powers, but they are also supportive of going to war with China to a disturbing degree.

One of the chief findings is that Americans are broadly in favor of direct diplomatic engagement with adversaries and even more support negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue. According to the poll, two-thirds of Americans favor negotiations with adversaries even if they are responsible for human rights abuses, authoritarian governments, or home to terrorist organizations, 77% support continued nuclear talks with Iran, and 58% of Americans also want the U.S. to push for a negotiated settlement to end the war in Ukraine.

Support for diplomatic solutions has majority backing of Americans from across the political spectrum, so it is remarkable how little support for those same solutions can be found among our elected representatives and policymakers in Washington.

Some of the report’s findings are unsurprising. There is a partisan divide over Ukraine policy with Democrats tending to be much more supportive of the administration approach than Republicans and Republicans are the most hawkish when it comes to China.

But perhaps one of the most surprising and significant results is the extent to which Americans of all political camps now say that they support direct intervention in a war over Taiwan.

Other surveys in recent years have found that roughly 40% of Americans back direct U.S. intervention in the event of a Chinese attack, but the EGF survey found that overall support for intervention is at 60%. That may be the result of rising tensions between China and Taiwan and the ongoing deterioration of relations between the U.S. and China over the past year since former House Speaker Pelosi’s ill-advised visit to Taipei last summer. It may be caused by the constant drumbeat of anti-China rhetoric from members of both parties. It could be some combination of all three.

Regardless, this represents a significant increase in public support for going to war over Taiwan, and that suggests that the public does not fully grasp how costly and dangerous such a war would be. Support for intervention is relatively soft with most of the supporters saying that they only “somewhat” support sending U.S. forces to help defend Taiwan, but it can’t be denied that this is a major shift in U.S. public opinion in the last ten years. It is a measure of how dominant hawkish groupthink on China policy has become if a majority of the public now says that they support waging a major war with a nuclear-armed adversary.

The public is split almost exactly in half over whether the U.S. should sell arms to other countries. Fifty-three percent believe that the U.S. should stop selling arms. The finding on arms sales is striking because the question refers only to “selling arms globally” without saying anything about the governments that are purchasing them. Most Democratic and independent respondents say that the U.S. should not continue arms sales, and even 48% of Republicans say the same.

While this opposition to arms sales is likely influenced by debates over arming Saudi Arabia and other abusive authoritarian governments, it is important to note that the respondents are rejecting all arms sales no matter where they are going.

While Americans are divided over the desirability of arms sales, most are generally fine with U.S. sanctions and for some reason believe them to be an effective policy tool. Just over 60% of Americans overall said that sanctions were “always” or “often” an effective tool, and only 39% said that they were “rarely” or “never” effective. That is somewhat surprising given the repeated failures of sanctions, especially broad sanctions, to achieve stated policy goals and the extensive humanitarian harm that they cause to target populations.

Where would so many Americans get the impression that sanctions are an effective tool when they clearly are not? It is hard to say, but perhaps one reason for this view is the constant use of sanctions as the default government response in so many different places. It could be that the public assumes that sanctions must be effective or else they wouldn’t be imposed so frequently. When they were prompted by the government’s many different reasons for imposing sanctions, perhaps the respondents concluded that the tool must be useful if it is being used to address so many issues.

The responses to the question on sanctions were among the most disheartening in the entire survey, because they are so divorced from reality and show no awareness of the terrible track record that economic sanctions have. Independent respondents were least likely to say that sanctions are an effective policy tool, but even here the pro-sanctions view narrowly prevailed. The public’s unfounded confidence in the efficacy of sanctions is not a new development, but it is another obstacle to efforts to rein in and possibly end the use of economic warfare.

One of the more encouraging results was the narrow majority support for repealing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). Fifty-four percent say they favor repealing the authorization, with support for repeal being strongest among Democrats (56%) and independents (62%). Two out of five Republicans agree that the authorization should be repealed. It is significant that they did not mention passing a new authorization to replace the old one. Most Americans appear to be done with the “war on terror,” and they want to get rid of the authorization that has been used to fight it.

Two years after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the public still has a generally negative assessment of the war. Most Americans understandably conclude that the war was a failure, and 30% believe that the war had a failed mission from the start. Another 32% say that the war should have ended following the death of Osama bin Laden. Only 13% believe that the withdrawal hurt U.S. credibility, and that shows that very few people in the country buy the bogus credibility argument that hawks have been selling all these years.

The findings in the EGF survey point to some promising areas for policy reform. There seems to be fertile ground for pursuing AUMF repeal and a major overhaul of U.S. arms sales. Unfortunately, there are other policies, including sanctions, that will require a lot more work in terms of educating the public and changing how Americans understand these issues.


Analysis | Washington Politics
Al Jazeera Atlantic Council
Top image credit: www.youtube.com/@aljazeeraenglish

Think tank staffer stumped when asked about arms industry funding

Military Industrial Complex

In a new Al Jazeera docuseries called the Business of War, the Atlantic Council’s Mark Massa was left speechless in response to a question from journalist Hind Hassan about the think tank’s funding from weapons manufacturers. Massa, whose think tank accepted at least $10 million from Pentagon contractors in the past five years, paused for a revealing ten full seconds before stumbling through a non-answer.

“There have been some other think tanks and other organizations that have done an analysis of the recommendations that have been given by the Atlantic Council, and they found that it tends to benefit those same weapons companies that are also providing a lot of money towards the Atlantic Council,” Hassan said, adding, “How do you respond to that?”

keep readingShow less
Trump Ukraine
Top image credit: President Donald Trump meets with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte after his call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Monday, August 18, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

For peace in Ukraine, Russia needs 'security guarantees' too

Europe

The failure of this week’s meeting in Washington to move the needle forward toward peace hinges, in my opinion, on the failure of the participants to properly understand the security dilemma they are facing.

Rather than seeking security for all, Europe is still seeking partial security, only for Ukraine. This short-sightedness stems from the desire to punish Russia, which argues that it is only defending its national interests.

keep readingShow less
Lee Jae Myung  Donald Trump
Top photo credit: South Korean President Lee Jae Myung (You Tube) and President Donald Trump (Shutterstock/Wirestock Creators)

South Korea President Lee aims to avoid further clashes with Trump

Asia-Pacific

On August 25, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung will be visiting the White House for his long-anticipated first summit with President Donald Trump.

Having launched his presidency only in June, Lee hopes to use the summit as an opportunity to build a positive, cooperative relationship with Trump — a crucial diplomatic counterpart with whom he must learn to work to advance the U.S.-ROK alliance and achieve shared goals in the years to come.

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.