On War and Remembrance

Americans remember how Canada responds when the United States goes to war

As Canada and Britain respond to the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran, American perceptions of both countries as allies are quietly being shaped.

Wars have a way of clarifying alliances. When the United States deploys military force, allies face pressure to decide whether to participate, support the operation politically, or criticize it. Each choice carries domestic political consequences at home. But it also shapes how Americans interpret the reliability of their partners.

For Canada, that dynamic has appeared before. Americans consistently rate Canada as one of the most positively viewed countries in the world. Yet when asked which country is the United States’ closest ally, Americans often choose Britain instead.

Understanding why helps explain why the response of Canada’s prime minister to the Iran war may matter long after the conflict itself is over.

The war with Iran has placed U.S. allies in an uncomfortable position. Washington has asked some governments to participate directly in military operations or provide access to bases for air strikes. Others have not been asked for anything at all but still face intense pressure at home to declare where they stand.

Two countries traditionally seen as among America’s closest partners—Canada and Britain—illustrate the dilemma. Their leaders must balance domestic politics, alliance commitments, and their own judgments about the conflict. Yet their responses matter in another way: they help shape how Americans perceive the reliability of allies when the United States goes to war.

This dynamic is not new. In 1999, when I was working at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a survey by the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs startled Canadians: more Americans named Britain—not Canada—as their closest ally. A decade later a Gallup poll produced the same result.

The finding puzzled many Canadians. Americans consistently rate Canada among the most positively viewed countries in the world, often giving it the warmest score on the Chicago Council’s “feeling thermometer.” Yet when asked which country is America’s closest ally, Americans frequently choose Britain.

The answer may lie in how Americans think about war.

For decades the U.S. military has ranked among the most trusted institutions in American society—far ahead of Congress, the presidency, or the news media. That trust shapes how Americans respond when the United States enters a conflict.

In the run-up to military action, debates about presidential authority and the wisdom of intervention can be intense. But once American troops are deployed and in harm’s way, many citizens rally behind the military and hope both for success and for their safe return home. In that atmosphere, continued dissent often carries social and political costs.

Foreign reactions therefore become unusually visible. Allied support reinforces domestic consensus and strengthens perceptions of solidarity. Criticism, by contrast, can resonate strongly because it validates domestic dissenters and provokes sharper reactions from supporters of the war.

Americans often judge alliances less by structural cooperation than by visible wartime solidarity.

Countries that fight alongside the United States in controversial wars are remembered as loyal partners. Those that criticize American military action—even when the criticism is justified—can leave a more complicated and sometimes longer-lasting impression.

For Canada, this dynamic matters.

The relationship between the American and Canadian peoples remains the foundation of the bilateral relationship. Leaders are temporary stewards of that relationship and generally tread carefully when disagreements arise. The Iran war is simply the latest moment when those dynamics are visible.

With Us or Against Us?

A comparison of Canadian and British responses to U.S. military operations helps illustrate the pattern. Both countries are NATO allies and close partners of the United States. Yet over time Britain has more frequently supported American military actions, particularly when those actions occur outside formal UN or NATO frameworks.

Canada’s record is somewhat different. Ottawa has generally supported U.S. military operations when they take place through multilateral institutions such as NATO or with United Nations authorization, while showing greater reluctance toward unilateral interventions.

At the same time, the Canadian and U.S. militaries remain deeply integrated. Through NORAD—the only permanent binational military command in the U.S. system—and extensive officer exchanges, the Canadian Armed Forces maintain close operational ties with their American counterparts. Within the U.S. military establishment Canada is widely regarded as a dependable ally.

This combination of structural integration and occasional political disagreement helps explain the paradox revealed in the polling data. Americans tend to like Canada very much, but Britain’s more consistent support in U.S. wars reinforces its reputation as America’s closest wartime partner.

History helps explain why. Over the past half-century, the moments that have most shaped American perceptions of allies have not been trade negotiations or diplomatic communiqués but wars.

When U.S. forces are deployed, Americans pay close attention to who stands beside them—and who does not.

Three episodes illustrate how these perceptions develop.

Vietnam

During the Vietnam War Canada refused to send combat forces and frequently advocated diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, while Britain offered political support to Washington but avoided deploying troops. The war divided American society deeply.

Canada’s refusal to join the conflict did not produce a diplomatic rupture, but it created a perceptual gap. Anti-war Americans often viewed Canada sympathetically, while supporters of the war sometimes interpreted Canadian criticism as evidence that foreign governments were undermining U.S. resolve. The migration of tens of thousands of American draft resisters to Canada reinforced the association between Canada and dissent in the American political imagination.

Grenada

When President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada in 1983, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau publicly criticized the intervention. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher also opposed the operation privately because Grenada was a member of the Commonwealth.

Despite allied objections, Reagan proceeded. The operation was brief and broadly popular in the United States. In this case foreign criticism received attention but had little effect on domestic opinion. When a military action enjoys strong public support at home, foreign dissent tends to carry less political weight.

Iraq

The Iraq War produced one of the clearest modern examples of allied disagreement affecting American perceptions.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair joined the invasion with substantial combat forces, while Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien declined to participate. France’s opposition to the war triggered an especially dramatic reaction in the United States. Favorability toward France collapsed in opinion polls, and symbolic protests—including the renaming of “French fries” as “freedom fries”—spread through American political culture.

Britain’s participation reinforced the narrative of the “special relationship.” Canada remained broadly liked and continued to cooperate closely with the United States on border security, counterterrorism, and the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Yet on Iraq Canada was less visible, and Chrétien’s criticism of the war strained his relationship with President George W. Bush.

The chart below illustrates the pattern. Britain and Canada maintain consistently high favorability ratings among Americans, while France’s opposition to the Iraq War produced a sharp but temporary collapse in public opinion.

Another factor that shapes American reactions to allied criticism is defense spending. For decades U.S. officials have complained that many allies spend too little on their own defense while offering strong opinions about American military actions. The argument surfaces regularly in NATO debates and has been a recurring theme in U.S. domestic politics.

Both Canada and Britain have recently pledged to increase defense spending, in part to respond to pressure from Washington. Yet the political impact of those commitments in the United States has been limited so far. Many American policymakers still interpret allied criticism of U.S. military operations through the lens of burden sharing: if the United States bears the largest share of the costs and risks of collective defense, foreign objections can be easier to dismiss.

This dynamic does not eliminate disagreement among allies, but it helps explain why wartime criticism often resonates differently in Washington than in allied capitals.

Iran and U.S.–Canada Relations

The Iran war presents a similar challenge for Canada’s prime minister. Whatever position Mark Carney ultimately takes will inevitably influence how Americans interpret Canada’s reliability as an ally.

So far Carney has tried to strike a careful balance. He initially expressed support for U.S. concerns about Iran’s nuclear program and its support for terrorism while also noting the absence of consultation with NATO allies and the lack of United Nations authorization. He later declined to rule out possible Canadian military participation.

This cautious approach reflects Canada’s domestic political environment. Relations with Washington have been strained by President Donald Trump’s tariffs and rhetoric toward Canada. At the same time, both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remain unpopular with many Canadian voters. Carney leads a minority government and must navigate these competing pressures.

Britain’s response has been less consistent. Prime Minister Keir Starmer initially denied the United States access to British bases for strikes on Iran before later repositioning Britain as a participant focused on protecting British citizens and regional partners from Iranian missile and drone attacks. That hesitation risks complicating the perception of Britain as America’s most reliable wartime ally.

Memory and Narrative

Public perceptions of alliances are also shaped by national narratives. In the United States and Britain, the alliance forged during the Second World War occupies a central place in political memory. The shared struggle against Nazi Germany helped anchor the idea of an enduring Anglo-American partnership that governments have repeatedly reinforced through diplomacy, commemoration, and popular culture.

Canada once possessed a similar narrative of close partnership with the United States. But during the Vietnam War era Canadian political elites increasingly aligned themselves with one side of America’s domestic political debates. Although public goodwill between Americans and Canadians remained strong, American policymakers sometimes interpreted Canadian criticism of U.S. military actions as an extension of those internal political divisions.

Such perceptions—fair or not—can erode trust over time.

Carney’s Iran War Challenge

The Iran war is only the latest test of how Canadian leaders manage relations with the United States during moments of conflict. History suggests that Americans pay close attention to how allies respond when U.S. forces are engaged in combat.

Canada’s relationship with the United States rests on deep institutional ties—from NORAD to integrated supply chains—and on longstanding goodwill between the two societies. But wartime decisions can shape perceptions in ways that outlast the conflict itself.

For American policymakers, the lesson is that alliances are often judged less by the quiet work of cooperation than by visible solidarity in moments of crisis.

For Canadian leaders, the challenge is to navigate Canadian domestic politics without weakening the perception of Canada as a dependable partner in the United States.

When the United States goes to war, Americans remember who stood beside them. Whatever position Mark Carney ultimately takes on Iran, Americans are likely to remember it long after the current political moment has passed.