July 22, 2026
The war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran may be one of the most difficult foreign policy tests of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s time in office.
It brings together several issues that do not fit easily into a simple political argument: Iran’s nuclear ambitions, attacks on neighbouring countries and commercial shipping, questions about the legality and proportionality of military action, the risk of a wider regional war, civilian casualties, and the economic consequences of disruption in the Strait of Hormuz.
Canada has not participated directly in the U.S. military campaign. But Carney has repeatedly expressed support for the objectives behind American action, while also calling for the protection of civilians and a diplomatic settlement.
In June, after the United States and Iran reached a tentative agreement, Carney described the deal as a potential “game changer” and said it had exceeded his expectations. When asked whether the war had been worth it, he said it had, pointing to the possibility of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
The agreement did not hold. After attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and renewed American strikes against Iranian targets, Carney said the U.S. response was appropriate and intended to stop the attacks and create the conditions for restoring the ceasefire.
The situation continued to deteriorate while our survey was in the field. The United States expanded its strikes, Iran retaliated against countries hosting American forces, and the disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz continued to affect global oil, fertilizer, and other commodity prices.
A new Abacus Data survey finds Canadians are more likely to support than oppose Carney’s decision to back the renewed U.S. strikes. But the results also suggest Canadians see his position as being shaped at least as much by Canada’s relationship with President Donald Trump and its economic interests as by his own assessment of the war.
More Canadians Say Supporting the Strikes Was Right Than Wrong
After respondents were told that Carney had described the latest U.S. strikes as an appropriate response to Iranian attacks, 47% said Canada’s support was the right decision.
That includes 13% who say it was definitely the right decision and 34% who say it was probably right.
By comparison, 34% believe it was the wrong decision, including 14% who say it was definitely wrong. Another 19% are unsure.
This is a plurality, not a majority. It suggests Carney has more public support than opposition for the position he took, but it would be a mistake to describe Canadians as united or strongly enthusiastic about it.
Only 13% are certain it was the right decision. Most of the support is more tentative.
Opinion also varies considerably across the country. Support is highest in Alberta, where 62% say Carney made the right decision and 23% say he made the wrong one.
In British Columbia, 49% say it was the right decision, compared with 32% who say it was wrong. In Ontario, the split is 46% to 36%, while Quebecers divide 45% to 40%.
Atlantic Canadians are the least likely to take a position. Thirty-five percent say supporting the strikes was right and 26% say it was wrong, while 38% are unsure.
A Large Gender Divide
The largest demographic difference is between men and women.
Among men, 58% say supporting the American strikes was the right decision, compared with 30% who say it was wrong.
Women are divided in the opposite direction. Thirty-six percent say the decision was right, while 38% say it was wrong and 25% are unsure.
The age differences are less straightforward.
Among Canadians aged 18 to 29, opinion is almost evenly divided. Forty-five percent believe Carney made the right decision and 43% believe he made the wrong one.
Canadians between 30 and 44 are more supportive, with 49% saying the decision was right and 33% saying it was wrong. Among those aged 60 and over, 48% say it was right, 30% say it was wrong, and 22% are unsure.
These results suggest the issue does not follow a simple pattern in which older Canadians consistently support military action and younger Canadians consistently oppose it. Younger adults are more divided and more likely to hold a firm view on either side.
Liberal and Conservative Voters Largely Support Carney’s Decision
There is a partisan divide, but it does not fall neatly along government and opposition lines.
A majority of Liberal voters, 56%, says Carney made the right decision, while 27% says it was wrong.
Conservative voters are also more supportive than opposed. Just over half, 51%, says backing the strikes was right, compared with 32% who say it was wrong.
NDP voters take a very different view. Only 26% says supporting the strikes was the right decision, while 59% says it was wrong.
Bloc Québécois voters are almost evenly divided, with 43% saying the decision was right and 42% saying it was wrong.
The fact that Liberal and Conservative voters arrive at a similar overall conclusion does not necessarily mean they are motivated by the same considerations. But it does show that support for Carney’s position extends beyond his government’s political base.
Most Believe Trump and Trade Shape Carney’s Position
We used a split-sample experiment to explore what Canadians think is motivating the Prime Minister.
Half the sample was asked why they think Carney has consistently supported U.S. military action against Iran and called the war worth it.
Only 15% say he genuinely believes the war was necessary and justified.
Thirty-four percent believe he mostly takes the position to maintain a good relationship with President Trump and protect Canada’s trade interests. Another 34% say both explanations are involved: Carney partly believes in the military action, but the relationship with Trump shapes what he says.
The other half of the sample received the same question after being reminded that the ceasefire had broken down and fighting had resumed.
In that version, 14% say Carney genuinely believes the war was necessary, 39% say he is mainly trying to maintain the relationship with Trump and protect Canada’s trade interests, and 30% say it is a combination of conviction and strategic calculation.
The small difference between the two versions should not be overstated. But the broader finding is remarkably consistent.
In both cases, about seven in ten Canadians believe the Trump relationship affects Carney’s position either substantially or at least partly. Only about one in seven sees his position as being driven mainly by his genuine belief that the war was justified.
That does not necessarily mean Canadians think Carney is being dishonest. Prime ministers regularly balance their own views with alliance relationships, trade interests, and the need to influence decisions made by more powerful countries.
But it does mean the public interprets his comments through the broader Canada-U.S. relationship. Most Canadians do not see his position on Iran as being formed independently of Donald Trump.
Cost-of-Living Concerns Dominate Public Perceptions
The conflict’s economic consequences appear central to how Canadians interpret the government’s desire for an end to the fighting.
Seventy-two percent agree that Carney, like other world leaders, mainly wants the conflict to end because of its effect on fuel and fertilizer prices and the cost of living, rather than because of concerns about the war itself.
Only 14% disagree and 13% are unsure.
This perception crosses every major political group.
Seventy-nine percent of Liberal voters agree, as do 68% of Conservative voters, 68% of NDP voters, and 87% of Bloc Québécois voters.
It is important to be careful about what this result means. The question measures what Canadians believe is driving political leaders. It does not establish Carney’s actual motivations, nor does it mean Canadians think the humanitarian and security consequences are irrelevant.
Instead, it shows how powerfully domestic economic concerns shape the way Canadians understand a conflict happening thousands of kilometres away.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important energy corridors. The war and the disruption of shipping through it have contributed to higher oil and fertilizer prices, with consequences that can eventually reach Canadians through gasoline, transportation, and food costs.
For many Canadians, that economic connection makes the conflict immediate in a way that foreign policy debates often are not.
Carney’s Handling of the War Has Had Little Net Political Effect
Despite the seriousness of the issue, Carney’s handling of the war has not substantially changed how most Canadians feel about him.
Fifty-four percent says it has made no difference to their impression of the Prime Minister.
Twenty-four percent says his handling of the conflict has made their view more positive, while 22% says it has made their view more negative.
Given the survey’s margin of error, this is essentially a balanced result. Carney has gained some support and generated some opposition, but there is no clear net political benefit or cost.
Liberal voters respond positively, with 35% saying their impression has improved and only 8% saying it has become more negative.
Among Conservative voters, 19% feel more positive and 28% feel more negative. NDP voters are the most critical, with 42% saying Carney’s handling of the war has worsened their impression of him and 17% saying it has improved.
There is again a gender divide. Thirty percent of men says their impression of Carney has become more positive, compared with 19% who feel more negative. Among women, 18% feel more positive and 24% feel more negative.
The Upshot
According to Abacus Data CEO David Coletto:
“These findings point to a Canadian public that is cautious, divided, and trying to make sense of an extremely complicated conflict.
More Canadians think Mark Carney was right than wrong to support the latest American strikes, but the support is not especially deep. Only 13% are certain it was the right decision, almost one in five is unsure, and younger Canadians are almost evenly divided.
What stands out most to me is how Canadians interpret Carney’s motivation. About seven in ten think his relationship with Donald Trump and the need to protect Canada’s trade interests shape what he says, either mostly or in combination with his own beliefs.
That does not mean Canadians necessarily reject the decision. Some may see managing Trump and protecting Canada’s economic interests as part of the Prime Minister’s job. But it does mean they are listening to his comments with a degree of skepticism and reading them through the Canada-U.S. relationship.
The cost-of-living finding reinforces that. Canadians understand that a conflict involving the Strait of Hormuz can affect what they pay for gasoline, fertilizer, and food. Most believe those economic consequences are a central reason Carney and other leaders want the fighting to end.
So far, his approach has produced little net political movement. Most Canadians have not changed their view of him, and those who have are almost evenly divided between becoming more positive and more negative.”
Methodology
The survey was conducted online with 2,705 Canadian adults from July 9 to 15, 2026.
A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey through a set of partner panels. These partners are typically double opt-in survey panels, blended to help manage potential skews that can arise from relying on a single source.
The data were weighted according to census figures to ensure the sample matched the Canadian population by age, gender, educational attainment, and region.
The margin of error for a comparable probability-based random sample of the same size is plus or minus 1.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Totals may not add to 100 because of rounding.
The survey was paid for by Abacus Data Inc.
About Abacus Data
We are Canada’s most sought-after, influential, and impactful polling and market research firm. We are hired by many of North America’s most respected and influential brands and organizations.
We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail, and exceptional value.
And we are growing throughout all parts of Canada and the United States and have capacity for new clients who want high quality research insights with enlightened hospitality.
Our record speaks for itself: we were one of the most accurate pollsters conducting research during the 2025 Canadian election following up on our outstanding record in the 2021, 2019, 2015, and 2011 federal elections.
Contact us with any questions.
Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.
