A majority of Americans say that the United States should take North Korea’s nuclear threats very seriously. At the same time, the public is divided over whether North Korea’s leadership is willing and capable of following through on its threats against the United States.

The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted April 4-7 among 1,003 adults, finds that 56% say the government should take North Korea’s threats to use nuclear missiles against the U.S. very seriously. Another 27% say the government should take North Korea’s threats somewhat seriously.

About half of Americans (47%) think that North Korea’s leadership is really willing to follow through on its threats against the United States; 41% think North Korea is not really willing to follow through.

Opinion also is divided about North Korea’s ability to make good on its threats: 47% say it is capable of launching a nuclear missile that could reach the U.S. while 43% say it is not capable.

About a third of the public (36%) says they are paying very close attention to news about North Korea’s military threats and plans to restart its nuclear reactor, making this the most closely followed foreign news story of the year. Those who are following news about North Korea’s threats very closely are far more likely than those following it less closely to say that the government should take the threats very seriously (73% vs. 46%).

In addition, far more of those who are tracking North Korean news very closely say the country’s leaders are really willing to follow through on its threats (59% vs. 40% those following less closely).

However, assessments of whether North Korea is capable of reaching the U.S. with a nuclear missile are identical among those who are tracking news about North Korea’s threats very closely and those following the threats less closely (47% each).

Republicans and Democrats have comparable levels of interest in news from North Korea. But Republicans are more likely to say the government should take the threats very seriously (64% vs. 52% of Democrats). More Republicans than Democrats also think that North Korea is really willing to carry through on its nuclear threats (58% vs. 37%).

But partisans express similar views of North Korea’s military capabilities. About half of Republicans (52%) and Democrats (47%) say that North Korea is capable of launching a nuclear missile that could reach the United States.

Few See North Korea as Both ‘Willing’ and ‘Capable’

About a quarter of Americans (28%) see the maximum potential danger from North Korea: They say that North Korea is really willing to follow through on its threat to use nuclear weapons and that North Korea is capable of launching a nuclear missile that could reach the United States.

Roughly the same percentage (25%) expressed the opposite views. They say that North Korea is not really willing to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. and that its nuclear missiles would not be able to reach the United States.

Between those two viewpoints, comparable percentages say that North Korea is willing – but not capable – of attacking the U.S. with nuclear missiles (15%) or that while North Korea is unwilling to follow through on its military threats, it does have the capability to carry them out (13%).

Opinions about how seriously the United States government should take the threat from North Korea differ according to people’s views of its intentions and capability. Fully 83% of those who say North Korea has the will and capability to attack the U.S. think the government should take the threat very seriously. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of those who view North Korea as willing but not capable of attacking the U.S. agree.

Only about half (45%) of those who say North Korea is not really willing to follow through on its nuclear threats – but is capable of launching a missile that could reach the U.S. – view the threats as very serious. And just 29% of those who think that North Korea neither has the will not the capability to attack the U.S. says the government should take North Korea’s threats seriously.

As Barack Obama arrives in the Middle East this week, the sympathies of the American public remain firmly with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians. And when it comes to Iran, the public continues to say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons than to avoid a military conflict.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted March 13-17 among 1,501 adults, finds that 49% say they sympathize more with Israel, while just 12% sympathize more with the Palestinians and the same percentage (12%) volunteers that they sympathize with neither side.

Dating back to 1978, just prior to the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, the public has consistently sympathized more with Israel than the Palestinians. But the partisan differences in sympathies are much wider today than they were 35 years ago.

In the current survey, 66% of Republicans say they sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians, compared with 49% of independents and 39% of Democrats. In the 1978 survey, conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 49% of Republicans, 45% of independents and 44% of Democrats sympathized more with Israel than the Palestinians.

The survey finds that 21% of Americans say that Obama favors the Palestinians too much while 9% say he favors Israel too much; 41% say he is striking the right balance in the situation in the Middle East. The percentage saying Obama favors the Palestinians too much has changed little over the past four years.

About four-in-ten Republicans (39%) say Obama favors the Palestinians too much. That compares with 22% of independents and just 7% of Democrats.

Public Willing to Consider Force to Thwart Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

Opinions about the use of military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons also have not changed much in recent years. Currently, 64% say it is more important to

prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action; 25% say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons.

Majorities across nearly all demographic groups say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action. Still, Republicans (80%) are more likely to express this view than either Democrats (62%) or independents (59%).

Middle East Sympathies

As in the past, there are sizable religious as well as partisan differences in Middle East sympathies. Fully 72% of white evangelical Protestants sympathize more with Israel, while just 8% say either that they sympathize more with the Palestinians (4%) or say they sympathize with neither Israel nor the Palestinians (4%). Most white Catholics (59%) also sympathize more with Israel. But just 37% of white mainline Protestants and 35% of the religiously unaffiliated sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians.

Two-thirds of Republicans (66%) sympathize more with Israel, compared with 49% of independents and 39% of Democrats.

Age also is a factor in Middle East sympathies: Just 36% of those younger than 30 sympathize more with Israel, while 19% sympathize more with the Palestinians. A relatively large share of young people (37%) either offer no opinion (34%) or say they sympathize with both sides (3%). Among older age groups, there is more support for Israel: 47% of those 30 to 49 sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians, as do majorities of those 50 to 64 (59%) and 65 and older (54%).

The public supports tough measures – including the possible use of military force – to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action. Just 30% say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means that country develops nuclear weapons. These opinions are little changed from October 2009.

There have been reports in recent weeks that Israel may soon attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. About half of Americans (51%) say the United States should remain neutral if Israel takes action to stop Iran’s nuclear program, but far more say the U.S. should support (39%) than oppose (5%) an Israeli attack.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press conducted Feb. 8-12, 2012, among 1,501 adults, finds substantial partisan differences over how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program.

Republicans are far more supportive of using military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons than are either Democrats or independents. Moreover, a majority of Republicans (62%) say the U.S. should support an Israeli attack to stop Iran’s nuclear program, compared with just a third of independents and Democrats.

There also is a wide partisan gap over President Obama’s plans for withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. Overall, 53% say Barack Obama is removing troops from Afghanistan at about the right pace. Just 20% say the president is withdrawing troops too quickly and 22% say he is not removing troops quickly enough.

Last June, 44% said they thought Obama would handle the troop withdrawal about right, and 50% expressed this view in March 2o11.

A plurality of Republicans (43%) now say that Obama is removing U.S. troops from Afghanistan too quickly; 30% say Obama is handling this about right while 21% say he is not removing the troops quickly enough. In June 2011, just 28% of Republicans thought Obama would remove the troops too quickly.

An overwhelming majority of Democrats (77%) continue to say Obama is handling the troop withdrawal about right, an increase of 11 points from June 2011.

Similarly, about half of independents (51%) think the president is handling the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan about right, up from 40% in June. About a quarter (28%) of independents say Obama is not removing troops quickly enough and 17% say he is removing them too quickly.

Women, Young People Want U.S. to Stay Neutral

About half of Americans (51%) say the U.S. should stay neutral if Israel attacks Iran. Nearly four-in-ten (39%) say the U.S. should support Israel’s military action while just 5% say the U.S. should oppose military’s action.

There are large demographic differences in views about what the U.S. should do if Israel attacks Iran. A majority of women (55%) say the U.S. should stay neutral. Men are more divided over whether the U.S. should stay neutral (47%) or support Israel (45%). Young people also are far more likely than older Americans to say the U.S. should stay neutral.

Fully 64% of white evangelical Protestants say that the U.S. should support Israel if it attacks Iran in an effort to stop their nuclear weapon program. That compares with 42% of white mainline Protestants and 41% of white Catholics.

There is a wide divide among Republicans on the issue of Iran. Fully 71% of conservative Republicans think the U.S. should support Israel’s military action if they attack Iran, compared with 43% of moderate and liberal Republicans. A majority of independents and Democrats (including both liberal and more moderate Democrats) think the U.S. should stay neutral.

Overall, there has been modest attention to the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program; 38% say they have heard a lot while 39% have heard a little and 23% have heard nothing at all. That is comparable to attention paid to Iran’s nuclear program last month and in October 2009.

Republicans (47%) are more likely than independents (38%) and Democrats (31%) to say they have heard a lot about the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. And two-thirds (67%) of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party say they have heard a lot about Iran’s nuclear program.

Most See Tougher Sanctions as Ineffective

Despite the recent push for tougher economic sanctions against Iran by the U.S. and its allies, 64% of the public thinks that tougher economic sanctions will not work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program. Just 21% think they will work. In October 2009, 56% thought tougher economic sanctions would not work in stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

There is wide consensus across party lines that tougher economic sanctions on Iran will be ineffective. Most Republicans (72%) and independents (67%), as well as 56% of Democrats, say that Iran will not give up its nuclear program even with tougher economic sanctions.

Tea Party Republicans Back Tough Approach

An overwhelming majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agree with the Tea Party (84%) say that the U.S. should prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action. That compares with a smaller majority (64%) of Republicans who disagree with or have no opinion of the Tea Party.

The gap among Republicans is even larger on what the U.S. should do if Israel attacks Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program. Fully 81% of Tea Party Republicans say the U.S. should support Israel’s military action, compared with just 43% of non-Tea Party Republicans.

There also are differences among Republicans about how Obama is handling troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. A majority of Tea Party Republicans (61%) now say that Obama is removing troops too quickly. A year ago, when asked if Obama will remove U.S. troops too quickly, just 33% of Tea Party Republicans said he would remove troops too quickly and 35% said he would handle it about right.

Far fewer non-Tea Party Republicans (27%) say Obama is removing troops too quickly. More say Obama is handling the troop withdrawal about right (38%). Views among non-Tea Party Republicans have changed little since last year.

The public approves of direct negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, although most Americans are not hopeful the talks will succeed. And a strong majority – 61% – says that it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action. Far fewer (24%) say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, if it means that the country may develop nuclear weapons.

There is broad willingness across the political spectrum to use military force to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Seven-in-ten Republicans (71%) and two-thirds of independents (66%) say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons even if it means taking military action. Fewer Democrats (51%) express this view; still, only about three-in-ten Democrats (31%) say it is more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran, if it means Tehran may develop nuclear weapons.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds substantial public support for non-military strategies aimed at persuading Iran from going ahead with its nuclear program. Yet there is considerable skepticism that these efforts – tougher international sanctions as well as direct talks with Iran – would succeed in getting Iran to drop its nuclear program.

More than six-in-ten Americans (63%) approve of the United States negotiating directly with Iran over the issue of its nuclear program while 28% oppose such talks. In September 2006, 54% said they would favor such negotiations while 32% were opposed. At the time, the Bush administration opposed direct negotiations with Iran.

Yet while the public supports nuclear talks with Iran, a clear majority (64%) says they will not work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program, compared with just 22% who say they will work.

The public also overwhelmingly approves of tougher economic sanctions against Iran; fully 78% approve while just 12% disapprove. But again, most Americans (56%) say that tougher economic sanctions would not work in getting Iran to drop its nuclear program.

The survey finds that slightly more than half of Americans (51%) say they have a great deal (17%) or a fair amount (34%) of confidence in President Obama to do the right thing in dealing with Iran; 44% say they have not too much confidence (24%) or no confidence at all (20%) in Obama on this issue.

Seven-in-ten Democrats (71%) have confidence in Obama on Iran while 19% express little or no confidence in the president. Just 30% of Republicans say they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in Obama to do the right thing in dealing with Iran while 66% are not too confident or not at all confident. Independents are evenly split, with 49% expressing at least a fair amount of confidence in Obama on Iran and 48% expressing little or no confidence.

Bipartisan Support for Direct Talks

There are no partisan differences in opinions about whether the United States should directly negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program: 64% of Democrats approve of these negotiations, as do 64% of independents and 63% of Republicans.

However, Democrats are more likely than either independents or Republicans to say that direct talks will work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program. About a third of Democrats (34%) say the talks will succeed in persuading Iran to drop its nuclear program, though nearly half (47%) say they will not. By comparison, just 19% of independents and 11% of Republicans say the talks will work, with large majorities of each group (70% of independents, 81% of Republicans) saying they will not.

Fully 84% of independents, 81% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats approve of tougher economic sanctions on Iran. Unlike opinions about direct talks with Iran, there are only modest partisan differences over the effectiveness of sanctions: 35% of Democrats, 31% of Republicans and 30% of independents say tougher international economic sanctions would work in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program.

Modest Attentiveness to Iran Dispute

Overall, 41% say they have heard a lot about the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program, while 41% have heard a little and 18% have heard nothing at all. That is comparable to interest in the Iran nuclear issue in September 2006 (41% a lot, 44% a little, 14% nothing at all).

People who have heard a lot about the issue are more supportive of direct negotiations with Iran than are those who have heard less about the issue (71% approve vs. 58%). There is a similar gap in views of tougher international sanctions; nearly nine-in-ten (89%) of those who have heard a lot about the issue approve of tougher sanctions, compared with 72% who have heard less.

There are smaller differences between the highly attentive and less attentive over whether those approaches will succeed in getting Iran to give up its nuclear program. In addition, comparable majorities of those who have heard a lot about the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program (64%), and those have heard little or nothing about this (59%), say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means using military force.

In the wake of the Iraq war, North Korea has taken center stage as a threat to peace and stability in the minds of many people around the world according to results from the Pew Global Attitudes Survey conducted in May.

More than three-in-four (77%) Americans see the current government in North Korea as a great or moderate danger to Asia. U.S. public concern has risen by 12 percentage points since November 2002. Americans are not alone in worrying about Pyongyang. Eight-in-ten (79%) Australians and 77% of Germans think North Korean actions threaten Asia. But fewer South Koreans agree – 69%.

The Bush administration’s efforts to use the current multilateral negotiations to end the North Korean nuclear program are complicated by rising antipathy toward the United States and U.S. policies in South Korea.

Half of South Koreans surveyed in May 2003 by the Pew Global Attitudes Survey held an unfavorable view of the United States, up six percentage points from July 2002. Anti-Americanism has risen particularly sharply among the young. A year ago, half (51%) of the 18-29 year olds surveyed had a somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of the United States. This year, seven-in-ten (71%) young South Koreans expressed such views.

In most nations, critics of the United States say their sentiments reflect opposition to President George W. Bush, more than a general problem with America. But in South Korea, 72% of those who hold unfavorable views of the United States express general hostility toward America that goes beyond criticisms of the president.

U.S. efforts in the six-party negotiations on North Korea may be further complicated by widespread sentiment in South Korea that Washington acts unilaterally in foreign policy. Three-in-four South Koreans (76%) believe that the United States does not take into account South Korean interests when making international policy decisions. Such criticism of U.S. unilateralism is shared by publics in Russia (71%) and Japan (59% in 2002) – two other nations that are parties to the Beijing talks.

South Korean disapproval of the conduct of U.S. foreign policy reflects public opposition to particular American international initiatives, including the war on terrorism and the Bush Administration’s policy of preemptive military strikes against U.S. foes. Seven-in-ten South Koreans (71%) oppose U.S.-led efforts to fight terrorism. More than half (55%) of South Koreans also say that it is rarely or never justified to use military force against countries that may seriously threaten South Korea, but have not attacked it.

These results are drawn from polls conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, a series of worldwide public opinion surveys conducted over the past 18 months. The project has issued two major reports, “What the World Thinks in 2002″ – based upon 38,000 interviews in 44 nations – and “Views of a Changing World, June 2003″ – based on 16,000 interviews in 20 nations and the Palestinian Authority. Sample sizes for the 2003 poll were as follows: U.S. 1,201; South Korea 525. Full details about the surveys, and the project more generally, are available at www.people-press.org.

A multinational survey conducted in association with the International Herald Tribune and Council on Foreign Relations

Europeans have a better opinion of President George W. Bush than they did before the Sept. 11 attacks, but they remain highly critical of the president, most of his policies, and what they see as his unilateral approach to international affairs. There also is a wide gap between the United States and Europe over the conflict in the Middle East, although recent U.S. efforts to forge a settlement there win broad European support.

Americans, who are generally sympathetic to the Israelis, approve of the overall U.S. approach toward the Middle East. In contrast, people in three of four major western European nations — France, Germany and Italy — have been mostly critical of U.S. policies in the region, with the British public split on this question. Many more Europeans than Americans express sympathy for the Palestinians, and this is especially the case among well-educated Europeans.

There are gaps of opinion over other U.S. policies as well. The president’s decision to impose tariffs on imports of foreign steel is condemned in Europe, but generally favored in the United States, at least by Americans who have an opinion on this issue. On the other hand, Europeans express overwhelming support for the president’s decision to increase American aid to poor countries, while a much more modest majority of Americans (52%) approve of this action. But in light of the U.S. public’s traditional opposition to foreign aid, it is noteworthy that a majority would support any aid increase.

The U.S.-led war in Afghanistan enjoys strong approval among the publics of the four countries, and most believe that the United States is not overreacting to the threat of terrorism. Even so, large majorities in each country think the U.S. is not taking allied interests into account in conducting the war, and Bush’s “axis of evil” rhetoric elicited a strongly negative reaction in France, Germany, Italy and Great Britain.

The survey of 4,042 people in the four countries (along with 1,362 Americans), conducted April 2-10 by the Pew Research Center in association with the International Herald Tribune and the Council on Foreign Relations, finds major transatlantic differences over possible military action to end Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq. In the United States, 69% favor military action, compared with 46% in Great Britain and France and even fewer (34%) in Germany and Italy. However, the survey does show European publics potentially responsive to the idea of using force against Iraq if it is established that Baghdad is developing nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. Evidence of Iraqi involvement in the Sept.11 attacks also would be very important to a majority in Great Britain, but fewer in France, Germany, or Italy.

The survey revealed considerable European support for taking a more independent course in security and diplomatic affairs. Majorities in France, Germany and Italy think western Europe’s partnership with the United States should not be as close as it has been in the past. People in Great Britain are divided on the question. European support for a more independent approach is not especially linked to negative reactions to recent U.S. policies, such as the steel tariffs. Rather, it is more associated with general criticism of President Bush, the feeling that the United States has ignored allied interests in conducting the war on terrorism, and general disapproval of U.S. policies in the Middle East.

As with NAFTA, American opinion leaders and the American public have conflicting views about Asia. A plurality of opinion leaders believe Asia is now more important to the United States than Europe, a recent survey found, while the public (by a 50% to 31% margin) continues to see Europe as most important.

The choice of Asia by the Influentials was largely one of pocketbooks vs. hearts. Of those respondents selecting the Pacific Rim, more than three-fourths cited economic reasons. The public, in continuing to look to Europe, may not see the same economic opportunity as the Influentials; it believes by an overwhelming five to one margin (72% to 14%) that Japan has an unfair trade policy toward the United States.

The survey by the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press also found that the Influentials view the Asian region with most concern. No nation has replaced the former Soviet Union as the greatest danger to the United States, but the aggregated concern about the traditional nations of Asia was high. Those Influentials who specialize in security and defense issues considered it most dangerous to the United States, far more than the former Soviet Union or the Mideast.

Strong majorities or pluralities of almost all Influential groups would use U.S. troops to stop a North Korean invasion of South Korea, while most of the public would oppose it. Strong majorities in every Influential group would keep U.S. force levels in South Korea at current levels. Stronger sentiment was found for deep cuts in U.S. forces in Europe than in South Korea.

The survey of 649 opinion leaders in the nine groups — foreign affairs, security-defense, business, media, religion, science, state and local government, academia, and culture — was conducted in July and August, with two parallel public surveys in September and October. The results were released earlier this month in a report titled as America’s Place in the World.