European Poll Lists Trump, Putin, Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu as Greatest Threat to Global Peace (Read Details)

Spanish citizens overwhelmingly view US President Donald Trump as the greatest threat to world peace, according to a new poll published by El País on April 6.

In the survey, published by The Jerusalem Post, 81 % of respondents identified Trump as a danger to global stability, narrowly edging out Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom 79.3 % saw as a threat, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at 71.2 %.

Other global figures such as Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un registered lower but still substantial threat perceptions, with 62.9 % and 62 % respectively, while Chinese President Xi Jinping was viewed as a threat by just under half of those surveyed.

The findings highlight deep pessimism among Spaniards about the direction of global affairs, with nearly 70 % saying they are pessimistic about the future, and fewer than 10 % believing the world will become more stable and prosperous.

Around half of participants also expressed fears that the future will be marked by increased violence, authoritarianism and inequality, and roughly half considered both the possibility of a global war and democratic backsliding in the United States and the European Union to be real possibilities.

Political divides within Spain sharply influence how respondents assess threats. Those aligned with right‑wing and far‑right parties such as El Partido Popular and Vox were more likely to place Putin at the top of their threat list, in contrast with the public view that places Trump first.

On defence spending, the poll found Spaniards almost evenly split on increasing military expenditures, with support more concentrated among right‑leaning voters, while nearly two‑thirds backed continued membership in NATO. Despite this, there was broad support for diplomatic cooperation, including maintaining aid to Ukraine and pursuing negotiated solutions in international conflicts.

On specific geopolitical questions, a strong majority, 75 %, of those surveyed agreed that the international community should put greater pressure on the United States and other powers to end the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict, reflecting widespread concern over ongoing violence.

Conversely, only 32 % agreed with the statement that “the United States and Israel should continue attacks until the Islamic regime in Iran falls,” suggesting significant opposition to escalatory military goals.

Spain’s public opinion and political landscape have also been shaped by Madrid’s government stance on the war between the United States, Israel and Iran.

Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s firm anti‑war position has resonated with voters; recent polling indicates that his Socialist Party has gained support while the far‑right Vox, which supports the offensive, has seen its backing decline.

A CIS poll showed that 85 % of Spaniards rejected the war, and Sánchez’s decision to close Spanish airspace to US aircraft involved in attacks and to ban the use of Spanish military bases by those forces has defined the government’s foreign policy posture amid transatlantic tensions.

The poll also probed perceptions of future regional and global instability.

70 % of respondents thought it likely that a massive expulsion of Palestinians to neighbouring countries could occur within the next year, and 80 % agreed that the war with Iran could trigger a global economic crisis over the same period.

These concerns align with broader European scepticism toward US and Israeli military actions: other recent opinion surveys across the continent have shown large segments of the public opposing the strikes on Iran and urging diplomatic solutions.

Amid growing unease, analysts note that the strategic calculus in the Middle East is shifting.

Regional governments are reportedly preparing for unpredictable risks rather than large‑scale occupations, and experts emphasize that the greatest danger may come if American ground forces enter Iranian territory, a move that could fundamentally change the rules of engagement, provoke widespread retaliation, deepen energy market shocks and make the conflict far more difficult to contain.