A new survey from the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) reveals that Norwegian citizens believe four countries are most likely to pull the world into another major conflict. The findings point to Israel, Russia, the United States, and Iran as the primary risk factors in the eyes of the Nordic public. This perception arrives amid shifting global alliances and ongoing regional tensions, making the poll a striking barometer of European anxiety.

What the PRIO Survey Found

According to the research released by PRIO on August 9, 2026, Norwegian respondents ranked these four nations as the most probable instigators of a large-scale war. The study does not specify exact percentages or sample sizes, but the clarity of the ranking signals a strong consensus. Russia’s inclusion is hardly surprising given its ongoing military posture, while Israel and Iran’s presence reflects the volatile Middle East dynamic.

The United States appearing on the list is notable, as it suggests that even a traditional ally is viewed with suspicion when it comes to global conflict triggers. This may stem from Washington’s active role in multiple regional flashpoints, from arms supplies to naval deployments. For Norwegians, who share a border with Russia, the threat perception is both geopolitical and practical.

Why These Four Nations?

  • Israel — Ongoing operations in Gaza and strikes on Iranian proxies keep the region on edge.
  • Russia — Proximity to Norway and the war in Ukraine make Moscow a constant concern.
  • United States — Superpower rivalry and military presence in Europe and Asia raise the stakes.
  • Iran — Nuclear ambitions and direct clashes with Israel could spiral beyond the Middle East.

Public Perception vs. Official Policy

PRIO’s survey does not necessarily reflect official Norwegian defense doctrine, but it does highlight a public mood that is more cautious than many politicians might expect. Norway is a NATO member, yet its citizens clearly see risks emanating from both sides of the current geopolitical divide. This duality suggests a population that values deterrence but fears escalation.

The inclusion of the US is particularly telling. While Norway relies on NATO’s collective security guarantee, the public seems to recognize that American foreign policy decisions can have unintended consequences. This is not an anti-American sentiment per se, but rather a realistic assessment of how great power competition can spiral.

Iran and Israel being grouped together is also logical. Their shadow war has already involved cyberattacks, naval incidents, and direct missile exchanges. A full-scale confrontation there could easily draw in the US, Russia, or both, turning a regional crisis into a global one.

Implications for Global Stability

The Norwegian perspective matters because it comes from a nation that sits at the strategic crossroads of NATO’s northern flank. The country’s intelligence assessments are often shared with allies, and its public opinion can influence alliance decisions. If Norwegians are worried, other European nations may soon follow.

Analysts note that the combination of these four countries creates a perfect storm scenario. Russia’s revisionist ambitions, the US’s commitment to global order, Israel’s security dilemmas, and Iran’s revolutionary ideology all pull in different directions. Any miscalculation — a drone strike, a naval incident, or a cyber hack — could be the spark.

The survey also serves as a reminder that ordinary citizens are often more attuned to risks than political elites. While diplomats engage in back-channel talks, the public prepares for the worst. This gap between elite optimism and public pessimism is a recurring theme in conflict studies.

Key Takeaways

The PRIO survey is a snapshot of Norwegian anxiety in 2026, but its implications are broader. It shows that the threat of a major war is not abstract but tied to specific state actors. It also underscores that alliances do not guarantee safety — even friends can be seen as potential triggers.

For policymakers, the message is clear: de-escalation requires addressing the fears of ordinary people, not just the calculations of strategists. For readers, the takeaway is that the next world war, if it comes, will likely start not in a bunker, but in a crisis involving one of these four nations.