Apologies in international relations offer a low-cost and normatively appealing tool for mitigating conflict, yet their use following incidents with high escalation risk - such as military accidents and border skirmishes - remains underexplored. This paper examines public reactions to such apologies across domestic, recipient, and third-party audiences through an original U.S.-based survey experiment. Our findings challenge the prevalent perception that state apologies inherently involve trade-offs between international and domestic approval. Instead, we demonstrate that apologies for minor use-of-force incidents can simultaneously enhance domestic support for restraint and international approval, presenting a potential win-win scenario for leaders. At the same time, apologies present a distinct trade-off: while they enhance the origin country's international reputation, they also signal reduced resolve and capability. We show that this trade-off is interpreted consistently across all audiences, including ally and adversarial third parties, challenging earlier claims about audience divergence in international signaling. By analyzing how apologies function as signals across diverse audiences, this study advances our understanding of the strategic role of apologies in shaping perceptions and managing crises in international politics.