2026年3月8日 上午11:04 UTC / 路透社
3月8日（路透社）- 美国与伊朗爆发战争已一周，这场战争已在很大程度上不受美国公众欢迎。总统唐纳德·特朗普为这场轰炸行动提供了多种解释，估计打击可能持续数周，警告美国可能会有更多伤亡，并驳斥了对石油和天然气价格飙升的担忧。
尽管这让许多美国人感到不安，但最近对几位特朗普选民的采访显示，他们在很大程度上仍然支持总统及其战争行动——至少目前是这样。然而，即便是他最狂热的支持者也警告称，美国在伊朗大规模部署地面部队会让他们感到担忧。
路透社伊朗简报通讯将为您提供伊朗战争最新动态和分析。[点击此处订阅]
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
[图片1]
自美国和以色列袭击伊朗以来的几天里，路透社采访了8名2024年投票支持特朗普的美国人（路透社自2月起每月采访20人），以了解他们对迅速升级的冲突的看法。
这8人中，所有人都反对特朗普政府向伊朗派遣大量地面部队或卷入长期扶持新领导层的行动。但5人表示，他们完全支持空中和海上袭击，认为这是防止伊朗囤积远程和核导弹的唯一途径。3人对政府发动冲突的原因不太清楚，称他们担心这会过度损害美国经济并危及美国公民。
这8名选民对战争的反应大致反映了路透社上周进行的一项民调结果：该民调调查了1,282名美国成年人。近三分之二的2024年特朗普选民表示支持打击，9%表示反对，27%不确定。总体而言，只有四分之一的受访者支持美国对伊朗发动攻击。
如果能源价格持续飙升，且特朗普对伊朗的策略开始疏远其支持者，美国将在11月迎来至关重要的中期选举（这将决定国会是否仍由共和党控制），届时对共和党支持率的侵蚀可能会加剧。
尽管这8名被采访的选民中大多数人报告说，他们所在地区的汽油价格每加仑上涨了20至50美分，但支持打击的人预计价格上涨只是暂时的。
45岁的乔恩·韦伯（Jon Webber）是印第安纳州沃尔玛的零售员工，他提到父母在1979年伊朗革命后曾受油价波动之苦。“是的，这会有点糟糕，但很快就会过去，”他说。
韦伯说，在他一生大部分时间里，都看到美国总统援引伊朗构成的威胁，现在看到特朗普削弱政权的行动让他感到欣慰：“早就该这么做了，我们本不必为此困扰这么久。”
得克萨斯州休斯顿附近的38岁的洛雷塔·托雷斯（Loretta Torres）表示，她相信总统行事谨慎。“特朗普试图抢占先机，主动应对威胁，”她说。
但作为三个孩子的母亲，托雷斯也表示担心战争可能“失控”或引发针对其所在地区等主要都会区的恐怖袭击。和所有接受路透社采访的选民一样，她害怕如果特朗普派遣地面部队，美国将在该地区陷入多年纠缠。
由来已久
支持打击的选民相信特朗普下令打击是必要的，以挫败对美国即将发动的袭击。民主党人甚至一些保守派评论家对此表示怀疑，指出政府对战争的解释各不相同。
50岁的查德·希尔（Chad Hill）是俄亥俄州西北部家中附近一家核电站的主管，他说尽管在袭击前几天美伊就核项目进行了谈判，但他一直预计美国会采取某种军事行动：“不幸的是，这似乎可能是唯一的办法，因为最终他们不信任我们，我们也不信任他们。”
希尔说，特朗普可能需要派遣一支有限的军事特遣队进入该国以彻底摧毁伊朗的导弹能力，但任何大规模地面部署都会让他感到担忧。“不要搞国家建设，那行不通，”他说。
67岁的杰拉尔德·邓恩（Gerald Dunn）是纽约哈德逊谷的武术教练，他对美国在伊朗部署地面部队的想法也感到不安。“只有在新伊朗政府邀请的情况下，特朗普才应部署地面部队，”他说，“即便如此，规模也应有限。”
和希尔一样，邓恩称赞特朗普采取行动，而前任政府只是“拖延解决”问题。
佐治亚州萨凡纳附近的保险公司员工阿曼达·泰勒（Amanda Taylor），52岁，说虽然“我们对很多事情并不真正了解”，但她会支持任何让美国更安全的军事行动。
“我们的情报在这类事情上通常是准确的，所以我希望并相信[特朗普]是基于情报采取行动，而不仅仅是凭他自己的直觉，”她说。同时，泰勒补充道，“没有人希望一场漫长而真实的战争——我不希望看到这种情况发生。”
对理由的困惑
特朗普政府官员对打击行动给出的理由不断变化，让一些选民感到困惑。
周一，赫尔曼·西姆斯（Herman Sims）听到国务卿马尔科·卢比奥称，美国得知以色列计划袭击伊朗，于是先发制人以防止报复——但周二，他又听到特朗普声称，基于他认为如果美国不行动伊朗就会发动攻击的直觉，领导了这场行动。
66岁的西姆斯是德克萨斯州达拉斯一家卡车运输公司的夜间运营经理，他说这些相互矛盾的报告“毫无意义”，但补充道，如果打击确实是为保护美国民众的生命所必需，他支持这些打击。尽管如此，他对油价飙升以及一名前海军陆战队员在参议院听证会上抗议美国不应“为以色列而战”时手臂被打断的报道感到震惊。
“我100%同意。我们不应该为别人而战，”西姆斯说。
威斯康星州麦迪逊市20岁的大学生威尔·布朗（Will Brown）说，他对政府的[此处原文未完整显示]
Airstrikes, not occupation: Where Trump voters draw red lines on Iran
March 8, 2026 11:04 AM UTC / Reuters
March 8 (Reuters) – A week into a war with Iran that is already unpopular with much of the American public, President Donald Trump has offered various explanations for the bombing campaign, estimated the strikes could last weeks, cautioned there will likely be more U.S. casualties, and dismissed concerns about surging oil and gas prices.
While that has troubled many Americans, recent interviews with several who voted for Trump show they are largely standing by the president and his war – at least for now. Even his most ardent supporters, however, warned that a large deployment of U.S. ground troops in Iran would alarm them.
The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Report Ad[image_1]
In the days since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran, Reuters has spoken to eight Americans who voted for Trump in 2024, part of a group of 20 whom Reuters has interviewed monthly since February, to hear their thoughts on the rapidly escalating conflict.
All eight opposed the idea of the Trump administration sending substantial U.S. ground forces to Iran or getting involved in a protracted effort to install new leadership. But five said they fully supported the air and sea attacks as the only way to prevent Iran from stockpiling long-range and nuclear missiles. Three were less clear about why the administration started the conflict, saying they worried it was unduly damaging the U.S. economy and endangering U.S. citizens.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Their reactions to the war so far roughly reflect the results of a Reuters-Ipsos poll conducted last weekend that surveyed 1,282 U.S. adults. Nearly two-thirds of respondents who voted for Trump in 2024 said they approved of the strikes, while 9% said they disapproved and 27% said they were not sure. Overall, just one in four respondents expressed support for the U.S. attack on Iran.
If energy prices keep surging and Trump’s tactics against Iran start to alienate his own followers, the conflict could erode support for Republicans as the U.S. heads into all-important midterm elections in November that will determine whether Congress stays in the party’s control.
Although most of the eight voters Reuters interviewed reported that gasoline in their area had shot up between 20 and 50 cents per gallon, those who supported the strikes said they expected the higher prices to be short-lived.
Jon Webber, 45, a Walmart retail worker in Indiana, pointed to the struggle his parents had with volatile oil prices following the 1979 Iranian Revolution. “Yeah, it’s gonna suck for a little bit, but it’ll go back,” he said.
After watching U.S. presidents invoke the threat posed by Iran for most of his life, Webber said it felt good to see Trump cripple the regime: “It should have been done a long time ago and we wouldn’t have had to deal with it for this long.”
Near Houston, Texas, Loretta Torres, 38, said she trusted the president had acted judiciously. “Trump was trying to get ahead of the game and trying to be proactive with the threats,” she said.
But Torres, a mother of three, also said she feared the war could spin “out of control” or inspire terrorist attacks on major metropolitan areas like hers. Like all the voters Reuters interviewed, she dreaded the prospect of the U.S. becoming enmeshed in the region for years if Trump sends in ground troops.
LONG TIME COMING
The voters who supported the strikes were confident Trump had authorized them because they were necessary to thwart an imminent attack on the United States. Democrats and even prominent conservative commentators have expressed skepticism about this, citing the administration’s varying explanations for the war.
Chad Hill, 50, a supervisor at a nuclear power plant near his home in northwestern Ohio, said he had been expecting some type of U.S. military action, despite U.S.-Iran negotiations that had been underway over Iran’s nuclear program just days before the strikes: “Unfortunately, it seems like this was probably the only way because in the end they don’t trust us and we don’t trust them.”
Trump might need to send a limited military detachment into the country to fully destroy Iran’s missile capabilities, Hill said, but any larger ground deployment would raise red flags for him. “No nation-building, that doesn’t work,” he said.
Item 1 of 6 Chad Hill poses for a portrait, Port Clinton, Ohio, U.S., May 16, 2025. REUTERS/Ruddy Roye/File Photo
[1/6]Chad Hill poses for a portrait, Port Clinton, Ohio, U.S., May 16, 2025. REUTERS/Ruddy Roye/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
The idea of U.S. boots on Iranian ground also made Gerald Dunn, 67, uneasy. “Only if they’re invited” by a new Iranian government should Trump deploy ground troops, he said, and even then, “the scale should be limited.”
Like Hill, Dunn, a martial arts instructor in New York’s Hudson Valley, applauded Trump for taking action where prior administrations had simply “kicked the can down the road.”
Near Savannah, Georgia, insurance firm employee Amanda Taylor, 52, said that while “there’s so much we don’t really know,” she would back any military action that made the U.S. safer.
“Our intelligence is usually right in these things so I’m going to hope and trust that [Trump acted] because of that, and not just because of his own gut feeling,” she said. At the same time, Taylor added, “nobody wants a drawn-out, true war – I would hate to see that happen.”
CONFUSION OVER RATIONALE
The shifting reasons Trump administration officials gave for the strikes puzzled some voters.
On Monday, Herman Sims heard Secretary of State Marco Rubio say the U.S. learned Israel was planning to attack Iran and struck first to prevent retaliation – but on Tuesday, he heard Trump claim responsibility for leading the charge based on the president’s hunch that Iran would attack if the U.S. didn’t.
Sims, 66, a night operations manager for a trucking company in Dallas, Texas, said the conflicting reports “didn’t make any sense,” but added that he supported the strikes if they were indeed necessary to protect U.S. lives. Still, he was alarmed by the spiking gas prices and by a report that an ex-Marine’s arm was broken while he protested that the U.S. should not “fight for Israel” during a Senate hearing.
“I agree 100%. We should not be fighting a war for someone else,” Sims said.
In Madison, Wisconsin, college student Will Brown, 20, said he was frustrated by the administration’s
发表回复