在一年多一点的时间里，美国在加勒比海对与所谓贩毒网络有关的船只发动了数十次空袭，在红海对胡塞武装发动持续行动，抓捕了委内瑞拉总统尼古拉斯·马杜罗，打击了伊朗核设施，现在又开始了一场旨在削弱德黑兰导弹、无人机和指挥基础设施的长期军事行动。
这一行动节奏标志着近年来美国力量投送最积极的时期之一，行动范围涵盖拉丁美洲、中东和关键海上走廊。
对战争部长彼得·赫格斯泰斯（Pete Hegseth）而言，这也代表了一个惊人的转变。
在2024年总统大选前，他称自己是一名”正在恢复的新保守主义者”，对自己支持伊拉克战争时期的干预主义表示遗憾，并警告不要进行无休无止的战争。
几位分析人士表示，该政府施政方针的显著特点可能较少关乎意识形态演变，而更多关乎协调与执行。
“与特朗普第一任期不同，特朗普现在的内阁成员——赫格斯泰斯、卢比奥等——都明白总统才是老板，”大西洋理事会国防战略家马修·克罗尼格（Matthew Kroenig）表示。”在特朗普第一任期，一些内阁官员认为他们的工作是把美国从特朗普手中拯救出来，也就是所谓的’房间里的成年人’。我认为很明显，总统希望朝这个方向前进，我认为赫格斯泰斯认为自己是在支持总统的愿景。”
‘……领导力的验证’
这种凝聚力与一种冒险的模式相吻合。
该政府的几项最重要军事行动——从委内瑞拉到胡塞武装，再到当前的伊朗行动——都有升级的潜在风险。
一些战略家表示，这些干预行动初期相对缺乏反击，可能强化了该政府升级伊朗战场的意愿。
“我不确定我会建议这样做，”克罗尼格谈到伊朗行动时说。”这相当冒险，但到目前为止进展顺利。”
伊朗的导弹发射量有所下降。地区盟友也没有倒戈。
然而，这是否构成战略成功取决于衡量标准。
赫格斯泰斯的前五角大楼顾问贾斯汀·富尔彻（Justin Fulcher）认为，行动的初期阶段反映了他所说的”战略清晰度的回归”。
“威慑力只有在我们的盟友真正相信，如果特朗普总统说了什么，我们就会支持他，才具有可信度，”富尔彻表示。”这是对赫格斯泰斯部长和特朗普总统领导能力的验证。”
赫格斯泰斯是一名曾在伊拉克和阿富汗服役的前陆军军官，他认为当前的行动与那些冲突几乎没有相似之处。
“这不是伊拉克，这不是没完没了的战争。我两者都经历过，”赫格斯泰斯在3月初的新闻发布会上表示。”我们这一代人更清楚，现任总统也一样。”
在另一次采访中，他补充道：”这不是从美国角度重塑伊朗社会。我们试过了，美国人民已经拒绝了这种做法。”
美国企业研究所（American Enterprise Institute）这一倾向保守的智库高级研究员丹妮尔·普莱卡（Danielle Pletka）表示，这场行动大体上按预期展开。
“我认为事情进展得相当顺利，”普莱卡指出防空系统被削弱，并描述伊朗多次误判。”他们真正做的只是让所有人都很愤怒，这是他们的一个非常糟糕的计算。”
同时，她警告不要将该政府的行动解读为固定教义的一部分。
“我不认为这是教义性的，”普莱卡说。”我认为这是临时决定的。”
一些长期支持特朗普的人表示，当前冲突并非他们对特朗普的预期——特朗普曾以结束战争和”美国优先”为竞选纲领。
“这次感觉是最严重的背叛，因为这来自我们都认为不同且说过不再（介入）的那个人和政府，”佐治亚州共和党众议员玛乔丽·泰勒·格林（Marjorie Taylor Greene）在X平台（原推特）上写道。”相反，我们却在为以色列对伊朗发动战争，这将成功颠覆伊朗政权。又一场为他国政权更迭的对外战争，为了什么？”
在普莱卡看来，总统展示了先尝试外交、只有在认定谈判无诚意时才转向武力的模式。她认为这种姿态将当前局势与过去的干预区分开来。
她还强调，大部分行动功劳应归于职业军人领导。
“这次行动的计划归功于美国军方、中央司令部指挥官和参谋长联席会议主席，”她说。
‘成功与精准’
这种区分使得将当前态势单纯归因于赫格斯泰斯个人世界观变得复杂。尽管国防部长已成为该政府威慑政策的公开代言人，但高强度军事行动的执行很大程度上依赖职业军事领导。
一些批评者认为，该政府尚未明确说明伊朗行动的最终目标。
“彼得·赫格斯泰斯需要向他的老板确认目标是什么，”前国家安全顾问约翰·博尔顿（John Bolton）最近在CNN上说。”赫格斯泰斯如何解释我们已经改变了政权，但这并非我们的目标？我认为五角大楼的高层文职领导需要调整态度。我认为军方做得很好，但我对文职领导表示怀疑。”
白宫对该行动的批评进行了有力反驳。
白宫发言人安娜·凯利（Anna Kelly）周一表示，赫格斯泰斯”领导国防部的工作做得不可思议”，并指出”史诗级愤怒行动”及其他任务”持续取得成功”。
凯利称，伊朗报复性袭击”下降了90%，因为国防部正在摧毁伊朗的弹道导弹能力”，并补充说赫格斯泰斯”每天都与特朗普总统密切合作”，确保美国军方”继续成为世界上最强大的战斗力量”。
五角大楼也认同这一评估。
“史诗级愤怒行动继续以压倒性的成功和精准推进，”五角大楼首席发言人肖恩·帕内尔（Sean Parnell）表示，称这是一场”坚决的全频谱行动”，旨在”彻底摧毁伊朗的恐怖网络或使其无条件投降”。
另一些人则从更广泛的历史角度看待这一时刻。
外交政策分析师彼得·多兰（Peter Doran）将此次行动描述为试图”以华盛顿的条件结束伊朗伊斯兰共和国对美国发动的47年战争”。
“这是结束伊朗对美国发动的47年战争的明确努力，”多兰说。
他认为，美国军队的出色表现可能会在中东之外产生影响，特别是对北京。
“他们看起来不错，”多兰评价美军。”我希望这能对冒险主义起到抑制作用。”
如果此次行动最终成功显著削弱伊朗军事基础设施，多兰认为这可能重塑中东格局，并扩大诸如更广泛的阿拉伯-以色列关系正常化等外交机会。
“这将改变中东的一切，”他说。
然而，即使支持者也承认长期影响仍不确定。在委内瑞拉，马杜罗的倒台标志着美国政策的重大转变，但他建立的统治机构大体上仍完好无损。
削弱伊朗的导弹库存和无人机基础设施可能会争取时间，但这是否能产生持久威慑力，还是仅仅推迟重建，还有待观察。
目前，该政府愿意承担有计算的风险并避免立即升级，强化了美国恢复自信的印象。这种自信是否转化为持久的战略收益，可能比之前的言论更能定义赫格斯泰斯的任期。
赫格斯泰斯和五角大楼未回应置评请求。
In a little over a year, the United States has carried out dozens of airstrikes on vessels in the Caribbean tied to alleged narco-trafficking networks, launched sustained operations against Houthi forces in the Red Sea, captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, struck Iranian nuclear facilities and now embarked on an extended military campaign aimed at degrading Tehran’s missile, drone and command infrastructure.
The tempo marks one of the most assertive stretches of American force projection in recent years, spanning Latin America, the Middle East and critical maritime corridors.
For War Secretary Pete Hegseth, it also represents a striking turn.
Just before the 2024 presidential election, he described himself as a “recovering neocon,” expressing regret over his support for Iraq-era interventionism and warning against open-ended wars.
Several analysts say the defining feature of the administration’s approach may be less about ideological evolution and more about alignment and execution.
“Unlike in Trump one, everyone in Trump’s cabinet now — Hegseth, Rubio, etc. — understands that the president is the boss,” said Matthew Kroenig, a defense strategist at the Atlantic Council. “In Trump 1.0 you had some Cabinet officials who thought their job was to save the Republic from Trump, the so-called adults in the room. And so I think it’s pretty clear the president wanted to go in this direction, and I think Hegseth sees himself as supporting the president’s vision.”
‘Validation of … leadership’
That cohesion has coincided with a pattern of risk-taking.
Several of the administration’s most consequential military moves, from Venezuela to the Houthis to the current Iran campaign, carried the potential for escalation.
Some strategists say the relative absence of early blowback from those interventions may have reinforced the administration’s willingness to escalate into the Iranian theater.
“I’m not sure I would have advised this,” Kroenig said of the Iran operation. “It is pretty risky, but it’s going well so far.”
Iranian missile launches have declined in volume. Regional allies have not broken ranks.
Whether that constitutes strategic success, however, depends on the metric.
Justin Fulcher, a former Pentagon adviser to Hegseth, argued the early phases of the campaign reflect what he described as a “return to strategic clarity.”
“Deterrence is only credible when our allies actually believe that if President Trump says something, we will back it up,” Fulcher said. “This is a validation of Secretary Hegseth and President Trump’s leadership.”
Hegseth, a former Army officer who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, has argued that the current campaign bears little resemblance to those conflicts.
“This is not Iraq. This is not endless. I was there for both,” Hegseth said at a press conference in early March. “Our generation knows better and so does this president.”
In a separate interview, he added, “This is not a remaking of Iranian society from an American perspective. We tried that. The American people have rejected that.”
Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute think tank, said the campaign has unfolded largely as expected.
“I think things have gone reasonably well,” Pletka said, pointing to degraded air defenses and what she described as repeated miscalculations by Iran. “All they’ve really done is made everybody quite mad, and that was a really bad calculation on their part.”
At the same time, she cautioned against interpreting the administration’s actions as part of a fixed doctrine.
“I don’t think that it is doctrinal,” Pletka said. “I think this is ad hoc.”
Some longtime Trump supporters have said the current conflict is not what they expected from Trump, who campaigned on ending wars and “America First.”
“It feels like the worst betrayal this time because it comes from the very man and the admin who we all believed was different and said no more,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., wrote on X. “Instead, we get a war with Iran on behalf of Israel that will succeed in regime in Iran. Another foreign war for foreign people for foreign regime change. For what?”
In Pletka’s view, the president has shown a pattern of attempting diplomacy first and shifting to force only when he concludes negotiations are unserious. She argues that posture distinguishes the current moment from past interventions.
She also emphasized that much of the operational credit belongs to the professional military.
“The planning behind this is credit to the U.S. military and to the CENTCOM commander and to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,” she said.
‘Success and precision’
That distinction complicates efforts to attribute the current posture solely to Hegseth’s personal worldview. While the defense secretary has become a public face of the administration’s deterrence messaging, the execution of high-tempo campaigns rests heavily with career military leadership.
Some critics argue the administration has yet to clearly articulate an end state for the Iran campaign.
“Pete Hegseth needs to check with his boss on what the objective is,” former national security advisor John Bolton recently said on CNN. “How does Hegseth explain that we’ve already changed the regime, which wasn’t our objective? I think the Pentagon top leadership, civilian top leadership, needs some attitude adjustment. I think the military’s doing fine, but I wonder about the civilian leadership.”
The White House pushed back forcefully on criticism of the campaign.
Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said Monday that Hegseth “is doing an incredible job leading the Department of War,” pointing to what she described as the “ongoing success of Operation Epic Fury” and other missions.
Kelly said Iranian retaliatory attacks “have declined by 90 percent because the Department of War is destroying Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities,” and added that Hegseth works “in lockstep with President Trump every day” to ensure the U.S. military “continues to be the greatest, most powerful fighting force in the world.”
The Pentagon echoed that assessment.
“Operation Epic Fury continues to advance with overwhelming success and precision,” Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said, describing a “resolute, full-spectrum campaign” aimed at the “total dismantlement of Iran’s terrorist network or its unconditional surrender.”
Others see the moment in broader historical terms.
Peter Doran, a foreign policy analyst, described the campaign as a potential attempt to “end a 47-year war” waged by the Islamic Republic against the United States, but on Washington’s terms.
“This is a clear effort to end a 47-year war that Iran has been waging against the United States,” Doran said.
He argued that visible American military performance could reverberate beyond the Middle East, particularly in Beijing.
“They look good,” Doran said of U.S. forces. “That will serve, I hope, as a disincentive for adventurism.”
If the operation ultimately succeeds in significantly degrading Iran’s military infrastructure, Doran argued, it could reshape the Middle East and expand diplomatic opportunities such as broader Arab-Israeli normalization.
“It changes everything in the Middle East,” he said.
Yet even supporters acknowledge that long-term effects remain uncertain. In Venezuela, Maduro’s removal marked a dramatic shift in U.S. policy, but the governing apparatus he built remains largely intact.
Degrading missile stockpiles and drone infrastructure in Iran may buy time, but whether it produces durable deterrence or simply postpones reconstitution remains to be seen.
For now, the administration’s willingness to take calculated risks and its ability to avoid immediate escalation have reinforced the perception of restored American assertiveness. Whether that assertiveness translates into lasting strategic gains will likely define Hegseth’s tenure far more than the rhetoric that preceded it.
Hegseth and the Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment.
发表回复