2026-06-15T20:32:23.926Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/15/politics/trump-republicans-iran
- 共和党知名鹰派担忧唐纳德·特朗普总统在寻求与伊朗达成协议的过程中让步过多。
- 从林赛·格雷厄姆到马克·莱文的保守派声音都在质疑政府公布的框架，包括为何不公布协议文本。
- 批评者担忧特朗普可能实质上会重新组建他曾撕毁并嘲笑为过于软弱的奥巴马时期核协议。
AI生成摘要经CNN编辑审核。
当唐纳德·特朗普总统于2月发动对伊朗战争时，他冒着疏远自己花了十年时间培育的非干预主义选民基础的风险。
如今，当他试图从这场极不受欢迎的战争中脱身时，他似乎越来越可能激怒自己选民基础的另一面——那些他突然与之结盟的外交政策鹰派。
尽管关于与伊朗的谅解备忘录（MOU）实际内容的具体细节少之又少，但这些鹰派公开担忧特朗普以结束战争为名让步过多。他们毫不掩饰自己的恐惧：特朗普可能会签署一份类似2015年奥巴马政府达成的核协议，而十多年来他们（以及特朗普本人）一直嘲笑该协议过于软弱。
特朗普在4月初宣布仓促达成停火协议后，以及5月底潜在协议的轮廓开始成形后，都引发了类似的反应。
但随着初步协议似乎正在敲定，批评之声也在升级。
南卡罗来纳州参议员林赛·格雷厄姆于周日率先发难，他在X平台上的帖子看起来颇具被动攻击性。
他在赞扬达成初步协议的努力的同时，表示自己“有些担忧”伊朗方面公布的细节与特朗普政府的说法不符。
他还强调，国会必须对这类协议进行投票。最引人注目的是，他称“让协议的设计者、副总统万斯及其谈判伙伴参与向国会提交最终协议的进程，这是必要之举”。
值得注意的是，万斯的外交政策比格雷厄姆要温和得多。不赞成特朗普当前做法的特朗普盟友往往会将矛头指向特朗普身边的人，而非总统本人。
福克斯新闻主持人马克·莱文也曾是这场战争的有影响力的支持者。
周日，在特朗普谴责以色列在和平谈判期间袭击黎巴嫩真主党后，他似乎对此表示反对。此后，他多次公开质疑特朗普政府为何不公布协议文本。
“我已经问了好几天了，我们民众为什么不能看看这份该死的谅解备忘录？”他周日说道，并补充道：“说实话，我从未见过这样的情况。如果这对和平来说是个好结果，那就把它公布出来。”
（白宫周一在此问题上发出了相互矛盾的信号。政府官员表示，协议文本将在24至48小时内公布，而特朗普则表示将在周五签署后再公布。）
莱文周一重申了同样的观点，此前他与一名特朗普政治顾问发生争执，该顾问指责他破坏总统形象。
保守派刊物《国家评论》的编辑们也对为何迟迟不公布细节感到好奇。
他们称特朗普表示伊朗仍可被允许为非军事目的浓缩铀是“令人沮丧的”，并批评早期迹象显示该协议不会限制伊朗的弹道导弹计划。
“总而言之，特朗普有可能让美国回到奥巴马时期那项失败的伊朗协议，而特朗普在第一任期内就已明智地将其撕毁，”编辑们写道，“在总统发表了所有强硬言论之后，这将无异于一场羞辱。”
另一位近期批评和谈的人士、特朗普前国务卿迈克·蓬佩奥态度更为温和，但周一显然持谨慎态度。
“我祈祷任何解决方案都能保留那些牺牲，并保障美国人民的利益，”他在X平台上说道。
与此同时，其他人似乎对曝光的一些新细节深感担忧。
在万斯表示伊朗领导人对47年来敌视美国的行为表示歉意后，保守派评论员埃里克·埃里克森回应道：“FFS”——这是“for f*ck’s sake”（见鬼去吧）的缩写。
（一些知名特朗普盟友曾警告政府，不要轻信伊朗的言论，也不要相信伊朗会遵守任何书面协议的条款。）
“特朗普已向伊朗投降，”埃里克森在另一条帖子中补充道，“那些杀害美国人的人喜欢这份协议。”
同样，据Semafor报道曾为特朗普提供咨询的前乔治·W·布什助手马克·蒂森周一在福克斯新闻上警告称，特朗普正在成型的框架与奥巴马时期的协议非常相似。
“我迫切想看看协议的细节以及谈判达成的内容，但我感到担忧，”蒂森说道。
在万斯周一上午证实伊朗可获得3000亿美元重建基金（尽管并非美国出资）后，蒂森称这笔款项是一场“灾难”。
他将其比作“在纳粹仍掌权之际，推出马歇尔计划重建德国”。
而这一切甚至发生在谈判人员敲定谅解备忘录中那些惹人争议的具体细节之前。魔鬼永远藏在细节里，总有可被挑错的地方。
但一段时间以来，这些鹰派一直担忧特朗普的走向已是显而易见的事。显然特朗普并不想再次开战，真心希望能彻底结束这场战争。因此这让伊朗有了更强的谈判底气，以争取更有利的协议条款。
在官方公布协议文本之前，很难确切知晓协议内容。但就目前而言，特朗普正面临一项极其艰难的推销任务，几乎无人满意。
如果右翼的最终论调是他重新组建了近十年前被他撕毁的奥巴马时期核协议，那么这场战争对他而言将成为比现在更严重的政治灾难。
‘Trump has surrendered to Iran’: Some prominent GOP hawks fear Trump just caved
2026-06-15T20:32:23.926Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/15/politics/trump-republicans-iran
- Prominent Republican hawks fear President Donald Trump gave away too much as he sought an agreement with Iran.
- Conservative voices from Lindsey Graham to Mark Levin are questioning the administration’s announced framework, including why it won’t release the text.
- Critics worry Trump might essentially be reassembling the Obama nuclear agreement he once tore up and derided as too weak.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
When President Donald Trump launched the Iran war in February, he risked alienating the non-interventionist base he had spent a decade cultivating.
As he now tries to extract himself from the highly unpopular war, it looks increasingly like he might inflame the other side of his base — the foreign policy hawks with whom he suddenly found himself in-league.
While there are few hard details of what’s actually in the memorandum of understanding, or MOU, with Iran, those hawks are openly worrying that Trump gave away too much in the name of trying to end the war. They’ve made no secret that they fear Trump signing on to a nuclear agreement like the one struck by the Obama administration in 2015, which they (and Trump himself) derided as too weak for more than a decade.
There were similar reactions after Trump announced a hastily assembled ceasefire in early April, and then when the contours of a potential agreement began to take shape in late May.
But criticisms are ramping up now that an initial agreement appears to be solidifying.
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina got the ball rolling on Sunday, in what seemed a rather passive-aggressive post on X.
While praising the effort to reach an initial deal, he said he was “somewhat concerned” that Iran’s version of the details didn’t match the Trump administration’s.
He also emphasized that Congress must vote on such an agreement. And perhaps most strikingly, he called it “imperative that the architect of the deal, Vice President Vance and his negotiating partners, be part of the process in presenting the final deal to Congress.”
Vance, notably, has a much more dovish foreign policy than Graham. And Trump allies who don’t like what he is doing will often blame those around Trump rather than the president personally.
Fox News host Mark Levin has also been an influential backer of the war.
On Sunday, he seemed to take exception after Trump decried Israel for targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon amid peace negotiations. Since then, he’s repeatedly wondered aloud why the Trump administration won’t release the text.
“I have asked for days, why can’t we, the people, see the damn MOU?” he said Sunday, adding: “Honestly, I’ve never seen anything like this. If it is a great outcome for peace, then release it.”
(The White House gave conflicting signals on this Monday. Administration officials said the text would be released within 24-48 hours, while Trump said it would be after it’s signed on Friday.)
Levin echoed the same point on Monday, before tangling with a Trump political adviser who accused him of undermining the president.
The editors of the conservative National Review were also curious why the details hadn’t been forthcoming.
They called it “discouraging” that Trump had indicated Iran would still be allowed to enrich uranium for non-military uses. And they criticized early indicators that the agreement would not rein in Iran’s ballistic missile program.
“All told, there is the possibility that Trump would return the U.S. to Obama’s failed Iran deal that Trump rightfully tore up in his first term,” the editors wrote, “which would have all the makings of a humiliation after all of the president’s tough talk.”
Another recent critic of the peace talks, former Trump Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, was more muted but clearly cautious on Monday.
“I pray that any settlement preserves those sacrifices and secures the interests of the American people,” he said on X.
Others, meanwhile, appeared quite concerned about some new details that are emerging.
After Vance suggested that Iranian leaders had expressed regret about their 47 years of hostility towards the United States, conservative commentator Erick Erickson responded, “FFS” — an acronym that means “for f*ck’s sake.”
(Some prominent Trump allies have cautioned the administration against taking the things Iran says at face value or believing it would abide by the terms of any written agreements.)
“Trump has surrendered to Iran,” Erickson added at another point. “Those who kill Americans love this deal.”
Similarly, Marc Thiessen, the former George W. Bush aide whom Semafor reported Trump has leaned on for advice, warned Monday on Fox News that Trump’s emerging framework looks a lot like Obama’s.
“I’m anxious to see what the details of the deal are and what gets negotiated, but I’m concerned,” Thiessen said.
And after Vance appeared to confirm Monday morning that Iran could have access to a $300 billion reconstruction fund, albeit one not funded with US money, Thiessen called such a sum a “disaster.”
He compared it to offering “the Marshall Plan to rebuild Germany while the Nazis were still in power.”
And all of this is coming even before negotiators even get the meddlesome particulars of what’s actually in the MOU. The devil is always in the details, and there is always something to pick apart.
But it’s been clear for a while that these hawks worried about the direction in which Trump was headed. It was clear that Trump didn’t have the desire to go back to war and really wanted to get the whole thing over with. So that empowered Iran to hold out for a better deal.
It’s hard to be too definitive about what’s in the agreement until officials release text. But right now, Trump is facing an extremely difficult sales job which leaves very few people happy.
And if the narrative on the right winds up being that he just reassembled the Obama nuclear deal that he tore up nearly a decade ago, the war could be an even bigger political disaster for him than it already was.
发表回复