2026-05-25T04:00:07.815Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
- 唐纳德·特朗普总统因一项可能无法实现其最初战争目标的潜在伊朗和平协议，正面临来自共和党和民主党双方日益强烈的批评。
- 批评人士称，这项拟议中的协议将重新开放霍尔木兹海峡，但在很大程度上未能解决伊朗的核计划问题。
- 随着汽油价格上涨以及特朗普在中期选举前的支持率下滑，他面临的政治挑战愈发严峻。
本文由人工智能生成的摘要经CNN编辑审核。
这场策划拙劣的战争几乎未与国会或美国民众进行磋商就贸然发动，而结束这场战争的最大希望，或许是一项不尽如人意的和平协议——它将关键问题留待日后解决，并加剧华盛顿的内部纷争。
唐纳德·特朗普总统曾多次表示，一项终止他主动发起的对伊冲突的协议即将达成，且已非常接近。但每一次，他的预测都被证明是一厢情愿，或是对伊朗真实意图的误判。
因此，他最新宣称与德黑兰已接近达成框架协议的说法遭到质疑和困惑，也就不足为奇了——保守派鹰派和民主党人似乎都认为，他即将在一项糟糕的协议上向伊朗妥协。
尽管如此，外交界的消息显示，双方可能即将达成一项和解，重新开放霍尔木兹海峡，并缓解美国对伊朗船只和港口的封锁。这一突破可能会成为谈判的起点，拜登政府将试图借此遏制伊朗剩余的核野心。
在目前脆弱的停火协议基础上达成更具体的协议，将在全球范围内受到欢迎，因为它有望最终缓解这场战争以及伊朗封锁海峡引发的能源和经济危机。
和华盛顿的其他事务一样，伊朗战争也沦为激烈党派政治、根深蒂固的意识形态以及试图提升自身知名度的政客们的人质。本届政府拒不接受对这场战争的批评，而这场战争显然严重低估了伊朗的抵抗能力，这对局势毫无帮助。
值得注意的是，特朗普在政治上无论如何都难以讨好。民调显示多数美国人反对这场战争，因此如果他下令对伊朗发动新的打击，他将面临同等甚至更强烈的反对——这一举措可能会引发暴力升级和更严重的经济痛苦。但总统们往往会忍不住发动新的军事冒险行动，以挽回颜面，或是寻找一条最终会沦为泥潭的撤军之路。当他们选择撤军时，生命可以得到挽救。
尽管如此，美伊之间潜在协议的细节显示，这项和平协议的条款可能甚至超出了特朗普将其包装为胜利的能力范围。
例如，有迹象表明，华盛顿可能会解冻部分伊朗资产，并逐步解除自身的封锁，以说服伊朗重新开放海峡。这实际上等于承认了伊朗在战争中获得的影响力，并交出了美国关键的谈判筹码。
伊朗在备忘录中承诺不会追求核武器，这一承诺在华盛顿将遭到极大保留。拟议中用至少60天时间来解决伊朗核浓缩问题（包括其铀库存）剩余分歧的期限，考虑到问题的复杂性，似乎也相当紧迫。历史表明，伊朗很乐意将美国拖入漫长且无结果的外交谈判，这种谈判可能持续数月甚至数年。
另一个值得警惕的原因是，在最高领导人在战争中被杀后，伊朗的政府体系更加不透明，目前尚不清楚伊朗是否会接受美国显然愿意提出的任何和平协议。上周末德黑兰方面传出了相互矛盾的信号。而伊朗的新领导人似乎认为他们赢得了与美国这个超级大国的对峙——尽管他们的经济陷入困境，被他们压制的民众正面临严峻的生存条件。
与此同时，拟议中的协议框架远未达到特朗普在3月份要求伊朗“无条件投降”的标准。但他面临着极大的压力，必须找到某种解决方案：汽油价格上涨、支持率暴跌，以及他在伊朗问题和其他议题上得到的国会共和党支持正在减弱。
一些共和党人担心特朗普可能即将妥协。
“听着，大约11周前，（国防部长皮特）赫格西特和国防部告诉我们，他们已经摧毁了伊朗的防御系统，我们只需等待就能拿到核材料，”北卡罗来纳州参议员汤姆·蒂利斯周日在CNN的“国情咨文”节目中告诉杰克·塔珀，“现在我们却在讨论可能接受伊朗境内留存的核材料？这完全说不通。”
美国和以色列将移除伊朗的高浓缩铀库存作为战争的关键目标。但通过武力收缴这些核材料可能造成的伤亡代价过高。而通过外交手段让伊朗交出这些材料，伊朗可能会提出极高的让步条件。
参议院军事委员会主席罗杰·威克参议员也对协议进展表示怀疑。这位密西西比州参议员周五在X平台上写道，特朗普“完成任务”的本能是正确的，但现在寻求达成协议可能会让美国“显得软弱”。
特朗普的盟友林赛·格雷厄姆参议员周六警告称，允许伊朗通过控制霍尔木兹海峡巩固优势，将改变该地区的力量平衡。
这些观点有一定道理。但目前尚不清楚，在美国和以色列对伊朗发动了数周的打击之后，继续作战是否更有可能打破德黑兰的抵抗。
CNN上周的报道援引两名熟悉美国情报评估的消息人士的话称，德黑兰已经重启了部分无人机生产，并正在重建被美以空袭削弱的部分军事能力。这意味着恢复战争将有可能引发伊朗对海湾国家、关键基础设施和美军更猛烈、破坏性更强的报复，其程度将超过第一轮冲突。试图通过武力重新开放海峡可能会极具危险性，且耗时漫长。
特朗普也面临来自民主党人的压力，他们批评特朗普发动这场战争，指责他的作战方式，如今又因可能的战争收尾方案而斥责他。他们的攻击表明，民主党认为选民中多数人反对这场战争，这可能会帮助他们在中期选举中获胜。
参议员科里·布克对有关协议顺序的报道表示担忧，即先开放海峡，再在后续阶段进行核谈判。
“我现在看到的情况让我非常愤怒，总统说他发动这场战争是为了解决伊朗的核计划，”这位新泽西州民主党人在“国情咨文”节目中表示，“而这项协议并没有解决这个问题。”
布克补充道：“唐纳德·特朗普从一开始就把我们拖入这场战争，他就是个傻瓜，现在还被人玩弄于股掌之间。”
参议员克里斯·范·霍伦警告称，拟议中的协议将“把我们带回战前现状”，甚至更糟，但他暗示美国可能别无选择。
“我认为这是一个大错。当你在挖洞时，就应该停止挖掘，而这听起来像是我们终于要这么做了，”这位马里兰州民主党人在“福克斯新闻周日”节目中表示。
国务卿马可·卢比奥在访问印度期间回击了对这项潜在协议的批评。“认为这位总统，考虑到他已经证明过他愿意做的一切，会同意一项最终让伊朗在核野心方面处于更有利地位的协议，这太荒谬了，”他说。
特朗普似乎已经听取了有关他可能签署一项失败协议的担忧。“我已经通知我的代表们不要急于达成协议，因为时间站在我们这边，”他周日在社交媒体上写道。
随着阵亡将士纪念日标志着一个可能决定中期选举结果的动荡政治夏季的开始，共和党高层强调，和平可能会为选民带来回报。
特朗普国家经济委员会主任凯文·哈塞特告诉福克斯新闻，达成协议将使海峡恢复石油“喷涌”供应。“由于能源价格下跌，你实际上可能会看到通胀率为负，”他说。而正在竞选州长的佛罗里达州众议员拜伦·唐纳兹告诉福克斯，一旦达成协议，“油价将大幅下跌，美国国内的汽油价格也会随之下降。”
然而，许多分析师警告称，海峡封锁导致数十艘油轮在海湾滞留数周，其带来的影响不会立即改善全球经济前景或美国民众的负担能力。例如，摩根大通的分析师预计，今年剩余时间的原油均价将达到每桶97美元。
随着有关拟议协议的更多细节公开，特朗普将面临几个关键问题。首先，他最终达成的协议是否会比前总统巴拉克·奥巴马2015年与伊朗及主要大国谈判达成的协议更完善？那项协议切断了德黑兰获得核武器的多条途径，并包含了严格且持续的核查机制。
其次，特朗普撕毁那份协议，以及这场已经造成13名美军士兵阵亡、封锁海湾地区、耗费数十亿美元、可能导致数百名伊朗人死亡的战争，是否让美国在伊朗问题上处于更有利的地位？
这个问题本身就凸显了特朗普的困境：重启战争可能会带来严重的政治和经济后果。而以现有最佳条件结束战争，可能同样问题重重，且不受欢迎。
Why Trump’s possible Iran deal may be almost as divisive as his decision to wage war
2026-05-25T04:00:07.815Z / CNN
- President Donald Trump faces mounting criticism from both Republicans and Democrats over a potential Iran peace deal that may fall short of his original war aims.
- The proposed agreement would reopen the Strait of Hormuz but leave Iran’s nuclear program largely unresolved, according to critics.
- Trump’s political challenges intensify as gas prices rise and his approval ratings decline ahead of midterm elections.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
The best hope for ending a poorly planned war, which started with scant consultation with Congress or the American people, may be an unsatisfactory peace that leaves critical issues to be resolved later and deepens Washington strife.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly said a deal to halt the conflict he chose against Iran is imminent and very close. Each time, his predictions turned out to be wishful thinking or a misreading of Iran’s true intentions.
So it’s no surprise his latest claims that a framework agreement with Tehran is near have been met with skepticism and confusion — nor that both conservative hawks and Democrats seem to believe he’s on the cusp of caving to a bad deal.
Still, diplomatic buzz suggests that an accommodation to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and to ease the US blockade on Iranian ships and ports could be close. Such a breakthrough could be a starting point for talks the administration will try to use to thwart any remaining Iranian nuclear ambitions.
A more concrete agreement beyond the current fragile ceasefire would be welcomed worldwide as it would come with the hope of eventually easing energy and economic crises triggered by the war and Iran’s closure of the strait.
The Iran war, like everything else in Washington, is hostage to bitter politics, entrenched ideologies and politicians seeking to boost their own profiles. The administration’s aggressive refusal to accept criticism over a conflict that seemed to vastly underestimate Iran’s capacity for resistance hasn’t helped.
It’s worth noting that Trump can’t win politically. Polls show a majority of Americans oppose the war, so he’d face an equal or greater backlash if he ordered new strikes against Iran — a step that would threaten a violent escalation and worse economic pain. But presidents are often tempted to launch new military adventures to save face, or to search for an exit ramp that frequently turns into a quagmire. When they step back, lives can be saved.
Still, the emerging details of a potential agreement with Iran suggest the terms of a peace deal may be beyond even Trump’s capacity to spin into a triumph.
Indications, for instance, that Washington may unfreeze some Iranian assets and gradually dismantle its own blockade to persuade Iran to reopen the strait would effectively validate the leverage the Islamic Republic seized in the war and hand away key US bargaining chips.
Any undertaking from Iran in the memorandum that it will not chase nuclear weapons would be greeted with great reservations in Washington. A proposed period of at least 60 days for negotiations to resolve remaining sticking points on Iran’s nuclear enrichment, including its uranium stockpile, also seems rather compressed given the complexity of the issues. History shows Iran would love to drag the United States into a prolonged period of inconclusive diplomacy that lasts months or years.
Another reason for caution is that it’s not clear that Iran, with an even more opaque system of government after top leaders were killed in the war, will accept any peace deal that the US is apparently willing to offer. There were conflicting messages out of Tehran over the weekend. And Iran’s new leaders seem to believe they won this showdown with the America superpower — even if their economy is reeling and the citizens they repress are facing dire conditions.
Outlines of a proposed deal, meanwhile, fall far short of the “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” that Trump demanded from Iran in March. But he’s under extreme pressure to find some resolution, with gas prices rising, his approval ratings tanking, and his support from congressional Republicans weakening on Iran and other issues.
Some Republicans fear Trump may be about to cave.
“Look, we were told about 11 weeks ago by (Secretary Pete) Hegseth and the Department of Defense that they had obliterated Iran’s defenses and it was just a matter of time before we had the nuclear material,” North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” on Sunday. “Now we’re talking about a posture where we may accept the nuclear material remaining in Iran? How does that make sense at all?”
The US and Israel have made the removal of Iran’s stocks of highly enriched uranium a key war aim. But the casualties that could result from a bid to extract it by force have been prohibitive. And concessions that Iran would demand for handing the material over through diplomacy are likely to be very high.
Movement toward a deal has also drawn the skepticism of Sen. Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Mississippi senator wrote on X on Friday that Trump’s instincts to “finish the job” in Iran had been sound but seeking a deal now would risk “a perception of weakness.”
Trump ally Sen Lindsey Graham on Saturday warned that allowing Iran to press home its advantage by controlling the Strait of Hormuz would shift the regional balance of power.
These arguments have some merit. But it is also not clear how more fighting, on top of the weekslong US-Israeli onslaught on Iran, would have a greater chance of success in breaking Tehran’s resistance.
CNN reporting last week cited two sources familiar with US intelligence assessments as saying Tehran had restarted some drone production and was rebuilding certain military capabilities degraded by US-Israeli strikes. This means a resumption of war would risk even more intense and damaging Iranian retaliation against Gulf states, critical infrastructure and US forces than the first bout. An attempt to reopen the strait by force would be potentially dangerous and time-consuming.
Trump is also facing heat from Democrats who criticized him for starting the war, faulted his waging of it, and are now rebuking him over its possible endgame. Their attacks show their party senses that majority opposition to the war among voters might deliver them a midterm victory.
Sen. Cory Booker expressed concern over reports about the sequencing of a deal, starting with the opening of the strait and progressing to later nuclear talks.
“What I’m seeing that has me so outraged right now is the president said he went into this to deal with their nuclear program,” the New Jersey Democrat said on “State of the Union.” “This does not deal with that.”
Booker added: “Donald Trump is being played as a fool that he is for getting us into this in the first place.”
Sen. Chris Van Hollen warned the proposed agreement would “take us back to the prewar status quo” or worse, but hinted that the US may have no choice.
“I think this was a blunder. When you’re digging a hole, you should stop digging, and that sounds like maybe what we’re doing, finally,” the Maryland Democrat said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio hit back at criticisms of the potential deal during a trip to India. “The idea that somehow this president, given everything he’s already proven he’s willing to do, is going to somehow agree to a deal that ultimately winds up putting Iran in a stronger position when it comes to nuclear ambitions is absurd,” he said.
The president seems to have been listening to concerns he’s about to sign up for a dud. “I have informed my representatives not to rush into a deal in that time is on our side,” he wrote on social media Sunday.
With Memorial Day marking the start of a volatile summer of politics that may decide the midterms, top Republicans stressed that peace could bring a payoff for voters.
Kevin Hassett, the director of Trump’s National Economic Council, told Fox News that a deal would unleash a “gusher” of oil through the strait. “You could actually be looking at negative inflation because of the energy price going down,” he said. And Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, who is running for governor, told Fox that as soon as there was a deal, “those oil prices will be tumbling down and gas prices with it here in the United States.”
Many analysts, however, warn that the recovery from the closure of the strait, which left scores of tankers stuck in the Gulf for weeks, will not immediately improve global economic prospects or affordability in the US. JPMorgan analysts, for example, expect oil to average $97 a barrel throughout the rest of the year.
As more details become public about the proposed deal, Trump will face several critical questions. First, will his eventual agreement be more watertight than former President Barack Obama’s pact, which was negotiated with Iran and major world powers in 2015? That deal cut off Tehran’s multiple paths to nuclear weapons and included strict and constant verification.
Second, has Trump’s trashing of that deal — and a war that has taken 13 American lives in combat, closed down the Gulf region, cost billions of dollars, and likely killed hundreds of Iranians — put the United States in a better position with regard to Iran?
That this is even a question underscores Trump’s dilemma: Restarting the war could have grave political and economic consequences. Ending it on the best available terms may be almost as problematic and unpopular.