2026-05-24T18:11:42.898Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
- 共和党鹰派公开担忧，唐纳德·特朗普总统在结束伊朗战争的协议中，可能只会兑现远低于其此前承诺的条件。
- 知名共和党参议员和特朗普前官员警告称，该协议未达到他最初的要求。
- 批评声音愈发强烈，特朗普的顾问们如今开始尖锐回应本党内部的批评者。
大约一个月前，唐纳德·特朗普总统曾承诺，他绝“不急着”结束伊朗战争。
“我有的是时间，”特朗普在社交媒体上写道，“但伊朗没有——时钟在滴答作响！”
至少可以说，这一说法值得怀疑。特朗普显然极不情愿重启与伊朗的军事冲突，尽管德黑兰并未满足他的要求，他还是跳过了一系列自己设定的最后期限。随着2026年中期选举临近，这场战争及其经济影响对共和党候选人而言愈发成为沉重负担，要求他设法结束战争的政治压力显然正在加剧。
虽然过了一段时间，但共和党伊朗鹰派如今似乎开始担忧，特朗普确实太急于结束战争——并且即将妥协让步。
在过去两天里，随着人们首次真正瞥见逐步结束战争的协议轮廓，多位鹰派人士纷纷发声表态。
尽管还有大量细节有待敲定——部分细节也存在争议——但近日泄露的谅解备忘录草案内容显示，协议将结束敌对状态，逐步重新开放霍尔木兹海峡，并解除美国在该地区的封锁。协议将包括解冻部分伊朗资产，德黑兰也将被允许恢复燃料和石油销售。
这份拟议协议还包含伊朗的一项承诺：不寻求研发核武器，并开始谈判放弃其高浓缩铀库存。
但泄露的具体条款远未达到特朗普最初设定的目标。他曾一度表示，只会接受“无条件投降”。而本届政府先后提出的四项目标中，有时包括彻底终结伊朗对中东代理武装的支持及其核计划。
鹰派人士似乎担忧，特朗普最终达成的协议将远不及这些目标。
他们愈发担心，特朗普会接受伊朗毫无价值的保证，任由德黑兰永久将霍尔木兹海峡作为筹码，并且放弃真正终结伊朗威胁的历史性机遇。
批评声浪始于周五，来自密西西比州的参议院军事委员会主席罗杰·威克发表了非同寻常的声明。
威克称，特朗普“正被误导去达成一份毫无价值的协议”。
（共和党人通常将他们认为特朗普追求的糟糕主意归咎于顾问，而非总统本人。）
威克还表示，与其恢复军事行动，不如达成协议“有示弱之嫌”。
此前，南卡罗来纳州参议员林赛·格雷厄姆等曾是战争的有力支持者，他们就已流露出对特朗普持续强调谈判的不满，但威克的表态将这种不满明确化了。
到了周六，有消息称协议即将达成，担忧情绪公开爆发。
格雷厄姆表示，若承认伊朗可以控制霍尔木兹海峡并威胁邻国的石油基础设施，将是“该地区力量平衡的重大转变，长期来看对以色列而言将是一场噩梦”。
他还担忧，此类协议将授权伊朗的真主党、哈马斯等代理武装 terrorize 该地区。
威克称，拟议中的协议将意味着“‘史诗暴怒行动’取得的一切成果都将付诸东流！”
得克萨斯州参议员特德·克鲁兹表示，他对听到的消息“深感担忧”，并“祈祷”相关报道是错误的。
“如果最终结果是，仍由高喊‘美国去死’的伊斯兰主义者掌权的伊朗政权，如今获得数十亿美元资金，能够继续浓缩铀并研发核武器，并且有效控制霍尔木兹海峡，那么这一结果将是灾难性的错误，”克鲁兹说。
福克斯新闻主持人马克·莱文等评论人士也感到不安。莱文针对以色列有关特朗普官员急于达成协议的报道回应称：“休斯顿，我想可能出问题了。”
就连特朗普首届政府的一些核心官员也加入了批评行列。
前特朗普政府国家安全顾问约翰·博尔顿周日表示，此举似乎“让阿亚图拉们赢得了重大胜利”。
同为前国家安全顾问、更忠实于“让美国再次伟大”（MAGA）理念的迈克尔·弗林，周日恳求特朗普不要相信伊朗。他说：“该政权此前曾公然当面撒谎，你现在为什么会相信他们会说实话？”
前国务卿迈克·蓬佩奥则严厉抨击了已披露的协议框架，称这听起来像是奥巴马政府官员谈判达成的协议——正是特朗普在首届任期内撕毁的那份伊朗核协议。
蓬佩奥称该协议相当于：“向伊斯兰革命卫队付钱，让他们研发大规模杀伤性武器计划并 terrorize 全世界。”
“这绝非‘美国优先’，”蓬佩奥补充道。
局势已经变得棘手，特朗普的顾问们如今开始猛烈抨击批评者。
白宫发言人史蒂文·张（Steven Cheung）对蓬佩奥表示，他“根本不知道自己在说什么”，并让他“闭上那张愚蠢的嘴，把真正的工作留给专业人士”。特朗普的政治顾问亚历克斯·布鲁塞维茨（Alex Bruesewitz）则对克鲁兹说：“没人问你，兄弟。别再试图破坏总统和他的政府了。”
（克鲁兹反驳称：“那些推动对伊朗绥靖的年轻政治骗子，根本帮不了总统。”）
正在印度访问的国务卿马可·卢比奥则采取了相对不那么对抗的口吻，称特朗普阻止伊朗拥有核武器的承诺“不应受到任何人的质疑”。
卢比奥称，认为特朗普的协议可能会让伊朗处境更优的想法“十分荒谬”。
特朗普周日在Truth Social上发文回击了针对这份潜在协议的批评：“别听那些失败者的，他们对自己一无所知的事情指手画脚。”
但显而易见，特朗普及其谈判代表处境艰难。他们曾表示这场战争将持续约一个月，而如今已接近三个月。更重要的是，伊朗并未表现出被特朗普反复的威胁和虚张声势所动摇。
这实际上让特朗普陷入两难：要么恢复军事打击（这显然不是他想要的），要么将这场战争拖入消耗战，看看谁会先在霍尔木兹海峡双重博弈造成的经济痛苦面前退缩。
但结束这场战争也并非易事。
尽管多年来特朗普的基本支持者群体表现出可塑性——往往会支持他的任何决定，但此次问题关乎他众多支持者的核心利益。
特朗普发动这场战争时，疏远了党内的反干预主义派别。但如今他又冒着疏远另一派别的风险——那些原本以为在白宫找到了坚定盟友的外交政策鹰派。
这些支持伊朗鹰派立场的特朗普盟友认为，这是终结该地区威胁的真正机遇——一个可能不会很快再次出现的机遇。他们有切身利益确保特朗普不会退缩。
而他们似乎真的担心他会退缩。
本文已更新补充更多信息。
Republican hawks seem to fear a Trump cut and run from Iran
2026-05-24T18:11:42.898Z / CNN
- Republican hawks are openly concerned that President Donald Trump is about to settle for far less than he promised in a deal to end the Iran war.
- Prominent Republican senators and former Trump officials warn the deal falls short of his initial demands.
- The criticism has grown so intense that Trump advisers are now responding sharply to critics within their own party.
About a month ago, President Donald Trump promised he was far from “anxious” to end the Iran war.
“I have all the time in the World,” Trump maintained on social media, “but Iran doesn’t — The clock is ticking!”
It was a dubious assertion, to say the least. Trump has appeared remarkably reluctant to restart military clashes with Iran, blowing past a series of his own deadlines despite Tehran not complying with his demands. And the political pressure is clearly building on him to find a way out, with the 2026 midterms approaching and the war — and its economic impacts — looking like a growing albatross for Republican candidates.
It took a while, but the GOP’s Iran hawks now appear worried that Trump is indeed too anxious to end the war — and is about to cave.
A procession of them has spoken out over the last two days as we’ve gotten what appear to be the first genuine glimpses of a deal to gradually end the war.
While much remains to be ironed out — and some details are in dispute — recent versions of a memorandum of understanding would end hostilities while gradually reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending the US blockade in the area. The deal would include the unfreezing of some Iranian assets, and Tehran would also be allowed to resume selling fuel and oil.
The proposed agreement also includes a commitment by Iran to not pursue a nuclear weapon and to begin negotiations over giving up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
But the specifics that have leaked come up far short of what Trump initially set out for. He at one point said he would accept only “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.” And the administration’s shifting list of four goals has sometimes included completely ending Iran’s support for proxy groups in the Middle East and its nuclear program.
The hawks seem worried Trump is about to settle for far less than that.
They appear increasingly worried he’s going to take assurances from Iran that aren’t worth much, that he’s allowing Tehran to use the strait as leverage in perpetuity, and that he’s abandoning a historic opportunity to truly end the Iranian threat.
It began Friday, with an extraordinary statement from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi.
Wicker said Trump was “being ill-advised to pursue a deal that would not be worth the paper it is written on.”
(Republicans often treat what they view as bad ideas Trump is pursuing as the work of advisers, rather than the president himself.)
Wicker also said that cutting a deal — rather than resuming military action — “risks a perception of weakness.”
We’d seen some stirrings of discomfort with Trump’s continued emphasis on negotiation from the likes of Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and others who had been influential supporters of the war, but Wicker crystallized it.
And by Saturday, with news breaking that a deal could be afoot, the panic broke out into the open.
Graham said that allowing the precedent that Iran could control the Strait of Hormuz and threaten its neighbors’ oil infrastructure would be “a major shift of the balance of power in the region and over time will be a nightmare for Israel.”
He also said worried that such a deal would empower Iran’s proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas to terrorize the region.
Wicker said the proposed deal would mean that “everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!”
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said he was “deeply concerned” about what he was hearing and that he “prayed” reports were wrong.
“If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime — still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’ — now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake,” Cruz said.
Commentators like Fox News’ Mark Levin were also uneasy, with Levin responding to an Israeli report that Trump officials are anxious to cut a deal by saying, “Houston, I think there may be a problem.”
Even some key administration officials from Trump’s first term got in on the act.
Former Trump national security adviser John Bolton said Sunday it appeared “the ayatollahs will have won a significant victory.”
Fellow former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who is more of a MAGA adherent, pleaded with Trump on Sunday not to believe Iran. He said that “the regime has blatantly lied to our faces before, why do you now believe they will tell you the truth?”
And former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ripped into the reported contours of the deal, saying it sounded like one that would have been negotiated by the Obama administration officials who forged the Iran nuclear deal that Trump ripped up in his first term.
Pompeo said it amounted to: “Pay the IRGC to build a weapons of mass destruction program and terrorize the world.”
“Not remotely America First,” Pompeo added.
The situation has become troublesome enough that Trump advisers are now lashing out at the critics.
White House spokesman Steven Cheung told Pompeo that he had “no idea what the f**k he’s talking about” and that he should “shut his stupid mouth and leave the real work to the professionals.” And Trump political adviser Alex Bruesewitz told Cruz, “No one asked you, bro. Stop trying to undermine the President and his administration.”
(Cruz shot back that “young political grifters pushing Iran appeasement are not remotely helping the President.”)
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is in India, offered a less confrontational version of the same talking point, saying Trump’s commitment to stopping a nuclear Iran “shouldn’t be questioned by anybody.”
Rubio called it “absurd” to think Trump’s deal might leave Iran in a stronger position.
Trump pushed back against criticism of the potential deal Sunday, writing on Truth Social, “Don’t listen to the losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about.”
But it’s abundantly clear that Trump and his negotiators are in a bad spot. They talked about how this war would last around a month, and we’re coming up on three. What’s more, Iran hasn’t demonstrated it’s swayed by Trump’s repeated threats and bluffs.
That has effectively left Trump to either resume striking militarily (which he clearly doesn’t want to do) or to turn this into a war of attrition, where we see who blinks in the face of economic pain caused by the dual gambits in the Strait of Hormuz.
But getting out of this war isn’t easy, either.
While Trump’s base has proved malleable over the years — often going along with whatever he decides — this is the kind of issue that really matters to a significant chunk of his supporters.
Trump began the war by alienating one part of his party — the anti-interventionist wing. But now he’s risking alienating the other side — the foreign policy hawks who thought they suddenly had a committed ally in the White House.
These Iran-hawk Trump allies see this as a real opportunity to end the threat in the region — an opportunity that might not come along again any time soon. They have a vested interest in making sure Trump doesn’t lose his nerve.
And they seem to really fear he is.
This story has been updated with additional information.
发表回复