2026-05-26T16:50:17.996Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/26/politics/us-iran-ceasefire-violation-responses
- 尽管双方最近爆发了交火，特朗普政府仍坚称与伊朗的停火协议依然有效。
- 每当出现潜在违反停火协议的情况，这已经成为一种固定模式：美国似乎急于避免重新开战，并渴望达成一项协议。
- 然而，政府不愿重启敌对行动的态度，似乎正在削弱其与德黑兰谈判的筹码。
本文由AI生成的摘要经CNN编辑审核。
美伊双方在所谓停火期间爆发最新袭击后的应对举措颇具启示性。
德黑兰方面称美国对其导弹发射阵地和舰船的打击是对停火协议的公然“违反”，并威胁将进行报复。
与此同时，美国方面则坚称停火协议仍在“持续生效”，尽管将伊朗描述为挑衅者。
美国中央司令部发言人指责伊朗船只“试图在霍尔木兹海峡布设水雷”。这是一个极具挑衅性的举动，尤其是在看起来即将达成迄今为止最为重要的和平谈判之际。但该发言人随后补充道：“美国中央司令部将继续在持续的停火期间保持克制，保卫我们的部队。”
这种应对方式已经成为常态。
这种模式也进一步凸显了特朗普政府显然急于结束战争——而这种态势正在损害美国的谈判筹码。
最近的一起事件涉及美军周一在霍尔木兹海峡附近针对导弹发射阵地和船只实施的“自卫打击”。当天晚些时候，伊朗伊斯兰革命卫队表示，其“击落了一架美国无人机，并迫使另一架美国无人机和一架战斗机逃离”，并称这是“对等回应”。
尽管伊朗的回应态度强硬，但美国的回应却并非如此。
除了美国中央司令部确保停火协议仍在“持续生效”之外，国务卿马可·卢比奥在印度出访期间被问及此次袭击时，两次回避了直接回应。第一次，他泛泛地谈到了和平谈判；第二次，他谈到了确保霍尔木兹海峡通航的必要性。
这一情况让人联想到5月初的两起事件。
在第一起事件中，参谋长联席会议主席丹·凯恩将军在一场简报会上指出，伊朗向商业船只开火9次、劫持了两艘集装箱船，以及对美军发动了“十余次”袭击。但他随即补充称，所有这些行动“目前都未达到重启大规模作战行动的阈值”，并称其为“低烈度军事行动”。
当国防部长皮特·赫格斯被问及停火协议是否已经失效时，他向记者保证协议并未终止。
他一度似乎将海峡地区发生的情况与更广泛的战争区分开来，并敦促伊朗“保持审慎”，确保其军事行动不会跨越违反停火协议的“阈值”。
几天后，美国袭击了其声称应对海峡内美军军舰遇袭事件负责的军事设施。
但唐纳德·特朗普总统再次淡化了此事。
“停火协议正在推进，仍然有效，”他在5月初接受美国广播公司新闻采访时表示。他将美国的袭击描述为“只是轻轻拍了一下”。
和此次事件一样，当特朗普政府向公众保证停火协议依然有效时，伊朗方面则表示协议已遭违反，并以其声称的“对等”袭击作为回应。
此外，停火协议 arguably 面临的最严重潜在违反行为是：伊朗持续封锁霍尔木兹海峡。
特朗普在4月7日宣布停火协议时明确表示，只有在伊朗重新开放海峡的情况下，协议才会持续生效。
他在社交媒体上表示：“只要伊朗伊斯兰共和国同意全面、立即且安全地开放霍尔木兹海峡，我就同意暂停对伊朗的轰炸和袭击，为期两周。”
当然，所谓的“全面、立即”开放海峡从未实现。美国政府在随后的几天里试图对此进行美化，并声称海峡重新开放取得了所谓进展。但如今停火协议已经生效七周，海峡仍然处于拥堵状态。
通过努力维持停火协议并淡化伊朗的挑衅行为，特朗普政府暴露出其显而易见的焦虑：急于避免重新开战，并渴望达成一项协议。
在这一点上，特朗普多次无视自己为德黑兰设定的达成协议的最后期限，尽管他频繁发出威胁，但仍拒绝重启大规模敌对行动。
而这种姿态正在削弱他的谈判立场。伊朗似乎在赌特朗普比自己更急于结束战争。
双方对最新袭击的不同回应，恰恰印证了这一点。
When Iran thumbs its nose at the ceasefire, the Trump administration shrugs
2026-05-26T16:50:17.996Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/26/politics/us-iran-ceasefire-violation-responses
- Despite the latest exchange of attacks, the Trump administration continues to insist the ceasefire with Iran remains intact.
- That’s become a pattern whenever there are potential violations, with the US appearing anxious to avoid resuming the war and eager to cut a deal.
- The administration’s reluctance to restart hostilities, however, appears to be undermining its negotiating leverage with Tehran.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
The responses to the latest attacks between the US and Iran during the supposed ceasefire have been telling.
Tehran called the US strikes on its missile launch sites and boats a flagrant “violation” of the ceasefire and threatened to retaliate.
The United States, meanwhile, assured that the ceasefire was still “ongoing,” despite casting Iran as the aggressor.
A spokesman for US Central Command accused Iranian boats of “attempting to emplace mines” in the Strait of Hormuz. That would be a remarkably provocative act, especially in the context of what appeared to be some of the most serious peace talks to date. But then the spokesman added: “U.S. Central Command continues to defend our forces while using restraint during the ongoing ceasefire.”
This kind of response has become par for the course.
And the pattern reinforces how apparently anxious the Trump administration is to bring the war to an end — a dynamic that is hurting the United States’ leverage.
The most recent episode involves what the US military called “self-defense strikes” targeting missile launch sites and boats near the Strait of Hormuz on Monday. Later in the day, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said that it “shot down a US drone and forced a US drone and fighter jet to flee,” casting it as a “reciprocal response.”
But while Iran’s response was defiant, the US response was less so.
In addition to US Central Command assuring the ceasefire remained “ongoing,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio twice talked around the strikes when asked about them while traveling in India. The first time, he talked broadly about peace negotiations. The second time, he talked about the need for the Strait of Hormuz to be open.
The situation harkens back to a pair of episodes in early May.
In the first one, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine at a briefing cited Iran firing nine times at commercial vessels and seizing two container ships, as well as “more than 10” attacks on American forces. But he instantly qualified that all were “below the threshold of restarting major combat operations at this point.” He cast it as “low-level kinetics.”
When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked whether the ceasefire was over, he assured reporters it was not.
He at one point seemed to cast what was happening in the strait as distinct from the broader war. And he urged Iran to “be prudent” and make sure its military actions didn’t cross the “threshold” for violating the ceasefire.
A few days later, the US struck military facilities it said were responsible for attacking US warships in the strait.
But President Donald Trump again downplayed it.
“The ceasefire is going. It’s in effect,” he told ABC News in early May. He described the US attacks as “just a love tap.”
As with today, while the Trump administration assured the public that ceasefire was intact, Iran said it had been violated and responded with what it claimed to be “reciprocal” strikes.
And then there’s arguably the biggest potential violation of the ceasefire: Iran keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed.
When Trump announced the ceasefire on April 7, he was unambiguous that it would only last as long as Iran reopened the strait.
He said on social media that, “subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks.”
That “COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE” reopening of the strait, of course, never happened. The administration tried to put a good face on it in the days that followed and cited supposed progress in reopening it. But the US is now seven weeks into the ceasefire, and the strait remains a logjam.
By trying to keep the ceasefire going and downplaying Iran’s provocations, the Trump administration is betraying a readily apparent anxiousness to avoid resuming the war and an eagerness to cut a deal
To that point, Trump has repeatedly ignored his own deadlines for Tehran to make a deal and declined to restart large-scale hostilities, despite his frequent threats.
And that posture is undermining his negotiating position. Iran seems to be gambling that Trump is in a bigger hurry to bring the war to a conclusion than it is.
The divergent responses to the latest attacks only back up that belief.
发表回复