2026-05-29T17:51:55.333Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
- 唐纳德·特朗普总统就伊朗是否必须交出其浓缩铀库存一事多次改变立场。
- 政府高级官员将收缴该库存列为红线，但特朗普多次提出的解决方案并未达到这一要求。
- 这种不一致反映出政府在对伊战争目标上存在广泛困惑。
本文由人工智能生成摘要，并经CNN编辑审核。
在美国和伊朗努力达成协议以逐步结束战争之际，伊朗核库存的处置方式是最受关注的核心细节之一。
这不仅是一个重大争议点——伊朗方面已明确表示不会交出其高浓缩铀——收缴该库存还可能极为复杂。而这些核材料的最终去向，将在很大程度上决定特朗普总统发动的这场战争是否真正“摧毁”了伊朗的核威胁。
但和该政府的其他诸多目标一样，特朗普政府在这一问题上的要求也始终前后不一。
周四在白宫简报会上露面时，财政部长斯科特·贝森特表示，伊朗交出浓缩铀是特朗普的一条“红线”。
“伊朗必须交出其高浓缩铀，”贝森特说道。
特朗普周五在社交媒体上称，这批铀“将由美国……与伊朗伊斯兰共和国以及国际原子能机构密切协调配合，予以挖出并销毁”。
国务卿马可·卢比奥上周末表示，德黑兰方面需要“交出其高浓缩铀”。
“这些始终是总统的立场，”卢比奥补充道。
但总统本人的表态却并非始终如一。事实上，由于特朗普急于达成某种协议结束战争，他多次公开提出的解决方案都未要求伊朗交出全部铀库存。
这并不意味着最终协议一定会如此；特朗普几乎不会在言辞上保持一致。但你完全有理由认为，在他看来，这一特定问题至少在某种程度上是可以谈判的。
早在4月初，特朗普在接受路透社采访时就首次暗示了他的宽松要求。
尽管就在三天前，他还信誓旦旦地表示伊朗会交出他所谓的“核尘埃”，但特朗普突然改口称，由于美国去年发动的打击，这些材料被埋得太深，根本无关紧要。
“它们埋得太深了，我根本不在乎这个，”他说道。
特朗普建议可以直接对存放这些材料的地点进行监视——“我们会始终通过卫星进行监视”——并声称伊朗已经“没有能力”制造核武器。
但仅仅两周后，在4月17日接受路透社的另一次采访时，特朗普又改口承诺会收缴铀库存。
“我们会和伊朗一起，以悠闲的步调，动用大型机械设备深入地下开始挖掘，”特朗普说道，他还补充道：“我们会将其运回美国。”
4月26日，特朗普再次重申立场，称“我们必须拿走那些核尘埃。我们会把它拿回来”。
但到了5月中旬，特朗普又再次表示浓缩铀并非必须收缴的目标。
在5月14日接受福克斯新闻主持人肖恩·汉尼提采访时，他称德黑兰方面告诉他，铀被埋得太深，伊朗自己都无法获取。他还表示，收缴行动难度极大，因为需要在伊朗领土上开展长期作业。
汉尼提提议，或许可以将铀“封存”而非收缴。
特朗普暗示这是一个可行方案——同时表示收缴行动主要是出于象征意义上的重要性。
“不，我认为没必要，除非是出于公共关系的考虑，”特朗普说道，“我认为，为了应付假新闻媒体，我们拿到它很重要。”
他再次表示，美国军方只需对相关区域进行监视即可，他说：“我更愿意把它拿回来，但我们已经盯上它了。”
次日，特朗普在接受福克斯新闻主持人布雷特·拜尔采访时也表达了类似观点。
“将铀埋藏起来就足够了，”他说道，“但你知道吗，从公共关系角度来看这不够好。这很重要，你懂的，这很重要。不过换个角度看，或许已经足够了。”
但就在同一天，在空军一号上与记者的随行谈话中，特朗普又表示他仍坚持要求实际收缴铀库存。
“话虽如此，我还是想要拿到它，”特朗普说道，“他们已经同意了，但后来又反悔了，不过他们最终还是会同意的。”
（没有证据表明伊朗同意了这一要求。特朗普多次声称德黑兰方面同意了从未实现的事项。）
因此，当卢比奥和贝森特将收缴铀库存列为政府的明确目标时，他们忽略了特朗普的诸多言论。
总统或许需要拿到这批材料，以将这场战争标榜为胜利，并避免激怒共和党内部的对伊强硬派。但他的前后不一表明，他似乎并未将其视为谈判中真正不可动摇的红线。
这一问题是特朗普政府在对伊战争问题上整体困境的缩影。从一开始，战争目标就模糊不清且时常变动。政府一直列出四项目标，但根据发言人的不同，这四项目标往往也各不相同。
看起来特朗普几乎是在不清楚自己发动这场战争想要达成什么目标的情况下就出兵了，而现在他不过是在临场发挥。
但在实际结束战争方面，这一问题的解决至关重要。
这意味着美国政府或许应该在某个时刻明确其真实立场。
Trump’s inconsistent rhetoric about getting Iran’s nuclear stockpile
2026-05-29T17:51:55.333Z / CNN
- President Donald Trump has repeatedly shifted his position on whether Iran must hand over its enriched uranium stockpile.
- Top administration officials have cast its extraction as a red line, but Trump has repeatedly floated a resolution that comes up short of that.
- The inconsistency reflects broader confusion about the administration’s goals in the war with Iran.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
As the United States and Iran try to hammer out a deal to start winding down the war, few particulars loom as large as what happens with Iran’s nuclear stockpile.
It’s not only a major point of contention — with Iran signaling it won’t turn over its highly enriched uranium — but extracting it could be very complicated. And the fate of these materials will go a long way toward determining just how much President Donald Trump’s war has truly “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear threat.
But as with many of its other goals, the Trump administration has been very inconsistent about its demands on this one.
Appearing at a White House briefing on Thursday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Iran turning over the uranium was a “red line” for Trump.
“Iran has to turn over their highly enriched uranium,” Bessent said.
Trump said on social media Friday that the uranium “will be unearthed by the United States … in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last weekend that Tehran needs “to turn over their highly enriched uranium.”
“These are the president’s points consistently,” Rubio added.
But this has not been a consistent point from the president. In fact, as Trump has appeared eager to cut some kind of a deal to end the war, he’s repeatedly and conspicuously floated a resolution that comes up shy of Iran handing over all of its uranium.
That doesn’t mean that’s where a deal could wind up; Trump makes very little effort at rhetorical consistency. But you could be forgiven for thinking this particular point was at least somewhat negotiable in his mind.
Trump first seemed to telegraph a relaxed demand back in early April, in an interview with Reuters.
Despite having assured just three days prior that Iran would turn over what he calls its “nuclear dust,” Trump suddenly suggested the materials were buried so deep thanks to the US strikes last year that they didn’t even matter.
“That’s so far underground, I don’t care about that,” he said.
Trump suggested the sites where the material is buried could simply be monitored — “We’ll always be watching it by satellite” — and cast Iran as already “incapable” of getting a nuclear weapon.
But just two weeks later, in another interview with Reuters on April 17, Trump reverted to promising to get the uranium.
“We’re going to go in with Iran, at a nice leisurely pace, and go down and start excavating with big machinery,” Trump said, adding: “We’ll bring it back to the United States.”
On April 26, the president doubled down, saying that “we have to take that nuclear dust. We’re going to take it.”
But by mid-May, Trump was again casting the enriched uranium as not a must-have.
In a May 14 interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, he said Tehran had told him the uranium was so buried that Iran itself could never access it. He also cast a retrieval effort as hugely difficult, given it would require a lengthy operation on Iranian soil.
Hannity volunteered that perhaps the uranium could be “entombed” rather than retrieved.
Trump signaled that was an option — while casting retrieval as important mostly for symbolic reasons.
“No, I don’t think it’s necessary except from a public relations standpoint,” Trump said. “I think it’s important for the fake news that we get it.”
And he again said the US military could just monitor the areas, saying, “I would rather get it, but we have our eyes on it.”
Trump then echoed those comments in an interview the next day with Fox’s Bret Baier.
“It is good enough” to bury the uranium, he said. “But you know what, it’s not good enough public relations-wise. It’s important, you know, it’s important. It’s probably good enough for a different reason, though.”
But the same day in a gaggle with reporters on Air Force One, Trump said he was still insisting on actually getting the uranium.
“With that being said, I want to get it,” Trump said. “And they agreed to it, but then they took it back, but they’ll agree to it eventually.”
(There is no evidence that Iran agreed to this. Trump has repeatedly cast Tehran as agreeing to things that never come to fruition.)
So when Rubio and Bessent cast extracting the uranium as a clear goal of the administration, they glossed over a lot of Trump’s comments.
The president might need to get the materials to sell this war as a success and to avoid inflaming the Iran hawks in the Republican Party. But his inconsistency would suggest he doesn’t seem completely committed to it as a true red line in negotiations.
And this issue is a microcosm of Trump’s broader problem with the war. From the start, the goals have been unclear and often shifting. The administration keeps listing four goals, but they’ve routinely been a different list of four, depending upon who is speaking.
It almost seems like Trump went in without knowing what he wanted out of the war, and now he’s just winging it.
But when it comes to actually ending it, the resolution of this issue is hugely important.
Which means the administration might want to decide exactly how it feels, at some point.
发表回复