2026-06-23T17:46:20.748Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/23/politics/trump-iran-claims-nuclear-inspectors
上周公布一份明显偏向伊朗的谅解备忘录以来，特朗普政府持续声称德黑兰在正在进行的谈判中同意了其他重大让步。
问题在于，这些让步并未出现在谅解备忘录中——而伊朗也始终否认相关说法。
再加上特朗普政府本身存在公信力问题，人们完全无法确定该相信哪一方。
最典型的例子出现在周二上午，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普做出重大表态，称伊朗已同意永久接受严格的核检查。
“……伊朗已完全、彻底同意在遥远的未来接受最高级别核检查（无限期！！！），”他在Truth Social平台上写道，“这将确保‘核透明’。如果他们不同意这一点，就不会有进一步的谈判！”
同样在周一于瑞士举行的新闻发布会上，副总统J·D·万斯提及了一项“重大里程碑”。他称伊朗已同意接纳国际原子能机构（IAEA）的核查人员。
但伊朗否认双方在这一议题上有任何实质性进展。
伊朗反而表示，其与联合国核监督机构国际原子能机构的合作将“按照现行程序”继续进行。
伊朗外交部发言人伊斯梅尔·巴盖伊表示，伊朗并未同意让核查人员检查其受损严重的核设施，也未作出“任何新承诺”。
事实上，尽管万斯声称取得了重大进展，国际原子能机构原本就已经可以有限进入伊朗。因此仅仅被允许进入伊朗本身，并不算重大突破。
更全面的核检查也曾是特朗普政府退出的奥巴马时期伊朗核协议的核心内容之一。
但周二下午在前往宾夕法尼亚州一场活动的途中，特朗普并未收回此前的说法。他对记者谈及伊朗方面时表示：“他们错了，大错特错。我们已经达成共识：100%接受检查。如果他们说得对，我现在就会取消会谈。”
本周特朗普政府还声称，作为和平协议一部分将解冻的数十亿美元伊朗资产，将被用于购买美国产品。
政府方面提出这一说法，旨在回应批评声音——批评者认为伊朗可能用这笔资金，加上海湾国家提供的至少3000亿美元重建资金，重振本国军事或资助恐怖主义。就连许多保守派人士也对协议中向伊朗提供的大规模财政让步表示不满。
万斯周一表示，首席谈判代表贾里德·库什纳制定了一项计划，根据该计划，资金的使用将由美国和卡塔尔批准。他称“届时这些资金将实际用于购买美国大豆、美国玉米和美国小麦，惠及伊朗人民”。
“如果伊朗资产最终被解冻，它们将让美国农民变得更富有，同时帮助养活伊朗人民，”万斯说。
美国常驻联合国代表迈克尔·沃尔兹周一晚些时候在福克斯新闻节目中表示，“他们将购买美国农作物”。
特朗普周二上午在社交媒体帖子中补充道，这笔资金“将由美国控制，且将完全用于从美国采购食品和医疗用品”。
但当福克斯新闻主持人劳拉·英格拉哈姆追问该协议有多少保障时，沃尔兹暗示相关安排仍在磋商中。他表示，“我们如何管控”这笔资金“目前正在谈判当中”。
而伊朗常驻联合国代表阿里·巴雷尼周二驳斥了这一说法。
“伊朗是唯一有权决定如何处置本国资产的国家，”巴雷尼说。他补充道，“我反对任何声称其他国家可以对这些决策或流程施加影响的说法。”
谅解备忘录提到，船只将被允许“免费”通过霍尔木兹海峡60天——伊朗此前曾以封锁该海峡作为重要施压手段。
至于60天之后的安排，双方仍未达成一致。
特朗普上周在法国举行的七国集团峰会上表示，海峡在60天之后也将“永久免费”通行。
“有人说，哦，这是——不，不，就是永久免费，”特朗普上周二说道，“海峡永久开放后，将全程免费。”
他周一补充道：“我们已经达成协议，海峡将开放，且全程免费。我们在这一点上有过一点小争论，但就是全程免费。”
特朗普此前在接受《纽约时报》记者大卫·桑格采访时也曾做出类似承诺，称霍尔木兹海峡将“永久免费通行”。
但伊朗并未作出这一承诺。事实上，伊朗已经预告将对某些服务收取“费用”。而《纽约时报》周二上午报道称，伊朗已经启动了这一收费计划。
仅从谅解备忘录仅将海峡免费通行期限定为60天这一点来看，这显然是一个真正的分歧点。
这场争端显然仍然十分严重——尽管特朗普作出了保证——他在本周末威胁要“接管”霍尔木兹海峡，并由美国对通行船只收费。
通常来说，这个问题的答案相当明确——尤其是在与伊朗这样的威权政权打交道时。
但特朗普习惯于做出夸张且虚假的声明，这让局势变得更为复杂。
毕竟，这位总统曾在两个多月的时间里三十多次暗示伊朗协议即将达成。两个多月前他就曾表示，伊朗已经“同意了”他提出的所有要求——但显然事实并非如此。
同样，特朗普及其政府曾声称，去年对伊朗核设施的打击“彻底摧毁”了伊朗的核计划。特朗普甚至称，此次打击还摧毁了伊朗“未来的核能力”。
但美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）等媒体报道称，美国早期的情报评估并不支持这些说法。而果不其然，八个月后，特朗普再次以伊朗所谓迫在眉睫的核威胁为借口发动战争。
直白地说：特朗普政府本身也存在严重的公信力问题。
这一点也适用于当前谈判中已知的条款。
例如，在上周谅解备忘录公布之前，有人问特朗普该协议是否包含“由海湾盟友出资的3000亿美元基金”。他称这是“虚假信息”。但毋庸置疑，谅解备忘录中确实包含了这样一项重建基金。
万斯和政府还将伊朗媒体对谅解备忘录的相关指控一概斥为“宣传”。白宫一名发言人还称，CNN上周发布的谅解备忘录草案“并未反映实际谅解备忘录的措辞”。
但伊朗的许多说法最终都在正式的谅解备忘录中得到了印证。而最终文件与CNN发布的草案版本相似，仅存在部分措辞差异。
同样值得一问的是，如果这些对美国有利的让步如此确凿无疑，且能如此迅速地达成一致，为何它们没有出现在谅解备忘录中？为何这份文件明显偏向伊朗？
特朗普政府暗示，这是因为谈判中伊朗一方涉及微妙的国内政治——甚至称存在一些未在文件中列明的“秘密约定”。
但当前美国国内的政治局势同样微妙。而政府那种“只管相信我们”的态度可能并不奏效。
Trump keeps claiming Iran made concessions. Iran keeps denying them
2026-06-23T17:46:20.748Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/23/politics/trump-iran-claims-nuclear-inspectors
Ever since releasing a memorandum of understanding last week that appeared heavily slanted toward Iran, the Trump administration has kept claiming Tehran agreed to other major concessions in ongoing negotiations.
The problem is that none of them appeared in the MOU — and Iran keeps denying them.
And given the Trump administration’s own demonstrated credibility problems, it’s not at all clear whom to trust.
The biggest example came Tuesday morning, when President Donald Trump made the massive claim that Iran has already agreed to major nuclear inspections in perpetuity.
“… Iran has fully and completely agreed to highest level Nuclear inspections long into the future (Infinity!!!),” he wrote on Truth Social. “This will insure (sic) ‘Nuclear Honesty.’ If they did not agree to this, there would be no further negotiations!”
Similarly, Vice President JD Vance at a press conference Monday in Switzerland cited a “major milestone.” He said Iran had agreed to admit inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
But Iran has rejected the idea there had been any significant movement on this front.
It instead said that its work with the IAEA, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency, would continue “under the current procedures.”
Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Iran had not agreed to let inspectors examine its heavily damaged nuclear sites and that it had made “no new commitments.”
Indeed, despite Vance’s claim of a major advance, the IAEA already has limited access to Iran. So merely being allowed in isn’t, in and of itself, a major step forward.
Fuller inspections were also a major piece of the Obama administration’s Iran deal that Trump pulled out of.
But Trump didn’t back down Tuesday afternoon while on his way to an event in Pennsylvania. “They’re wrong, they’re wrong,” he told reporters of the Iranians. “We have it down: 100% inspections. And if they were right, I’d cancel the meetings right now.”
The Trump administration has also claimed this week that the many billions in Iranian assets that would be unfrozen as part of a peace deal would be used on American products.
It has made this claim as it attempts to combat criticisms that Iran could use the money, along with at least $300 billion in reconstruction funds from Gulf countries, to rebuild its military or fund terrorism. Even many conservatives have complained about the extensive financial concessions to Iran in the agreement.
Vance said Monday that lead negotiator Jared Kushner had devised a plan under which the spending of the money would be approved by the US and Qatar. He said that “then the money would actually go to buy American soy, American corn and American wheat for the benefit of the Iranian people.”
“If Iranian assets are ever unfrozen, they are going to make American farmers richer and help feed the Iranian people,” Vance said.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Michael Waltz said later Monday on Fox News that “they’re going to buy American crops.”
Trump added Tuesday morning in his social media post that the money would be “controlled by the U.S.A., and will be used for the purchase of food and medical supplies, exclusively from the United States.”
But when Fox’s Laura Ingraham pressed Waltz on how ironclad the agreement was, Waltz suggested it was still being worked out. He said that “how we control” the money is “being negotiated right now as we speak.”
And Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ali Bahreini, on Tuesday rejected the idea.
“Iran is the only country to decide what to do with its assets,” Bahreini said. He added, “I reject any claim about that if there would be any role for any other country to have an influence on those decisions or on those processes.”
The MOU says that vessels will be allowed to transit the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has gained great leverage by closing, “with no charge, for 60 days only.”
What happens after that, the two sides can’t agree.
Trump said last week at the G7 summit in France that the strait would also be “toll-free” beyond the 60 days.
“Somebody said, oh, it’s toll-free for – no, no, its toll-free, period,” Trump said last Tuesday. “When it opens permanently, it’ll be toll-free.”
He added Monday that “we have an agreement where it’s going to be open, and it’s toll-free. We had a little argument on that; it’s toll-free.”
Trump previously made a similar promise in an interview with The New York Times’s David Sanger, saying the strait would be “permanently toll-free.”
But Iran has not said that. In fact, it has previewed a plan under which it would charge “fees” for certain services. And The New York Times reported Tuesday morning that it has already set this plan in motion.
The mere fact that the MOU only makes the strait free of charge for 60 days would suggest this is a real sticking point.
And the dispute is apparently still serious enough — despite Trump’s assurances — that this weekend he threatened to “take over” the strait and have the United States charge for passage.
The answer to that question is usually a pretty easy one — especially when dealing with authoritarian regimes like Iran.
But Trump’s tendency to make wild and false claims makes it more complicated.
This is a president, after all, who suggested more than three dozen times over more than two months that an Iran deal was right around the corner. He said more than two months ago that Iran had already “agreed to everything” he was demanding — when it clearly hadn’t.
Similarly, Trump and his administration claimed last year’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites had “obliterated” its nuclear program. Trump went so far as to say the strikes had also obliterated the “future nuclear capability of Iran.”
But CNN and others reported that early US intelligence assessments did not back up these claims. And sure enough, eight months later, Trump was launching a war by citing, yet again, the supposedly imminent nuclear threat that Iran posed.
Put plainly: The Trump administration has major credibility problems, too.
And that also applies to the known terms of the current negotiations.
For instance, before the MOU was released last week, Trump was asked if it included “a $300 billion fund funded by Gulf allies.” He said that was “false.” But sure enough, the MOU contains such a reconstruction fund.
Vance and the administration also broadly dismissed claims about the MOU from Iranian media as “propaganda.” A White House spokesman also said a draft version of the MOU published by CNN last week did “not reflect the language of the actual MOU.”
But many of the Iranian claims wound up being echoed in the actual MOU. And the final document was similar to the draft version CNN published, with some language differences.
It’s also worth asking, if some of these concessions to the US side are so ironclad and were able to be agreed to so quickly, why didn’t they appear in the MOU? Why was that document so heavily weighted toward the Iranians?
The Trump administration has suggested that’s because of the delicate politics involved on Iran’s side of the negotiations — and even that there are some secret handshake agreements that weren’t enumerated in the document.
But the politics are delicate in the United States right now, too. And the administration’s just-trust-us approach might not cut it.
发表回复