分析：斯蒂芬·科林森，2026年3月16日，美国东部时间凌晨12:00发布
一周前，唐纳德·特朗普总统告诉英国不要费心派遣军舰前往中东，因为他已经赢得了伊朗战争。
现在，他却呼吁美国的“特殊关系”盟友、北约成员国以及甚至中国派遣船只以打开霍尔木兹海峡。他暗示，如果得不到帮助，欧洲的美国防御保护伞以及他计划本月与中国国家主席习近平举行的峰会可能会面临风险。
特朗普在接受《金融时报》采访时发表的这番言论，再次表明尽管他多次庆祝伊朗战争的胜利，但战争远未结束。
这不会是本世纪美国军事行动首次比华盛顿预期的持续时间更长。这或许可以解释政府官员为何试图说服公众和全球市场，这场冲突可能很快结束。
美国常驻联合国代表迈克·沃尔茨周日在CNN的“国情咨文”节目中拒绝透露美军何时会回国，尽管他称赞美军取得了“压倒性胜利，这是我们现代美国军事历史上从未见过的”。
能源部长克里斯·赖特则更为乐观。“我认为这场冲突肯定会在未来几周内结束，甚至可能比这更快，”他在ABC新闻的“本周”节目中表示。
与此同时，以色列告诉CNN，针对伊朗军事和情报目标的可怕轰炸可能至少还会持续三周。这个犹太国家比美国选民和领导人更习惯于长期军事行动。
战争并非由最初几周定义
判断这场战争的整体影响还为时过早。美军和以色列联军的突袭可能已对伊朗的军事机器及其威胁外部世界的能力造成了巨大破坏，这似乎是可能的，甚至是很有可能的。如果得到证实，这种情况将为特朗普提供一个可信的论点，证明他让世界变得更安全了。
此外，这场战争才刚刚开始两周。按照任何标准，这都不算长。高层军官对媒体和分析师对战争关注度不足感到沮丧，这可能可以理解。
但现代历史表明，战争往往不是由最初几周定义的，那时美国的巨大军事优势最为决定性。
因此，白宫面临着多个理由让人怀疑美国能否很快脱身。
特朗普几乎没有为这场战争做好国家准备，而且他不断发表相互矛盾的言论，加剧了混乱。他坚决坚持战争已经取得胜利。但他说，只有当他“切实感受到”胜利时，战争才会结束。如果胜利已经取得，那么公平地问为什么到目前为止已有13名美军现役人员死亡，美国士兵仍然身处险境？
政府还面临着黑暗的历史阴影。这场战争还不能直接与伊拉克和阿富汗的“持久战”相提并论。但在这两个案例中，美国早期的胜利都被最初进攻的政治影响和对外国的理解不足所削弱。伊朗国内有足够迹象证实公众对可能陷入泥潭的担忧。
与此同时，如果这些困境得不到解决，特朗普将面临削弱其典型胜利宣言的局面，但缓解这些困境可能需要超过“几周”的时间。
► 伊朗实际上已经封锁了霍尔木兹海峡——引发全球能源危机和油价大幅上涨，威胁到削弱他在国内的地位。消灭伊朗的导弹电池、海上无人机和采矿作业可能是一个长期过程。并且可能需要部署地面部队，冒险扩大美军行动范围。
特朗普现在要求外国海军帮助打开这条狭窄的战略通道。到目前为止，对他的请求反应并不明确。
特朗普告诉《金融时报》，欧洲和中国比美国更依赖海湾地区的石油——尽管美国消费者也受到了油价普遍上涨的冲击。他的言论在国外可能被视为要求帮助解决他对伊朗发动战争造成的混乱。
但总统瞄准了依赖美国国防的欧洲盟友的弱点。“如果没有回应或回应是否定的，我认为这对北约的未来将非常不利，”他说。
► 伊斯兰共和国仍有高浓缩铀库存，它可以用来违背特朗普的誓言——伊朗将永远不会拥有核武器——尽管总统声称去年已经“摧毁”了伊朗的核计划。美国有经过训练的特种部队单位，负责提取放射性材料。但在伊朗核设施执行此类任务可能需要数百名士兵，并可能引发与伊朗军队在敌对领土深处的危险地面战斗。
► 打破伊朗政府影响力的一种方法是美军夺取霍格岛（Kharg Island），该岛是德黑兰石油出口的震中，为政权提供资金。该岛在周末的美军空袭中成为目标。剥夺该国主要经济引擎可能会改变政权内部的计算。沃尔茨告诉CNN的杰克·塔珀，“如果特朗普想要摧毁他们的能源基础设施，我当然认为他会保留这种选择的可能性。”但对霍格岛的两栖进攻也可能导致大量美军伤亡。如果伊朗选择破坏自己的石油设施而不是让它们落入美国控制之下，这可能会造成环境破坏和市场崩溃。
为什么美国人可能不相信政府的时间线
伊朗国内的政治因素也使得确定战争结束的时间难以捉摸。
伊朗对与美国结盟的海湾国家发动无人机袭击的速度已经放缓——这或许证明美军和以色列的突袭正在削弱德黑兰的进攻能力。但周日，火箭弹仍然落在巴格达机场和以色列。
也没有外交和解的迹象。没有看到任何“协议”，特朗普要求无条件投降的要求也被置若罔闻。新任最高领袖穆贾塔巴·哈梅内伊的任命表明，政权打算继续其数十年的对华盛顿的抵抗。
政权也没有放松控制的迹象。特朗普在开战前告诉伊朗人，他给了他们一个千载难逢的机会来摆脱镇压。但在一个数千抗议者最近被当局枪杀的国家，还没有发生起义。
推翻政府将是伊朗人民的巨大胜利，并将为特朗普提供真正的遗产成就。然而，许多伊朗分析师担心，中央权威的崩溃可能导致宗派或内战以及伊朗国家的内爆。这种结果可能会使美军在该地区陷入多年的困境——或者让盟友面临巨大的安全问题。美国、以色列和伊朗政府之间的战争可能表面上结束，但它引发的国际危机可能会变得更糟。
在国内，除了特朗普的忠实支持者之外，其他人可能对战争将在几周内结束的预测持怀疑态度。战争爆发时的多项民调显示，民众对总统的战争领导力的信任度已经很低。
共和党人坚决反对国会民主党人试图阻止特朗普的战争权力。但确保战争只持续“几周”的保证反映了共和党人的一种理解：在伊朗的长期战争可能会进一步损害该党在11月中期选举中的机会。
国防部长彼得·赫格斯上周试图消除对伊拉克和阿富汗战争的类比，这些战争困扰着乔治·W·布什和巴拉克·奥巴马的总统任期。“这不是那种泥潭中的无休止的国家建设……这完全不是一回事，”赫格斯说，他是一名在伊拉克和阿富汗都服役过的陆军老兵。
但政府拒绝就战争咨询国会，其模糊的最终计划以及明显缺乏退出策略，已经给了民主党人可乘之机。
“我担心的不是服役的士兵和民众，而是像彼得·赫格斯和唐纳德·特朗普这样的政治领导人，”过去和可能未来的民主党总统候选人皮特·布蒂吉格在“国情咨文”节目中说。
“我年轻时经历过一场以虚假借口发动的战争，”布蒂吉格说，他是美国海军预备役成员，2014年被部署到阿富汗。“这场战争没有任何借口。总统只是继续这么做了。”
周末，特朗普利用他的社交媒体网络抨击那些寻求澄清他对战争计划以及何时结束战争的媒体机构。
在伊朗的行动——包括对海湾国家的袭击和霍尔木兹海峡的实际封锁——似乎经常让政府感到意外的背景下，这些问题是合理的。
但这些问题尤为尖锐，因为无数美国家庭仍在为其亲人在21世纪的对外冒险中死亡而悲伤，而特朗普曾誓言不会重蹈覆辙。
这段痛苦的现代历史为证明这些结局不确定的新战争设定了很高的门槛。
If Trump has already won the Iran war, why does he need foreign ships to help him end it?
Analysis by Stephen Collinson, Published Mar 16, 2026, 12:00 AM ET
A week ago, President Donald Trump told Britain not to bother sending ships to the Middle East because he’d already won the Iran war.
Now, he’s calling on America’s “special relationship” ally; fellow NATO states; and even China to dispatch vessels to open the Strait of Hormuz. He implied that if help didn’t arrive, Europe’s US defense umbrella and his planned summit this month with Chinese leader Xi Jinping could be at risk.
Trump’s salvo, in an interview with the Financial Times, was a fresh sign that despite his multiple Iran victory laps, the war is far from over.
It would not be the first US military venture this century to drag on longer than Washington expected. This may explain new attempts by administration officials to convince the public and global markets that the conflict could end soon.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz declined to say on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday when American forces would come home despite lauding them for a “dominant victory, the likes of which we haven’t seen in modern American military history.”
Energy Secretary Chris Wright was more optimistic. “I think that this conflict will certainly come to the end in the next few weeks, could be sooner than that,” he said on ABC News’ “This Week.”
Israel, meanwhile, told CNN that fearsome bombing raids against Iranian military and intelligence targets could last at least three more weeks. The Jewish state is more accustomed to perpetual military action than US voters and leaders are.
Wars are not defined by their first few weeks
It remains too early to judge the overall impact of the war. It looks possible, even likely, that combined US and Israeli raids have caused massive damage to Iran’s military machine and ability to threaten the outside world. If confirmed, such a scenario would offer Trump a credible argument to have made the world safer.
Plus, the war is only two weeks old. By any standard, that’s not a long time. Any frustration for top brass about short attention spans in the media and among analysts about the war may be understandable.
But modern history shows that a war is often not defined in the first few weeks, when America’s massive military edge is at its most decisive.
So the White House is facing multiple reasons for skepticism that it can extricate the US soon.
Trump has barely prepared the country for the war, and he keeps adding to the confusion with conflicting statements. He vehemently insists that the war is already won. But he says it will end only when he feels it in his “bones.” If victory is already achieved, it’s fair to ask why American troops are still in harm’s way after 13 US deaths on active service so far.
The administration is also operating under a dark historical cloud. This war is not yet directly comparable to the “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in both those cases, early US triumphs were undermined by the political impact of the initial assault and poor understanding of foreign nations. There are enough signs in Iran to validate public concerns about a possible quagmire.
At the same time, Trump has dilemmas that would undercut a characteristic declaration of victory if they remain unsolved but that could take more than “weeks” to mitigate.
► Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz — causing a global energy crisis and steep oil price hikes that threaten to weaken him at home. Wiping out Iranian missile batteries, seaborne drones and mining operations could be a prolonged affair. And it might need the deployment of ground troops in a risky widening of US operations.
Trump is now demanding foreign navies help open the narrow strategic passage. There’s been a noncommittal response to his request so far.
Trump told the Financial Times that Europe and China were more dependent on oil from the Gulf than the US — although American consumers have been hit by a general spike in oil prices. His remarks are likely to be seen abroad as a demand for help in fixing a mess he created by waging war on Iran.
But the president took aim at the weak spot of European allies that rely on the US for their defense. “If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO,” he said.
► The Islamic Republic still has stocks of highly enriched uranium it could use to defy Trump’s vow it will never have a nuclear weapon — despite the president’s claim to have “obliterated” its nuclear program last year. The US has special forces units trained to extract radioactive material. But such a mission at Iran’s nuclear plants could require hundreds of troops and might provoke dangerous land battles with Iranian forces deep into hostile territory.
► One way to shatter Iranian government leverage would be for US forces to seize Kharg Island, the epicenter of Tehran’s oil exports that bankroll the regime. The island was targeted in weekend US air raids. The removal of the country’s primary economic engine might alter calculations within the regime. Waltz told CNN’s Jake Tapper that “I would certainly think (Trump) would maintain that optionality if he wants to take down their energy infrastructure.” But an amphibious assault on Kharg Island would also risk significant US casualties. It could cause environmental damage and a market meltdown if Iran chose to sabotage its own oil facilities rather than lose them to American control.
Why Americans may not trust the administration’s timeline
Political factors inside Iran also make it hard to pin down a timeline for ending the war.
The pace of Iranian drone attacks on Gulf states allied with the US has slowed — proof perhaps that US and Israeli raids are degrading Tehran’s offensive capabilities. But projectiles still rained down on Baghdad airport and Israel on Sunday.
There’s also no sign of a diplomatic off-ramp. There’s no “deal” in sight, and Trump’s demands for an unconditional surrender have fallen on deaf ears. The anointing of new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei signaled the regime intends to renew its decades of resistance to Washington.
There’s also no public sign of the regime’s grip loosening. Trump opened the war by telling Iranians he was giving them a once-in-a-lifetime chance to throw off repression. But no uprising has yet occurred in a nation where thousands of protesters were recently gunned down by the authorities.
The overthrow of the government would represent a huge win for the Iranian people and would provide Trump with a genuine legacy achievement. Many Iran analysts, however, worry that a collapse of central authority could lead to sectarian or civil strife and an implosion of the Iranian state. Such an outcome might bog down US forces in the region for years to come — or leave allies facing massive security problems. The war between the US, Israeli and the Iranian governments might ostensibly end. But the international crisis it precipitated might get a lot worse.
Domestically, there is likely to be skepticism outside Trump’s fiercely loyal base over predictions that the war will end within weeks. Trust in the president’s war leadership was already thin according to multiple polls when the war broke out.
Republicans have held firm against Democratic efforts in Congress to thwart Trump’s war powers. But assurances that the fighting will last only “weeks” reflect an understanding in the GOP that a long war in Iran could further harm the party’s chances in November’s midterm elections.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth last week tried to stamp out any analogies to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that haunted the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. “This is not endless nation-building under those types of quagmires. … It’s not even close,” said Hegseth, an Army veteran who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the administration’s refusal to consult Congress on the war, its opaque endgame and its apparent lack of an exit strategy have already given an opening to Democrats.
“What I’m worried about is not the soldiers and the people who are serving. What I’m worried about is their political leadership, like Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump,” past and possibly future Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on “State of the Union.”
“We lived through a war that was sold to us on false pretenses when I was younger,” said Buttigieg, a US Navy Reserve veteran who was deployed to Afghanistan in 2014. “This war has not been sold on any pretense. The president just went ahead and did it.”
Over the weekend, Trump used his social media network to slam media organizations seeking greater clarity about his plans for the war and when he might end it.
Such questions are merited in the context of a conflict in which Iran’s actions — including its attacks on Gulf states and virtual closure of the Strait of Hormuz — have seemed to frequently surprise the administration.
But they are especially acute because of the loss still felt by countless American families whose loved ones died in 21st-century foreign misadventures that Trump vowed not to replicate.
That painful modern history sets a high bar for justifying new wars that have uncertain endgames.
发表回复