发布时间：2026-03-17T11:00:34.223Z / 来源：CNN政治
分析由
[Aaron Blake]
29分钟前
发布于 2026年3月17日，美国东部时间上午7:00
唐纳德·特朗普 中东 选举 民调
[查看所有主题]
Facebook 推文[电子邮件]链接 话题
链接已复制！
总统唐纳德·特朗普于3月16日在椭圆形办公室发表讲话，副总统JD·万斯陪同。
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP
“我们无意进行长期冲突，”副总统JD·万斯在2025年6月美国对伊朗核设施实施空袭数小时后表示。随后他补充道：“我们无意派遣地面部队。”
然而，在对伊朗展开更广泛战争两周多后的今天，政府的调子已经变了，拒绝排除这种可能性。总统唐纳德·特朗普不再像过去那样淡化这一想法，而且越来越多的战略因素让人怀疑这可能成为可行选项。
如果特朗普真的这么做，这既表明这场战争已走向他未曾预料的方向，也表明这已成为巨大的政治风险。
自上月对伊朗发动首次打击以来开展的民调显示，总体而言，美国人对地面部队进驻伊朗的想法完全不接受——甚至对共和党选民基础来说也很难被说服。
尽管近期历史表明，这一群体可能会在某种程度上对这一想法有所接受，但特朗普甚至在争取许多支持者的信任方面也在冒更大的风险。
但似乎有越来越多的理由表明，至少会有少量地面部队被部署到伊朗领土上——无论是为了夺取伊朗的核材料；接管政府近期打击的战略要地霍姆兹海峡附近的哈尔克岛；还是控制霍尔木兹海峡周边地区以帮助重启载油船只的通行。（正如CNN报道的那样，要捕获被认为深埋地下的高浓缩铀储备，需要大量地面部队，远不止特种作战部队的规模。）
3月4日，美国海军人员在亚伯拉罕·林肯号航空母舰的飞行甲板上支持“史诗狂怒行动”。
US Navy
特朗普近日对有关可能性的问题变得不耐烦，但明确表示这是他保留的选项，这与九个月前不同。
我们还在周末得知，政府正在向中东部署一个海军陆战队远征部队，这是一个通常包括2500名海军陆战队员和水手的快速反应部队，部署原因不明。
美国驻联合国大使迈克·沃尔茨周日告诉福克斯新闻：“这不会是另一个2003年的伊拉克。不会有成千上万的部队占领某个地方的城市地区。”
但他表示，军方正在为特朗普提供选项，“训练有素、装备精良、处于准备状态，随时准备执行他作为总司令选择的任何任务。”
特朗普也不像两周前那样淡化这种可能性了，当时他向《纽约邮报》描述这是一种“可能不需要他们”或“如果必要的话”的情况。
美国民众似乎确实希望不需要地面部队。
战争开始后不久进行的一项[CNN民调]显示，美国人反对派遣地面部队的比例为5:1，反对率60%，支持率12%。
同样，后来的一项[昆尼皮亚克大学民调]显示，登记选民中这一比例接近4:1：74%反对，20%支持。
在这两项民调中，即使是共和党人——他们近几个月从21世纪初的立场回到了更鹰派的态度——也以两位数的比例反对这一想法。
在CNN的民调中，只有27%的共和党人支持这一想法；在昆尼皮亚克大学的民调中，只有37%的登记共和党选民支持。
这些数字在背景下是有道理的。对特朗普之前军事行动的民调——2025年6月的伊朗打击行动和他1月推翻委内瑞拉总统尼古拉斯·马杜罗的行动——显示，相当一部分美国人对短暂军事打击持接受态度，但通常不会接受更多。1月在委内瑞拉反对地面部队的情绪与今天伊朗的情况相似。
这种情况当然可能改变。我们之前看到，共和党人在特朗普推行军事行动后，可能会改变之前反对的立场。
但同样明显的是，共和党对特朗普对伊朗战争的支持虽然广泛但不够深入。CNN民调显示，77%的共和党人支持早期打击行动，但只有37%的人“强烈”支持。
我们还看到，这场战争正日益分裂共和党的意见领袖阶层——这种现象可能随时间影响到基层。右翼知名人士警告特朗普，这场战争有撕裂其联盟的风险。
值得注意的是，我们看到一些共和党国会议员几乎似乎在预先警告特朗普不要派遣地面部队。
佛罗里达州参议员里克·斯科特上周向CNN坚称，特朗普“对地面部队不感兴趣”。田纳西州众议员蒂姆·伯切特也告诉CNN，特朗普知道公众对此没有“兴趣”。其他如南卡罗来纳州众议员南希·梅斯和密苏里州参议员乔希·霍利则敦促特朗普采取不同的路线。
而路易斯安那州参议员约翰·肯尼迪一如既往地言辞生动，3月8日告诉福克斯新闻：“如果他派遣部队，你听到的闷响将是我摔倒的声音，因为我会晕倒。”
这些共和党人可能和美国公众的初步反应一样，担心这种行动的长期影响。毕竟，地面部队会增加更多美军伤亡的可能性。
这将是冲突开始呈现出更多传统战争特征的时刻，而美国人已明确表示不愿参与此类战争。
但公众反对并没有阻止特朗普，那么为什么现在会阻止呢？
唐纳德·特朗普 中东 选举 民调
[查看所有主题]
Facebook 推文[电子邮件]链接 话题
链接已复制！
US troops in Iran? What Americans think, and what it would mean
Published Time: 2026-03-17T11:00:34.223Z / Source: CNN Politics
Analysis by
[Aaron Blake]
29 min ago
PUBLISHED Mar 17, 2026, 7:00 AM ET
Donald Trump The Middle East Election polls
[See all topics]
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads
Link Copied!
President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office on March 16, alongside Vice President JD Vance.
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP
“We have no interest in a protracted conflict,” Vice President JD Vance said in June 2025, hours after the United States [carried out airstrikes] on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Then he added: “We have no interest in boots on the ground.”
The administration is singing a different tune today, refusing to rule out that prospect more than two weeks into a more extensive war against Iran. President Donald Trump isn’t downplaying the idea like he once did, and there are increasing strategic reasons to suspect it might be a viable option.
Should Trump go there, it would be both a sign that this war has gone in directions he didn’t seem to anticipate and that is has become a massive political risk.
Polling conducted since the first strikes against Iran last month suggests the idea of troops on the ground is a complete nonstarter for Americans overall — and even a tough sell for the GOP base.
And while recent history suggests that base might warm to the idea, at least somewhat, Trump is pushing his luck with even many of those supporters.
But there appear to be increasing reasons that at least a small amount of ground forces could be deployed on Iranian soil — whether that be to seize Iran’s nuclear materials; to take over strategically important [Kharg Island], which the administration recently targeted; or to seize territory around the [Strait of Hormuz] to help restart the passage of ships carrying oil. (As CNN has [reported], capturing the highly enriched uranium stockpile believed to be deep underground would require a significant troop presence, well beyond a special operations footprint.)
US sailors on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in support of Operation Epic Fury on March 4.
US Navy
Trump has gotten testy with questions about the possibility in recent days but made clear it’s an option he is reserving, unlike nine months ago.
We also learned over the weekend that the administration is [deploying a Marine Expeditionary Unit], a rapid response unit that usually includes 2,500 Marines and sailors, to the Middle East for unexplained reasons.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told Fox News on Sunday that “this isn’t going to be another 2003 Iraq. There are not going to be hundreds of thousands of troops occupying urban areas somewhere.”
But he said the military is providing options to Trump “to have forces that are trained, equipped, in position and ready for whatever he chooses to do as commander in chief.”
And Trump isn’t downplaying the possibility as much as he did two weeks ago, when he [described it to the New York Post] as a “probably don’t need them” or an “if they were necessary”-type situation.
The American people sure seem to hope ground troops are not needed.
A [CNN poll] conducted shortly after the war began showed Americans opposed sending ground troops by a 5-to-1 margin, 60%-12%.
Similarly, a later [Quinnipiac University poll] put the margin at nearly 4-to-1 among registered voters: 74%-20%.
In both polls, even Republicans — who have in recent months [returned to their more hawkish ways] from the early 21st century — opposed the idea by double-digits.
Just 27% of Republicans favored the idea in the CNN poll; just 37% of registered GOP voters did so in the Quinnipiac poll.
And those numbers make sense in context. Polls of Trump’s previous military moves — the June Iran strikes and his ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January — suggested a decent-sized minority of Americans were OK with brief military strikes [but often not much more]. And [opposition to boots on the][ground in Venezuela] in January was similar to where it is today in Iran.
That could certainly change. We’ve seen before how Republicans who previously opposed the idea of military action can shift their views once Trump pursues those actions.
But it’s also pretty clear that the GOP support for Trump’s war against Iran, such as it exists, is [wide but shallow]. The CNN poll showed 77% of Republicans supported the early strikes, but only 37% did so “strongly.”
We’ve also seen how the war is increasingly dividing the GOP’s influencer class — a phenomenon that [can trickle down to the base over time]. Prominent right-wing figures are warning Trump that this war risks tearing apart his coalition.
And notably, we’re seeing some congressional Republicans almost seem to preemptively warn Trump against putting boots on the ground.
Sen. Rick Scott of Florida insisted to CNN last week that Trump “has no interest in troops on the ground.” Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee likewise told CNN that Trump knew there was no “appetite” for such a thing. Others, such as [Rep. Nancy Mace] of South Carolina and [Sen. Josh Hawley] of Missouri, are urging Trump to chart a different course.
And Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, as usual, was the most colorful, telling Fox News on March 8 that “if he sends in troops, the thud you hear will be me face-planting, because I fainted.”
These Republicans may fear the long-term implications of such a move as much as the initial reaction from the American public. Boots on the ground, after all, would raise the prospects for many more US casualties.
It would be the point at which this conflict risks taking on the characteristics of a more traditional war, the likes of which Americans have made very clear they want no part.
But public opposition hasn’t stopped Trump before, so why would it now?
Donald Trump The Middle East Election polls
[See all topics]
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads
Link Copied!
发表回复