2026-04-22T20:46:50.480Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
作者：亚伦·布莱克
更新于1小时48分钟前
更新时间：2026年4月22日，美国东部时间下午6:21
发布时间：2026年4月22日，美国东部时间下午4:46
中东 唐纳德·特朗普
4月16日，唐纳德·特朗普总统走向海军一号直升机，离开白宫。
曼努埃尔·巴尔塞·塞涅塔/美联社/档案照片
在伊朗战争爆发的第五天，也就是3月4日，白宫新闻秘书卡罗琳·利夫特向美国的敌人发出了强硬表态。
“恐怖分子赌特朗普总统会像他的许多前任一样——只会空谈，拒绝兑现明确划定的红线，”她开篇说道。“但事实证明，这是一个灾难性的判断错误。”
“特朗普总统从不虚张声势，”利夫特补充道。
考虑到特朗普在俄乌战争中多次发出空洞威胁、屡屡错过最后期限的前科，这番说辞本就令人怀疑。
但过去五周，或许比特朗普两届总统任期内的任何其他时期都更清楚地暴露了他的真面目——他确实是个虚张声势的人，而且是在规模最大、影响最深远的场景之一。
这位总统曾五次单独设定最后期限，要求伊朗接受他的条件，否则将面临美国的怒火。
而每一次，他都推迟了最后期限，尽管几乎没有或根本没有公开证据表明伊朗按照他提出的要求满足了条件。
“特朗普‘虚张声势’（TACO）”的说法已经成了批评者的笑料。但这并不好笑。正如曾因巴拉克·奥巴马未能兑现叙利亚红线威胁而大加挞伐的特朗普本人所说，虚张声势被戳穿会付出实实在在的代价——既损害美国的信誉，也削弱美国的实力投射。
我们都可以纠结于这些推迟的最后期限究竟在多大程度上属于虚张声势；这在很大程度上取决于德黑兰方面对达成协议的认真程度。同样值得注意的是，特朗普已经展现出对伊朗动武的决心，因为他在看似更倾向外交解决方案的情况下还是发动了这场战争。
但有一个实体确切知道特朗普的虚张声势有多严重：伊朗。
让我们回顾一下这些威胁、最后期限，以及特朗普是如何为自己辩解的。
1. 日期：3月21日
设定的最后期限：3月23日
特朗普称伊朗必须“在48小时内，毫无威胁地全面开放霍尔木兹海峡”。否则，美国将开始打击其发电厂。
2. 日期：3月23日
新设定的最后期限：3月28日
距离最后期限只剩约12小时时，特朗普宣布将期限推迟五天。但伊朗并未如他要求的那样开放霍尔木兹海峡，他反而援引了双方之间“非常良好且富有成效的对话”。
这番说辞存在两个问题。其一，伊朗官员否认当时正在进行任何谈判。其二，特朗普本可以利用剩余的12小时为自己的实际诉求造势，但他却在金融市场开盘前不久宣布推迟，以此安抚投资者。
特朗普称新的3月28日最后期限“取决于正在进行的会议和讨论是否取得成功”。
3. 日期：3月26日
新设定的最后期限：4月6日
特朗普称他将最后期限延长了八天，理由是伊朗政府请求更多时间，且谈判“进展非常顺利”。
但伊朗一名高级官员表示，双方只是“交换了信息”，而非真正的谈判。这场战争的美国盟友以色列则暗示，伊朗并未认真对待谈判。
特朗普当时声称，伊朗官员“不敢说”他们有多急于达成协议，生怕自己会被处决。但近一个月后，几乎没有证据表明伊朗官员曾提出重大让步。
在随后的几天里，特朗普明确了4月6日最后期限的具体要求。
他要求“达成一项协议”，霍尔木兹海峡“立即‘恢复通航’”。如果不这样做，他将炸毁伊朗所有的发电厂、油井和哈尔克岛——甚至可能炸毁该国所有的海水淡化厂。（特朗普在此威胁的行动很可能构成战争罪。）
他后来补充说，如果霍尔木兹海峡“开放、自由且畅通”，他将“考虑”停火。
4月4日，特朗普再次重申了最后期限，称伊朗“再有48小时，地狱就会降临到他们头上”。
4. 日期：4月6日
新最后期限：4月7日
尽管伊朗既未达成协议也未开放海峡，特朗普还是又给了一天时间。他援引了复活节作为理由，尽管他在设定最后期限时显然应该知道这是一个节日。
“我认为复活节次日动手不合适，”他说。“我想做个好人。”
他还表示，如果伊朗不满足要求，“他们将一座桥梁都不剩，一座发电厂都不剩”。
5. 日期：4月7日
新最后期限：4月21日
特朗普宣布停火两周。但同样，他并未提及伊朗已经满足了他达成协议或开放海峡的要求。相反，他再次援引了所谓的谈判进展和一项临时协议。
但停火协议的关键条款很快引发争议——包括以色列是否同意停止袭击黎巴嫩真主党、作为谈判基础的十点提案是什么，以及伊朗是否可以继续控制海峡。
特朗普还表示，停火“取决于伊朗伊斯兰共和国同意全面、立即、安全地开放霍尔木兹海峡”。这一点似乎从未实现，但特朗普还是继续推进了停火协议。
6. 日期：4月21日
新最后期限：未指定
特朗普宣布将无限期延长伊朗提交和平提案的期限。但同样，德黑兰并未按照他的要求达成协议或开放海峡。这一次，他甚至没有援引所谓的谈判进展。
相反，特朗普援引了“伊朗政府严重分裂这一事实”。
但他随后又推翻了自己的理由，称领导层分裂“并不出人意料”。如果这是可以预见的，那之前为什么要设定严格的最后期限呢？
消息人士告诉CNN，特朗普打算将新的延长后的最后期限限定在一定范围内，但白宫在周三晚些时候表示，他并未设定“明确的最后期限”。
“人们说我想尽快结束战争是因为中期选举，这不是真的，”特朗普周三对福克斯新闻主持人玛莎·麦卡勒姆说，他称结束战争“没有时间框架”。
在延长停火协议时，总统表示，停火将持续到伊朗提交提案，并且“无论以何种方式，谈判都将结束”。
这一切听起来都更加没有期限。
有人可以辩称，延长停火协议对世界有利，因为它不会让中东地区陷入更深的战争。
但伊朗完全有理由得出这样的结论：特朗普根本不想兑现他的威胁。毕竟，尽管几乎没有或根本没有公开证据表明德黑兰满足了他的红线要求，他还是一再推迟最后期限。
还有某个人曾断言，这种虚张声势的做法会损害美国的谈判立场。
在奥巴马威胁如果叙利亚使用化学武器就采取军事行动，却未能兑现这一红线后，特朗普多年来一直将此事作为攻击他本人和希拉里·克林顿的把柄。
“他发出威胁后却没有跨过那条线，我认为这让我们倒退了很长一段路，”特朗普在2017年反思道，“不仅在叙利亚，在世界许多其他地方都是如此，因为那是一个空洞的威胁。
“我认为这作为一个国家来说，不是我们的高光时刻之一。”
在2016年共和党全国代表大会的演讲中，特朗普称奥巴马的红线是一种“耻辱”，因为“全世界都知道那根本毫无意义”。
The significance of Trump’s bluffs on Iran
2026-04-22T20:46:50.480Z / CNN
Analysis by
Aaron Blake
Updated 1 hr 48 min ago
Updated Apr 22, 2026, 6:21 PM ET
PUBLISHED Apr 22, 2026, 4:46 PM ET
The Middle East Donald Trump
President Donald Trump walks toward Marine One as he departs the White House, on April 16.
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP/File
On the fifth day of the Iran war, March 4, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had a defiant message for America’s enemies.
“The terrorists made a bet that President Trump would be like many of his predecessors — that he would just talk, and he would refuse to enforce his clear red lines,” she began. “But that has proven to be a catastrophic error in judgment.”
“President Trump does not bluff,” Leavitt added.
That was already a suspect message, given Trump’s demonstrated history of empty threats and blown deadlines on the Russia-Ukraine war.
But the last five weeks, perhaps more than any other period in Trump’s two terms as president, have revealed him for the bluffer that he is — and on one of the largest and most significant scales imaginable.
On five separate occasions, the president has set deadlines for Iran to come to his terms or face his wrath.
And each time, he’s delayed that deadline despite little or no public evidence that Iran met the terms as he laid them out.
The idea that Trump has “TACO”-ed has become a punchline for his critics. But it’s not that funny. As the Trump who once pilloried Barack Obama for failing to enforce his Syria red line would tell you, having your bluff called comes with a real cost — both for American credibility and projections of strength.
We can all quibble about just how much any one of these delayed deadlines is actually a bluff; much hinges on just how serious Tehran has been about cutting a deal. It’s also worth noting that Trump has shown he’s willing to hit Iran hard, because he already has — by starting the war after appearing to prefer a diplomatic outcome.
But there is one entity that knows exactly how badly Trump has bluffed: Iran.
Let’s recap the threats, the deadlines and how Trump explained them away.
1. Date: March 21
Deadline set: March 23
Trump said Iran had to “FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS.” Otherwise, the United States would start striking its power plants.
2. Date: March 23
New deadline set: March 28
With about 12 hours to go, Trump announced a five-day delay. But rather than Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, as he had demanded, he instead cited “VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS” between the two sides.
There were two problems with that. One is that Iranian officials denied there were any negotiations at that point. And two was that Trump seemingly had 12 more hours to agitate for his actual demand. Instead, he announced the delay shortly before the financial markets opened up, soothing investors.
Trump said the new March 28 deadline was “SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS.”
3. Date: March 26
New deadline set: April 6
Trump said he was adding eight more days to the deadline, citing an “Iranian Government request” for more time and talks that were “going very well.”
But a top Iranian official said there had only been an “exchange of messages,” not true negotiations. And the US ally in the war, Israel, suggested Iran wasn’t actually serious about negotiating.
Trump claimed at the time that Iranian officials were “afraid to say” how anxious they were to cut a deal for fear of being killed. But nearly a month later, there remains little evidence Iranian officials have ever offered major concessions.
In the days that followed, Trump set out the terms for the April 6 deadline.
The demand was that “a deal” be “reached” and the Strait of Hormuz be “immediately ‘Open for Business.’” If that didn’t happen, he would blow up all of Iran’s electric power plants, oil wells and Kharg Island — as well as possibly all of the country’s desalination plants. (It’s quite possible the things Trump was threatening here would be war crimes.)
He later added that he would “consider” a ceasefire if the Strait of Hormuz were “open, free, and clear.”
Trump re-upped the deadline on April 4, saying Iran had “48 hours before all Hell will reign down on them.”
4. Date: April 6
New deadline: April 7
Despite Iran not cutting a deal or opening up the strait, Trump gave it another day. He did so by citing Easter, even though it’s a holiday he would seemingly have been aware of when he set the deadline.
“I thought it was inappropriate the day after Easter,” he said. “I want to be a nice person.”
He said that if the Iranians didn’t meet the demands, “they’re going to have no bridges, they’re going to have no power plants.”
5. Date: April 7
New deadline: April 21
Trump announced a two-week ceasefire. But again, he didn’t say Iran had met his demands of cutting a deal or opening the strait. Instead, he again cited supposed progress in negotiations and a temporary agreement.
But key aspects of the ceasefire deal were quickly in dispute — including whether Israel had agreed to stop striking Hezbollah in Lebanon, what 10-point proposal was the basis for negotiations, and whether Iran could retain control of the strait.
Trump also said the ceasefire was “subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz.” That doesn’t appear as though it ever happened, but Trump continued with the ceasefire anyway.
6. Date: April 21
New deadline: Unspecified
Trump announced he would give Iran an unspecified extension to come up with a proposal for peace. But again, Tehran hadn’t cut a deal or opened the strait, as he demanded. And he didn’t even cite supposed progress this time.
Instead, Trump cited “the fact that the Government of Iran is seriously fractured.”
But then he undercut his own reasoning in the next clause by saying the leadership being fractured was “not unexpectedly so.” If this was predictable, then why the previous hard deadline?
Sources have told CNN that Trump intends the new extended deadline to be limited, but the White House said later Wednesday that he’s set no “firm deadline.”
“People say I want to get it over because of the midterms, not true,” Trump told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum on Wednesday, saying there was “no time frame” for ending the war.
And in extending the ceasefire, the president said it would continue not just until an Iranian proposal can be submitted, but also until “discussions are concluded, one way or the other.”
That all sounds a lot more open-ended.
There’s an argument to be made that extending the ceasefire is good for the world, in that it doesn’t plunge the Middle East deeper into war.
But you could certainly forgive Iran for concluding, at this point, that Trump simply doesn’t want to follow through on his threats. After all, he’s made extensions despite little or no public evidence that Tehran has met his red-line terms.
And there’s a certain someone who once wagered that this kind of bluffing damaged the negotiating posture of the United States.
After Obama declined to enforce his “red line” of taking military action against Syria if it used chemical weapons, Trump spent years hanging it around his and Hillary Clinton’s necks.
“When he didn’t cross that line after making the threat, I think that set us back a long ways,” Trump reflected in 2017, “not only in Syria, but in many other parts of the world, because it was a blank threat.
“I think it was something that was not one of our better days as a country.”
In his 2016 Republican National Convention speech, Trump called Obama’s red line a “humiliation” because “the whole world knew it meant absolutely nothing.”