2026-04-08T19:05:14.573Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
分析文章由
亚伦·布莱克撰写
24分钟前发布
发布于 2026年4月8日，美国东部时间下午3:05
唐纳德·特朗普与中东
查看所有话题
4月1日，唐纳德·特朗普总统在白宫十字大厅发表有关伊朗战争的演讲。
亚历克斯·布兰登/路透社
对于右翼的伊朗鹰派来说，周二晚间原本是一场值得庆祝的时刻：唐纳德·特朗普总统再次证明了批评者错了，他凭借所谓的“交易的艺术”达成停火，结束了持续进行的战争。
但到周三上午，这种庆祝情绪让位给了对特朗普为脱身而愿意做出何种让步的切实担忧。
目前关于停火协议仍有诸多不明之处。但其中部分条款已经在右翼引发了警报。
其一，目前没有任何关于伊朗铀浓缩项目后续安排的确切消息。其二，特朗普在周二晚间表示，伊朗提出的10点和平计划是“可用于谈判的可行基础”，但伊朗公开版本的这10点方案完全偏向德黑兰的立场——其中包括承认伊朗的铀浓缩权利、向伊朗支付赔偿以及解除所有制裁。
白宫新闻秘书卡罗琳·莱维特周三下午表示，特朗普的发言所指的是另一份私下讨论的方案。她补充称，这份公开方案被认为“不严肃”。
“总统的红线，即终止伊朗的铀浓缩活动，并未改变，”莱维特说道。
尽管如此，莱维特并未透露任何关于这份私下协议的细节。同时，尽管她表示停火协议要求霍尔木兹海峡“不受限制地”全面重新开放，但伊朗官员暗示，该协议将使德黑兰掌控这条全球最重要的海上咽喉要道。
正如过去40天所显示的那样，伊朗可以利用这种控制权 effectively 将国际经济扣为人质。伊朗媒体已经报道，在以色列袭击黎巴嫩后，德黑兰正在暂停海峡内的油轮通行。
CNN的法里德·扎卡里亚周二晚间表示，即使是暂时将海峡控制权交给德黑兰，也等同于递给伊朗一件“比核武器好用得多的武器”。他补充道，这与美国200多年来优先保障航行自由的外交政策背道而驰。
毫无疑问，美国和以色列军队已经击毙了多名伊朗高级领导人，并使伊朗军方实力大幅削弱。但掌控霍尔木兹海峡可能会成为伊朗未来的重要生命线。
而特朗普至少在公开表态中，将这一点视为更永久协议中可行的一部分。周三上午，特朗普在接受美国广播公司新闻记者乔纳森·卡尔采访时，提出了一项“合资企业”的设想，即美伊双方对过往船只收取通行费。
“这是一件美妙的事，”他补充道。莱维特证实，相关构想将在未来两周内进行讨论。
4月8日，阿曼穆桑达姆省海岸外的船只，背景是霍尔木兹海峡。
路透社
但特朗普那些对伊朗态度更强硬的盟友，似乎认为这很危险而非“美妙”。
最引人注目的或许是南卡罗来纳州参议员林赛·格雷厄姆在X平台上发布的一系列帖子，他是这场战争最直言不讳的支持者之一。
特朗普宣布协议后不久，格雷厄姆发帖称：“我们必须记住，战争爆发后，伊朗袭击了霍尔木兹海峡，破坏了航行自由。”
“从今往后，绝不能让伊朗因这一针对全世界的敌对行为而获利，”这位南卡罗来纳州共和党人补充道。
他甚至主张，尚未正式批准这场战争的国会，必须对任何结束战争的协议进行投票——将其与前总统巴拉克·奥巴马与伊朗达成的核协议的国会审批程序相提并论。
到周三上午，格雷厄姆在赞扬特朗普的同时，也警告他不要在铀浓缩问题上对伊朗让步过多。
“允许这个政权未来进行铀浓缩，是对战争开始以来被该政权杀害的所有人的侮辱，也与阻止伊朗未来获得核武器路径的目标相悖，”格雷厄姆说道。
特朗普的另一位重要幕僚、福克斯新闻主持人马克·莱文也发表了类似言论。
停火协议宣布后不久，莱文在肖恩·汉尼蒂的节目中告诫观众：“别搞错：他们是敌人。”
“如果不进行政权更迭，他们不会消失，”莱文说道。“我们必须想办法——这并不容易——继续对他们施压。”
周三上午，莱文称伊朗公开的10点提案“绝对是一场灾难”。
接受CNN采访的一些共和党人也表达了谨慎态度。
在接受CNN记者凯特·博尔杜安采访时，温和派共和党人、内布拉斯加州众议员唐·培根拒绝了特朗普关于美伊在霍尔木兹海峡组建合资企业的设想。
“令人担忧的地方在于，”培根补充道。“伊朗现政权仍然存在，我们应该以实力地位进行谈判，而不是达成对他们有利的条件。”
在接受CNN记者约翰·伯曼采访时，保守派弗吉尼亚州众议员本·克莱因多次回避就伊朗可能通过海峡获利的想法发表评论，最终还是拒绝了该设想。
“没人会接受伊朗对过往船只征收此类持续税费的做法，”克莱因说道。
克莱因的采访表明，共和党人可能不愿公开与特朗普在伊朗协议问题上决裂。但担忧显然在总统的盟友中蔓延，尤其是在社交媒体上。格雷厄姆和莱文试图引导任何潜在协议的方式尤其能说明问题。
特朗普喜欢夸大其词地宣扬自己的成就，无疑会将此次停火吹嘘为只有他才能达成的惊人协议。通常情况下，他的基础选民最终会接受这一说法。
但在结束这场战争的问题上，情况不会那么简单。
像格雷厄姆和莱文这样的人，对于如何处理伊朗有着强烈的立场，而这是他们向该政权施加最大压力、真正实现目标的最佳机会。他们不会愿意为了附和特朗普而接受折中方案或对伊朗做出重大让步。
如果总统只是出于政治考量急于脱身——而伊朗又始终持强硬立场，问题就会出现。特朗普还倾向于通过达成协议将敌人转变为朋友，至少是商业伙伴，但在伊朗政权身上，这种想法似乎太过一厢情愿。
谈判将继续进行——包括美国右翼内部的谈判。
Iran hawks seem to fear Trump will give Iran too much
2026-04-08T19:05:14.573Z / CNN
Analysis by
Aaron Blake
24 min ago
PUBLISHED Apr 8, 2026, 3:05 PM ET
The Middle East Donald Trump
See all topics
President Donald Trump arrives to speak about the Iran war from the Cross Hall of the White House, on April 1.
Alex Brandon/Reuters
For Iran hawks on the right, Tuesday night was initially time to revel in how President Donald Trump had again proven his detractors wrong with his supposed “Art of the Deal” win in obtaining a ceasefire in the ongoing war.
But by Wednesday morning, that revelry gave way to some genuine concern about what Trump was willing to concede to extract himself from the conflict.
There is a lot still unknown about the ceasefire deal. But some aspects are raising alarms on the right.
For one, there’s no real word about what might happen with Iran’s uranium. Second, Trump on Tuesday night said a 10-point Iranian plan for peace was a “workable basis on which to negotiate,” but Iran’s public version of those 10 points are heavily slanted in Tehran’s favor — including a recognized right to enrich uranium, reparations paid to Iran and the lifting of all sanctions.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday afternoon that Trump’s statement is referring to a separate, privately discussed plan. She added that the public one was deemed “unserious.”
“The president’s red lines, namely, the end of uranium enrichment in Iran, have not changed,” Leavitt said.
Still, Leavitt did not offer any details about the private deal. And, while she said the ceasefire required the Strait of Hormuz to be fully reopened with “no limitations,” Iranian officials are indicating that the agreement hands Tehran control of the strait, the world’s most important maritime chokepoint.
As the last 40 days have shown, Iran can use such control to effectively hold the international economy hostage. Already, Iranian media is reporting that Tehran is halting oil tanker traffic through the strait after Israel attacked Lebanon.
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria said late Tuesday that conceding even temporary control of the strait to Tehran amounted to handing Iran a “weapon” that is “far more usable than nuclear weapons.” He added that it conflicts with more than 200 years of American foreign policy, which has prioritized freedom of navigation.
There is no doubt that US and Israeli forces have killed many high-profile Iranian leaders and left the country’s military badly diminished. But control of the strait could be a huge lifeline for Iran moving forward.
And Trump is at least talking like this could be a workable part of a more permanent deal. In comments to ABC News’ Jonathan Karl on Wednesday morning, Trump floated “a joint venture” in which the US and Iran would charge tolls for ships to pass.
“It’s a beautiful thing,” he added. Leavitt confirmed the idea would be discussed over the next two weeks.
Vessels and boats are off the coast of Musandam governance, in Oman, overlooking the Strait of Hormuz, on April 8.
Reuters
But Trump allies who are more hawkish on Iran seem to see this as dangerous rather than beautiful.
Perhaps most striking have been a series of posts on X from Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the most vocal proponents of the war.
Shortly after Trump announced the deal, Graham posted: “We must remember that the Strait of Hormuz was attacked by Iran after the start of the war, destroying freedom of navigation.”
“Going forward, it is imperative Iran is not rewarded for this hostile act against the world,” the South Carolina Republican added.
He even argued that Congress, which hasn’t seen fit to officially authorize the war, must vote on any deals to end it — comparing it to congressional approval of former President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
By Wednesday morning, Graham showered Trump with praise while also warning him about giving Iran too much leeway on the uranium issue.
“Allowing this regime to enrich in the future would be an affront to all those murdered by the regime since this war started and would be inconsistent with denying Iran a pathway toward a bomb in the future,” Graham said.
Another key voice in Trump’s ear, Fox News host Mark Levin, has made similar comments.
Shortly after the ceasefire was announced, Levin cautioned on Sean Hannity’s show that people should “make no mistake: they are the enemy.”
“They’re not going to go away if there’s not regime change,” Levin said. “And we’re going to have to figure out — and it’s not going to be easy — how to keep our foot on their throat.”
By Wednesday morning, Levin called Iran’s public 10-point proposal “an absolute disaster.”
Some Republicans interviewed on CNN have also projected caution.
In an interview with CNN’s Kate Bolduan, centrist Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska rejected Trump’s idea of a joint US-Iran venture in the Strait of Hormuz.
“Here’s the concern,” Bacon added. “The government’s still in place, and we should be negotiating from a position of strength, not a position that’s good for them.”
And in an interview with CNN’s John Berman, conservative Rep. Ben Cline of Virginia repeatedly avoided weighing in on the idea that Iran could make money off the strait — before eventually rejecting it.
“No one’s going to be OK with that kind of continued tax by Iran on ships going through the strait,” Cline said.
Cline’s interview suggests that Republicans might be reluctant to publicly break with Trump on a deal with Iran. But concern is clearly percolating among the president’s allies, especially on social media. The way in which Graham and Levin are trying to steer any potential deal is especially telling.
Trump loves to hyperbolize his accomplishments and will no doubt tout this as an amazing deal only he could get. Usually, his base eventually accepts that talking point.
But that won’t be so easy when it comes to ending this war.
People like Graham and Levin feel very strongly about what needs to be done with Iran, and this is their best chance to exert maximum pressure on the regime — to really get what they want. They won’t be inclined to accept half-measures or major concessions to Iran in the name of toeing Trump’s line.
The problem comes if the president decides he just needs to get out of this, politically speaking — and if Iran keeps holding a hard line. Trump also tends to want to cut deals that turn foes into friends or at least business partners, but that would seem pretty fanciful with Iran’s regime.
The negotiations will continue — including internal ones on the American right.