2026-06-12T18:35:03.340Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
- 与伊朗达成临时协议的可能性或许比以往任何时候都更大，但特朗普政府前路仍面临诸多重大挑战。
- 关键分歧点包括解除伊朗的核计划、处理高浓缩铀、解冻伊朗被冻结的数十亿资产，以及伊朗资助代理武装团体的问题。
- 在每一个问题上，特朗普都必须向美国公众解释，为何这份新协议比前总统巴拉克·奥巴马时期的伊朗核协议更出色。
本文由AI生成的摘要经CNN编辑审核。
如今，特朗普政府与伊朗达成延长停火协议、并着手终结战争的共识迎来了新的乐观情绪——这一次，这种乐观并非仅存在于唐纳德·特朗普总统的个人想法中。
就连伊朗外长都表示，达成协议“从未如此接近”。
但需要明确的是，即便有充分理由感到乐观，这本身也并非一份和平协议。它只是更长进程中的第一步。
达成当前的共识或许是相对容易的部分，后续的推进将更加艰难。
目前讨论中的临时协议，本质上是双方先就一些较易达成共识的问题达成一致——比如结束伊朗对霍尔木兹海峡及附近美国海上封锁的阻挠——同时设定60天的时限和一系列议程，以解决后续更棘手的问题。
特朗普政府还宣称伊朗已同意作出重大让步，但伊朗媒体对 tentative 协议的描述则大相径庭。
周五的局势进一步凸显了前路的艰难。伊朗政府关联媒体报道了一份对德黑兰极为有利的潜在协议细节后，特朗普痛斥伊朗领导人是“非常不讲信用的交易对象”，并称“与他们打交道根本不存在诚信可言”。
那么，特朗普试图与其毫无诚意的对手敲定的协议内容会是怎样的？
我们来梳理一下潜在的分歧点，以及为何特朗普可能难以向美国公众证明最终的协议条款是一项真正的成就。
这是任何潜在和平协议中最重要的一环，同时也极其复杂。
特朗普政府透露，伊朗已同意解除其核计划，并“无限期”承诺不研发核武器。但即便此言属实，具体如何实施、未来如何监督执行都是关键问题——而这些此前就曾引发过重大争议。光是敲定这些细节，恐怕就需要数周时间。
一名资深政府官员周五提及了一项新的“核查机制”，但目前细节甚少。
例如，伊朗是否会放弃所有核项目，哪怕是那些看似可用于民用用途的部分？还是仅同意将铀浓缩浓度控制在一定水平，从理论上使其无法获得武器级高浓缩铀？
听起来后者可能性更大，这名官员周五表示，“我们完全不反对伊朗拥有民用核电站的想法”。
至关重要的是，核查人员将如何确保伊朗遵守协议？
特朗普一直强调，伊朗承诺不研发核武器将是一项重大胜利。但实际上，伊朗多年来一直声称自己并未研发核武器。
真正的核心问题在于，特朗普政府将如何确保伊朗遵守协议。更为复杂的是，特朗普此前一直嘲笑奥巴马时期的核协议过于软弱，因此他必须向公众说明，这份新协议优于奥巴马的旧协议。旧协议对伊朗的铀浓缩活动设有限制，并由联合国核监督机构核查执行情况。
最大的障碍在于：特朗普所在政党中有许多伊朗强硬派人士认为，德黑兰根本不可信，无法遵守任何协议的条款。特朗普周五有关伊朗不可靠的言论，显然加剧了这一问题。
已经存在的高浓缩铀本身也带来了诸多问题。特朗普政府表示，伊朗必须交出这些高浓缩铀，但美国一年前的空袭行动已将其深埋地下。
特朗普也曾多次明确提及，美国最终可能无法获取这些材料。
他曾暗示美军可以将这些区域“封存”并加以监控。“这些东西埋得太深了，我根本不在乎，”他在今年4月的一次讲话中说道。
也有讨论提出，可以将这些铀“稀释”，使其不再具有高浓缩特性，但仍留在伊朗境内作为燃料使用。
这名资深政府官员周五表示，临时协议涉及将高浓缩铀“在现场销毁，然后运出该国”。但他们也承认，“还需要一点时间来敲定具体的实施方式”。
很难想象，如果无法获取伊朗现有的高浓缩铀，特朗普要如何将其宣扬为一项重大胜利。
这一点可能会让特朗普过往的言论反噬自身。
2016年，他和其他共和党人抨击奥巴马政府向伊朗支付4亿美元现金，这笔交易与人质释放和核协议挂钩。
这笔钱并非纯粹的馈赠，而是用于解决海牙国际法庭针对1979年一笔失败军火交易的索赔。但当时的舆论效果极差，特朗普等人声称这笔资金将被用于恐怖主义活动。
（实际上，这4亿美元只是原本应支付给伊朗的17亿美元中的第一笔分期付款。）
如今，伊朗似乎坚持要求解冻规模更大的资产：240亿美元。
今年4月，有关解冻资产的报道首次传出时，特朗普曾保证：“无论以何种方式、何种形式，都不会有资金易手。”
但他可能是在玩文字游戏，将解冻资产与支付现金区分开来。至少从副总统JD·万斯周五在X平台上的帖子来看，特朗普政府似乎正打算游走在这条模糊的界限上。
万斯重申，伊朗不会得到“现金”，但补充道“不会仅因签署协议或参加会议就释放任何资金”。这听起来像是资金确实会在某个节点被解冻。
但从技术上讲，2016年的那笔付款原本也属于伊朗应得的资金。
从伊朗公开划定的红线来看，资金问题似乎不可避免。但如果真的涉及资金，特朗普将面临与当年类似的指责，称他给伊朗的资金可能被用于恐怖主义活动。
尽管许多细节看起来与奥巴马时期的伊朗核协议有些相似，但霍尔木兹海峡问题为此次谈判增添了新的变量。
毕竟，这场战争让伊朗在该地区取得了重大战略胜利。伊朗已证明，其有能力有效封锁霍尔木兹海峡——并对全球经济造成负面影响——以此作为谈判筹码。
这里的核心问题不在于伊朗是否会暂时放弃对海峡的实际控制权——特朗普政府肯定会要求这一点——而在于协议将如何应对伊朗未来似乎仍具备封锁海峡的能力。
如果这一问题得不到解决，而协议的其他内容又与奥巴马时期的核协议颇为相似，那么特朗普的批评者将很容易辩称，这份新协议比旧协议更糟糕。
早在竞选初期，特朗普及其团队就曾表示，他们最重要的目标之一是确保伊朗无法再资助哈马斯、真主党等代理武装团体，这些团体在该地区散播恐怖。
两个月前，特朗普曾 falsely 声称伊朗已同意他的所有要求，并称其中包括停止支持所有代理武装团体的承诺。
但此后，特朗普和政府几乎不再提及这一问题。
一名资深政府官员周五告诉CNN，伊朗已同意不资助恐怖主义团体。但同样，即便此言属实，细节才是关键——比如这在实际中意味着什么，以及如何进行核查。
如果特朗普在这方面未能取得实质性成果，那就意味着他未能实现战争爆发时提出的四大关键目标之一。
Can Trump get a good Iran deal? Here are the major pitfalls that lie ahead
2026-06-12T18:35:03.340Z / CNN
- An interim agreement with Iran may be closer than ever, but the Trump administration faces major challenges ahead.
- Key sticking points include dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, handling enriched uranium, unfreezing billions in frozen Iranian assets and the funding of proxy groups.
- On each point, Trump will have to make the case to the American public on why it improves on former President Barack Obama’s Iran deal.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
There is suddenly newfound optimism about the Trump administration reaching an agreement with Iran to extend the ceasefire and to start to bring the war to an end — and not just inside President Donald Trump’s head this time.
Even Iran’s foreign minister says an agreement “has never been closer.”
But it’s important to note that, even if there’s good reason for the optimism, this would not be a peace deal, in and of itself. It’s the first step in a much longer process.
Getting here was likely the easier part; what comes next will be even harder.
The interim agreement under discussion would essentially involve the two sides coming to terms on some of the easier points — like ending Iran’s throttling of the Strait of Hormuz and the nearby US blockade — while setting a 60-day clock and a set agenda for resolving the more difficult ones.
The Trump administration is also claiming Iran has agreed to some very big concessions, but Iranian media is pitching a much different version of a tentative agreement.
Friday morning reinforced the fraught nature of what lay ahead. After media outlets connected to the Iranian government reported details of a potential agreement that looked very favorable to Tehran, Trump ripped into its leaders as “very dishonorable people to deal with,” with whom “there is no such thing as dealing in good faith.”
So what would Trump be trying to iron out with his irredeemably dishonest counterparts?
Let’s look at some of the potential sticking points, and why Trump could have some trouble selling the ultimate terms to the American public as a real accomplishment.
This is the most important aspect of any potential peace deal, and it’s extremely complex.
The Trump administration is telegraphing that Iran is agreeing that its nuclear program will be dismantled and committing “indefinitely” to not building a nuclear weapon. But even if that’s true, the details on how that would happen and how to enforce it in the future are critical — and have become a major point of contention before. It’ll surely take weeks just to iron that out.
A senior administration official on Friday cited a new “inspection regime,” but details are thin so far.
For example, would Iran give up all of its nuclear program, even the parts that could seemingly be used for civilian purposes? Or would it just agree not to enrich uranium beyond a certain level, theoretically preventing it from having access to weapons-grade uranium?
It sounds like the latter, with the official saying Friday that “we’re not bothered at all by the idea of civilian power plants in Iran.”
And, crucially, how would inspectors ensure Iran is abiding by any agreement?
Trump has played up the idea that Iran committing not to build a nuclear weapon would be a major win. But in fact, Iran has claimed for many years that it isn’t doing that.
The real crux here would be how the Trump administration would ensure compliance. Adding to the complications, the US president will need to make clear how the deal would be better than the one the Obama administration negotiated, since he’s constantly derided that as too weak. That one had restrictions on Iran’s uranium enrichment and had the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog verifying compliance.
The big hurdle here: There are many Iran hawks in Trump’s own party who say Tehran simply can’t be trusted to abide by the terms of any deal. Trump’s comments Friday about how unreliable Iran is obviously underscore that problem.
The uranium that is already highly enriched causes its own issues. The Trump administration has said Iran needs to turn it over, but it’s buried deep in the ground after US airstrikes a year ago.
And Trump has repeatedly and conspicuously alluded to the possibility that the US might not ultimately obtain those materials.
He’s floated the idea that the US military could merely “entomb” the areas and monitor them. “That’s so far underground, I don’t care about that,” he said at one point back in April.
There is also some talk about how the uranium could instead be “downblended” so it’s not so highly enriched, but would remain in Iran’s possession as fuel.
The senior administration official said Friday that the interim agreement involves the uranium being “destroyed on-site and then taken out of the country.” But they conceded that it’s “going to take a little bit of time to figure out” exactly how that will happen.
It’s difficult to see how Trump could sell this as a major win without getting the enriched uranium that Iran already has.
This is where Trump’s old rhetoric could really come back to bite him.
Back in 2016, he and his fellow Republicans lambasted the Obama administration for giving Iran $400 million in cash in a transaction tied to a hostage release and the nuclear deal.
The money wasn’t strictly a gift. It was instead used to resolve claims at an international tribunal at The Hague over a failed 1979 arms deal. But the optics were terrible, and Trump and others claimed the money would be used for terrorism.
(The $400 million was actually the first installment in $1.7 billion that was due to the Iranians.)
Today, Iran appears to be insisting on unfreezing a much larger sum of its assets: $24 billion.
When the potential unfreezing of the assets was first reported in April, Trump assured: “No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form.”
But he might be playing a semantic game, differentiating between unfreezing assets and handing over cash. That seems to be the fine line the Trump administration might walk, at least judging by Vice President JD Vance’s X post Friday.
Vance reiterated that Iran wouldn’t get “cash,” but added that “no funds are being released for simply signing a deal or attending a meeting.” That sounds like funds would indeed be unfrozen at some point.
But technically speaking, the 2016 payment was also money that was supposed to be in Iran’s possession.
Based on Iran’s public red lines, it seems like money has to be involved somehow. But if it is, Trump is opening himself up to similar claims that he’s giving Iran money that could be used for terrorism.
While many of the details risk looking somewhat like Obama’s Iran deal, the Strait of Hormuz presents a new variable in these negotiations.
After all, the war has given Iran a major strategic victory there. It has proven Iran is capable of effectively shutting down the strait — and negatively impacting the entire world economy — as a leverage point.
The big question here is not so much whether Iran relinquishes its effective control over the strait for now; the Trump administration would surely demand as much. It’s how the deal addresses Iran’s seeming ability to lock down the strait in the future.
If this issue is left unaddressed and the rest of the deal looks a lot like the Obama nuclear deal, it will be pretty easy for Trump’s critics to argue it’s a worse deal.
Early on, Trump and those around him said one of their most important goals was making sure Iran can no longer fund its proxy groups — like Hamas and Hezbollah — which spread terror in the region.
When Trump falsely claimed two months ago that Iran had agreed to all of his demands, he said that included a commitment to stop backing all proxy groups.
But then, Trump and the administration largely stopped talking about the issue at all.
A senior administration official told CNN on Friday that Iran is agreeing not to fund terrorist groups. But again, even if that’s true, the devil is in the details — like what that means in practice and how it’s verified.
And if Trump doesn’t get something solid on this front, it will mean he’s failed to accomplish one of four key goals he laid out at the start of the war.