分析：艾伦·布莱克 | 47分钟前 | 发布于 2026年3月9日，美国东部时间下午2:37
唐纳德·特朗普总统在前往迈阿密的空军一号上，与国防部长彼得·赫格塞斯一同向记者发表讲话。
Kevin Lamarque/路透社
伊朗战争已进入第二周，尚未出现缓和或结束的迹象。
但随着中东地区战火蔓延，美国国内政治立场已逐渐分化。
以下是关于这场战争及未来局势的一些最大政治问题。
战争会真的短暂结束吗？
唐纳德·特朗普总统此前发动的军事打击似乎并未对其造成明显伤害，很大程度上是因为这些行动持续时间极短。去年对伊朗核设施的打击和今年1月推翻委内瑞拉总统尼古拉斯·马杜罗的行动虽然支持率不高，但都只是单日行动。
与伊朗的战争则截然不同，目前尚不清楚其持续时间。
特朗普及其团队提出了各种不同的时间表，从几天到四周、六周，甚至无限期。
关键是，政府设定了雄心勃勃的目标。
其中一个目标是防止伊朗获得核武器。但这可能需要更长时间的战争，甚至可能包括部署美军特种部队夺取核材料。
特朗普周五表示，战争结束不会通过谈判，而只能以伊朗“无条件投降”告终。（伊朗同样表示无意外交谈判。）
这一切听起来都像是这场战争可能会持续一段时间——至少在特朗普坚持其要求的情况下。
这无疑会考验美国人显然有限的耐心。
公众支持率会上升吗？
与此前的伊朗打击行动和委内瑞拉行动一样，这场战争目前并不受欢迎。根据CNN、路透社-益普索、福克斯新闻、《华盛顿邮报》和全国广播公司新闻的民调显示，平均支持率落后反对率12个百分点。
短期内似乎很难提升其支持率。
可能提升支持率的因素包括：伊朗最终投降并同意核限制，以及伊朗领导层放弃国家控制权。
但前者更像是长期目标。而后者在本周末遭遇挫折——据透露，已故最高领袖阿里·哈梅内伊的儿子穆贾塔巴·哈梅内伊将继位。
支持率会下降吗？
短期内战争支持率更有可能下降。
一个原因是油价。特朗普曾将其上任后油价小幅下跌视为其降低油价能力的证明。但目前美国正经历历史上最严重的石油供应中断，油价飙升。
特朗普称油价上涨是暂时的，是“为和平与安全付出的很小代价”。但尚不清楚美国人是否认为伊朗构成足够威胁来证明油价上涨的合理性。考虑到通胀对2026年中期选举中共和党人的影响，一些右翼人士可能担心战争长期化。
路透社-益普索民调显示，45%的美国人，甚至34%的共和党人表示，油价上涨会让他们更反对这场战争。
特朗普过去在采取的行动造成重大经济代价后曾改变立场——包括在金融市场反应负面后取消关税。
另一个重大变量是美军伤亡人数，尤其是地面部队部署。
在伊朗冲突中阵亡的七名美国士兵（美军公布的照片）
从左上角到右上角：科迪·霍尔克上尉、妮可·阿莫一等军士、诺亚·泰特金斯一等军士、德克兰·科迪军士。
从左下角到右下角：杰弗里·奥布莱恩少校、罗伯特·马赞三级准尉、本杰明·彭宁顿军士。
周日消息称，第七名士兵在战争中阵亡，政府已明确表示对前六名士兵阵亡情况的报道非常敏感。地面部队部署将面临更多伤亡风险，但政府尚未排除这一选项。
路透社-益普索民调显示，54%的美国人，42%的共和党人表示，更多伤亡可能让他们更反对这场战争。
目前需要关注的最后一个重大问题是关于袭击伊朗小学造成数十名儿童死亡的调查。
虽然尚未确定责任方（五角大楼表示正在调查），但越来越多的证据指向美国。
救援人员和居民在伊朗米纳布一所女子小学遇袭后搜寻废墟（2月28日）
这一事件可能损害民众对政府继续这场战争的信任。
福克斯新闻主持人劳拉·英格拉汉姆周一警告政府称：“必须尽快完成调查并正面回应此事。”
“这场战争中可怕的意外悲剧，”她补充道。
共和党人会继续支持特朗普吗？
这一点似乎已成老生常谈。当特朗普发动的军事打击与其以往声称的“非干涉主义”立场相悖时，我们总会询问“MAGA（特朗普支持者）是否会支持他”。
此前几次军事打击前，MAGA选民也曾表示怀疑，但最终还是支持了特朗普。
但这种初始怀疑仍然重要——当前冲突中特朗普支持者的支持力度似乎也有所减弱。
例如，CNN的民调显示，77%的共和党人表示支持特朗普最近的打击行动，但仅有37%“强烈支持”。
此外，梅根·凯利等右翼有影响力人士的反对声音较之前有所增加。他们可能会以我们前所未见的方式组织反对力量。
这并不意味着大多数MAGA支持者会因此反特朗普。但如果其核心支持者的支持率下降，将难以维持长期战争。
政府能否确定一个站得住脚的战争理由？
迄今为止，这场战争最奇怪的方面是政府似乎无法确定一个明确的战争理由。
战争进行约一周半后，官员们仍在测试不同的理由，看哪种能被公众接受。
理由演变过程如下：
- 最初声称伊朗即将获得核弹材料。
- 随后称伊朗即将拥有洲际弹道导弹（ICBM）打击美国本土的能力。
- 战争开始后，称以色列将打击伊朗，而伊朗将报复性打击美国目标，因此伊朗对美国构成迫在眉睫的威胁。
- 接着又声称无论以色列是否行动，伊朗都会攻击美国。
- 本周末，特朗普在接受美国广播公司采访时称，伊朗“计划攻击整个中东地区，接管整个中东”。
这些理由并非完全互斥，但根据现有信息，大部分理由都值得怀疑。（例如，特朗普此前称已“彻底摧毁”伊朗核计划，但美国情报部门并不支持这一说法。）一些新理由在之前就已提出（如果属实的话），显得有些牵强。
如果政府无法明确为何发动战争，这将成为其长期面临的政治难题。
这对美国支持以色列意味着什么？
美国人对以色列的支持在近几个月和几年中已显著下降。
战争开始前一天，盖洛普民调显示，25年来首次出现美国人对以色列的同情度低于巴勒斯坦人的情况。在此之前，以色列在该指标上一直领先30-40个百分点。
此外，美国国内反犹主义日益严重，尤其是在年轻人中。一些右翼知名人士也警告其阵营内反犹主义抬头。
在这种背景下与以色列并肩作战似乎将引发一系列问题。
毕竟，以色列在伊朗的目标可能与美国不同，其对某些战术的容忍度也可能不同。例如，以色列本周末对伊朗石油基础设施的袭击引发特朗普政府内部担忧，甚至鹰派共和党参议员林赛·格雷厄姆也敦促以色列谨慎行事。
民主党人会保持统一反对立场吗？
虽然民主党人已明确反对这些打击行动，且民意支持他们的立场，但这并不意味着该问题对民主党没有潜在风险。
部分民主党人是伊朗强硬派。四名众议院民主党议员上周投票反对限制特朗普战争权力的法案。参议院民主党领袖查克·舒默在反对打击伊朗的立场上有时也不如党内基层期望的那样坚定。
此外，关于可能的战争补充拨款法案，民主党人将如何应对？
他们会完全反对吗？还是可能被指责不支持军队？
康涅狄格州参议员克里斯·墨菲告诉CNN的马努·拉朱，战争反对者不应“支持任何额外的伊朗战争拨款”。但佛罗里达州众议员贾里德·莫斯科维茨持不同观点：“在战争期间削减军费似乎不是正确的做法。”
20年前反对伊拉克战争时，类似的资金问题曾导致民主党分裂。艰难的投票可能即将到来。
7 big political questions about the war with Iran
Analysis by Aaron Blake | 47 min ago | PUBLISHED Mar 9, 2026, 2:37 PM ET
President Donald Trump, with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at his side, speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One on a flight to Miami on Saturday.
Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
The war with Iran is now beginning its second full week, with no signs of de-escalation or conclusion on the horizon.
But as the fighting has raged in the Middle East, the political lines have been drawn in the US.
Here are some of the biggest political questions about the war and what happens next.
Will it actually be short?
President Donald Trump’s previous foreign strikes haven’t seemed to measurably hurt him, in large part because of how short-lived they were. Striking Iran’s nuclear facilities last year and ousting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January weren’t popular, but they were one-day operations.
The war with Iran is different, and it’s not clear how long it will last.
Trump and his team have thrown out vastly different timetables, ranging from a few days to four weeks to six weeks to indefinite.
And crucially, the administration has set ambitious goals.
One of them is preventing Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. But that could seemingly involve a lengthier war and possibly measures such as deploying US special forces to seize nuclear materials.
Trump on Friday suggested the conclusion to the war would not be negotiated; rather, it would end only with Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” (Iran has likewise said it has no interest in diplomacy.)
All of which sounds a lot like this could drag on for a while — at least, to the extent Trump sticks to his demands.
And that could certainly test Americans’ apparently limited patience.
Could public support rise?
This war, like the previous Iran strikes and the Venezuela operation, is not popular. Across surveys from CNN, Reuters-Ipsos, Fox News, The Washington Post and NBC News, it’s an average of 12 points underwater.
It would seem difficult to make it popular any time soon.
A few things that could increase support seem to include if Iran ultimately does surrender and agrees to nuclear restrictions, and if its leadership gives up control of the country.
But the former is more of a long-term goal. And the latter suffered a setback this weekend when we learned that the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, will succeed him.
Will support fall?
It seems more likely that the war could become less popular, at least in the near term.
One reason is gas prices. Trump has hailed a modest decline since he’s been back in office as proof of his ability to lower prices. But we’re now experiencing the biggest oil disruption in history and surging prices across the country.
Trump says the higher gas prices are temporary and a “very small price to pay” for peace and security. But it’s not clear that Americans see Iran as enough of a threat to justify the price. And given how much of a problem inflation may be for Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections, some on the right might worry about a prolonged war.
The Reuters-Ipsos poll showed 45% of Americans and even 34% of Republicans said higher gas and oil prices would make them more likely to oppose the war.
Trump has reversed course before when his moves had big financial costs — including on tariffs after the financial markets reacted negatively.
Another big X factor is whether we see more troop deaths and even boots on the ground.
The seven US soldiers killed during the Iran conflict are seen in these images released by the US Army. From top left to right, Capt. Cody Khork, Sgt. 1st Class Nicole Amor, Sgt. 1st Class Noah Teitjens and Sgt. Declean Coady. From bottom left to right, Maj. Jeffrey O’Brien, Chief Warrant Officer 3 Robert Marzan and Sgt. Benjamin N. Pennington.
US Army
We learned Sunday that a seventh soldier has died in the war, and the administration has made clear it’s quite sensitive to the amount of coverage the first six received. Boots on the ground would risk many more deaths and casualties, but the administration hasn’t ruled out that option.
The Reuters-Ipsos poll showed 54% of Americans and 42% of Republicans said more deaths could turn them more against the war.
And the final big one to watch right now is what we learn about the strike that killed scores of children at an Iranian elementary school.
While we haven’t gotten definitive word about who was responsible — the Pentagon has said it’s investigating — the evidence increasingly points toward the United States.
Rescue workers and residents search through the rubble after a strike on a girls’ elementary school in Minab, Iran, on February 28.
Abbas Zakeri/Mehr News Agency/AP
It’s the kind of episode that could damage people’s faith in the administration to prosecute this war.
Fox News host Laura Ingraham has warned the administration about this, saying Monday that it “must wrap its investigation and address [it] head-on.”
“Horrible unintended tragedy of this war,” she added.
Do Republicans stay on board with Trump?
It’s a tired storyline at this point. When Trump has launched military strikes that fly in the face of his past claims to be a noninterventionist, we’ve asked whether MAGA will stand behind him.
Repeatedly now, MAGA voters have been skeptical before those previous strikes but then jumped on board.
But that initial skepticism still matters — as does the apparent softness of the support from Trump’s base for the current conflict.
CNN’s poll, for instance, showed 77% of Republicans said they supported Trump’s most recent strikes, but just 37% supported them “strongly.”
There’s also an uptick in opposition from right-wing influencers — people like Megyn Kelly — relative to previous strikes. It seems possible they could marshal opposition in ways we haven’t previously seen.
That doesn’t mean a majority of MAGA is going to turn on Trump over this. But if support among his base does drop, that would make it difficult to press forward with a prolonged war.
Can the administration settle on a justification — and one that holds up?
Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this war so far is how the administration can’t seem to settle on a justification for it.
About a week and a half in, officials still appear to be road-testing different rationales and seeing what might stick.
Here’s the progression:
- First it was that Iran was close to nuclear bomb material.
- Then it was that Iran was close to being able to strike the US homeland with an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM.
- Then, once the war started, it was because Israel was going to strike Iran, and Iran would have retaliated by striking US targets. Ipso facto, Iran was an imminent threat to the US.
- Then it was that Iran was going to strike the US regardless of what Israel did.
- And now, this weekend, Trump wagered to ABC News that Iran’s “plan was to attack the entire Middle East, to take over the entire Middle East.”
Not all of these are mutually exclusive. But most of them are dubious based upon what we know. (For instance, Trump previously said he “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program in the strikes just nine months ago, and US intelligence doesn’t back up the ICBM claim.) Some of the newer claims are odd given they’re the kinds of things you would seemingly have said earlier (if they were true, at least).
To the extent the administration can’t even pin down why the US is fighting this war, that would seem to be a political problem for how it will be viewed over the longer term.
What does it mean for US support for Israel?
Americans’ support for Israel had already declined markedly in recent months and years.
Just a day before the war began, Gallup released a poll showing that, for the first time in a quarter-century of polling, Americans no longer sympathized more with the Israelis than with the Palestinians. Israel has generally led on that measure by 30 to 40 points.
Flames and smoke rise from an oil storage facility struck during the US-Israeli military campaign in Tehran, Iran, on Saturday.
Alireza Sotakbar/ISNA/AP
We’ve also seen growing evidence of antisemitism in the United States, particularly among young people. And some prominent figures on the right have warned about rising antisemitism in their ranks.
Going to war alongside Israel amid all that would seem to open up Pandora’s box.
Israel’s goals in Iran, after all, could be different from the United States’ goals, as could its tolerance for certain tactics. Its weekend attacks on Iranian oil infrastructure, for example, prompted concerns within the Trump administration, and even the hawkish GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham is urging Israel to exercise caution.
Will Democrats put up a united opposition?
While Democrats have been opposed to these strikes and seem to have public opinion on their side, that doesn’t mean the issue isn’t without pitfalls for them.
Some of them are Iran hawks. Four House Democrats voted against limiting Trump’s authority last week. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has also at times been more muted in his opposition to striking Iran than some in the base would like.
And then there’s what Democrats do about a possible supplemental funding bill to support the war.
Do they oppose it outright? Or does that risk looking like they aren’t supporting the military?
Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut told CNN’s Manu Raju that opponents of the war shouldn’t “support an additional dollar for Iran.” But Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida had a different view: “The idea of defunding them in the middle of that, that doesn’t seem like the right move to me.”
This funding issue split Democrats when opposition to the Iraq War increased two decades ago. And tough votes could lay ahead.