分析： 艾伦·布雷克
10分钟前
发布时间： 2026年3月2日，美国东部时间下午1:56
中东（报道）：彼得·赫格塞斯
“我们非常清醒。”国防部长彼得·赫格塞斯周一就特朗普政府对伊朗的战争向外界保证。他表示，这场战争“目标明确”，并向美军士兵保证任务“非常、非常清晰”。
然而，在进行可能是20年来最严峻复杂的美国军事行动之际，政府却未传递出丝毫明确性。
周六清晨对伊朗发动打击之前，政府未阐明一套连贯的目标和动机。
而自那之后的三天里，目标不断转移，言论自相矛盾。
特朗普在发动打击后首次公开讲话是在周一，他阐述了这场战争的四个目标：摧毁伊朗的导弹能力、歼灭其海军、防止伊朗获取核武器、阻止伊朗向恐怖分子提供武器。
但达成这一表述并非易事。
核威胁
最令人震惊的是政府对伊朗核威胁描述的演变。
尽管特朗普数月来一直坚称，他6月对伊朗核设施的打击“彻底摧毁”了伊朗的核计划，但特朗普及其团队近期又重新渲染这一威胁。
特朗普的中东特使史蒂夫·维特科夫2月22日声称，伊朗正在“远远超出民用标准”地浓缩铀，并且“可能在一周内拥有制造工业级炸弹的材料”。
上周二特朗普在国情咨文中称，伊朗正在建造洲际弹道导弹“很快就能打到美国本土”。
但国务卿马尔科·鲁比奥周三却与维特科夫意见相左，称伊朗“目前并未进行浓缩铀活动”——只是试图通过其他方式重启核计划。
美国情报部门也对特朗普提出了质疑。去年一份未经分类的国防情报局评估报告指出，伊朗用洲际弹道导弹袭击美国的可能性仍需十年时间。美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）等媒体报道称，没有情报显示这是迫在眉睫的问题。
到了周一，赫格塞斯对这一切给出了全新解释。
他没有像维特科夫那样声称伊朗在危险的高浓度水平下浓缩铀，也没有提及伊朗拥有很快就能打击美国本土的导弹。
相反，他引用了伊朗常规武器的集结，称这为更严重的威胁“奠定了基础”。赫格塞斯时而称这是“常规盾牌”或“保护伞”。
“伊朗正在制造强大的导弹和无人机，为其核讹诈野心构建常规盾牌，”赫格塞斯表示。他补充说，这对该地区的“我们的基地、人员和盟友”构成了威胁。
“他们在拖延时间，重新补充导弹库存并重启核野心，”赫格塞斯说。
因此，在一周之内，对伊朗的核讹诈理由从“即将拥有制造核弹材料”，转变为“伊朗至少有能力用导弹打击美国本土”，现在又变成“伊朗利用常规武器创造条件，以‘重启核野心’”。
这是一个巨大的转变。
特朗普周一上午呼应了这些评论，称伊朗正试图“掩护其核武器开发，使任何人都极难阻止他们”。但他同时也提到伊朗据称拥有的洲际弹道导弹“很快就能打到美国”。
虽然乔治·W·布什政府关于伊拉克“大规模杀伤性武器”威胁的说法在数年内土崩瓦解，但特朗普政府对伊朗的指控却在数小时或数天内就分崩离析，甚至被放弃。
是否伊朗即将发动袭击
但被指“迫在眉睫”的不仅是伊朗的核威胁。政府周六还称，伊朗可能很快会用这些常规武器打击美国在中东的部队——这也是特朗普采取行动的部分原因。
一位向记者通报情况的高级政府官员称，有证据表明伊朗可能“先发制人地发动袭击”。
“总统决定不会坐视美国在该地区的部队遭受常规导弹袭击，”该官员表示。
但这一解释也站不住脚。一位熟悉情报的消息人士告诉CNN，没有迹象表明伊朗计划先攻击美军或资产——除非他们受到以色列或美国的攻击。据CNN报道，周日五角大楼官员向国会工作人员通报情况时承认了这一事实。
这并非小事。伊朗威胁的“紧迫性”对美国和以色列对伊朗发动打击的合法性至关重要——无论是在公众认知还是国际法层面。
政权更迭
政府在言论上的另一大转变是围绕“政权更迭”。
发动打击后的几个小时内，特朗普多次强调政权更迭是目标——甚至可能是“唯一目标”。
“我想要的只是伊朗人民获得自由，”特朗普告诉《华盛顿邮报》。
这也是特朗普第一次视频讲话中强调的重点。
“美国将以压倒性的力量和毁灭性的武力支持你们，”他对伊朗反对派说。“现在是时候掌控你们的命运，释放近在咫尺的繁荣和光荣未来的时候了。这是行动的时刻，不要错过。”
“等我们完成后，接管你们的政府，”特朗普补充道。“它将由你们接管。”
但政府现在似乎对这一点感到犹豫。它多次淡化美国在政权更迭中的角色。
赫格塞斯周一明确表示，这“不是所谓的政权更迭战争”，这一点尤为突出。
“但政权确实已经改变，”他补充道。“世界今天也因此变得更好。”
（图片2）
相关地，政府在谈论最高领袖阿里·哈梅内伊被杀害时的说法也不一致。特朗普周日告诉美国广播公司（ABC）新闻：“我先下手为强……我先下手了。”
但俄亥俄州共和党众议员迈克·特纳告诉哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）新闻，他与鲁比奥谈过，鲁比奥告诉他“我们没有瞄准哈梅内伊，也没有瞄准伊朗的领导层”。
赫格塞斯周一也呼应了这一点。当被问及哈梅内伊的死亡时，他仅表示：“我认为以色列在这次行动中的表现非常出色。”
美国情报部门显然与以色列分享了相关信息。但值得注意的是，政府试图与最重大的“政权更迭”行动划清界限。
时间框架和后续行动
关于谁将接管伊朗，特朗普周末发表了令人困惑的言论。
在接受《纽约时报》采访时，他称他有“三个非常好的选择”来管理伊朗（他拒绝透露具体人选）。
但在之后接受美国广播公司新闻采访时，总统突然表示这些人其实已经死亡。
“这次袭击非常成功，摧毁了大多数候选人，”特朗普告诉美国广播公司的乔纳森·卡尔。“这不会是我们之前想到的任何人，因为他们都死了。第二名或第三名也死了。”
政府也难以传达战争的潜在时间框架，赫格塞斯周一将其称为“找茬式问题”。
在周末的各种评论中，特朗普提出了“四到五周”、“两到三天”和“一周”的不同说法。他还称“这一直是一个四周的过程”，但后来又暗示可能不到四周。周一，他告诉美国有线电视新闻网的杰克·塔珀，“我们比计划提前一点”，同时暗示军事行动将升级。
“我们甚至还没有开始狠狠打击他们。大的浪潮还没有到来。大的打击即将来临，”特朗普在电话采访中告诉塔珀。
他在周一的活动中表示，军方“有能力比我预计的四到五周更长时间地进行行动”。
“不惜一切代价，”特朗普说。
中东（报道）：彼得·赫格塞斯
（完）
The Trump team can’t get its story straight on war with Iran
Analysis by Aaron Blake
10 min ago
PUBLISHED Mar 2, 2026, 1:56 PM ET
The Middle East Pete Hegseth
“We’re very clear-eyed,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth assured Monday about the Trump administration’s war with Iran. He said it had “clear objectives” and assured that the mission “is very, very clear” to American soldiers.
But while undertaking perhaps the most serious and fraught US military operation in two decades, the administration has delivered anything but clarity.
Ahead of Saturday morning’s strikes on Iran, it declined to enunciate a consistent set of goals and motivations.
And it’s spent the three days since shifting the goalposts and contradicting itself.
Trump spoke publicly on Monday for the first time since launching the strikes, and he laid out four objectives for the war: destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, annihilating its navy, preventing it from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon and preventing it from arming terrorists.
But it’s been a journey to get to that point.
The nuclear threat
Perhaps most stunning has been the evolution in how the administration has described the nuclear threat Iran poses.
Despite Trump spending months assuring that his June strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities had “obliterated” its nuclear program, Trump and his team recently began playing up the threat again.
Trump’s Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff claimed on February 22 that Iran was enriching uranium at “well beyond” the threshold for civil use. He said it was “probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material.”
Then Trump in his State of the Union address last Tuesday said Iran was building intercontinental ballistic missiles “that will soon reach the United States of America.”
But Secretary of State Marco Rubio contradicted Witkoff, saying on Wednesday that Iran was in fact “not enriching right now” — but was trying to restart its nuclear program in other ways.
US intelligence also contradicted Trump. An unclassified Defense Intelligence Agency assessment from last year said the prospect of Iran striking the US with an ICBM was still a decade away. And CNN and others reported that there was no intelligence suggesting this was anything close to an imminent problem.
Fast-forward to Monday, and Hegseth put an entirely new spin on all of this.
Hegseth did not say, as Witkoff did, that Iran was enriching uranium at dangerously high levels. Nor did he say that it had missiles that would soon be capable of striking the US homeland.
He instead cited a build-up of more conventional weapons that he said laid the groundwork for those more serious threats. Hegseth intermittently referred to this as a “conventional shield” or “umbrella.”
“Iran was building powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions,” Hegseth said. He added that this jeopardized “our bases, our people, our allies” in the region.
“They were stalling, buying time to reload their missile stockpiles and restart their nuclear ambitions,” Hegseth said.
So in a week, the justifications have gone from an imminent threat from Iran having nuclear bomb-making material, to Iran at least having the means to strike the US homeland with missiles, to now Iran using conventional weapons to create the conditions to be able to “restart their nuclear ambitions.”
That’s a huge walkback.
Trump echoed those comments later Monday morning, citing Iran’s efforts to “shield their nuclear weapon development and make it extraordinarily difficult for anyone to stop them.” But he then also mentioned Iran supposedly having an ICBM that could strike the United States “soon.”
While the George W. Bush administration’s claims about the “weapons of mass destruction” threat posed by Iraq unraveled over years, the Trump administration is seeing its claims about Iran fall apart — and often be abandoned — in a matter of hours or days.
Whether Iran was about to strike
But it wasn’t just Iran’s nuclear threat that was supposedly imminent. The administration on Saturday also argued there was a real threat of Iran soon striking US forces in the Middle East with those conventional weapons — and that that’s, in part, why Trump had to take action.
A senior administration official who briefed reporters said there was evidence that Iran could strike “potentially, preemptively.”
“And the president decided he was not going to sit back and allow America’s forces in the region to absorb attacks from conventional missiles,” the official said.
But that explanation hasn’t panned out, either. A source familiar with the intelligence told CNN there were no indications that the Iranians planned to strike US forces or assets first — unless they were attacked by Israel or the US. On Sunday, Pentagon officials who briefed congressional staff acknowledged that reality, CNN reported.
And this is not a small point. The imminence of Iran’s threat matters greatly when it comes to the legitimacy of the US and Israeli strikes in Iran — both when it comes to public perception and international law.
Regime change
The other big shift in the administration’s messaging has been around regime change.
In the hours after launching the strikes, Trump repeatedly emphasized regime change was a goal — and possibly even the goal.
“All I want is freedom for the people,” Trump told the Washington Post.
This was also a major point of emphasis in Trump’s first video message about the operation.
“America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force,” he told the Iranian opposition. “Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.”
“When we are finished, take over your government,” Trump added. “It will be yours to take.”
But the administration now seems to have cold feet about this. It has repeatedly downplayed the US role in changing the regime.
That was punctuated by Hegseth saying explicitly Monday, “This is not a so-called regime change war.”
“But the regime sure did change,” he added. “And the world is better off for it today.”
[image_2]
Relatedly, there have been inconsistencies in how the administration has talked about the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Trump told ABC News on Sunday, “I got him before he got me. … I got him first.”
But Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio told CBS News that he’d spoken with Rubio, who told him “we did not target Khamenei, and we were not targeting the leadership in Iran.”
And Hegseth echoed that Monday. When asked to comment on Khamenei’s killing, he said only: “I think Israel did a great job in the conduct of that operation.”
US intelligence was clearly shared with the Israelis. But it’s telling that the administration is trying to distance itself from the most significant regime-changing action.
The timeframe and what’s next
When it comes to who takes over, Trump offered dizzying commentary this weekend.
In an interview with The New York Times, he said he had “three very good choices” about who would run Iran now. (He declined to name them.)
But in a later interview with ABC News, the president suddenly signaled those people were, in fact, dead.
“The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates,” Trump told ABC’s Jonathan Karl. “It’s not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead.”
The administration has also struggled to convey a potential timeframe for the war, with Hegseth on Monday calling it a “gotcha-type question.”
In various comments over the weekend, Trump has floated it taking “four to five weeks,” “two or three days” and a week. He also said it’s “always been a four-week process,” before suggesting it could be less than that. On Monday, he told CNN’s Jake Tapper that “we’re a little ahead of schedule,” while also suggesting military action would be intensifying.
“We haven’t even started hitting them hard. The big wave hasn’t even happened. The big one is coming soon,” Trump told Tapper in a phone interview.
And he said at Monday’s event that the military “has the capability to go far longer” than his four-to-five-week projection.
“Whatever it takes,” Trump said.
The Middle East Pete Hegseth
（注：此处为图片占位符，原文链接：https://example.com/20160609_freeport_sp.jpg）