2小时前 / 发布于 2026年2月19日，美国东部时间上午12:00 / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）政治版
分析：[斯蒂芬·科林森]
中东 | 唐纳德·特朗普
美国可能正处于发动军事行动的临界点，这将是其近半个世纪与伊朗对峙中最具决定性的时刻。
然而，对于这场可能持续数周、后果难以预测的攻击，几乎没有公开讨论。
国家安全高层官员并未全力推动（相关行动）。唐纳德·特朗普总统几乎没有努力说明采取潜在军事行动的理由，或为何要求军事人员冒着生命危险。白宫也没有公开迹象表明，如果伊朗神职人员政权倒台，可能会在伊朗发生什么，而这一可能性可能在中东造成巨大反响。
消息人士告诉CNN，总统尚未就任何一种情况做出最终决定。
但每天，随着他不温不火的外交努力至今未能取得突破，特朗普正不可避免地被推向一个决定性的决策点。美国有线电视新闻网报道，军方已告知白宫，在集结空中和海军力量后，可能准备在本周末发动攻击。但一位消息人士称，总统私下里对行动利弊进行了权衡，并向顾问和盟友征求了意见。
考虑到这些风险以及对美国人员的潜在威胁，对与伊朗开战缺乏具体的公开理由似乎令人惊讶。
这种叙事缺失在周三的白宫简报中有所体现，具有讽刺意味的是，当天恰逢总统和平委员会首次会议前夕。新闻秘书卡罗琳·莱维特被问及特朗普为何可能需要对伊朗核计划发动打击——他坚称自己去年在全球轰炸突袭中已彻底摧毁了该计划。
“嗯，有很多理由和论点可以支持对伊朗发动打击，”莱维特表示，但未给出具体细节。
特朗普的解释仅限于反复警告，如果伊朗不与美国达成“协议”，将面临后果。上周，他表示德黑兰政权更迭可能是“最好的事情”。
下令军队参战是总统最严肃的职责。他们当选最高职位时就有义务解释为何有必要动用武力。模糊的想法可能会危及任务。
莱维特暗示美国人应该信任总统。“他总是在考虑什么最符合美国、我们的军队和美国人民的利益，”她说。
这将是发动一场可能耗资数十亿美元、造成未知数量的美国和伊朗人员伤亡，并可能在中东引发巨大军事和经济影响的重大战争的薄弱基础。
这也可能加剧特朗普在中期选举年本已严峻的国内不支持率。
胆大的特朗普评估自己的风险承受能力
特朗普不会喜欢与2003年开始的伊拉克战争相提并论，因其后果灾难性。但在那场冲突之前，布什政府花了数月时间进行公关攻势，试图让美国相信其后来被揭穿的战争理由。它还设法获得了国会对入侵的授权——至少为其行动获得了国内法律依据。
如果特朗普坚持不对公民和国会坦诚相告，然后采取军事行动，他将延续其第二任期的这一趋势。并且，如果打击出错，他将在政治上暴露无遗。
但上月他成功推翻委内瑞拉独裁者尼古拉斯·马杜罗的行动（未造成美军伤亡）似乎也让特朗普更加胆大。他的风险承受能力可能也有所提高，因为他在第一任期内暗杀伊朗军事和情报负责人卡西姆·苏莱曼尼时，并未引发一些专家预测的地区大火和伊朗对美国盟友的攻击。
近几周，特朗普在伊朗的策略似乎与他在委内瑞拉的策略相呼应——在那里，他集结了庞大的海军舰队并要求让步。这是21世纪的外交，由航空母舰战斗群和巡航导弹支持。
但如果他反复声称伊朗想要“协议”是错误的，他就有陷入难以体面退出的困境的风险。
特朗普能提供给伊朗的那种协议可能会被其神职人员政权拒绝，因为其首要任务是维持自身统治。而德黑兰可能提供给特朗普的协议，他可能永远不会接受，因为伊朗不愿谈论其弹道导弹或地区代理网络，这在特朗普看来是红线。
伊朗在核计划已遭受严重破坏的情况下做出让步以换取制裁解除，这对特朗普来说是不可接受的。他在政治上无法效仿奥巴马政府签署后被他废除的核协议。而解除制裁可能会帮助伊朗政权生存下去。
《纽约时报》援引伊朗消息人士的话说，伊朗已表示愿意暂停铀浓缩三到五年以换取制裁解除。但前美国中东和平特使丹尼斯·罗斯周三告诉美国有线电视新闻网的沃尔夫·布利策，这只是象征性让步。“很难想象在特朗普任内伊朗会继续铀浓缩。他们寻求的是解除经济制裁，这实际上是给了他们一线生机。”
为何现在可能是打击伊朗的时刻
白宫可能没有告诉美国人为何现在可能是与伊朗开战的时机。但这并不意味着没有战略理由这么做。从这个意义上说，莱维特是对的。
特朗普痴迷于以自己的名字命名建筑物并建造新建筑（如计划中的白宫宴会厅），这表明他越来越关注自己的遗产。
结束自卡特以来困扰每一位美国总统的美伊冷战，将为他在历史上留下真正的地位。这也可能为始于1979-1981年美国人质危机（令美国全球信心和声望受挫）的美伊关系隔阂画上历史性句号。
特朗普可能从未有过更好的行动时机。可以说，伊朗政权从未如此虚弱。它的地区代理人，如加沙的哈马斯和黎巴嫩的真主党——曾经是抵御外部攻击的“保险单”——已被以色列击溃。
伊朗政府正面临前所未有的国内危机。86岁的最高领袖阿亚图拉阿里·哈梅内伊去世后的权力继承问题疑云重重，经济也濒临崩溃。最近，由于食品和水短缺以及严峻的经济状况，绝望的抗议者涌上街头。随后的镇压可能造成数千人死亡。特朗普可以兑现他对抗议者的承诺——美国已“准备就绪”以保卫他们并推翻神职人员政权。
虽然伊朗可能不会对美国构成直接致命威胁，但它在伊拉克战争期间通过恐怖袭击和民兵组织杀害了数十名美国人。其领导人长期以来威胁要消灭以色列——这一威胁在拥有核武器后将变得更加严重。一个稳定、民主且不构成威胁的伊朗将推动以美国在海湾地区盟友日益增长的全球影响力为动力的新中东格局。
当然，如果特朗普能让伊朗人民摆脱压迫，他将成为伊朗人的英雄。
为何打击伊朗会如此冒险
但也有很多理由说明他或许应该退缩。
任何试图摧毁伊朗政权或重创伊斯兰革命卫队和巴斯基准军事民兵军事能力的严肃行动，可能需要持续数天的空中战役。这可能导致大量平民伤亡。还可能出现美国战斗人员死亡或被俘的情况，这可能变成宣传上的灾难。
虽然一些批评者指出特朗普曾誓言不会在中东发动新战争，但与伊朗的冲突可能不会像伊拉克战争那样演变成大规模地面入侵。但就像伊拉克战争一样，美国最好的日子可能就是发动“震慑”首轮齐射的那天。
针对伊朗神职人员领导人的打击也不太可能像成功推翻马杜罗的特别行动那样干净利落。
此外，如果革命政府倒台，接下来会发生什么也是个问题。本世纪美国在伊拉克、阿富汗和利比亚的政权更迭努力都因未能预见“后政权时代”而受挫。
“我的问题是，在一切尘埃落定后，如果冲突持续数周，接下来会发生什么？”苏凡中心执行董事科林·克拉克告诉美国有线电视新闻网国际频道的伊莎·索亚雷斯。“然后你将面临权力真空，接着可能出现叛乱。而且，你知道，有一系列国家和非国家行为体可能会试图从中渔利。”
伊朗作为古波斯文明的发源地，其宗派分裂比伊拉克（美国入侵后分裂）要少。但失去中央权威可能会造成毁灭性后果。而缺乏连贯的抗议伞式领导或有组织的内部反对派，进一步增加了平稳过渡的不确定性。任何美国和以色列的联合军事行动都肯定会包括对革命卫队设施和部队的广泛攻击。但消息人士本周告诉CNN，美国情报界仍认为，最有可能填补权力真空的是强硬的卫队。因此，推翻德黑兰的神权统治者可能只会导致一个同样激进的反美政权取而代之。
与委内瑞拉相比，在伊朗进行更长、更复杂的军事行动并可能带来不确定后果，将在国内增加政治压力——多项民调显示多数美国人反对新的中东战争。这也可能考验特朗普与MAGA运动的关系，因为他过去10年一直告诉其支持者不会再有外国泥潭。
虽然官员们表示部队将在本周末做好打击伊朗的准备，但美国的行动并非板上钉钉。穆斯林斋月的开始可能预示着延迟。周二特朗普一年一度的国情咨文演讲也可能成为推迟的因素。特朗普喜欢不可预测性，因此伊朗将处于全面戒备状态。
但除非伊朗屈服于特朗普仍未向公众充分解释的条件，否则更多时间不会缓解他第二任期内最重大的困境。
中东 | 唐纳德·特朗普
Trump’s rationale is still opaque as he slides closer to war with Iran
2 hr ago / PUBLISHED Feb 19, 2026, 12:00 AM ET / CNN Politics
Analysis by
[Stephen Collinson]
The Middle East Donald Trump
The United States may be on the cusp of launching military action that would mark the most decisive moment in its near half-century showdown with Iran.
Yet there’s little public debate about what could be a weekslong assault with consequences that are impossible to predict.
There’s no full-court press from top national security officials. President Donald Trump is making hardly any effort to share the rationale for the potential or why military personnel might be asked to risk their lives. And the White House is giving no public sign that it knows what may unfold in Iran if its clerical regime is toppled, an eventuality that could cause enormous reverberations in the Middle East.
The president has made no final decision either way, sources told CNN.
But every day, and following the failure of his tepid diplomacy to make breakthroughs so far, Trump is being dragged inexorably closer to a fateful decision point. The military has told the White House that it could be ready to launch an attack by the weekend, following a buildup of aerial and naval assets, CNN reported. But one source said that the president has privately argued for and against action and has polled advisers and allies on what he should do.
Given the stakes, and the potential risk to American personnel, the lack of a specific public rationale for any war with Iran seems surprising.
This narrative deficit was reflected in the White House briefing Wednesday, ironically on the eve of the first meeting of the president’s Board of Peace. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked the pertinent question of why Trump might need to launch a strike on Iran’s nuclear program, which he has insisted he already totally obliterated in a round-the-world bombing raid last year.
“Well, there’s many reasons and arguments that one could make for a strike against Iran,” Leavitt said, offering no specifics.
Trump’s explanations extend only to repeated warnings that Iran will face the consequences if it doesn’t make a “deal” with the United States. Last week, he said regime change in Tehran might be the “best thing” that could happen.
Ordering the military into battle is the most somber duty of presidents. Their assumption of the highest office comes with an obligation to explain why force might be necessary. And fuzzy thinking could imperil the mission.
Leavitt implied that Americans should just trust the president. “He’s always thinking about what’s in the best interests of the United States of America, of our military, of the American people,” she said.
This would be a thin foundation on which to launch a major war that might end up costing billions of dollars and unknown numbers of American and Iranian lives, and that could trigger huge military and economic repercussions in the Middle East.
It could also worsen Trump’s already stark domestic unpopularity in a midterm election year.
An emboldened Trump sizes up his tolerance for risk
Trump wouldn’t like any comparison with the Iraq war that began in 2003, given its disastrous aftermath. But before that conflict, the Bush administration spent months in a PR offensive designed to convince the country of its later-debunked rationale for the war. It also managed to win congressional authorization for the invasion — at least securing a domestic legal basis for its actions.
If Trump persists in failing to level with citizens and Congress and then takes military action, he will be prolonging a trend of his second term. And he will be leaving himself politically exposed in the event that strikes go wrong.
But it also appears that Trump is emboldened by his successful ouster of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro in a spectacular operation last month that killed no US troops. His tolerance for risk may also be heightened because the US assassination of Iranian military and intelligence chief Qasem Soleimani in his first term failed to trigger the kind of regional conflagration and Iranian attacks on US allies that some experts predicted.
In recent weeks, Trump’s strategy on Iran has seemed to mirror his playbook in Venezuela, where he amassed a huge naval armada and demanded concessions. This is 21st-century diplomacy backed by aircraft carrier groups and cruise missiles.
But he risks creating a box for himself that it will be difficult to exit with credibility intact if it turns out that his repeated claims that Iran wants a “deal” are wrong.
The kind of deal that Trump can offer Iran may be unacceptable to its clerical regime, whose top priority is perpetuating itself. And a deal Tehran could offer Trump may be one he’d never accept, since it doesn’t want to talk about its ballistic missiles or regional proxy network, which he sees as red lines.
Iranian concessions on a nuclear program that is already severely disrupted in return for sanctions relief would be unacceptable to Trump. He can’t afford politically to emulate the nuclear deal agreed by the Obama administration that he trashed. And lifting sanctions could help the regime survive.
The New York Times quoted Iranian sources as saying that Iran has indicated willingness to suspend enrichment for three to five years in return for sanctions relief. But Dennis Ross, a former US Middle East peace envoy, told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday that this was a symbolic concession. “It’s pretty hard to see them enriching while Trump is still in office. And what they’re seeking is the lifting of economic sanctions, which is a way of … giving them a kind of lease on life.”
Why now might be the moment to strike Iran
The White House may not be telling Americans why it might be time to go to war with Iran. But that doesn’t mean there are not strategic rationales for doing so. In that sense, Leavitt is right.
Trump’s obsession with naming buildings after himself and erecting new ones — such as the planned White House ballroom — suggest he’s increasingly preoccupied with his legacy.
Ending the often-hot cold war with Iran that has bedeviled every American president since Jimmy Carter would secure him a true place in history. And it could put a historic capstone on an estrangement with revolutionary Iran that began with the humiliation of Americans held hostage in 1979-81, which scarred US global confidence and prestige.
Trump might never get a better opening. The regime has arguably never been weaker. Its regional proxies, like Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon — which were once an insurance policy against an outside attack — have been shredded by Israel.
Iran’s government is facing its worst-ever domestic crisis. It’s clouded by doubt over the revolutionary succession after 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dies. The economy is wrecked. Desperation recently drove protesters onto the streets amid food and water shortages and grinding economic conditions. The resulting crackdown may have killed thousands. Trump could make good on his pledge to protesters that the US was “locked and loaded” to defend them by toppling the clerical regime.
While Iran may not pose an immediate deadly threat to the US, it has killed scores of Americans in terror attacks and through militias during the Iraq war. Its leaders have long threatened to wipe Israel off the map — a threat that would become even more grave with nuclear weapons. And a stable, democratic and unthreatening Iran would boost the emergence of a new Middle East, powered by the growing global influence of US allies in the Gulf.
Trump would, of course, be a hero of Iranians if he delivered them from repression.
Why a strike against Iran would be such a risk
But there are many reasons why he might be smart to blink.
A serious attempt either to decapitate the Iranian regime or to devastate the military capacity of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij paramilitary militia would likely require a multi-day air campaign. This could lead to significant civilian casualties. It would raise the possibility of US combat deaths or the capture of US pilots, which could turn into a propaganda disaster.
While some critics have pointed to Trump’s vows to wage no new wars in the Middle East, an Iran conflict would likely not lead to the kind of massive land invasion that turned Iraq into a morass. But as in that war, the best day for the US might be the one when it fires its first shock-and-awe volleys.
It’s also unlikely that any strike against Iran’s clerical leaders would be as clean as the special forces mission that spirited Maduro out of Venezuela.
There is also the problem of what might come next if the revolutionary government were to fall. Failing to anticipate the day after haunted US regime change efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya this century.
“My question is, after all is said and done, if this lasts for weeks, what happens next?” Colin Clarke, executive director of the Soufan Center told Isa Soares on CNN International. “Then you’re dealing with a power vacuum, then you’re dealing with the potential for insurgency. And, you know there’s a range of states and non-state actors that would look to exploit that.”
Iran, the seat of the ancient Persian civilization, is less plagued by sectarian divides than Iraq, which splintered after the US invasion. But the loss of central authority might be devastating. And the lack of a coherent umbrella leadership for protesters or organized internal opposition raises further questions about a smooth transition. Any US and Israeli joint military action would be certain to include wide-ranging attacks on IRGC facilities and forces. But sources told CNN this week that US intelligence community still believes that the most likely candidate to fill a leadership void would be the hardline guard corps. So ousting theocrats in Tehran might just lead to an equally radical anti-US replacement.
And longer and more complex military action in Iran than in Venezuela with uncertain consequences would increase political pressure on Trump at home amid multiple polls showing majorities of Americans oppose a new Middle East war. It could also test Trump’s bond with the MAGA movement, since he’s spent the last 10 years telling his base there will be no more foreign quagmires.
While officials said that forces would be positioned to strike Iran at the weekend, US action is not guaranteed. The start of the Muslim holy month Ramadan could augur a delay. So could Trump’s annual State of the Union address Tuesday. Trump prizes the unpredictable, so Iran will be on full alert.
But unless Iran capitulates to terms that Trump is still yet to fully explain to the public, more time will not ease the most fateful dilemma yet of his second term.
The Middle East Donald Trump
