王晋：美以为何对伊朗大打出手？

Club提要：2月28日，美以对伊朗政军高层发动大规模突袭，且伊朗已向以色列及中东多处美军基地发射导弹进行反击。北京对话特约专家、西北大学国际战略研究中心主任王晋在CGTN撰文指出，美以在选举周期的内部变量驱动下将对伊战略转向军事高压，该决策不仅彻底切断了本就脆弱的核问题对话机制，其触发的军事报复也成为冲击中东安全格局与全球经济结构的最关键风险点。

（翻译：潘佳怡，核译：金地）

王晋发文分析美伊局势（图源：CGTN）

美国和以色列在未正式宣战的情况下对伊朗发动了大规模军事打击。此次军事行动不仅给伊朗造成了重大的人员伤亡和基础设施破坏，而且实质性地中断了美伊两国正在阿曼和日内瓦就核问题进行的对话。

在外交沟通未取得实质性突破的背景下，军事行动的升级迫使脆弱的谈判渠道停滞，显着增加了地区安全的不确定性，将整个中东局势推向了更为紧张和危险的境地。

德黑兰以及伊朗其他城市在周六上午遭到空袭（图源：BBC）

美以打击伊朗的直接原因在于两国对伊朗在核问题上的立场强烈不满。然而，华盛顿和特拉维夫在如何应对伊朗核计划的问题上一直存在分歧。

美国倾向于保持沟通与接触，通过施加持续的外交压力促使伊朗在核问题上做出重大让步。

以色列基本上认为伊朗不可信任，主张通过强化军事威慑甚至直接打击来施加决定性压力。

无论是内塔尼亚胡2月初访美，还是美国高级官员多次公开表态，都表明华盛顿更倾向于通过谈判与伊朗达成阶段性或过渡性的核协议，而不是立即诉诸全面军事行动。这种战略导向上的分歧使得美以两国在伊朗问题上长期存在政策冲突。

尽管在方式上存在差异，但美以两国在伊朗核计划的核心问题上仍有重要共识。美国强调必须消除伊朗的核能力，既反对其继续进行核开发，也反对其持有已生产的高浓缩铀。以色列虽然不赞成仅与伊朗对话，但同样寻求最大限度地削减伊朗的核能力，并坚持将伊朗的导弹技术发展及地区政策纳入整体谈判之中。

2026年1月5日，内塔尼亚胡出席以色列议会全体会议（图源：视觉中国）

基于这一共同安全关切，美以两国在策略上逐渐达成一项共识：即在保留政治对话空间的同时施加军事和战略压力，利用“谈判中的高压”迫使伊朗做出实质性让步。这种外交接触与军事威慑相结合的模式已成为当前伊朗核谈判的显著特征。

此前，美伊双方都试图通过相互让步达成共识，最终避免军事冲突。美国确实进行了一定的政策调整——例如在日内瓦谈判期间，美国不再坚持将伊朗的导弹能力和地区政策与核谈判挂钩，而只聚焦于核问题本身。美国还提议，作为一项过渡性措施，允许伊朗在严格的条件限制下保留极少量的低浓缩铀。

作为回应，伊朗也释放了一定的妥协意愿，重申了其不发展核武器的承诺，同意稀释并削减其高浓缩铀库存，并考虑将部分高浓缩铀转移至其他国家或相关国际实体进行监督。

然而，在是否应彻底放弃伊朗核能力这一根本问题上，美伊两国难以达成一致，这种结构性分歧依然是谈判取得突破的关键障碍。随着过去两个月美国不断在伊朗周边部署兵力，特别是在过去一周展现出更为强硬的姿态，地区紧张局势迅速加剧。

2月26日，伊朗总统佩泽希齐扬表示，特朗普说伊朗必须声明不会拥有核武器，事实上伊朗已经多次声明过这一点。伊朗最高领袖也已经就此问题表态，伊朗不会走向核武器之路。（图源：央视新闻）

就伊朗而言，其一度尝试采取理性的谈判立场，并预先提交了一份谈判草案。然而，当该草案被带到日内瓦进行磋商时，美方代表——包括中东特使威特科夫及库什纳在内——对草案内容都表示了失望。

在美国看来，伊朗的立场很大程度上仍固守其既定框架，拒绝放弃核开发，在转移高浓缩铀或削减核潜能方面未做出实质性让步，且继续拒绝讨论其导弹技术和地区政策。这一评估导致美国对伊政策从对话转向了更为强硬的策略。

对于美国和以色列两国而言，对伊朗进行军事打击都基于重大的国内政治考量。2026年中期选举临近，涉伊问题在美国外交政策和国家安全话语中占据关键地位。无论是通过军事手段削弱伊朗的战略能力，还是通过施压迫使伊朗在谈判桌上做出更大让步，美国都可以利用对伊采取强硬立场这一重要手段，提升本届政府外交和执政信誉。

以色列这边，2026年选举同样迫在眉睫，而伊朗核计划长期以来一直被视为该国最紧迫的国家安全威胁之一。对伊朗进行军事打击使本届政府能够展示其维护国家安全的决心，巩固右翼政治基本盘的支持，特别是对内塔尼亚胡来说可以稳固对其有利的选民结构，转移国内因腐败指控等带来的政治压力。

2月24日晚，特朗普发表其第二任期的首次国情咨文演讲（图源：纽约时报中文网）

美以两国的军事打击产生了深远且复杂的后果。

首先，这些行动实质上标志着美国偏离了先前以对话为中心的政策路线，转而与以色列的强硬立场更为一致。此次联合军事行动几乎完全摧毁了伊朗对美国的战略信任。在伊朗国内，短期内很难有支持继续与华盛顿对话的政治或公众空间。在此情形下，美伊关系可能陷入长期僵局或结构性敌对状态。

其次，军事行动严重破坏了现有的对话机制。经过多轮艰难斡旋，美伊刚刚在阿曼等地区国家的调解下重启对话。包括沙特阿拉伯、阿拉伯联合酋长国和卡塔尔在内的多个国家均反对军事升级。

然而，随着军事打击的发生，美国与部分地区国家之间的政策分歧扩大，地区冲突长期化的可能性显着增加。

第三，伊朗必将采取报复措施，这将把地区安全推入螺旋式升级的循环。伊朗有能力打击美国在中东各地的军事基地——特别是在巴林、阿联酋、卡塔尔和沙特阿拉伯的基地——以及以色列境内的目标。伊朗还可能动员地区盟友（包括也门胡塞武装）袭击美以目标。随着报复与反报复的展开，中东地区可能再次濒临新一轮冲突的边缘。

2026年3月1日，一艘游艇驶过杰贝阿里港升起的浓烟，此前迪拜报告称遭到伊朗袭击（图源：Fadel Senna / AFP）

军事冲突一旦爆发，将进一步加剧地区紧张局势，迅速切断美伊之间本已脆弱的沟通渠道，并加速中东地区阵营的极化，固化对立结构。

鉴于冲突的走向不可预测，全球金融市场和投资领域很可能出现明显的恐慌情绪，推高资本外逃需求，并对全球及地区经济结构造成重大冲击。

此次升级不仅仅是一场军事对抗；它可能在政治、安全和经济领域引发一连串的负面影响，其外溢效应将远远超出直接当事方的范畴。

英文原文如下：

The United States and Israel have launched a large-scale military strike against Iran without formally declaring war. This military action has not only inflicted significant personnel and infrastructure losses on Iran, but also effectively disrupted the ongoing dialogues between the United States and Iran regarding nuclear issues in Oman and Geneva. 

Against the backdrop of no substantial breakthroughs in diplomatic communication, the escalation of military operations forced the fragile negotiation channels to halt and significantly increased the uncertainty of regional security, pushing the entire Middle East situation toward a more tense and dangerous state.

The direct cause of the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran lies in their strong dissatisfaction with Iran's stance on nuclear issues. However, Washington and Tel Aviv have consistently held different views on how to address Iran's nuclear program. 

The United States tends to maintain communication and engagement, applying sustained diplomatic pressure to induce Iran to make significant concessions on nuclear issues.

Israel, by contrast, generally considers Iran unreliable. Accordingly, Israel advocates applying decisive pressure through enhanced military deterrence and even direct strikes. 

Both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the United States in early February and multiple public statements by U.S. senior officials have indicated that Washington is more inclined to reach a phased or transitional nuclear agreement with Iran within a negotiation framework, rather than resorting immediately to full-scale military action. This divergence in strategic orientation constitutes the long-standing policy tension between the U.S. and Israel regarding Iran.

Despite differences in approach, there is significant overlap in core concerns between the U.S. and Israel regarding Iran's nuclear program. The United States emphasizes the need to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability, opposing both continued nuclear development and the possession of already-produced highly enriched uranium. Israel, while disapproving of relying solely on dialogue with Iran, also seeks to minimize Iran's nuclear capabilities and insists on including Iran's missile technology development and regional policies in overall negotiations.

Based on this shared security concern, the U.S. and Israel have gradually converged on a strategy: maintaining space for political dialogue while simultaneously applying military and strategic pressure, using "high-pressure within a negotiation framework" to compel Iran to make substantive concessions. This combination of diplomatic engagement and military deterrence has become a defining feature of the current nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Previously, the U.S. and Iran both sought to reach consensus through mutual concessions to ultimately avoid military conflict. The United States indeed made certain policy adjustments – for example, during negotiations in Geneva, it no longer insisted on linking Iran's missile capabilities and regional policies with nuclear discussions, focusing instead solely on the nuclear issue itself. The U.S. also proposed allowing Iran to retain a very limited amount of low-enriched uranium under strict conditions as a transitional measure.

Iran, in turn, signaled some willingness to compromise, reaffirming its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, agreeing to dilute and reduce its stock of highly enriched uranium, and considering transferring portions of its high-enriched uranium to other countries or relevant international entities for oversight.

However, on the fundamental issue of whether Iran's nuclear capabilities should be completely abandoned, the U.S. and Iran are difficult to reach an agreement, and this structural divergence remains a key obstacle to negotiation breakthroughs. As the United States has continuously deployed forces around Iran over the past two months, particularly demonstrating a more assertive posture in the past week, regional tensions have rapidly intensified.

Iran, for its part, has attempted to adopt rational negotiating stance by submitting a proposal in advance. However, when this proposal was brought to Geneva for consultation, U.S. negotiators – including Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner – expressed disappointment. 

From the U.S. perspective, Iran's position largely adhered to its established framework, refusing to abandon nuclear development, making no substantive concessions on transferring highly enriched uranium or reducing nuclear potential, and continuing to reject discussions of its missile technology and regional policies. This assessment led the U.S. to shift its policy approach toward Iran from dialogue to a more hardline strategy.

For both the United States and Israel, the military strikes against Iran also have significant domestic political considerations. For the U.S., the 2026 midterm elections are approaching, and Iran-related issues occupy a critical place in foreign policy and national security discourse. Either by weakening Iran's strategic capabilities through military means or by pressuring Iran into greater concessions at the negotiating table, the U.S. could take a strong stance on Iran as an important instrument to bolster the administration's diplomatic and governance credibility.

For Israel, the 2026 election also looms, and Iran's nuclear program has long been regarded as one of the most pressing national security concerns. Military strikes against Iran allow the government to demonstrate its resolve in safeguarding national security, consolidate support for the right-wing political base, particularly benefiting Netanyahu by securing a favorable voter structure, and divert attention from domestic political pressures such as corruption allegations.

The military strikes by the U.S. and Israel have had far-reaching and complex consequences. 

First, the actions effectively mark a U.S. shift away from its previously dialogue-focused policy path toward a position more aligned with Israel's hardline stance. The joint military operations have almost completely eroded Iran's strategic trust in the United States. Within Iran, there is little short-term space for political or public support for continuing dialogue with Washington. Under these circumstances, U.S.-Iran relations are likely to enter a prolonged standoff or structural hostility.

Second, the military actions have severely disrupted existing dialogue mechanisms. After multiple rounds of difficult mediation, the U.S. and Iran had just initiated with mediation from Oman and other regional countries. Several countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, opposed military escalation. 

However, with the strikes, the policy rift between the U.S. and certain regional states has widened, significantly increasing the likelihood of prolonged conflict.

Third, Iran is certain to take retaliatory measures, which will push regional security into a spiraling cycle of escalation. Iran is capable of striking U.S. military bases across the Middle East – particularly in Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia – as well as targets within Israel. Iran may also mobilize regional allies, including the Houthi in Yemen, to attack U.S. and Israeli targets. As retaliation and counter-retaliation unfold, the Middle East could once again teeter on the brink of a new round of conflict.

Once military conflict erupts, it will further intensify regional tensions, rapidly severing the already fragile communication channels between the U.S. and Iran and accelerating the polarization of Middle Eastern camps, solidifying opposing structures. 

Given the unpredictability of the conflict's trajectory, global financial markets and investment sectors are likely to experience pronounced panic, raising demand for capital flight and posing significant shocks to both global and regional economic structures. 

The escalation is not merely a military confrontation; it may trigger cascading negative impacts across political, security and economic domains, with spillover effects far exceeding the immediate parties involved.

（原文首发于CGTN，原文链接：https://news.cgtn.com/news/2026-03-01/Reasons-and-influence-behind-U-S-and-Israel-s-attack-against-Iran-1L9iA3R8lwY/p.html）