分析： 艾伦·布莱克
1小时29分钟前
发布时间： 2026年2月19日，美国东部时间下午1:38
唐纳德·特朗普总统周四在华盛顿特区的美国和平研究所出席和平委员会 inaugural 会议。
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
特朗普总统宣布对伊朗设立红线已过去一个多月。
他表示，如果伊朗向抗议者开枪，“我们将狠狠地打击他们，让他们付出代价。”他告诉抗议者继续施压，并表示“帮助即将到来”。
特朗普尚未兑现这些承诺。1月中旬，他声称“杀戮已经停止”，但伊朗继续镇压抗议者。此后几周，总统几乎不再谈论抗议者，转而强调伊朗为何不能拥有核武器——并多次威胁，如果伊朗不达成协议，将采取“严重后果”。
局势似乎终于走到了临界点，特朗普暗示将很快做出决定。但特朗普面临的选择是：他要么（无论多么迟缓地）兑现自己的红线承诺，要么采取一项极具政治风险的行动。
因为对伊朗采取军事行动将是后者。
背景回顾： 周四，即美国与伊朗在日内瓦进行最新间接谈判两天后，特朗普提出了他最新的潜在行动时间表。“在接下来的10天左右，你们会看到结果，”他在和平委员会 inaugural 会议上表示。
美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）周三报道称，美国已准备好最早于本周末对伊朗采取行动，尽管特朗普尚未做出最终决定，并且他私下里在征求顾问和盟友意见时，对军事行动的利弊进行权衡。
美国人在很大程度上愿意接受特朗普的对外打击行动，无论是他6月对伊朗核设施的袭击、秋季开始的对所谓贩毒船只的法外打击，还是上月推翻委内瑞拉总统尼古拉斯·马杜罗的行动。这些行动无论过去还是现在都绝非广受欢迎，但也并非无法承受的政治负担。
伊朗问题则带来了更大的政治风险。
上个月的三项民调显示，美国民众强烈反对进一步卷入伊朗局势，支持率至少为2比1：
- 益普索（Ipsos）民调显示，42%的受访者反对对伊朗镇压抗议者的行为进行导弹打击，仅16%支持（该民调显示40%持中立态度）。
- 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻（CBS News）与优途（YouGov）联合民调显示，67%的受访者反对以军事行动支持抗议者，33%支持。
- 昆尼皮亚克大学（Quinnipiac University）民调显示，70%的登记选民表示，即使抗议者被杀害，美国也不应介入。
这三项民调都强烈否定了特朗普的红线承诺。在最后一项民调中，即使是共和党人也以53%反对、35%支持的比例表示反对。
这些数据尤为惊人，因为一些相同的民调机构显示，美国人对特朗普6月最初的伊朗打击行动的态度更为分歧。昆尼皮亚克大学民调显示，在6月打击行动发生几天后，登记选民中支持率翻了一番，达到42%。
这是为什么呢？
我们在去年6月的民调中也看到，当时美国人对更深层次介入的耐心和恐惧明显不足。
在早期的哥伦比亚广播公司和昆尼皮亚克民调中，约80%的受访者至少“一定程度上”担心会引发更广泛的战争，其中包括60%的共和党人。
哥伦比亚广播公司的民调显示，71%的美国人认为打击行动会导致伊朗对美国发动攻击。
路透社与益普索联合民调显示，79%的受访者至少“一定程度上”担心伊朗会针对美国平民进行报复。
此外，美国人甚至不认为有限的打击行动有成效。美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）的一项民调显示，58%的受访者认为这些打击可能会使伊朗对美国构成更大威胁，而只有27%认为会削弱威胁。
从这些数据可以看出，美国人对打击行动并不十分热衷。事实上，他们未必看到行动的意义，反而担心其潜在后果。但或许是因为这些打击行动持续时间较短，所以尚能获得一定支持。
对委内瑞拉马杜罗行动的民调也显示了类似趋势，部分原因是该行动同样短暂。对美国在委内瑞拉行动的民调也显示，民众对更深层次介入该国未来持相当大的怀疑态度。
未来几天，我们将看到特朗普在兑现对伊朗红线承诺方面究竟有多坚决。可以明确的是，他将面临一个艰难的政治抉择。
一位本就面临日益加深的不受欢迎局面的总统，现在正考虑兑现一项极具争议的承诺。
Trump’s dilemma on Iran
Analysis by Aaron Blake
1 hr 29 min ago
PUBLISHED Feb 19, 2026, 1:38 PM ET
President Donald Trump attends the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace at the US Institute of Peace in Washington, DC, on Thursday.
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images
It’s been more than a month since President Donald Trump declared a red line on Iran.
He said that if Iran shot protesters, “we’ll be hitting them very hard where it hurts.” He told protesters to press on, with the understanding that “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”
Trump hasn’t made good on those promises. In mid-January, he claimed the “killing has stopped,” but Iran continued killing protesters. In the weeks since, the president largely stopped talking about protesters and shifted to talking about why Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon — repeatedly threatening “bad things” if it doesn’t strike a deal.
The situation finally appears to be coming to a head, with Trump signaling a decision is arriving shortly. But Trump’s choice amounts to this: He can either enforce his red line — however belatedly — or do something quite politically fraught.
Because that’s what striking Iran would be.
To catch up: On Thursday — two days after the latest indirect talks between the US and Iran in Geneva — Trump floated his latest potential timeline for action. “You’re going to be finding out over the next, probably, 10 days,” he said at the inaugural meeting of his Board of Peace.
The US is ready to strike Iran as early as this weekend, CNN reported Wednesday, although Trump has not made a final decision, and he’s privately argued both for and against military action while surveying his advisers and allies.
Americans have largely been willing to entertain Trump’s foreign strikes, whether that’s his attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites in June, his extrajudicial strikes on alleged drug boats starting in the fall, or his ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro last month. These weren’t and aren’t popular by any means, but they weren’t albatrosses either.
Iran presents a greater political risk.
Three polls last month showed the American people were strongly against further involvement in Iran. In each case, it was at least a 2-to-1 margin:
- They opposed missile strikes in response to Iran’s crackdown on protesters 42%-16%, per an Ipsos poll. (That poll showed 4 in 10 were neutral.)
- They opposed military action to support the protesters 67%-33% in a CBS News-YouGov survey.
- Registered voters in a Quinnipiac University poll said 70%-18% that the United States should not get involved even if protesters were killed.
Those are three pretty strong rejections of Trump’s red line. Even Republicans were against the idea in that last poll, 53-35%.
And those numbers were especially striking because some of the same pollsters showed Americans were much more evenly split on Trump’s initial Iran strikes. Quinnipiac showed twice as much support — 42% among registered voters — for the US strikes in June days after they happened.
So what gives?
Well, something we also saw in those polls last June was a distinct lack of patience — and fear — about what deeper involvement would mean.
In both the earlier CBS and Quinnipiac polls, about 8 in 10 respondents were at least “somewhat” concerned about a wider war, including 6 in 10 Republicans.
The CBS poll showed 71% of Americans thought the strikes would cause Iran to launch attacks against the United States.
A Reuters-Ipsos poll showed 79% worried at least “somewhat” about Iran targeting US civilians in response.
And Americans weren’t even that convinced the limited strikes were productive. They said 58%-27% that the strikes were actually likely to make Iran more of a threat to the United States, according to a CNN poll.
The prevailing picture from those numbers is that Americans were hardly enamored with the strikes. Indeed, they didn’t necessarily see the point and feared what the strikes could portend. But perhaps because the strikes were so short-lived, they were popular enough.
Polling on the Maduro operation in Venezuela has been similar, seemingly in part because the mission was also short-lived. And the polling on US actions in Venezuela also showed pretty substantial skepticism about deeper involvement in the country’s future.
We could find out in the coming days how serious Trump is about enforcing his red line on Iran. What’s clear is that he set himself up for a tough political choice.
A president who is already dealing with increasingly deep unpopularity is now considering making good on a quite unpopular pledge.