2026-07-14T04:01:25.731Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/14/politics/trump-iran-war-strait-of-hormuz-analysis
伊朗似乎正顺着唐纳德·特朗普的思路出牌。
周一，美国总统抱怨伊朗伊斯兰共和国不值得信任，无法信守协议，还斥责伊朗统治者做出了他标志性的操作之一。
“这笔交易本已成定局，结果他们毁约了。他们向来如此，”他在接受福克斯新闻采访时谈及那份短暂暂停战争的谅解备忘录说道。特朗普似乎没意识到自己这番批评的讽刺意味——他自己就屡次退出多项国际协议，包括《巴黎气候协定》（还退了两次）。一些批评人士会将美国当前的困境归咎于特朗普任期内废除奥巴马时期限制伊朗核计划协议的决定。
当天晚些时候，恼怒的特朗普扬言要对过境霍尔木兹海峡的船只征收费用。而伊朗随即带着几分嘲讽地开出了比《交易的艺术》作者本人更“划算”的条件。
“总统（POTUS）说得完全没错，”伊朗外长阿巴斯·阿拉克奇在X平台上写道，他认为特朗普的表态让德黑兰关于收取这条关键航道通行费的立场合法化了。阿拉克奇还尖刻地补充道：“20%当然太高了。我们会公平行事。”
特朗普如今发现，伊朗寸步不让，而且对备忘录内容有着自己的解读。他还尚未向美国民众清晰解释，为何要重启一场他曾反复声称已经打赢的战争。
此前几周，特朗普曾高调签署一份谅解备忘录，宣称此举将永久终结伊朗的核计划，让中东地区3000年来首次迎来和平。如今他却改口了。周一在休·休伊特的电台节目中，特朗普称这份协议只是伊朗未能通过的一场“测试”，“没什么实质意义”。
曾经，他的支持者或许会辩称，特朗普的鲜明矛盾恰恰证明他在打一场四维外交棋局。而现在，他至多只是陷入了僵局。
这份谅解备忘录之所以破裂，是因为伊朗要捍卫其在战争中取得的最重大胜利——对霍尔木兹海峡的实际控制权。这进一步印证了美国面临的残酷现实：无论特朗普发出多少威胁、拥有多强的军事实力，德黑兰仍在主导这场对峙的走向。而定义这场战争的等式始终未变：伊朗正利用地理优势以及对自身有限实力的精明判断，制衡这个超级大国对手。
这场新的意志较量，部分源于美国政府急于达成一份措辞模糊的谅解备忘录。由副总统JD·万斯领导的特朗普团队，那些擅长房地产谈判的人士，似乎没能意识到那些更深谙历史与外交的批评人士一眼便看穿的问题：伊朗会利用这份协议攫取新的谈判筹码。
例如，协议要求德黑兰“做出安排”，确保商用船只在60天内安全、自由地通过海峡，还要求其与阿曼合作，“明确海峡未来的管理机构和海事服务”。表面上看，这满足了美国的诉求——海峡恢复正常通航。但伊朗似乎将其视为永久协议达成后，自己将掌控这条航道的佐证。因此，它竭力塑造新的现状也就不足为奇了。
这一失误加剧了此前的错误——未能意识到伊朗从一开始就会封锁海峡。谅解备忘录达成一个月后，这依然是个问题，这表明美方提出的60天内达成包括伊朗核问题在内的全面协议的时间表，荒谬得不切实际。
美国政府在迫使伊朗就范方面遭遇的困境，让外界对特朗普重启战争的合理性提出了更多质疑。
比如，有理由相信，打击伊朗目标以及特朗普恢复海军封锁的举措，会比之前更成功地改变伊朗新领导层的决策逻辑吗？毕竟，伊朗仅用少数导弹和无人机就再次封锁了海峡。
此外，不断攀升的经济成本——周一石油和柴油期货价格暴涨——是否会再次促使特朗普服软，以避免他上月坦诚表示不愿承担的政治和经济代价？
不过，仍有一线希望：新一轮冲突或许意味着美伊双方都在寻求强化各自对谅解备忘录的解读，为未来的外交谈判铺路。
例如，特朗普并未表现出愿意为入侵伊朗石油枢纽哈尔克岛付出美军伤亡的沉重代价——这是彰显美国优势的一种可能途径。相比之下，包括林登·约翰逊和乔治·W·布什在内的其他几位现代总统，都曾在一场看似已经没有胜算的战争中增兵。
而且，与他的朋友俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔·普京不同，这位美国总统并未因低估对手而在战争中遭遇战略羞辱后，就对平民发动全面战争。根据伊朗官方说法，战争初期曾发生一起美军误袭事件，造成168名儿童和14名教师死亡，悲剧就此上演。袭击造成的平民伤亡总数至今不明。
但特朗普并未兑现此前袭击桥梁、发电厂等民用基础设施的威胁，这类袭击会严重影响民众生活。而伊朗在报复美国在中东地区的基地或其海湾盟友时，也始终将冲突升级的程度控制在一定范围内。
与此同时，当前的战场态势呈现出的是一场 simmering（ simmering，译为“持续发酵、暗流涌动”）而非彻底失控的冲突。
“我认为，尽管美国加大了对伊朗的打击力度、伊朗也展开了报复，仍存在外交空间，”以色列国家安全研究所伊朗与什叶派轴心项目高级研究员丹尼·西特里诺维奇在接受CNN记者贝基·安德森的“环球连线”节目采访时说道。但他补充道：“局势可能失控并升级，因为每日、每夜都有来回袭击，确实很难维持游戏规则。”
即便这场新的战火始终维持在临界点之下，特朗普仍必须回答一个近五个月来一直未能妥善解决的问题。
他要如何从这场战争中脱身？
Iran plays by Trump’s rules to deepen his war dilemma
2026-07-14T04:01:25.731Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/14/politics/trump-iran-war-strait-of-hormuz-analysis
Iran seems to be playing Donald Trump at his own game.
The president complained Monday that the Islamic Republic can’t be trusted to honor an agreement, rebuking its rulers for one of his own signature moves.
“It was a done deal, and then they broke it. They always break it,” he told Fox News of the memorandum of understanding that briefly paused the war. Trump did not seem to appreciate the irony of his critique, given his habit of walking out on multiple international agreements, including the Paris Climate Accord (twice). Some critics would trace America’s current predicament to Trump’s first-term decision to scrap the Obama-era deal capping Iran’s nuclear program.
Later in the day, a frustrated Trump vowed to impose his own toll on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Iran — in an offer laced with sarcasm — jumped in with a better price than the author of “Art of the Deal.”
“POTUS is absolutely right,” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote on X, arguing that Trump had legitimized Tehran’s position on charging for passage through the vital waterway. Araghchi added archly: “20% is of course too much. We will be fair.”
Trump is finding out that Iran drives a hard bargain and has its own interpretation of what was in the memo. And he’s yet to clearly explain to Americans why he reignited a war that he repeatedly said he’d already won.
Weeks after declaring that an MOU he signed with a flourish meant he’d forever ended Iran’s nuclear program and brought peace to the Middle East for the first time in 3,000 years, he’s changed his tune. Trump said on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Monday the deal was a “test” Iran had failed and “didn’t mean much.”
Once, admirers might have argued Trump’s sharp contradictions are evidence he’s playing four-dimensional diplomatic chess. Now he’s at best locked in a stalemate.
The MOU crumbled because Iran acted to defend its top victory in the war — effective control over the strait. This reinforced a harsh reality for the US: For all Trump’s threats and military power, Tehran is still dictating the dynamics of the showdown. And the equation that defined the war remains unchanged: The Islamic Republic is using geography and a shrewd understanding of its own limited power to outmaneuver a superpower adversary.
The new test of wills sprang partly from the administration’s rush to negotiate an MOU that contained imprecise language. Trump’s team of real estate negotiators under the leadership of Vice President JD Vance appeared to miss what critics more steeped in history and diplomacy immediately realized: that Iran would use it to grab new leverage.
For example, the agreement called on Tehran to “make arrangements” for the free and safe passage of commercial vessels through the strait for 60 days and required it to work with Oman to “define the future administration and maritime services” in the strait. Superficially, this gives the US what it wants — the normal operation of the strait. But Iran seems to view it as confirmation it will control the waterway after a permanent agreement. It’s hardly surprising, therefore, it’s fighting to shape the new status quo.
The misstep compounded an earlier mistake — the failure to understand that Iran would close the strait in the first place. That this is still an issue a month after the MOU was agreed upon suggests its 60-day timeline for a full deal, including on Iran’s nuclear program, was absurdly unrealistic.
The administration’s struggles to compel Iranian behavior raise the bar for questions about Trump’s return to war.
Is there, for instance, reason to believe that attacks on Iranian targets and Trump’s restoration of a naval blockade will be any more successful in changing the calculations of the new Iranian leaders than they were before? After all, Iran needed only a few missiles and drones to close down the strait again.
And will swiftly mounting economic costs — oil and diesel futures shot up on Monday — again convince the president to blink to avoid the political and economic price that he candidly said last month he wasn’t willing to pay?
One reason for hope is that the renewed clashes could imply the US and Iran are seeking to cement their own interpretation of the MOU to set the table for future diplomacy.
Trump, for example, has shown no sign that he’s willing to pay a possibly heavy price in US casualties from invading the Iranian oil-producing hub at Kharg Island — one possible way to impose American superiority. Some other modern presidents, including Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush, by contrast, intensified wars that already seemed inconclusive.
And unlike his friend Russian President Vladimir Putin, the US president hasn’t responded to his strategic humiliation in a war that underestimated an opponent by launching all-out war on civilians. Tragedy did strike early in the war when an errant US attack struck an Iranian school, killing 168 children and 14 teachers, according to Iranian officials. And the full civilian toll of attacks is unknown.
But Trump has not followed through on earlier threats to target infrastructure like bridges and power plants, which would severely impact civilian life. And Iran has maintained its own ceiling on escalation with its reprisals against US regional bases or its Gulf neighbors.
The battlefield choreography, meanwhile, currently reflects a conflict that is simmering rather than raging out of control.
“There is room for diplomacy, I think, despite the expanded attacks of the US against Iran (and) Iranian retaliation,” Danny Citrinowicz, senior researcher in the Iran and the Shiite Axis Program at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, told CNN’s Becky Anderson on “Connect the World.” But, he, added: “Things can get out of control and escalate because when you have back-and-forth attacks every day, every night, definitely it’s hard to preserve the rule of the game.”
And even if the fresh conflagration stays just below the boil, Trump must still answer a question with which he’s been unsuccessfully wrestling for nearly five months.
How does he get out of the war?