2026年8月7日 / 美国东部时间凌晨5:00 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
随着美伊冲突进入第六个月，特朗普政府正在寻求达成一项协议。但共和党参议员泰德·克鲁兹认为，美国应该向伊朗政权施加更大压力——包括向反对本国政府的伊朗人提供武器。
“我认为我们的目标应该是政权垮台，”这位得克萨斯州共和党人在“战争学院”播客上对哥伦比亚广播公司新闻国家安全分析师、《自由报》专栏作家亚伦·麦克莱恩说道。
据消息人士向哥伦比亚广播公司新闻透露，在伊朗镇压该国多年来最大规模的示威活动并造成至少1.2万人死亡后，克鲁兹于1月下旬首次推动美国向抗议者提供武器。
一个月后，美国和以色列开始打击伊朗。其公开目标是削弱伊朗的常规军事和核项目，但特朗普总统也敦促伊朗普通民众“接管你们的政府”，推翻自1979年以来统治伊朗的强硬派神职人员政权。
自那以来，美国和伊朗在打击和外交之间摇摆不定。两国于6月达成一份谅解备忘录，旨在终止冲突、恢复航运、启动伊朗核项目谈判，并最终放松对伊朗的制裁。该协议于上月破裂，但伊朗目前正逐步与阿曼达成协议，允许霍尔木兹海峡的航运通行，这可能让美伊谈判得以恢复。
克鲁兹批评了美国对伊朗的许多外交试探。他告诉麦克莱恩，这份谅解备忘录是一场“灾难”和一份“糟糕的协议”，警告该协议将为伊朗获得数十亿美元的制裁减免和3000亿美元的经济发展资金铺平道路，并可能让伊朗“在霍尔木兹海峡占据永久地位”。
“如果我不太愿意给他们3000亿美元，以帮助他们实现杀害我们的既定目标，还请你们谅解，”克鲁兹说道。“给他们3000亿美元是一个极其糟糕的主意。两个月前是个坏主意，现在是个坏主意，两个月后也还是个坏主意。所以我希望我们不要走上那条路。”
（特朗普政府在6月份表示，这3000亿美元的重建资金将是自愿性质的，将来自海湾国家和私人投资者，而非美国政府。）
相反，克鲁兹主张，美国应该继续打击伊朗军事目标，并“持续加大经济压力”，包括维持对伊朗港口的封锁，以切断伊朗的石油销售能力。
他还呼吁向伊朗人提供武器。“我认为我们应该做的，也是我曾多次敦促特朗普总统、多次敦促以色列做的，就是武装抗议者，给他们武器，让他们推翻自己的政府，这样就不会有美国士兵在地面上作战，而是伊朗人为他们自己的国家而战，”这位参议员说道。
近几个月来，特朗普已经放弃了要求伊朗政权倒台的呼吁。克鲁兹承认，“政权更迭”的说法可能带有负面含义，让人联想到美国推翻伊拉克萨达姆·侯赛因后引发的混乱。
克鲁兹表示，如果伊朗政权垮台，他“并不特别关心接下来掌权的是谁”，“只要他们不是仇视美国并 actively 试图杀害美国人的伊斯兰主义者”。
“无论是沙阿的儿子，是伊朗人民圣战者组织反对派团体，还是当地人，只要他们不是仇视美国并积极试图杀害美国人的伊斯兰主义者，我都无所谓，”克鲁兹说道，他指的是流亡的王储礼萨·巴列维——其父亲于1979年被推翻，当时的头衔是伊朗国王。
就特朗普本人而言，他在3月份表示，希望在选择伊朗下一任领导人的问题上拥有发言权。他对巴列维表示过怀疑，今年早些时候称他“看起来非常友善”，但补充道：“我不知道他在本国国内会如何立足。”
克鲁兹绝非唯一一个质疑与伊朗达成协议的共和党人。就在美伊谅解备忘录于6月中旬公布后不久，路易斯安那州参议员比尔·卡西迪称其为“几十年来最糟糕的外交政策失误”，阿肯色州参议员汤姆·科顿警告称，该协议的部分内容是“朝着错误方向迈出的一步”。
特朗普称批评该协议的人为“傻瓜”、“要么是嫉妒、坏人，要么是愚蠢”。
与此同时，少数共和党人——比如肯塔基州参议员兰德·保罗——批评了总统的整个伊朗战略，认为这场战争本身就是一个错误。
关于伊朗政策的分歧可能暴露出共和党内部更广泛的裂痕：一派倾向于支持扩大使用美国军事力量，另一派则对此更为怀疑。
这场争端的核心是副总统J·D·万斯，他是特朗普的潜在继任者，曾帮助领导美伊谈判，且历来对军事行动持怀疑态度。在上月乔·罗根的播客采访中，万斯总体上为政府的战略进行了辩护，并对伊朗“鹰派”表示不满。
“我对那些美国人感到非常沮丧，坦率地说，对其他国家的人也是如此，他们说‘你不能和伊朗人谈判’，”他说道。“那好，那你们有什么提议能让人们停止向霍尔木兹海峡的船只开枪？你可以轰炸他们，摧毁他们的雷达，打掉他们的一些无人机和导弹，但向海峡内的船只开枪太容易了。所以你必须愿意坐下来谈判，努力找出问题所在。”
克鲁兹告诉麦克莱恩，他并不认为自己是干预主义者。
“我既不同意干预主义者，也不同意孤立主义者。我认为干预主义者太急于派遣海军陆战队了，那是他们解决所有问题的办法，”他说道。“但我绝对不是孤立主义者。这个世界很危险，我们的军队的职责就是防止美国的敌人杀害美国人。”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBknuv6JOmw
Sen. Ted Cruz calls for Trump to arm Iran’s protesters: “Our objective should be regime collapse”
August 7, 2026 / 5:00 AM EDT / CBS News
With the U.S.-Iran conflict in its sixth month, the Trump administration is angling for a deal. But Republican Sen. Ted Cruz argues the U.S. should heap more pressure on Iran’s regime — including by arming Iranians who oppose their government.
“I think our objective should be regime collapse,” the Texas Republican told CBS News national security analyst and Free Press columnist Aaron MacLean on the “School of War” podcast.
Cruz first pushed for the U.S. to arm protesters in late January, after Iran cracked down on the country’s largest wave of demonstrations in years, killing at least 12,000 people, sources told CBS News.
A month later, the U.S. and Israel began striking Iran. The stated goal was to degrade Iran’s conventional military and nuclear program, but President Trump also urged ordinary Iranians to “take over your government” and oust the hardline clerical regime that has ruled Iran since 1979.
Since then, the U.S. and Iran have oscillated between strikes and diplomacy. The two countries struck a memorandum of understanding in June aimed at halting the conflict, restoring shipping traffic, launching negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program and eventually loosening sanctions on Iran. The agreement collapsed last month, but Iran is now inching toward a deal with Oman to allow shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, which could allow U.S.-Iran talks to resume.
Cruz has criticized many of the U.S.’s diplomatic overtures toward Iran. He told MacLean the memorandum of understanding was a “disaster” and a “terrible deal,” warning it would set the stage for Iran to get billions of dollars in sanctions relief and $300 billion in economic development funds, and could let Iran assume “a permanent role with the Strait of Hormuz.”
“You’ll forgive me if I’m not terribly eager to give them $300 billion to facilitate their carrying out their stated intent of murdering us,” Cruz said. “Giving them $300 billion is an exceptionally bad idea. It was a bad idea two months ago, it’s a bad idea today and it would be a bad idea two months from now. So I hope we don’t go down that road.”
(The Trump administration said in June the $300 billion in reconstruction funds would be voluntary, and would come from Gulf states and private investors, not the U.S. government.)
Instead, Cruz argued, the U.S. should keep striking Iranian military targets and should “continue ratcheting up the economic pressure,” including by keeping in place a blockade on Iranian ports designed to choke off Iran’s ability to sell its oil.
And he called for Iranians to be armed. “What I believe we should do, what I have urged President Trump repeatedly, what I’ve urged Israel to do repeatedly, is arm the protesters, give them the guns, to let them overthrow their own government so that it’s not American boots on the ground, it’s Iranians fighting for their own country,” the senator said.
In recent months, Mr. Trump has backed off his calls for Iran’s regime to be toppled. And Cruz acknowledged that calls for “regime change” can carry negative connotations, evoking comparisons to the chaos that resulted after the U.S. toppled Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.
Cruz said he doesn’t “particularly care who comes next” if Iran’s regime were to collapse, “as long as they are not an Islamist who hates America and is actively trying to kill Americans.”
“I don’t have a dog whether it’s the son of the Shah, whether it is the Mojahedin-e-Khalq opposition group, whether it is someone local, as long as they are not an Islamist who hates America and is actively trying to kill Americans,” Cruz said, referring to exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi, whose father was overthrown as Iran’s shah, or king, in 1979.
Mr. Trump, for his part, said in March he wanted a role in choosing Iran’s next leader. He has expressed doubts about Pahlavi, saying earlier this year he “seems very nice,” but: “I don’t know how he’d play within his own country.”
Cruz is far from the only Republican to question the idea of striking a deal with Iran. Shortly after the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding was announced in mid-June, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana called it “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” and Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas warned that parts of it are a “step in the wrong direction.”
Mr. Trump called critics of the deal “fools” and “either jealous, bad people, or stupid.”
Meanwhile, a handful of Republicans — like Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky — have criticized the president’s entire Iran strategy , arguing the war itself was a mistake.
The disagreements about Iran could expose a broader rift within the GOP between those who tend to favor expansive uses of U.S. military force and those who are more skeptical of it.
At the center of the dispute is Vice President JD Vance, a possible successor to Mr. Trump who helped lead U.S.-Iran negotiations and has historically been a skeptic of military action. In an interview last month on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Vance broadly defended the administration’s strategy and expressed frustration with Iran “hawks.”
“I’m very frustrated by the Americans and, frankly, by people in other countries who are like, ‘You cannot negotiate with the Iranians,’” he said. “Well, then, what is your proposal to get people to stop shooting at ships in the Strait of Hormuz? You can bomb them, you can take away their radar, you can take away some of their drones and some of their missiles, but it’s just too easy to fire at ships in the strait. So you’ve got to actually be willing to talk and to try to figure out the problem.”
Cruz told MacLean he doesn’t view himself as an interventionist.
“I disagree with both the interventionist and the isolationists. I think the interventionists are too quick to send the Marines. That’s their solution for everything,” he said. “But I am most definitely not an isolationist. It is a dangerous world, and it is our military’s job to prevent enemies of America from killing Americans.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBknuv6JOmw