|
中東風雲錄--開欄文：埃及的加薩重建方案 -- Al Jazeera
|
瀏覽3,186 ｜回應38｜推薦1 |
|
|
|
下文為本欄開欄文。
埃及的加薩重建方案 -- Al Jazeera
What is Egypt’s plan for the reconstruction of Gaza?
Arab League endorses Egyptian proposal that provides alternative to US President Trump’s plan to take over Gaza.
Al Jazeera Staff, 03/04/25
Arab states have adopted Egypt’s Gaza reconstruction plan, providing a potential path forward after Israel’s devastating war on the Palestinian enclave.
Egypt unveiled its plan on Tuesday while hosting an Arab League Summit in its capital Cairo.
The plan offers an alternative to United States President Donald Trump’s suggestion that the Gaza Strip be depopulated to “develop” the enclave, under US control, in what critics have called ethnic cleansing. Under the Egyptian plan, Gaza’s Palestinian population would not be forced to leave the territory.
Trump had insisted that Egypt and Jordan take Palestinians forced out of Gaza by his plan, but that was quickly rejected, and the US has signalled that it is open to hearing what an Arab plan for Gaza’s post-war reconstruction would be.
Speaking at the start of the summit, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said that Trump would be able to achieve peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Here’s everything you need to know about the plan, based on Al Jazeera’s own reporting, as well as drafts of the plan reported on by the Reuters news agency and the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram.
Play Video 請至原網頁觀看視頻
What does the Egyptian plan call for?
The plan consists of three major stages: Interim measures, reconstruction and governance.
The first stage would last about six months, while the next two phases would take place over a combined four to five years.
The aim is to reconstruct Gaza – which Israel has almost completely destroyed – maintain peace and security and reassert the governance of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the territory, 17 years after it was kicked out following fighting between Fatah, which dominates the PA, and Hamas.
How does the plan aim to rebuild Gaza?
A six-month interim period would require a committee of Palestinian technocrats – operating under the management of the PA – to clear the rubble from Salah al-Din Street, which is the main north-south highway in the Gaza Strip.
Once the roads are clear, 200,000 temporary housing units would be built to accommodate 1.2 million people and about 60,000 damaged buildings restored.
According to the blueprint, longer-term reconstruction requires an additional four to five years after the interim measures are completed. Over that span, the plan aims to build at least 400,000 permanent homes, as well as rebuilding Gaza’s seaport and international airport.
Gradually, basic provisions such as water, a waste system, telecommunication services and electricity would also be restored.
The plan further calls for the establishment of a Steering and Management Council, which would be a financial fund supporting the interim governing body in Gaza.
In addition, conferences will be held for international donors to provide the necessary funding for reconstruction and long-term development in the Strip.
Who would be in charge of Gaza?
The plan calls for a group of “independent Palestinian technocrats” to manage affairs in Gaza, in effect replacing Hamas.
The technocratic government would be responsible for overseeing humanitarian aid and would pave the way for the PA to administer Gaza, according to el-Sisi.
Speaking at Tuesday’s summit, PA President Mahmoud Abbas said that an election could take place next year if circumstances allowed.
On the security front, Egypt and Jordan have both pledged to train Palestinian police officers and deploy them to Gaza. The two countries have also called on the United Nations Security Council to consider authorising a peacekeeping mission to oversee governance in Gaza until reconstruction is complete.
How much is this going to cost?
Egypt is calling for $53 bn to fund the reconstruction of Gaza, with the money distributed over three phases.
In the first six-month phase it would cost $3bn to clear rubble from Salah al-Din Street, construct temporary housing and restore partially damaged homes.
The second phase would take two years and cost $20bn. The work of rubble removal would continue in this phase, as well as the establishment of utility networks and the building of more housing units.
Phase three would cost $30bn and take two and a half years. It would include completing housing for Gaza’s whole population, establishing the first phase of an industrial zone, building fishing and commercial ports, and building an airport, among other services.
According to the plan, the money will be sourced from a variety of international sources including the UN and international financial organisations as well as foreign and private sector investments.
Is the plan going to work?
There are still a number of variables that could complicate the plan. Perhaps most importantly, it is unclear whether Hamas, Israel or the US will agree to it.
Hamas welcomed the reconstruction plan, and has previously agreed to a technocratic government. But it is less clear if it will accept the return of the PA, which itself would face the perception from its critics that it has returned to Gaza on the back of Israel’s tanks.
Hamas may be willing to discuss its removal from governance, but is adamantly against its disarmament – something the Egyptian plan adopted by the Arab League did not discuss.
Israel has made it clear that this is a red line, and that Hamas will not be allowed to keep its weapons. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also said that he will not allow the PA to return to Gaza.
There is also the question of whether Trump will abandon his idea of a US-controlled “Middle East Riviera” for the Egyptian plan. It is difficult to predict what Trump’s position will be, particularly if Israel signals its opposition to the Egyptian plan.
What has the response been so far?
In response to Egypt’s plan, Israel said that Arab states needed to “break free from past constraints and collaborate to create a future of stability and security in the region”.
Instead, Israel continues to back Trump’s Gaza displacement plan – which echoes a longstanding call from the Israeli far-right to depopulate Gaza.
Egypt called Israel’s response “unacceptable”, with Minister of Foreign Affairs Badr Abdelatty describing the Netanyahu government’s position as “stubborn and extremist”.
Abdelatty said it would be impossible to see peace in the region without an independent Palestinian state. “No single state should be allowed to impose its will on the international community,” he added.
The White House continues to stand by Trump’s plan for Gaza, but said it would welcome collaboration with regional partners – except Hamas.
“While the President stands by his bold vision for a post-war Gaza, he welcomes input from our Arab partners in the region. It’s clear his proposals have driven the region to come to the table rather than allow this issue to devolve into further crisis,” White House National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes said.
“President Trump has been clear that Hamas cannot continue to govern Gaza,” he added.
相關閱讀：
Arab leaders endorse Egypt’s Gaza reconstruction plan
European leaders back 'realistic' Arab plan for Gaza
For Israel, ceasefire is a continuation of war by other means
The Egyptian Gaza plan: A deadly trap for Israel and the US
The Egyptian plan for postwar Gaza is a good starting point—but it needs changes
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
伊朗戰爭將導致全球經濟危機 - Theron Mohamed
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：The missile strike that changed the war
02/28戰爭開打之前，本欄已經轉載過多和下文這類分析與報導相似的評論；不在此處一一細表。美國相關部門及該地區政策的官員和學者們也不是吃素的；對發動伊朗戰爭的風險必定有所評估和建言。
根據戰前分析和當下戰局及世局兩者現狀，川瘋一意孤行、悍然出兵的動機，顯然不是基於所謂MAGA的「國家利益」。
Top economist Steve Hanke says Iran is channeling Muhammad Ali — and could deal a 'knockout blow' to the US
Theron Mohamed, 03/20/26
* Steve Hanke says Iran could use economic warfare to outlast the US and win the conflict.
* The veteran economist compared Iran's approach to Muhammad Ali's famous "rope-a-dope" strategy.
* Oil and gas prices spiked on Thursday after an Iranian attack on a key LNG export plant in Qatar.
Steve Hanke says Iran is pulling from Muhammad Ali's playbook — and could deal a "knockout blow" to the US.
"With its control of the Strait of Hormuz, that's what Iran is capable of doing, and probably will do," the professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins told Business Insider by email on Thursday.
Hanke recalled a legendary boxing match dubbed the "Rumble in the Jungle" between Ali and George Foreman in 1974. Foreman was the undefeated heavyweight champion, making Ali a major underdog.
However, Ali braced himself against the ropes and absorbed blow after blow until Foreman was exhausted, at which point he counterattacked and floored his opponent.
"The war planners in Washington, D.C. and Jerusalem apparently never understood that, when under attack, Iran would adopt Muhammad Ali's classic rope-a-dope strategy," Hanke said.
The US has used overwhelming force to eliminate almost all of Iran's military infrastructure, but the country continues to disrupt trade, roil financial markets, and threaten global economic growth by attacking neighboring countries and disrupting commerce, which has heaped pressure on President Donald Trump to end the conflict.
Power surge
Brent crude and European natural gas prices spiked to nearly four-year highs on Thursday after Iran responded to an Israeli strike on its gas fields by attacking the world's largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) export plant in Qatar and causing "extensive damage."
Oil and gas prices have soared since the start of the war between Iran and the US and Israel, largely because Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz — a key shipping channel through which 20% of the world's oil and LNG flows — by using mines and missiles to scare off commercial vessels.
Hanke, a former economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan, was the president of Toronto Trust Argentina when it was the world's best-performing market mutual fund in 1995. He said that shutting the strait has triggered an "acute physical shortage of crude."
He pointed to the prices of Dubai and Oman crude, which have "exploded to levels that exceed the famous 2008 spike." He said that has created a "significant gap between prices in the physical markets and the paper markets."
Paper markets "have not yet priced in what's really going on in the real world," he continued, adding that they'll eventually be "mugged by reality" and surge closer to physical prices.
Hanke said that traders are steering clear of West Texas Intermediate crude as they think the US government might try to sell futures to keep prices artificially low. Moreover, speculators worry the US might impose an export ban or tax on exports of WTI to hold prices down, he said.
Brent, the international benchmark, better reflects market sentiment and conditions, he added.
Past and future
"What about the Iranian knock-out blow?" Hanke wrote. "If that occurs, it will be when the massive collateral damage from the ever-increasing crude prices ripples through every corner of the world economy, inflicting such punishing pain on Iran's adversaries that they can no longer withstand it."
Hanke has been trading commodities and currencies for more than four decades. As Friedberg Mercantile Group's chief economist in 1985, he predicted the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) would collapse, and oil would plunge to below $10 a barrel, leading his firm to place massive short bets on crude and the Saudi riyal and Kuwaiti dinar.
Hanke was proven right by April 1986 when oil crashed below that level, and the two Middle Eastern currencies tumbled shortly after.
Read the original article on Business Insider
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
川瘋已經輸掉美國-伊朗戰爭 -- Guillaume Long
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
請參見本欄上一篇的「編者前言」。
The U.S. attacked Iran to show its power but the war is already lost. Epic Fury looks like an Epic Fail
Guillaume Long, 03/18/26
The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran is already lost for the United States. Even if Iran is militarily defeated, it is unlikely the United States’ political objectives will be achieved. And, on balance, the United States will come out weakened from this war.
President Trump’s biggest problem lies in his attempt to square an impossible circle: imposing regime change in Iran without committing ground troops. Trump understands that neither his MAGA base nor the U.S. public has any appetite for another prolonged ground war in the Middle East. But regime change from the air does not work for a 90 million-strong country that is four times the size of Iraq and has been preparing for this eventuality for decades. The United States is beleaguered by the paradox of a leadership wanting to reimpose its global might through coercion and hard power and a population fundamentally opposed to any war that entails a significant expenditure of U.S. lives.
Why Iran Is Harder to Break Than It Looks
Despite all the talk of a downgraded Iran in the last two years, recent events have demonstrated the country’s capacity to resist. Iran’s resilience relies on a military and security architecture that is highly decentralized, with overlapping command structures between the regular armed forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Recent days have shown how thoroughly Iran has developed extensive contingency planning designed to ensure continuity even under sustained attack. Airstrikes on Iran’s leadership have been ineffective — possibly even counterproductive, given their radicalizing effect on pro-government sectors of the population and their triggering of predetermined war protocols.
Equally important, Iran’s strategy is built around asymmetric warfare and escalation management. Its arsenal of weapons and proxy networks allow it to reap chaos across the region while imposing high costs on its adversaries. Iranian drones and missiles are relatively cheap to produce, but shooting them down requires interceptors that cost as much as 200 times more — and are limited in supply.
This leaves Trump facing a strategic trap. He must choose between the political cost of failing to achieve his regime change objectives and the political cost of walking back on his domestic promise of no more forever wars. The only viable exit strategy is to manufacture the appearance of victory: declaring that the objectives have been met even when they clearly have not.
The Peace Deal That Was Sabotaged the Day Before the Attack
Even if Trump manages to save face domestically, the war has already been lost at the international level — and the most damning evidence of that may be what happened the day before the bombs fell.
The first source of resentment is that the United States entered this war at Israel’s behest. Israel has been pushing for a decisive confrontation with Iran for years, against the repeated warnings of Washington’s other traditional partners in the Persian Gulf. Gulf states, organized in the Gulf Cooperation Council, opposed this war from the start — they understood that a major conflict with Iran would destabilize the entire region. They were not given prior notice of an attack meticulously planned with Israel. Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, was reflecting broadly felt regional sentiment when he told CNN: “This is Netanyahu’s war.”
This opposition led several states to support diplomatic efforts that were actively underway when the attack began. The day before the attack, Oman announced a breakthrough: Iran had agreed not to stockpile fissile material — a concession that went beyond anything Iran had agreed to in the 2015 JCPOA, which Trump had previously scuttled. “A peace deal is within our reach,” the Omani foreign minister said — before declaring the following day, once the strikes had begun: “I am dismayed. Active and serious negotiations have yet again been undermined.”
That agreement died on the runway. It is worth sitting with that fact.
How the War Is Fracturing U.S. Alliances in the Gulf
The Gulf states’ second grievance is that this war has seriously jeopardized their own security. As a result of the U.S.-Israeli attack, Iran retaliated against installations in Gulf states hosting U.S. military bases. In the Gulf, Iranian drones and missiles have struck targets in Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. There is rising anger in these countries that whereas the United States has done little to shield them from these strikes, it has done a great deal to protect Israel. This dynamic creates precisely the strategic outcome Iran has long sought: to erode the foundations of the U.S. security architecture in the Gulf. If trust between Washington and its Gulf partners weakens — potentially leading some states to eventually downgrade their security cooperation — that alone represents a significant strategic victory for Iran.
Bahrain did successfully lead a UN Security Council resolution condemning Iran for these strikes. But Gulf states’ hostility toward Iran is not the new development here. The new development is the regional resentment toward the United States — given that all parties knew Iran would likely attack its neighbors if Washington struck first.
The situation could deteriorate further if Washington, encouraged by Israel, chooses to double down on the total destruction of Iran rather than seek an exit strategy. Nobody in the region — except Israel — wants a prolonged war or the total collapse of the Iranian state. The specter of Libya’s failed state and Syria’s civil war still haunts the region. As a result, Iran’s neighbors mostly distrust the CIA’s renewed support for Kurdish militants, as well as growing talk of stoking Azeri, Baloch, and Arab nationalist movements.
Yet many of Trump’s domestic allies remain oblivious to these concerns. A good if baffling example of this deep-seated ignorance was Sen. Lindsey Graham’s recent threat to GCC states. “Get more involved as this fight is in their backyard… if not, consequences will follow” — captures the depth of that disconnect.
The Global Economic Fallout
Beyond the Middle East, this war now threatens the entire global economy. Oil prices have surged as a result of the selective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. In the United States, gas prices have risen sharply, fueling fear among Republicans that a continued energy crisis could hurt them in the midterm elections. In parts of Asia, the impact is being felt not only in rising fuel and liquefied gas prices but in supply constraints — several countries in South and Southeast Asia are already experiencing energy rationing, resulting in shortened work weeks, business closures, and partial school shutdowns.
Europe faces its own vulnerabilities. With the end of winter providing some relief, gas reserves nevertheless remain low. Russia has been quick to offer Europe an energy lifeline — which Europeans have so far rejected, determined to uphold their sanctions. Meanwhile, Washington first gave permission to India to purchase limited quantities of Russian oil, then removed sanctions on Russian oil altogether, albeit temporarily. Russia looks set to be among the war’s clearest beneficiaries.
China, highly dependent on Gulf oil imports, will also be forced to seek alternative energy sources — likely accelerating its reliance on Russian oil. But in the longer run, the war tilts the strategic balance decisively in Beijing’s favor. A protracted conflict consumes U.S. military resources globally, including in East Asia — the removal of the THAAD missile defense system from South Korea is an early example of that overreach
The war will further erode Washington’s global prestige and deepen doubts among key allies about the reliability of U.S. leadership. China has spent years carefully nurturing its relations with Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia — and a net result of this war will be the consolidation of those ties. Some analysts have also argued that the energy shock could further accelerate a global transition toward renewables, raising global demand for Chinese solar panels, electric vehicles, and batteries. Against the backdrop of U.S. military adventurism, China’s reputation for diplomacy and economic stability will continue to gain global appeal.
The Nuclear Paradox
One of the great ironies of this war is that it marks the end of any significant deterrence of Iran — including on its nuclear program. If Iran survives the devastating destruction brought upon it, its appetite for a nuclear deterrent will have significantly increased. A likely consequence of this war, therefore, will be to accelerate the very threat it professed to avert.
Operation Epic Fury is increasingly looking like an epic fail. What began as an attempt to demonstrate the ongoing relevance of unrivaled U.S. military power is fast becoming one of the most consequential strategic miscalculations of this century — a pivotal moment in the steady erosion of U.S. hegemony.
Guillaume Long is a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
伊朗弱弩之末？--Jason Ma
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
假消息？自我安慰？公關手法？且拭目以待。
這個戰爭研究學會(ISW)的蛋頭們好像忘了：克勞塞維茲對「戰爭」的定義是：「另一種延續政治對話的方式」(此欄2025/07/13)。在戰場上美軍或許大獲全勝(？)；在國際和國內政壇上，川瘋怕不是已經輸到脫褲子。
Iran’s attacks have collapsed, and the trend is ‘overwhelmingly positive,’ analysts say. But the military side is separate from politics and markets
Jason Ma, 03/17/26
The spike in oil prices was not a good look politically or economically for President Donald Trump after the U.S. and Israel launched their war on Iran, but the military campaign is going well, according to the Institute for the Study of War.
Crude eased somewhat on Monday on signs that more tankers are passing through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has virtually locked up after hitting commercial ships. That comes as Iran’s top source of leverage is fading.
“The war in Iran is currently in a phase in which the military trajectory is relatively positive: The United States is steadily destroying Iran’s ability to use its most essential tool in the war—drone and missile attacks—which in turn underpin the entire Iranian strategy,”ISW said in a report Sunday.
While Iran has inflicted significant damage to U.S. installations in the region and allied infrastructure, the pace of its attacks is plunging and hasn’t come close to its original plan for fighting off an existential threat to the regime with overwhelming retaliation, it pointed out.
For example, drone attacks on the United Arab Emirates collapsed from 332 on the second day of the war to just six on Sunday. Ballistic missile attacks fell from a peak of 137 on the first day to four yesterday.
The U.S.-Israeli bombardment has destroyed hundreds of Iranian launchers, and its missile force troops are reportedly demoralized, deserting, and refusing orders, according to ISW.
“Some individual drones have penetrated air defenses and caused politically unacceptable damage to oil infrastructure, but the overall trend in attacks is overwhelmingly positive,” it added.
There’s also little to no evidence the reduced pace of attacks is due to Iran keeping projectiles in reserve to be used later when the U.S. and Israel will have fewer interceptors, the report said.
Such a tactic would be a major gamble that assumes Iran will still have enough launchers left in the future. It also assumes the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps retains enough command and control to execute that kind of coordination after the relentless targeting of its leadership.
請至原網頁觀看：伊朗戰爭發生後，02/28 – 03/15期間伊軍空中攻擊次數遞減表
ISW also noted the last Iranian attack on merchant shipping was on March 11, though it’s unclear whether that was due to less traffic in the Strait of Hormuz or the degradation of Iran’s military capabilities.
Of course, Iran’s plan was never to defeat the U.S. military, with the focus instead on causing political and economic pain, ISW said. Indeed, soaring crude prices have already made gasoline more expensive, threatening higher inflation and public backlash ahead of U.S. midterm elections.
Iran’s strategy rests on inflicting damage in the Gulf, disrupting shipping, activating proxies, committing terrorism, and launching cyber attacks.
“Iran has likely calculated that if these five prongs cause U.S. casualties, drive up oil prices, and impose economic costs on both the US and its Gulf allies, the United States and Israel would make a political decision to end the war without achieving their objectives,” the report said.
ISW expressed confidence the U.S. Navy can reopen the Strait of Hormuz, despite officials describing it as a “kill box” filled with potential threats, while adding “the risk-tolerance of the market will ultimately determine the length of the disruption in the Strait.”
Meanwhile, Trump has called on other countries to send warships to help escort tankers, even warning NATO failure to help him “will be very bad for the future” of the alliance. But so far, there are no takers.
Despite Iran suffering devastating losses on the battlefield, the burden is still on the U.S. to prevent Iran from using economic and political pressure to turn insignificant tactical moves into strategic successes, ISW warned. Still, Operation Epic Fury is working for now.
“The available evidence supports the assessment that the combined campaign is achieving its military objectives thus far but is not yet complete,” ISW said. “Declaring the campaign a failure at this stage is therefore premature. The collapse of Iranian drone and missile attacks—down significantly since Feb. 28—presents a compelling picture that the military campaign is degrading ballistic missile and drone capabilities.”
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
無知、短視、和魯莽之川瘋 -- Katrin Bennhold
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
三者有其一都足以亡國，川瘋一應俱全；看來他真是美國過去歷任政府倒行逆施的「活報應」。
A Predictable Problem
Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a well-known problem, appears to have caught Trump off guard.
Katrin Bennhold, the host of The World, 03/16/26
You’re reading The World newsletter. Your daily guide to understanding what’s happening — and why it matters. Hosted by Katrin Bennhold, for readers around the world.
Iran’s willingness and ability to disrupt the global economy by choking off the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane for oil and trade, caught the Trump administration by surprise.
That in itself is something of a surprise. Because this was not a secret plan.
Before the United States and Israel first launched strikes, Iran embarked on a tour of the Gulf and warned that if attacked, it would inflict maximum economic pain on the region and the world. Its best leverage for doing that? A narrow waterway that connects the Persian Gulf to the open ocean — and is fiendishly difficult to secure.
A very predictable problem
American military planners and Gulf oil companies have worried about this scenario for decades.
“Of all the risks the global energy system has long faced, none was bigger or better known than the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz,”my colleagues Rebecca F. Elliott and Vivian Nereim reported.
The strait is vital — a crucial artery for one-fifth of the world’s oil supplies — and extremely vulnerable to attack. It’s only 34 kilometers wide at its narrowest point: All ships are forced to pass within easy reach of Iran’s southern border.
The strait, as some of my colleagues reported, has become “exhibit A in Iran’s ability to seize an asymmetric advantage” against its more powerful enemies.
Much of Iran’s navy has been sunk by U.S. and Israeli strikes. Hundreds of its missiles have been destroyed. But as long as it retains the ability to harass ships across a narrow strip of water, it has a powerful tool at its disposal.
Iran’s near-total blockage of the strait has sent oil and natural gas prices surging around the world. Oil prices are above $100 a barrel, up more than 40 percent since the start of the conflict.
Now that the U.S. is facing this long-anticipated problem, it seems somewhat at a loss for what to do about it.
Sources: Flanders Marine Institute, International Maritime Organization, GEBCO. Credit...Samuel Granados and Agnes Chang/ The New York Times 霍爾木茲海峽地圖
A geography lesson
President Trump is frustrated. Last week he asked America’s highest ranking military officer, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, why the U.S. could not reopen the strait.
The answer is simple, he was told: A single Iranian soldier or militia member zipping across the narrow strait in a speedboat can fire a mobile missile into a slow-moving supertanker, or plant a limpet mine on its hull.
I spoke to my colleague Eric Schmitt, one of our national security correspondents. He said Iran’s Revolutionary Guards operate scores of these speedboats. The threat alone is enough to disrupt shipments.
Since the war started two and a half weeks ago, Iran has attacked ships in and around the strait, bringing traffic to a near standstill.
Trump’s options for improving the situation aren’t great.
He has exhorted tanker owners to “show some guts.” And the administration has talked about having the U.S. Navy escort commercial ships. There is precedent, Eric pointed out: In the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war, the U.S. Navy successfully secured passage through the strait.
But today, as technology has evolved, Eric said, that would be “extremely costly and extremely risky.” Forming such an escort could take weeks. It would require destroying the many Iranian missiles along the strait. And it would probably mean diverting even more warships to the Middle East.
Over the weekend, Trump leaned heavily on other countries to send their own warships to the strait. He warned NATO members that not heeding his call would be “very bad” for the alliance.
But so far few seem inclined to cooperate. China, South Korea, France and Britain did not respond directly to Trump’s demand. Japan, Australia and Germany explicitly ruled it out. The European Union’s top diplomat spoke bluntly when she said: “This is not Europe’s war.”
Having other countries send ships wouldn’t be a long-term solution, Eric said. The cost and risk would be too high to sustain.
How to open a strait
The question of how to keep the strait open is not a new one. In the 2000s, my colleagues report, the Pentagon asked one of its senior strategists in the Middle East to assess a similar situation.
Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, who retired from the Air Force, concluded that while the U.S. could use advanced sensors and precision strikes to mitigate Iranian attacks, it could not stop them completely. The shipping lanes are too narrow, and vessels too vulnerable to rockets, missiles and swarms of small boats.
“The Strait of Hormuz is a difficult, almost impossible, problem to solve through military means alone,” Hinote said.
Keeping the waterway open militarily, he said, would mean taking and holding the Iranian territory bordering the strait. In other words: boots on the ground.
“It would require large numbers of ground forces to seize the coast,” he said. “Short of that, the only lasting solution to the strait is a diplomatic one.”
Other developments:
* Trump threatened to delay a summit with China’s leader, Xi Jinping, if Beijing refused to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
* Israel escalated ground attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The town of Khiam has emerged as a focal point.
* Trump went to war without consulting allies. But they may still have to \ pick up the pieces.
* Our correspondents answered readers’ questions about the war.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
伊朗戰爭之牽一髮而動全球 -- Katrin Bennhold
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
Suspended U.S. Sanctions Add a Political Win to Russia’s Economic Gains
The Iran war’s global reach
The fighting is raising energy prices, hitting farmers and reshaping geopolitics. We look at the ripple effects worldwide.
Katrin Bennhold, 03/15/26
You’re reading The World newsletter. Your daily guide to understanding what’s happening — and why it matters. Hosted by Katrin Bennhold, for readers around the world.
The war in Iran is not a world war. But it is a war affecting much of the world.
Two weeks in, it’s had ripple effects on trade routes, travel patterns, energy prices, alliances and living costs around the globe. Far from the battlefield, residents in Kolkata are queuing for gas, tourists are fleeing Cyprus and farmers in the Northern Hemisphere are getting nervous about the spring planting season.
It’s also reshaping geopolitics: For Russia, it’s a win. For China, less so — but that could change. Today, I’m writing about some of the far-reaching consequences of the war.
Global shock waves from war
Before the war in Iran, Russia’s finances were looking dire.
Last year, the country’s oil and gas revenues declined by nearly a quarter — the result of falling prices and Western sanctions related to Russia’s own war in Ukraine. Its economy was under strain.
Yet Vladimir Putin sounded awfully pleased — maybe even smug — speaking on Wednesday about European nations’ plans to phase out Russian gas imports in response to the invasion of Ukraine. With so many countries newly desperate for energy, maybe, he suggested, Russia would be the one phasing out Europe.
“Now other markets are opening up, and perhaps it’s more advantageous for us to stop supplying the European market,” he said.
This probably isn’t what U.S. policymakers had in mind two weeks ago when they launched the war.
The Gulf region is one of the most interconnected areas of the globe. It’s a place where business, geopolitics, energy and immigration meet. While the Iran war may have started in the Middle East, it was unlikely to stay contained there.
Over the past two weeks, my colleagues around the world have been documenting the ways the war has been playing out in their regions. Some of these second-order consequences — like Putin’s happiness about oil prices — were, arguably, predictable; others less so. What they all point to is how much this war has done to reshape the world after just two weeks — and it doesn’t seem to be over yet.
A ‘triumphant’ Moscow
The rising oil prices as a result of the war were already a gift to Moscow, a major oil exporter whose energy proceeds bankroll the war in Ukraine.
But as my colleagues Ivan Nechepurenko and Paul Sonne write, a decision on Thursday by the U.S. to temporarily lift some sanctions on Russian oil was the cherry on top: an implicit admission that the U.S. can’t contain the energy shock it unleashed through the war without Russia.
The mood in Moscow? “Triumphant,” they write.
The mood in Ukraine? Concerned.
Analysts don’t believe the suspension of sanctions will actually do much to ease oil prices. But it will reduce the discount that Russia has had to offer buyers of its oil since it invaded Ukraine in 2022, leaving it more money for its war efforts.
Ukraine has already been scrambling for the world’s attention — and American weapons systems — as a result of the Iran war. The decision to lift Russian sanctions, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, said on Friday, “certainly does not help peace.”
An uncertain China
There’s a lot that China doesn’t like about this war, my colleagues write. But in the long run, it might come out ahead.
The fighting is definitely not good for business. China imports more than half its seaborne crude from the Gulf region. Iran, which formerly accounted for about a quarter of that, was a particularly cheap source: It sold oil to Beijing at a discount.
Chinese exports to the region were also growing rapidly last year, in part because of ongoing trade tensions with the U.S. The war isn’t good for those, either.
But when it comes to freedom of action in its own region, China potentially stands to gain.
My colleagues based in Asia have written about just how much military capability the U.S. has pulled out of the Pacific in the past two weeks.
A carrier strike group has been redirected away from the South China Sea. The THAAD missile defense systems in South Korea — “the apex defenders of the American arsenal,” according to my colleagues — are being moved to defend against Iranian drones and rockets. Japan and Taiwan may face delays in their own deliveries of American arms.
The war in Iran is putting strain on America’s security promises in Asia — to China’s benefit.
How Migrant Workers Have Been Affected by Iran’s Strikes
Since the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran began, Iran has fired hundreds of missiles and drones in retaliation at Gulf countries. Iranian officials say that they are attacking U.S. military bases and American interests in the Gulf countries, not civilian targets. Our reporter Vivian Nereim talks with Katrin Bennhold about how migrant workers have been affected.
Collateral damage
The war has made itself felt as far away as:
* Cyprus, where a drone — seemingly launched by Hezbollah — hit a British air base. The strike prompted France, Spain, Greece, Italy and the Netherlands to send warships to the island, contributing to concerns among Europeans that their countries are getting pulled into the conflict.
* South Asia, where fears about spiking energy costs are affecting daily life. In India, restaurants have removed slow-simmered dishes from their menus because they use too much gas. Brick and tile makers, ceramists who use glass kilns, and spaces like crematories, laundries and hospital kitchens are all struggling to keep operations running, while bakeries, street-food vendors and community kitchens face cuts. In Bangladesh, universities have closed to conserve electricity. In Pakistan, the government raised fuel prices by 20 percent overnight. (South Asia is also home to many of the migrant workers who live in the Gulf. Watch my video above with my colleague Vivian Nereim about the war’s effect on these workers. 請至原網頁觀看)
* Across the Northern Hemisphere, where farmers can’t get the fertilizer they need to prepare for the spring planting season. The same nations that produce much of the world’s oil — Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain — also produce much of the world’s fertilizer. That’s also trapped by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
“War has a way of exposing vulnerabilities that arise from interconnection,” my colleague Peter Goodman writes. We’re seeing that play out now in a particularly interconnected place; it’s how the consequences of a regional war go global.
MORE TOP NEWS
Trump wants help to open the Strait of Hormuz
Trump called on other countries to send warships to the region to end the Iranian blockade of the economically vital Strait of Hormuz, but foreign governments responded with caution — if at all.
The U.S. energy secretary acknowledged yesterday that there were “no guarantees” that oil prices would fall in the coming weeks. He added that he believed the conflict would end in the “next few weeks.” Iran’s foreign minister said that his country was ready to defend itself for “as long as it takes.” Entering the war’s third week, Trump faces stark choices.
Iran faced another wave of Israeli strikes. Follow our live updates.
Other developments:
The arrival of about 2,500 Marines in the Middle East in the coming days will give the Pentagon the ability to quickly launch raids.
Fake videos and A.I.-generated images about the war have overrun social networks and caused confusion.
Trump questioned whether Mojtaba Khamenei was alive, fueling speculation about the health of Iran’s new supreme leader.
Here’s a timeline of the troubled relationship between the U.S. and Iran.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
攻擊海水淡化工廠形同核武戰 - Jennifer Bowers Bahney
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：本欄2026/02/07
‘Tantamount to a Nuclear Strike’: CNN Analyst Says Attacks on Water Plants Could Escalate Iran War
Jennifer Bowers Bahney, 03/13/26 a
CNN’s Bill Weir said Friday that strikes on more of the Gulf region’s desalination water plants could seriously escalate the war with Iran.
On CNN News Central, host Jessica Dean brought up the importance of the plants.
“Countries in the region rely on these desalination plants for fresh, clean water, I know,” Dean said. “For example, last weekend, one of those was struck. But what are you hearing when it comes to these plants and the effect on fresh water?” she asked Weir.
“That is a such a key concern right now because so much of the Persian Gulf they live on desalinated water,” Weir said, continuing:
This is a process that takes a lot of energy to take seawater, push the salt out of it either through a membrane or by heating it up. Something like 90% of the fresh water in places like Kuwait and Oman is desalinated. Seventy percent in Saudi Arabia.
There was that attack on one in Bahrain, but it didn’t affect drinking water supplies. The problem is, a lot of these plants are next to other infrastructures, so they could be collateral damage. But attacking a nation’s water is seen in this region as tantamount to a nuclear strike. If that happens, if we see deliberate action against drinking water, that would take it to a new level.
The Quincy Institute’s Responsible Statecraft publication echoed Weir’s concerns.
“Over the weekend, airstrikes targeted water desalination plants in Iran and Bahrain, threatening a vital life source in one of the most water-scarce regions in the world,” the report said. “Analysts said that this development was not only a ‘serious escalation’ in the Iran war, but also an indication that the conflict could have a wider civilian impact.”
Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, called the attack “a dangerous move with grave consequences” on social media and “accused the U.S. of setting a precedent,” Responsible Statecraft reported.
A spokesman for U.S. Central Command denied that the U.S. was behind the desalination plant attack on Iran’s Qeshm Island, the report said.
Watch the clip above via CNN.
The post ‘Tantamount to a Nuclear Strike’: CNN Analyst Says Attacks on Water Plants Could Escalate Iran War first appeared on Mediaite.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
伊朗戰爭之欲罷不能 ---- Nick Paton Walsh
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
暗自叫苦乎？悔不當初乎？
Trump may be unable to end the war he started with Iran, even if he wanted to
Analysis by Nick Paton Walsh, 03/13/26
A war that is “won” but also “not finished yet.” An “excursion” that requires Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” President Donald Trump’s rhetorical knots fit well with his style of dictating America’s information diet, but fall flat when they hit the gritty reality of conflict.
The “win” in war is not as it is in sports: a score does not declare the victor after a previously agreed duration. The bravado and gamer-style videos of the US government as it pursues its assault on Iran belie the extraordinary seriousness of an intractable moment: how far do the Americans have to go, not to just declare “we won,” as Trump did Wednesday in Kentucky, but to make Iran behave as if it has suffered a defeat?
Trump is now caught in the oldest trap of modern warfare – believing a swift, surgical military operation will yield quick, enduring political results. The Soviets did it in Afghanistan; the US in Iraq in 2003; Putin did it in Ukraine, and is still fighting. Whatever force a military fails or succeeds in applying at the start, the people it is attacking have greater commitment to defending their lands and homes.
The White House may have rushed into this, seizing the opportunity for a decapitation strike, provided by Israeli intelligence. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has very different objectives regionally, and a long US involvement against Tehran suits his desire for an Iran in rolling collapse that is no longer a threat. But the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on February 28 has caused as many problems as it has solved.
There is no Delcy Rodriguez waiting in the wings for Trump to anoint, as was the case when US forces seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Rather, Iranian hardliners have filled the vacuum with Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba – the very man Trump publicly said he did not want.
It is unclear if Mojtaba is in good enough health to record a video announcing his leadership, although what Iranian state media said was his first message since he became supreme leader was read out on air Thursday.
It is very clear the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is seeking a blood revenge for the relentless assassination of its commanders, much as you might anticipate US troops would, if Trump, the Joint Chiefs, and much of the US’s intelligence community were killed.
This anger handicaps Trump’s immediate prospects for an end. Iran has – within 13 days – turned this into an endurance test that it seems to be surviving.
The US can bomb for months, but not without depleting its vital munitions stocks, and facing both greater political damage ahead of November’s mid-term elections and the risk of more US casualties.
Iran will continue to lose launchers, drone bases, personnel and infrastructure, but enough will likely survive that its forces never have to stop, and drop to their knees. The IRGC’s leaders have prepared for this moment for years. It is their calling. They may run out of bombs, drones, or even people, but not motivation. This, too, was the lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iran is divided in its support for the regime. But aerial bombardment makes for strange bedfellows among the bombed. The short-sighted notion that enough precision strikes would potentially ensure a wide Iranian popular uprising has slowly been exposed as a sham. Democracy and regime change are now an aspiration in the rear-view mirror of Trump as he seeks an end to the war.
Instead, the limitations of US airpower are exposed. It can alter regimes – in terms of their capabilities or leadership figures – but has yet, with Iran, to force a regime to change its methods, or force a change of regime. And over time, the barrage will likely become less effective and more deadly to civilians – as the target list thins out and the items the Americans and Israelis need to hit become more enmeshed in civilian life.
For the Iranians, the risk versus reward calculus is going the other way: they can harass and destroy ships in the Strait of Hormuz, keeping the price of oil above $100, and forcing the global economy to protest that Trump should have seen this coming. Iran’s missile barrages may become fewer, but their mere persistence is a win.
Now Trump has begun talking of the end, daily, and of victory, he has made it far too palpable that he wants to stop. Message discipline is helpful in war, and he has let his enemy know he wants out now.
And so for Iran’s regime, the path to victory – or at least not to defeat - is suddenly very clear, albeit long. It just has to survive. Trump or Israel could kill a second Khamenei, but the resulting Iranian resolve would be harder to defeat still. (The Americans learned in Afghanistan that their nightly raids on Taliban leadership actually made it harder to wind down the war – they were left with only hot-headed, grieving sons of dead leaders to try to talk to.)
Yet this is no “Forever War,” for now. It is 13 days old. It is more likely that silent diplomacy, or sheer exhaustion, will see the violence peter out in the coming weeks, in such a way both sides can claim a win.
Then, Iran’s regime will rebuild, more hardline, more violent, more brutal – its members aware the entire might of US military power can kill their supreme leader, devastate their military, but still not dislodge their unpopular cabal. That is a big psychological triumph. Russia and China will no doubt help them get back on their feet – not 10 foot tall, but stable enough to throw a punch.
The US will likely have to consider a repeat onslaught, at some time in the future, to diminish a rebuilt Tehran. It may also face the same dilemma Europe now does with Ukraine. Russia is needling Ukraine’s European allies with asymmetrical warfare – sabotage and cyberattacks – to perhaps provoke a wider conflict while imposing costs. Iran will likely fall into the same pattern: irritate the US frequently enough that the US failure to suppress Iran is clear, but not enough it risks open conflict again.
The most serious decision any US president can make is to send his troops to war. Trump is not alone in fumbling this ball: George W. Bush did it (twice). Barack Obama thought he could win Afghanistan, if he tried a little harder, and the chaos of Joe Biden’s withdrawal defined how poorly the US grasped its failures there.
Trump declared a win after 12 days that he has not yet earned or seen accepted by his adversary. He now faces the impossible task of reconciling his insurmountable need to appear the victor with Iran’s dogged desire to never seem to stop. Waiting for exhaustion is not a gameplan, but it appears to be the only one at hand now.
For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
伊朗戰爭美軍傷亡錄-Meredith Deliso
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
Survivor of deadly Kuwait drone attack speaks out from hospital
Sgt. First Class Cory Hicks was injured in the strike that killed six troops.
MEREDITH DELISO, 03/12/26
Sgt. First Class Cory Hicks says he remembers hearing a "buzzing noise" that quickly got louder, right before an Iranian drone attack on a U.S. command center in Kuwait that killed six of his fellow service members.
"I remember turning my head to the left and I'd seen the nose of that drone pop through, and as soon as it did I knew what it was, it was either a missile or a drone," Hicks told ABC Minneapolis affiliate KSTP from his hospital room in the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland. "So I turned to my right, and that's when it blew up and just blew the whole building apart."
Hicks said he and other soldiers had been in a bunker while missiles and drones were intercepted overhead. He said they then got an "all clear," so they came out of the bunker and went back into their work station -- at which point he said the deadly drone strike occurred at Shuaiba port in Kuwait. The Pentagon hasn't responded to a request for comment regarding his account.
"Kind of looked around and I saw everything was just smoke and fire and crazy and chaos," Hicks told KSTP. "At that point in time, I knew that I had to get out of there, so I grabbed my battle buddy and pulled him out and tried to get people out as fast as I could," he said.
That's when he realized he was "a lot more injured" than he initially thought.
Hicks said he got hit with shrapnel that severed an artery attached to his spleen and struck his arms and face. He said he has nerve damage to his face that makes it difficult to smile now.
"I'm making strides," Hicks, 37, a native of Princeton, Minnesota, told KSTP on Monday from Walter Reed, where he said he expects to be for several more weeks.
Hicks' wife, Shanyn, said she was at home getting their children ready for church when a friend called her about the attack and told her her husband was injured and in the hospital.
"I just remember falling to my knees, and just hyperventilating," she told KSTP from the hospital room.
"Not having all the information -- it was terrifying," she told the station.
Hicks said there's a joke in the military community that a deployment to Kuwait is a "vacation, not a deployment." Though a situation can quickly turn hostile, he said.
"You just have to try to prepare your mind for that, and I don't think any of us were really prepared for it, just because we were in Kuwait," he told KSTP. "There hasn't been war in Kuwait for over 30 years. You know, we thought we were safe."
Hicks is assigned to the 103rd Sustainment Command, an Army Reserve unit based in Des Moines, Iowa. The six soldiers killed in the March 1 attack were assigned to the same unit.
One of the six soldiers killed in the attack was also from Minnesota -- Sgt. 1st Class Nicole M. Amor, 39, of White Bear Lake. Hicks said Amor was "literally five feet from me" when the attack occurred.
"She was very, very optimistic on life, very full of life," Hicks told KSTP.
Hicks said he had gotten to know Amor over the past year and that she challenged him to read more while deployed overseas.
"She was just the kindest, kindest woman ever," he told KSTP. "She always went above and beyond to make sure you're taken care of."
Hicks' wife, who is also in the Army Reserves, said she was in the same location as Amor for her first reserves unit.
"She had the biggest, happiest, most welcoming smile," she told KSTP. "She always went out of her way to help you make sure you were taken care of."
Shanyn said Amor's death hits close to home, and that she feels for the fallen soldier's husband and children.
"Now they have to find their new way of life, they have to find their new way of remembrance and their new way of peace. And that could have been any one of those families overseas," she told KSTP.
Also killed in the Kuwait attack were Sgt. Declan J. Coady, 20, of West Des Moines, Iowa; Capt. Cody A. Khork, 35, of Winter Haven, Florida; Chief Warrant Officer 3 Robert Marzan, 54, of Sacramento, California; Maj. Jeffrey R. O'Brien, 45, of Indianola, Iowa; and Sgt. 1st Class Noah L. Tietjens, 42, of Bellevue, Nebraska.
Overall, seven U.S. service members have been killed in action and at least 140 injured since the start of the war, according to the Pentagon.
Shanyn said she feels "blessed" that her husband made it back.
"It could have been a lot worse. He's here, he's able to see and hear for the most part, he's got his limbs, and that's all I could ask for," she told KSTP. "Our kids still have their dad, I still have my partner, I couldn't be more blessed."
As he recovers in the hospital, Hicks said his message for others is to not take anything for granted.
"Life is precious, life is short," he told KSTP.
"Appreciate the ones you love and the ones that are close to you, because you might not ever get to even talk to them again," he said.
ABC News' Steve Beynon contributed to this report.
相關新聞：
Iran live updates
Trump attends dignified transfer of 6 fallen service members killed in Kuwait amid Iran war
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
美、伊戰爭：美國又做冤大頭 - Will Neal
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
Iran’s ferocious retaliation for US-Israeli strikes has rattled its neighbors
或許，(川痞 + 川瘋)或他的姑爺跟以色列(或沙烏地阿拉伯)有暗盤交易？
Terrifying Conclusion of Secret Senate War Briefing Revealed
Will Neal, 03/03/26
Lawmakers at a secret Senate briefing have revealed what appears to be Donald Trump’s new foreign policy priority in the Middle East, potentially laying the ground for endless U.S. military engagements across the region.
Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat who serves as vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, attended the classified briefing Monday night—held by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe—on the president’s decision to launch an all-out war with Iran over the weekend.
Warner told reporters those officials had explained how, prior to those strikes, Israel had warned it was facing an imminent threat from Tehran. Israel’s plans to attack first, the officials apparently went on, had effectively forced the U.S. into a pre-emptive assault on Iranian targets, on the basis of protecting American military assets across the region from prospective retaliatory strikes by the Islamic regime.
“This is still a war of choice that has been acknowledged by others, that was dictated by Israel’s goals and timeline,” the senator said. “There was no imminent threat to the United States by the Iranians. There was a threat to Israel. If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the U.S., then we are in uncharted territory.”
Throughout its history, Israel has frequently engaged in direct or indirect conflict with actors across the Middle East—including wars with neighboring states like Egypt and Lebanon, repeated confrontations with terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and strikes aimed at curbing Iran’s regional influence.
Warner’s comments about the White House treating threats to Israel as de facto threats against the U.S. raise the spectre of a future in which Washington could very well be drawn more quickly and more often into recurring conflicts across the Middle East, potentially committing U.S. forces whenever Israel’s security situation escalates.
The senator underscored the Trump administration’s unprecedented rationale for its strikes on Iran by stressing that his own support for Israel remains steadfast, but not unconditional. “I stand firmly with Israel,” he said. “But I believe at the end of the day, when we are talking about putting American soldiers in harm’s way and we have American casualties and expectations of more, there needs to be the proof of an imminent threat to American interests.”
“I still don’t think that standard has been met,” he added.
Trump himself has repeatedly struggled to stick to any given justification for launching the attacks against Iran, which have prompted retaliatory strikes from Iran and sent shockwaves through the global economy. At least six U.S. servicemembers have already been killed.
The president offered four different explanations for the conflict in just the two days after he started it. He said that “all I want is freedom for the people” of Iran, then that the campaign was designed to put an end to the regime’s nuclear program, then that its goals are a change of leadership, and then that it came in response to an imminent threat of attacks on U.S. bases.
A somewhat circular variation of that last justification now appears to have stuck among top administration officials. “The president made [a] very wise decision,” Rubio told reporters Monday. “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”
Johnson struck a similar tone after the Senate briefing. “Because Israel was determined to act with or without the U.S., our commander in chief and the administration and the officials had a very difficult decision to make,” he said. “If we had waited to respond before acting first, [our] losses would have been far greater than if we had done what we did.”
Speaking with Fox News later that night, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to pour cold water on any suggestion he had forced Trump’s hand. Prefacing his comments with a chuckle, he said: “That’s ridiculous. Donald Trump is the strongest leader in the world. He does what he thinks is right for America.”
Trump’s war with Iran comes after he repeatedly promised voters on the 2024 campaign trail that if elected, he would dramatically reduce U.S. military engagements abroad. In his election night victory speech, he told supporters, “I’m not going to start a war; I’m going to end a war.” And since assuming office last January he has modelled himself as the “Peace President” in a bid to secure himself the Nobel Peace Prize.
After the Norwegian Nobel Committee scorned those efforts in November, the president has now said he no longer feels “obligated to think purely of peace.” He has since bombed Nigeria, invaded Venezuela, launched a rapidly escalating conflict in the Middle East, and threatened military action against allies like Mexico, Colombia, Panama, and Greenland, an autonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark.
Trump’s growing appetite for foreign intervention has severely tested more isolationist positions held by top members of his Cabinet. Vice President JD Vance, a steadfast critic of U.S. involvement in Ukraine, repeatedly assured voters in 2024 that Trump was the anti-war candidate, while Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard sold T-shirts with “NO WAR WITH IRAN” on them as part of her bid for the 2020 Republican presidential nomination.
The president’s actions in the Middle East have set off conflict along the same lines among the GOP and the wider MAGA orbit. Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson immediately slammed the weekend’s attacks as “absolutely disgusting and evil,” while rogue Republican congressman Thomas Massie was quick to blast the White House’s latest defense of the conflict.
“The administration admits [Israel] dragged us into the [Iran] war that’s already cost too many American lives and billions of dollars,” the Kentucky congressman posted on X. “Before it’s over, the price of gas, groceries, and virtually everything else is going to go up. The only winners in [the U.S.] are defense company shareholders.”
The Daily Beast has contacted the White House for comment on this story.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
五角大廈擔憂防空武備用罄 -- Martha McHardy
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考此欄2026/03/02貼文。
‘Paranoid’ Pentagon Officials Are Secretly Panicking
Martha McHardy, 03/02/26
Pentagon officials are worried about Donald Trump’s Iran strikes spiraling out of control if they stick to his timeline.
While the president boasts that the strikes could continue for several more weeks, military leaders are sounding the alarm behind the scenes about U.S. air defense stockpiles running out if the fighting goes on that long.
“The mood here is intense and paranoid,” one insider told The Washington Post.
While U.S. Central Command said more than 1,000 targets have already been wiped out and the White House has boasted of destroying most of the country’s top leadership, Iran has still managed to unleash a huge number of retaliatory attacks, reportedly alarming military officials.
Each retaliatory attack by Iran requires U.S. air defense interceptors—which are limited.
“There is concern about this lasting more than a few days,” a source told the Post. “I don’t think people have fully absorbed yet, like, what that has done with stockpiles.”
“At this point, it’s on. It’s not like we can say: ‘Hey, Iran, we’re out of missile defense systems now so we’re going to pause for a moment. Is that okay?’ It will stretch our ability to defend everything that we need to defend,” the House Armed Services Committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith said, characterizing U.S. resources as “stretched thin.”
Meanwhile, according to the Post, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine has already cautioned the White House that weapons shortages and limited allied support would significantly increase the risks to both the mission and U.S. troops.
Trump warned in an eight-minute video announcing the strikes that Americans could be killed, saying, “that often happens in war.”
Since then, three U.S. service members have been killed in the fighting and five more suffered critical injuries. U.S. Central Command said additional troops experienced minor shrapnel wounds and concussions but are expected to return to duty.
And in a video statement released by the White House on Sunday, Trump warned that “sadly, there will likely be more before it ends.”
Amid the casualties, and no end in sight for the fighting, Trump is now under pressure to spell out his vision for Iran.
In remarks to The Daily Mail, he said the military campaign could stretch on for as long as four weeks. He has also vowed that U.S. forces will carry out sustained “heavy and pinpoint bombing” for days without pause, saying the strikes will continue until Washington secures what he described as “our objective of peace” in the Middle East.
But the White House has yet to articulate what success looks like or how the conflict could conclude.
Lawmakers and foreign policy analysts warn that without a clearly defined strategy, the United States risks sliding into the kind of protracted war Trump long promised to steer clear of.
During the 2024 campaign, Trump ran on an “America First” and “no new wars” platform, pledging to avoid foreign entanglements and prioritize U.S. interests — a message that resonated with war-weary MAGA voters.
“Where does this all go?” Jim Himes, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, told NPR. “We can bomb Iran along with the Israelis for, you know, lengthy period of time, but in the service of what?
“Is the intention regime change? Because there aren’t many examples either of regime change affected through bombing, or, quite frankly, of American military forces actually doing regime change in a way that is satisfactory.”
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
