Donald Trump's Iran Policy Comes Down to One Word: Chaos
川普的伊朗政策就一個字：亂
原文：The National Interest https://tinyurl.com/ug5usu3
作者：Doug Bandow
美國智庫CATO Institute高級研究員，前雷根總統特別助理
中譯：觀察者
https://www.guancha.cn/DougBandow/2020_01_10_531078_s.shtml
Imagine a neutral Germany carefully balanced between dueling America and the
Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and celebrated war hero arrived in Berlin, where he was met by the head of a
local pro-U.S. militia. Meetings also were planned with German leaders. As
his vehicle left the airport Soviet planes struck the chairman’s party,
killing him and his host.
讓我們想像一下，如果冷戰期間德國在劍拔弩張的美國和蘇聯之間謹慎地保持平衡中立，
美國參謀長聯席會議主席同時也是著名戰爭英雄抵達柏林，得到當地親美民間武裝領袖的
接待，按計畫還將受到德國領導人的接見。結果他的座駕剛離開機場，就遭到了蘇軍飛機
的襲擊，和東道主一起當場死於非命。
As stunned U.S. officials processed the news, Moscow announced that the
action was meant for self-defense and to deescalate the situation. America’s
president then called a press conference, telling reporters: “I guess that
makes it okay. No hard feelings. Let’s have those negotiations on U.S.
disarmament that the Soviets proposed.” The lion laid down with the lamb as
Americans and Soviets held mass rallies holding hands while singing Kumbaya.
當美國官方還沒有從震驚中緩過神來的時候，莫斯科方面宣佈該行動純屬自衛，目的是緩
和局勢。美國總統隨後在新聞發佈會上告訴記者：“我覺得蘇聯的說法還過得去，別太介
意。接下來我們還要按蘇聯的提議進行美國裁軍談判呢。”最後，無數美國人和蘇聯人走
上街頭手拉手高唱聖歌。獅子與羔羊同臥，《聖經》裡描述的和平終於降臨。
No, that’s not what the president would say. Nor what the American people
would do. Nor what would happen. Especially if Donald Trump was president.
可美國總統不會說出那樣的話，美國人民也做不出那樣的事，故事情節也根本不會那樣發
展——如果這個美國總統是唐納德‧川普，就更不可能了。
https://i.guancha.cn/news/internet/2020/01/07/20200107160732341.jpg
圖：美國“國家利益”網站1月4日刊文“川普的伊朗政策就一個字：亂”
Perhaps it is unsurprising that those representing the world’s sole
superpower (or hyperpower or unipower) originally acted as if the U.S. is the
essential nation that stands taller and sees further, in Madeleine Albright’
s infamous words. And which can act unilaterally, imperiously, and recklessly
without consequence—deciding, for instance, again in Albright’s words, that
killing a half million Iraqi babies is a worthwhile price to achieve American
objectives.
代表世界唯一超級大國的那些人的最初行徑，用美國前國務卿馬德琳‧奧爾布賴特那句臭
名昭著的話來說，就好像美國是一個“地位更尊崇，視野更遠大的重要國家”，它可以單
方面地、專橫地、魯莽地採取行動而無需承擔後果，比如得出殺死50萬個伊拉克兒童對於
實現美國目標來說是“值得的代價”結論——這又是奧爾布賴特的話。
What is shocking is how today’s officials ignore years, even decades, of
interventionist failure. To believe that Washington can kill a top official
of one nation in a strike on a third country without consequence is the
triumph of hysterical arrogance over sustained experience. Yet the Trump
administration targeted Qassim Suleimani, the notorious head of the Quds
Forces of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Also killed was an Iraqi
national, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of the Popular Mobilization
Forces, an Iran-supported militia, and a number of others. Suleimani’s
convoy was hit by missiles as it left the airport.
令人震驚的是，今天的美國官員們竟然還能對干預主義數年甚至數十年以來的失敗視而不
見。他們的傲慢得膨脹到多麼歇斯底里的程度，才能無視歷來的經驗，居然認為美國可以
在不產生嚴重後果的情況下，在外國境內殺死另一個國家的高官。可川普政府就是這樣，
把打擊目標對準了伊朗伊斯蘭革命衛隊的“聖城旅”指揮官卡西姆‧蘇萊曼尼。蘇萊曼尼
的車隊在離開機場時遭到火箭彈襲擊。在這場行動中，美國還殺死了伊朗支持的伊拉克民
兵組織“人民動員部隊”的副司令阿布‧馬赫迪‧穆罕迪斯。
https://i.guancha.cn/news/internet/2020/01/07/20200107161054266.png
圖：1月3日伊朗名將蘇萊曼尼在伊拉克被美軍刺殺，一同遇襲的還有伊拉克民兵組織領袖
No one should shed any tears for Suleimani or al-Muhandis (though, ugly truth
be told, neither likely killed as many people as the number of people who
died as a result of George W. Bush’s foolish decision to invade Iraq). But
foreign policy is not an appropriate tool for meting out presumed justice, a
convenient way to eliminate bad people. There are a lot of evil, harmful,
problematic people in the world. Too many to turn over to American “justice.
” Moreover, foreign policy must be concerned with consequences. What will
the impact be on Americans and other peoples? Unfortunately, the
administration apparently thought there would be none, at least nothing
negative.
任何人都不應為蘇萊曼尼或穆罕迪德流淚（儘管更醜陋的事實是，沒有人能殺死與喬治·
W·布什入侵伊拉克的愚蠢決定而喪生的人數一樣多的人）。但是，對外政策不是用來行
使假想中的正義的方便工具，也不是消除壞人的便捷方法。世界上有很多邪惡的，有害的
，有問題的人。太多的事情無法轉向美國的“正義”。此外，外交政策必須關注後果。對
美國人和其他人民有什麼影響？不幸的是，政府顯然認為沒有，至少沒有負面影響。
Instead, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo played Pollyanna: "The world is a
much safer place today," he said Friday after the strike: "And I can assure
you that Americans in the region are much safer today after the demise of
Qassem Soleimani." Why then did the administration rush another 3000 troops
to Kuwait as a precautionary measure, in addition to the 14,000 sent since
May?
美國國務卿邁克‧蓬佩奧彷彿波麗安娜（譯註：《波麗安娜》是美國小說、電影，同名主
角有種美式樂觀精神，覺得一切都會好起來）附體，他在襲擊行動之後表示：“我可以向
你保證，卡西姆‧蘇萊曼尼一死，該地區的美國人今後比以前要安全得多。”既然如此，
美國政府又何須向科威特緊急增調3000名士兵以防不測？不是去年五月才派遣了14,000人
嗎？
Moreover, why did the State Department send out a travel alert urging
Americans to rush home: “Due to heightened tensions in Iraq and the region,
we urge U.S. citizens to depart Iraq immediately. Due to Iranian-backed
militia attacks at the U.S. Embassy compound, all consular operations are
suspended. U.S. citizens should not approach the Embassy.” Travelers needing
help were told to go to the U.S. consulate in Erbil, the capital of
autonomous Kurdistan. So much for everyone being safer.
美國國務院又何須發布旅行警報，敦促美國人回國：“鑑於伊拉克和地區緊張局勢加劇，
我們敦促美國公民立即離開伊拉克。由於美國大使館受到伊朗支持的民兵襲擊，現暫停所
有領事活動。美國公民請勿前往大使館。”伊拉克境內需要幫助的美籍旅客不得不前往庫
爾德自治區首府埃爾比勒的美國領事館。也許這種情況在他們看來，叫做“比以前要安全
得多”。
Washington transgressed the usual norms and red lines which govern the
occasional violence between adversaries: countries typically don’t target
other nations’ leaders. One reason is self-preservation. You don’t want
your adversaries to retaliate against you. More open Western societies
probably are more vulnerable than authoritarian ones. And, ultimately, there
has to be someone to negotiate with when the endgame is reached. Truly
decapitating a government can be as problematic for the winner as the loser.
過去，國際上敵對勢力之間儘管偶有暴力，但始終遵守某些慣例和規範，均不跨越紅線：
一個國家通常不會將另一個國家的領導人作為打擊目標。原因之一是自我保護，你不希望
對手進行報復。較為開放的西方社會可能比威權社會更容易受到打擊。而且最重要的是，
當博弈進行到終局時，你需要對方有人跟你談判。這次，華盛頓方面就破壞了規矩，跨過
了紅線。對一個政府施展真正的斬首行動，最終會給贏家和輸家都造成很大的問題。
In irregular warfare and counterterrorism the U.S. has been more willing to
target leaders, but doing so has had little impact on the level of violence.
New leaders arise. In the case of Afghanistan’s Taliban, many replacements
were more radical than the men they succeeded. Which made a peaceful
settlement less likely. Israel has killed a number of top Hamas and Hezbollah
leaders; these organizations are no less threatening today. Assassination is
ineffective as general strategy.
在非常規戰爭和反恐行動中，美國更願意針對敵方領導人，但這樣做並不會顯著地減少暴
力。殺了本‧拉登，自有後來人。比如阿富汗的塔利班，許多繼任者都比前任更加激進。
這使得和平解決方案很難達成。以色列刺殺了哈馬斯和真主黨的許多領導人，但今天這些
組織的威脅性絲毫不減。暗殺根本不是有效的一般性戰略。
Secretary Pompeo naturally contended that the president was defending the
U.S. He claimed: “I can’t talk too much about the nature of the threats.
But the American people should know that the President’s decision to remove
Soleimani from the battlefield saved American lives.” The secretary
contended that Soleimani was “actively plotting” to “take big action, as
he described it, that would have put hundreds of lives at risk.” The threat
was “imminent,” Pompeo claimed, concluding: “The risk of doing nothing was
enormous. Intelligence community made that assessment and President Trump
acted decisively last night.”
蓬佩奧很自然地替總統辯護，稱川普這樣做是在捍衛美國。他聲稱：“關於威脅的性質我
不能透露太多。但美國人民應該知道，總統將蘇萊曼尼從戰場上帶走的決定挽救了美國人
的生命。”這位國務卿繼續辯稱，蘇萊曼尼正在“積極策劃”採取“導致數百人喪生的大
動作”。 蓬佩奧宣稱，這種威脅“迫在眉睫”，因此“無所作為的風險是巨大的，這是
情報部門評估的結論，川普總統昨晚果斷地採取了行動。”
https://i.guancha.cn/news/internet/2020/01/07/20200107161431752.jpg
圖：美國國務卿蓬佩奧為解釋美方刺殺行為，一天接受五個專訪
Unfortunately, none of these claims can be taken at face value. The secretary
’s litany of previous falsehoods is long and leaves him with little
credibility. Moreover, the Iraq war provides myriad examples of how to
manufacture and manipulate alleged intelligence, cook the results according
to preferred ideological and political recipes, and selectively interpret
whatever resulted to yield the desired conclusion.
然而，以上說法都不是完全可信。這位國務卿弄虛作假的前科太重，幾乎沒有什麼信譽可
言[註]。此外，伊拉克戰爭已經無數次向世人證明，所謂情報，太容易被製造和操縱，只
需根據意識形態傾向和政治配方來捏造證據，再對其選擇性地加以解釋，就能得出想要的
結論。
[註] 蓬佩奧在Texas A&M大學演講時說：“我曾擔任CIA的局長。我們撒謊、我們欺騙、
我們偷竊。我們還有一門課程專門來教這些。這才是美國不斷探索進取的榮耀。”
視頻：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPt-zXn05ac
The Iraqi experience warns Americans that even specific citations of specific
plots by specific sources are suspect. True, the corrupt, dishonest Ahmed
Chalabi, who did so much to lie Americans into invading Iraq, is dead.
However, the Mojahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, a cultish one-time terrorist group
has ties to the administration, and the Netanyahu government, desperate to
break Israel’s electoral deadlock, is a Trump favorite. Both have strong
incentives to use any means possible to convince Washington to eliminate the
Islamist regime in Tehran.
美國應該從伊拉克吸取教訓，哪怕某個人把某件事說的有鼻子有眼，也不可全信。當年正
是腐敗、不誠實的艾哈邁德‧沙拉比（譯註：伊拉克前副總理，政黨“伊拉克國民大會”
創始人，向美國提供了薩達姆政權擁有大規模殺傷性武器以及與基地組織勾結的大量虛假
情報）編造了種種謊言欺騙美國入侵伊拉克，儘管他現在已經死了；但是，美國政府又跟
曾被列為恐怖組織的“伊朗人民聖戰組織”（譯註：伊朗反對派，主張推翻伊朗現政權）
勾勾搭搭；而川普鍾意的內塔尼亞胡政府現在又尤其渴望打破以色列選舉僵局。它們都有
強烈的動機不計手段地說服華盛頓方面出手消滅德黑蘭的伊斯蘭政權。
https://i.guancha.cn/news/internet/2020/01/07/20200107161741581.JPG
圖：2003年2月，美國前國務卿鮑威爾在聯合國大會上拿出了伊拉克大規模殺傷性武器的
“證據”
In any case, tweeted Reuters editor Gerry Doyle, “the problem with this is
that it asks us to believe that killing one person undoes an entire military
apparatus, or defuses an operation. that's only true in the movies. unless
Soleimani was planning to personally carry out the attack, this doesn't
physically prevent anything.” The Iranian was no lone wolf or singular
mastermind. He ran an organization and had deputies, assistants, and
multitude of others involved in any plot. They have the incentive and means
to ensure that the show goes on, as it were.
不論美國有何初衷，結果都正如路透社編輯格里‧道爾在推特上所寫的那樣：“這麼做的
問題在於，它指望我們相信殺掉某個人就能拆解整個軍事機器，或破壞整個行動。只有電
影才敢這麼演。除非蘇萊曼尼的計畫是親自動手襲擊，否則這麼做無助於防止任何事。”
蘇萊曼尼不是一匹獨狼，也不是各項謀劃中唯一的大腦。他運營著一整個組織，每次計畫
都有他的副手、助理等許多人參與。他們不乏把事業繼續開展下去的動力和手段。
So purposeless, undisciplined, and reckless was the U.S. attack that even Iran
’s extremists were surprised. Tweeted Negar Mortazavi, diplomatic
correspondent for the Independent: “Hardliner in Tehran tells me killing
Soleimani is a disproportionate response to embassy protests and makes no
sense. Says: They either wanted to kill an Iraqi militia commander and hit
Soleimani by mistake, or they are true morons.”
美國的襲擊竟如此無目的，如此無紀律，如此無所顧忌，甚至令伊朗的極端分子都感到意
外。英國《獨立報》的外交特派記者尼加‧莫爾塔扎維發推文：“德黑蘭的強硬派告訴我
，殺害蘇萊曼尼是對大使館受示威衝擊不成比例的回應，根本說不通。要麼美國只想殺死
伊拉克民兵指揮官，誤殺了蘇萊曼尼，要麼美國是真正的白痴。”
Alas, it almost certainly was the latter. The administration apparently
imagined that it could shock the Islamic republic into quietude. Secretary
Pompeo has been on the hustings claiming the administration wanted to
deescalate. The president sent out a curious tweet presumably intended to
push Tehran toward diplomacy: “Iran never won a war, but never lost a
negotiation!” And the administration reportedly has communicated with
Tehran, presumably to press the president’s request for talks.
唉，幾乎可以肯定美國是後者。川普政府顯然以為這樣做可以震懾伊朗讓它噤若寒蟬。蓬
佩奧頻頻在媒體頻頻拋頭露面宣稱美國的本意是緩和局勢。或許是想推動伊朗以外交途徑
解決問題，川普發了一條奇怪的推文：“伊朗從未贏得戰爭，但從未輸掉談判！”據消息
，美國政府已經與德黑蘭進行了溝通，大概是敦促對方按川普的要求舉行會談。
However, if productive diplomacy leading to a peaceful modus vivendi was the
objective, Washington aimed its missiles much too high. Soleimani was too
important to Tehran, and too popular with the public, making his death
impossible to ignore, even by those who may not have been rivals.
不過，如果美國的目標是通過有效外交實現和平妥協的話，那他未免把導彈瞄得太高了些
。蘇萊曼尼對德黑蘭政權而言重要性太高，受民眾歡迎程度也太高了，伊朗任何人都無法
忽視他的死亡，即使是那些對美國沒有敵意的人。
For instance, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared that
Soleimani’s death was “bitter” but that “the final victory will make life
more bitter for the murderers and criminals.” Defense Minister (and Brig.
Gen.) Amir Hatami said the regime would give a “crushing” response.
伊朗最高領導人阿亞圖拉‧哈米尼宣佈，儘管蘇萊曼尼的死“令人痛苦”，但“最終的勝
利將使凶手和罪犯的生活更加痛苦。”伊朗國防部長阿米爾‧哈塔米表示，伊朗政權將做
出“碾壓性”的回應。
Even relative moderates had little choice but to threaten Washington.
President Hassan Rouhani declared that “The flag of General Soleimani in
defense of the country's territorial integrity and the fight against
terrorism and extremism in the region will be raised, and the path of
resistance to US excesses will continue. The great nation of Iran will take
revenge for this heinous crime.” Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who
negotiated the JCPOA, or nuclear agreement, with the Obama administration,
termed the assassination an “act of international terrorism” and declared
that America “bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue
adventurism.”
即使是伊朗的溫和派也別無選擇，只能出言威脅美國。伊朗總統哈桑‧魯哈尼宣佈：“將
高舉蘇萊曼尼將軍的旗幟，繼續捍衛國家領土完整併與地區內恐怖主義和極端主義作鬥爭
，繼續抵抗美國的放肆暴行。針對十惡不赦的罪行，偉大的伊朗誓將復仇。”曾與奧巴馬
政府談判並達成《聯合全面行動計畫》（即伊核協議）的伊朗外長穆罕默德‧扎里夫把這
場暗殺形容為“國際恐怖主義行徑”，並宣稱美國要為“流氓冒險主義的一切後果承擔責
任”。
https://i.guancha.cn/news/external/2020/01/07/20200107162254610.jpg
圖：伊朗最高領導人哈米尼和總統魯哈尼在蘇萊曼尼靈柩前祈禱
Grant the inevitable posturing and overstatement. After such proclamations,
the regime cannot do nothing. Certainly, its leaders cannot be seen shaking
Donald Trump’s hand after signing an agreement filled with additional
concessions to a government which not only trashed the previous pact but
killed one of Iran’s leading revolutionary figures. Narges Bajoghli of the
School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, warned
that the assassination was highly symbolic, but the sort of symbolism that “
has the power to move people to action.”
儘管伊朗難免誇大其詞，但既然已經做出這番表態，伊朗政權就不能無所作為。伊朗領導
人面對一個不但撕毀原有協議還暗殺伊朗革命領袖的政府時，怎麼可能進一步退讓妥協，
跟川普握手言歡？約翰‧霍普金斯大學高級國際研究學院的納哲斯‧巴約格里警告說，暗
殺具有很高的象徵意義，這種象徵意義“具有讓人採取行動的力量”。
Then there is the problem of Iraq, currently convulsed by public protests
focused on protecting the nation’s sovereignty. Tehran was the primary
target of the protests, but Washington’s warmaking on Iraqi territory has
shifted the spotlight to America.
然後還有伊拉克問題。目前，以維護國家主權為主旨的民眾抗議活動席捲伊拉克。儘管德
黑蘭政權是抗議的主要對象，但華盛頓方面在伊拉克領土引戰的行為使伊拉克人的矛頭掉
轉向了美國。
Iraqi leaders overwhelmingly criticized the U.S. raid, which Prime Minister
Adel Abdul-Mahdi called an "assassination." The Daily Beast quoted an Iraqi
official as saying: “Some will celebrate, some will mourn, some will seek
revenge.” However, U.S.-Iraqi relations were in “real jeopardy.”
伊拉克領導人異口同聲地批評美國，總理阿迪勒‧阿卜杜勒－邁赫迪總理用“刺殺”來定
性此次突襲行動。美國新聞網站“每日野獸”援引某位伊拉克官員的話稱：“有人會慶祝
，有人會哀悼，有人會復仇。”但美國和伊拉克的關係已處於“真正的危險之中”。
Abdul-Mahdi said "the two martyrs were huge symbols of the victory" over
ISIS. He denounced the “aggression against Iraq” and "massive breach of
sovereignty" which violated the conditions governing the American military’s
presence in Iraq. He worried about “a dangerous escalation that will light
the fuse of a destructive war in Iraq, the region, and the world.”
邁赫迪表示，“兩名烈士是戰勝‘伊斯蘭國’的巨大標誌”。他譴責了“對伊拉克的侵略
”和“大規模侵犯主權”，這違反了美軍在伊拉克維持存在的先決條件。他擔心“危險的
升級將點燃導火線，引發伊拉克國內、地區內以及世界範圍內的毀滅性戰爭。”
The premier invited parliament to reassemble in special session to “take
legislative steps and necessary provisions to safeguard Iraq’s dignity,
security and sovereignty.” And that likely means a full-scale assault on
America’s presence. Deputy Speaker Hassan al-Kaabi said they would gather
and make “Decisive decisions that put an end to U.S. presence inside Iraq.”
伊拉克總理召集議會舉行特別會議，以“採取立法行動和必要的規定來捍衛伊拉克的尊嚴
、安全和主權。”這可能意味著美國的軍事存在將遭到全面驅逐。副議長哈桑‧卡比表示
，伊拉克將做出“決定性的決定，終止美國在伊拉克境內的存在。”
Perhaps more ominous was the reaction of Shiite extremist religious leader
Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army once battled American occupation troops but
who had turned populist politician, most recently pressing for his nation’s
independence from both the U.S. and Iran. He praised Soleimani and
reactivated the Mahdi Army. On Twitter he instructed his "fighters,
particularly those from the Mahdi Army, to be ready" for action following the
airstrike.
更令人不安的或許是什葉派極端主義宗教領袖穆克塔達‧薩德爾的反應。這位民粹主義政
治家曾經統率邁赫迪軍與美軍佔領部隊作戰，他近年來迫切尋求伊拉克擺脫美國和伊朗。
他讚揚了蘇萊曼尼，並宣佈重組邁赫迪軍。他在推特上下令“戰士們，特別是邁赫迪軍的
戰士們，（為下一步行動）做好準備”。
At least al-Sadr was ambiguous, only saying that their job was to defend Iraq
—though almost certainly he meant from the U.S. Qais al-Khazali, head of the
Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia, a member of al-Muhandis’ Popular Mobilization
Forces, was more explicit when he also ordered his fighters to get ready. He
declared: “All fighters should be on high alert for upcoming battle and
great victory. The price for the blood of the martyred commander Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis is the complete end to American military presence in Iraq.”
薩德爾的話還算是模棱兩可，他只說他的任務是保衛伊拉克，儘管幾乎可以肯定他的意思
是“保衛伊拉克不受美國侵略”。遇刺的穆罕迪斯領導的“人民動員部隊”旗下的“正義
聯盟”民兵組織領袖卡伊西‧哈扎利讓戰士積極備戰的命令則明確得多。他宣佈：“所有
戰士都應保持高度警惕，去迎接即將到來的戰鬥和偉大勝利。美國必須徹底終結駐伊拉克
軍事存在，來償還指揮官穆罕迪斯殉難的血債。”
President Trump’s policy toward Iran continues to bear ill fruit. When he
entered the Oval Office, Tehran’s nuclear program was limited by a tight
inspections and safeguard system. The Islamic regime faced internal tensions
as the young, especially, hoped for greater economic opportunities in the
West. With Iran’s nuclear ambitions tamed, the U.S. and allied states could
follow up with a challenge to Tehran to moderate its regional behavior in
return for additional, appropriate concessions.
川普的伊朗政策持續結出惡果。他剛入主橢圓形辦公室時，伊朗核計畫受到嚴格核查和保
障機制的限制。當時伊朗年輕人尤其希望獲得更多來自西方的經濟機會，給伊斯蘭政權造
成內部張力。伊朗既然放棄了成為核大國的雄心，那麼美國及其盟友本來可以及時跟進，
挑戰德黑蘭政權，以適當讓步作為交換條件，節制其在地區內的行為。
https://i.guancha.cn/news/internet/2020/01/07/20200107162945451.jpg
圖：2015年7月14日，伊朗與伊核問題六國簽署《聯合全面行動計畫》
Instead, the president abandoned the JCPOA, reinstituted sanctions, and added
new ones while demanding that Iran abandon its independent foreign policy.
Tehran naturally refused.
然而，川普拋棄了伊核協議，恢復舊制裁，增設新制裁，同時還要求伊朗放棄獨立外交政
策。德黑蘭方面對此當然表示了拒絕。
Today Iran is simultaneously facing instability at home and creating
instability abroad, more active than ever throughout the Middle East. The
regime has revived its nuclear research program and breached the negotiated
limits. Tehran’s missiles have become even more important in deterring the
well-armed Saudi royals, who seemingly have Trump administration officials on
retainer. Worse, the U.S. and Iran now are publicly at war. They risk setting
off an escalatory cycle which could result in disaster. So much for the
policy of maximum pressure.
今天，伊朗一方面要處理國內不穩定因素，一方面在國外製造動盪局勢，它在整個中東地
區比以往任何時候都更為活躍。它恢復了核研究計畫，取消了伊核協議對“離心機數量的
限制”。如今，伊朗的導彈顯得尤為重要，因為它要威懾裝備精良的沙特——還要考慮到
川普政府官員彷彿是沙特聘用的。更糟糕的是，美國和伊朗現在公開處於戰爭狀態。它們
之間的對抗可能循環升級，釀成災難。極限施壓政策果然英明。
https://i.guancha.cn/news/internet/2020/01/07/20200107163632172.jpg
圖：川普推特：“伊朗永遠不會有核武器！”（大寫）
But there is still time for America to pull back from the brink. U.S.
policymakers must abandon the fantasy that they can manage the world and
especially the Mideast. Rising opposition to America’s presence in Iraq
should become the catalyst for a general withdrawal of U.S. troops from the
region.
不過，美國若要懸崖勒馬還為時不晚。美國決策者必須拋棄幻想，不要以為自己可以管理
世界，尤其是中東地區。美國在伊拉克的存在遭到越來越多的反對，這應該促使美國從該
地區全面撤軍。
The Middle East no longer matters so much. The cost of continued American
military involvement exceeds any plausible benefits. Allied and friendly
nations should take responsibility for their own defense. Most important, the
U.S. should declare neutrality in the Shia-Sunni struggle, leaving the
players to reach their own accommodation. No more endless wars fought for
others. No more military deployments manipulated for the benefit other
nations. Rather, a foreign policy finally focused on protecting, serving, and
benefitting Americans.
中東地區的重要性已經沒有那麼高了。從任何合乎情理的角度來看，美國持續軍事介入所
付出的代價都大於獲得的利益。盟國和友邦的國防問題應該讓它們自己解決。最重要的是
，美國應該在伊斯蘭教什葉派與遜尼派的鬥爭中宣佈恪守中立，讓它們自己尋求妥協方案
。不要再為了別人去打無休止的戰爭；不要再為了其他國家的利益部署軍事力量；美國的
外交政策應該最終回到保護、服務和施惠本國人民上面來。