Trump’s Armageddon-Taco shuffle - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
观点 美国外交政策

Trump’s Armageddon-Taco shuffle

One minute he threatens death and destruction, the next he says the US and Iran are engaged in negotiations
00:00

{"text":[[{"start":5.98,"text":"“In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies,” said Winston Churchill. The truth inside Donald Trump’s tornado of piffle is that he wants to get out of the mess he created. All the other reasons he gives — from regime overthrow to regime alteration — are noise. At this point, were Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for being allowed to develop nuclear weapons, nobody could be sure Trump would turn it down. If Iran made him the inaugural winner of the Cyrus the Great peace prize, those odds would improve."}],[{"start":44.67,"text":"Here is what Trump expected when he started bombing Iran: its regime would collapse or unconditionally surrender within 72 hours. That was Plan A. Plan B did not exist, which means Trump is scrambling to get back to what existed before Plan A. His war aim is the status quo ante. Had Plan B existed, Trump would have readied allies, put US minesweepers and Marines in place, built up oil reserves and flooded the Gulf states with interceptors. “Nobody was even thinking about it,” he said on Iran lashing out at other Gulf states. Everybody was expecting Iran’s response except him. Indeed, Gulf rulers directly warned him against it before February 28. Nor does it matter how carefully the deep state laid out the risks. What Trump will not hear did not exist."}],[{"start":100.57,"text":"He has now shifted into the self-cancelling carrot and stick phase of the war. Iran is acting impervious to both. One moment, Trump is threatening “an amount of strength and power that Iran has never seen or witnessed before”. Then, roughly 36 hours later, he declares that the US and Iran have been having “very good and productive conversations”. Few took the latter on trust. It is a strange situation where the world must await a statement from Iran to check whether there was any truth to what a US president said. Iran replied that no talks had taken place. Who were we to believe?"}],[{"start":137.60999999999999,"text":"Nor can the world have faith in indirect talks between the US and Iran. Twice in the past year, Trump has struck during ongoing talks. At one end is Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy, a man who is not renowned for his poker face. After Vladimir Putin told Trump that Russia was not supplying Iran with targeting data, Witkoff said: “We can take them at their word.” At the other end, supposedly, is Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister. He is a seasoned diplomat but there is no reason to assume he speaks for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. Some around Trump believe that the conservative parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, could be Iran’s Delcy Rodríguez. But this sounds like wishful thinking."}],[{"start":188.5,"text":"Either way, Trump will dial the invective up or down depending on Iran’s apparent negotiating position. The one offer Iran will never make is to give up its ability to disrupt the global energy markets. Yet that is the one thing Trump must have. Indirect talks are thus geared to swing from wild threat to outsized promise in line with Trump’s mood. Each time he is exposed as having made an empty threat that failed to push Iran into the desired concession, he will need to step up his threat level. This used to be known as the credibility gap. It does not take a seer to guess that at some point he will hint at using nuclear weapons. That would not mean he had any wish to use them. But loose lips can do worse than sink ships. The other option is to establish a US beachhead along Iran’s Strait of Hormuz shoreline. Mission creep would be almost destined to follow."}],[{"start":244.25,"text":"Trump could always walk away and leave others to clean up. As Richard Haass, a senior official in past Republican administrations, noted, that would amount to a “we broke it, you own it” inversion of Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn rule. But that would be a Pyrrhic exit. Iran could continue to hold global energy hostage until it is satisfied that Trump will not resume hostilities. Of course, he could promise not to start bombing again. But would Iran trust him? "}],[{"start":274.79,"text":"It is too soon to capture the extent of the damage done to American power. But we can be sure that Gulf war III will intensify the global arms race, especially among America’s confidence-shaken allies. We are likewise at the start of an alternative energy boom. Nuclear power, solar panels and windmills do need critical minerals. But there is currently no Strait of Hormuz choking off green energy supplies."}],[{"start":304.78000000000003,"text":"What remains to be seen is how Trump will find a way out of this morass. He wanted to bring down Iran’s regime. Now he is lifting sanctions on Iran so that it can sell more oil. Amid the torrent of feints, hype, invention and bluster, Trump’s goal is now to set the clock back. With planning like this, who needs chaos?"}],[{"start":336.20000000000005,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1774393819_9985.mp3"}

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

Lex专栏:铸犁为剑——给欧洲工业吹响的战斗号角

在重整军备的推动下,汽车制造商迎来了革新其生产线的又一次机遇。

为何仍应看多黄金?

库珀:尽管这种贵金属在中东战争期间遭到抛售,但其前景仍更为乐观。

试图摆脱对微软依赖的德国联邦州

在各国领导人日益主张欧洲减少对美国科技巨头的依赖之际,追求“数字主权”的努力使得石勒苏益格-荷尔斯泰因州成为欧洲的一块“试验田”。

FT社评:价格管制重返主流令人不安

价格管制虽然能带来短期纾困,但也会衍生新的问题。与其关注价格管制,各国政府不如把重点放在提高生产率上。

元首关系紧张,美英安全合作出现裂痕

英美围绕伊朗战争出现分歧,正在冲击两国外交人员、官员以及军方人员之间的工作关系。

FT社评:全球贸易保卫战中的“中间力量缺位”

有关取代美国、寻找多边体系之锚的讨论没有得出什么实际成果。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×