一場空襲，三重失敗——美國對伊朗的豪賭正在反噬自己 One Airstrike, Three Failures — How the U.S. Gamble on Iran Is Backfiring

當美國戰機深夜穿越中東高空，對伊朗本土發動史無前例的空襲時，世界屏息以待。這是1979年以來，美軍首次直接打擊伊朗本土的核設施。白宮宣稱行動“成功且精準”，特朗普更形容為“歷史性時刻”。但越來越多的跡象顯示，這場攻擊不但未能實現戰略目標，反而可能成為一場全方位的失敗。

When U.S. stealth bombers crossed the skies above the Middle East to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, it marked a historic shift — the first direct large-scale assault on Iranian soil since the 1979 revolution. President Trump hailed it as a “historic moment,” asserting that no other nation could achieve such precision. Yet, mounting evidence suggests that this military operation, far from being a strategic triumph, may well represent a triple failure for the United States: tactical, political, and strategic.

一、軍事行動的象徵性遠大於實質性 Tactical Success or Symbolic Strike?

儘管美軍動用了B-2隱形轟炸機和數枚巨型鑽地炸彈，摧毀了福爾多、納坦茲、伊斯法罕三處設施，美國媒體卻異口同聲地質疑成效。CNN引用衛星圖像指出，空襲前兩天，福爾多核設施周圍有車隊跡象，疑似核心物資已提早轉移。武器專家更指出，伊斯法罕的地下隧道系統未被擊中，意味著伊朗60%以上的濃縮鈾依然安然無恙。

這讓“戰果輝煌”的說法備受質疑，也使得此次襲擊更像是一場政治秀，而非真正重創伊朗核項目的軍事行動。

Despite the deployment of B-2 bombers and precision-guided bunker-busting munitions on targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, U.S. media and military analysts have expressed skepticism over the actual damage. CNN reported unusual vehicle activity near Fordow days before the strike — possibly indicating uranium stockpiles were relocated. Weapons experts noted that the U.S. appeared to have missed critical underground tunnel systems in Isfahan, where as much as 60% of Iran’s enriched uranium may still be stored.

What was advertised as a “decisive blow” is now being reinterpreted as a limited operation — a show of force with insufficient strategic effect.

二、特朗普的政治誠信受到動搖 Trump’s Political Contradiction

自競選以來，特朗普一直以“反戰總統”自居，承諾不再將美國捲入無止盡的海外衝突。然而僅僅第二任期不到半年，就主導這場戰爭級別的軍事行動，不僅引發國內輿論撻伐，更引爆了保守派內部的信任危機。

部分MAGA派議員直接指責他違背承諾，而特朗普的回應則是加倍的攻擊與譴責。例如針對帶頭反對的議員湯瑪斯·馬西，他在社群媒體上用近乎羞辱性的語言批評對方“可悲”、“應該像瘟疫一樣被消滅”。這種過激反應，透露的不僅是憤怒，更是焦慮。

Donald Trump campaigned and governed under the banner of non-interventionism, repeatedly vowing to end America’s “endless wars.” Yet within months of returning to office, he has embroiled the U.S. in another Middle Eastern conflict. This shift has alienated parts of his base, particularly the MAGA-aligned conservatives who viewed him as a bulwark against neoconservative foreign policy.

Facing mounting criticism, Trump launched into full rhetorical defense. He took to social media to condemn dissenters, most notably Congressman Thomas Massie, calling him a “pathetic loser” who should be “eradicated like a plague.” The intensity of Trump’s reaction betrays not confidence, but anxiety — an urgent need to justify a controversial action that may not yield the results he anticipated.

三、美國戰略盤算的失誤正加速中東動盪 A Strategic Miscalculation

從戰略層面看，這場突襲無異於一場高風險賭局。一方面，美國希望透過精準打擊向伊朗施壓，逼其重回談判桌；另一方面，卻未計算伊朗可能展開的報復性升級。伊朗不僅可能加速核武進程，還可能動用代理人、關閉霍爾木茲海峽、加強對以色列攻擊，進而引發中東地區連鎖反應。

有專家指出，這場空襲可能讓美國陷入一場比預想中更廣、更持久的對抗，正如當年伊拉克與阿富汗戰爭所顯現的泥沼困境。當美國無法實現快速收割政治紅利時，代價就只剩下軍事與外交的負擔。

At a broader level, the strike reflects a strategic gamble — one that could backfire. The intended message to Tehran was one of deterrence and dominance. But the real consequence may be escalation. Iran is unlikely to capitulate; instead, it may double down on its nuclear ambitions, increase regional proxy activity, or take direct action, including the threat to close the Strait of Hormuz — a global chokepoint for oil.

According to Reuters, this represents the riskiest foreign policy move of Trump’s presidency, potentially leading to a prolonged regional conflict. What began as a calculated airstrike could evolve into the kind of drawn-out confrontation that Trump once derided in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Former U.S. diplomat Aaron David Miller warned that while Iran’s conventional capabilities may be diminished, its asymmetric options remain intact — cyberattacks, proxy retaliation, economic disruption — all tools Iran has used effectively in the past.

戰爭邏輯與現實代價之間的落差 Between Power Projection and Policy Collapse

這場空襲事件，無疑揭露出美國政策運作中一種危險的邏輯：當政治目的與軍事手段之間失去平衡時，戰爭不再是“解決方案”，而成為“破局催化劑”。軍事勝利也許可以短期兌現為民意支持，但無法掩蓋戰略目標的錯配與長期成本的累積。

面對一個已被極度制裁、深知生存之道的對手，美國這次的打擊也許不是致命一擊，而是再次促使伊朗下定決心，徹底放棄對話幻想。

暴風雨的前奏已響起，局勢是否失控，將取決於下一步是談判桌，還是再一次的導彈齊發。

This strike encapsulates a fundamental tension in American foreign policy: the reliance on overwhelming military force to achieve complex political outcomes. Tactical success — even if achieved — does not guarantee strategic victory, especially when the opponent is deeply embedded in regional power structures and has nothing to lose.

Rather than cowing Iran, this attack may further convince Tehran that diplomacy with Washington is futile. Worse, it may energize hardliners and accelerate the very nuclear ambitions the U.S. aimed to prevent.

The storm is only beginning. Whether it spirals into a broader conflict depends not just on missiles, but on political will — and whether the U.S. is prepared for the consequences of the path it has chosen.