Name: 孫子和克勞塞維茨會如何評價伊朗戰爭？| DW News (What would Sun Tzu and Clausewitz say about the Iran war? | DW News)
Uploaded: 2026-03-04T17:35:07.000Z
Duration: 8 min 26 s

Have you ever heard of the phrase war is the continuation of politics by other means?

你聽過「戰爭是政治的延續」這句話嗎？

How about appear weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak?

那「實際強大卻示人以弱，實際弱小卻示人以強」呢？

基礎被動語態

They were said by two of history's most well known military strategists.

這些話都出自兩位史上最有名的軍事戰略家。

The Prussian Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote the massive book titled on war in the 19th century, and

一位是普魯士的克勞塞維茨，他在 19 世紀寫了鉅著《戰爭論》，

China's Sun Tzu, who lived more than 2,000 years earlier in the 5th century B.C.

另一位是中國的孫子，他早在公元前 5 世紀，也就是 2000 多年前就已存在，

But what does any of that have to do with the war in Iran?

但這些跟伊朗的戰爭有什麼關係呢？

Quite simply, generals around the world can never seem to stop quoting these two guys.

說穿了，就是全世界的將軍們似乎總離不開這兩位。

Today's top military leaders make decisions and often attribute their thinking to Clausewitz or Sun Tzu.

如今頂尖的軍事領導者做決策時，常會歸功於克勞塞維茨或孫子。

The two are taught in military academies around the world, including at West Point.

這兩位在世界各地的軍事學院裡都有教授，包括西點軍校。

They actually contribute a lot to 21st century thinking about how to conduct war, why you'd want to start a war, or why or when you should stop.

他們其實對 21 世紀關於如何作戰、為何要發動戰爭、以及何時該停止戰爭的思維，都有很大的貢獻。

We're going to look at the past few days of the Iran conflict with these two strategists in mind, with the help of Professor Hugh Strachan of the University of St.

我們將帶著這兩位戰略家的想法，並在 St. 的 Hugh Strachan 教授的協助下，來看看伊朗衝突的這幾天。

He's a military historian who has served as advisor at defense institutions.

他是一位軍事歷史學家，也曾擔任防務機構的顧問。

I started out by asking him what these two thinkers say about the nature of war.

我一開始就問他，這兩位思想家對戰爭的本質有什麼看法。

The first thing is that Clausewitz would say does say is that insofar as war has its own dynamic, it tends to escalate.

克勞塞維茨會說，戰爭本身有其動力，而且往往會升級。

It will logically go to extremes because killing people actually creates a division in terms of how we behave towards each other.

殺戮行為實際上會在我們彼此的行為方式上造成分歧，所以戰爭很自然地會走向極端。

So you cannot assume that a war will remain limited in the way in which it's conducted.

是以，你不能假設一場戰爭在進行方式上會保持有限。

He moderates that because obviously he allows for the possibility that policy will set limited objectives and that will constrain the war.

他對此做了緩和，因為顯然他認為政策可能會設定有限的目標，進而約束戰爭。

But he does not see war as limited of itself.

但他並不認為戰爭本身是有限的。

So it might be easy to start a war, but where it goes from there is anyone's guess.

所以，開戰或許容易，但接下來會如何發展，就沒人說得準了。

US President Donald Trump has said he imagines the fighting could last four or five weeks.

美國總統唐納·川普曾說，他預想戰鬥可能會持續四到五週。

And sure, Sun Tzu wrote about how speed is critical to war fighting.

沒錯，孫子寫過速度對作戰至關重要。

But the Chinese philosopher also warned that the general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought.

但這位中國哲學家也警告，能贏得戰役的將軍，在戰前會在心中進行許多計算。

這次的軍事部署並未持續太久。

Whether it was the intervention in Venezuela, which really nobody saw coming.

就像介入委內瑞拉，這件事真的沒人預料得到。

This buildup, of course, had to be more transparent because it took time to get the US Fleet and the aircraft carriers to the Gulf and so on.

這次的軍事部署當然必須更透明，因為要調動美國艦隊和航空母艦到波斯灣等地需要時間。

Particularly a man who talked about peace, that he'd be ready to go on talking about peace rather than engage in a conflict.

特別是那位談論和平的人，他會樂意繼續談和平，而不是捲入衝突。

You know, I think the real issue here is the United States does not have the capacity to sustain this over the long term.

我覺得真正問題是，美國沒有能力長期維持下去。

And if the Iranians are still in the fight in two weeks time, then exactly where is the United States going to find a way out of this?

如果兩週後伊朗人還在戰鬥，那麼美國到底要怎麼找到出路？

And in that case it would have been better to go on talking.

在那種情況下，繼續談判會更好。

And even if there is a collapse of the regime and there is a provisional government of some sort installed in Iran within a two week window, and

即使政權垮臺，並且在兩週內伊朗出現某種臨時政府，

precisely how is that provisional government to get legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian people when it will be seen to have been imposed upon it or upon them from outside.

這個臨時政府要如何在伊朗人民眼中獲得合法性，因為他們會認為這是外部強加給他們的。

And so I don't see that as likely to produce a good answer or a good outcome.

所以我認為這不太可能會有好的答案或結果。

It's very striking that the rhetoric coming out of the United States has been, well, this will be brief, it'll be limited.

美國的說法很引人注目，就是「這次會很短暫，會是有限的」。

That's obviously what they're trying to do, understandably having made the decision to go to war.

顯然，他們在做出開戰決定後，正試圖這麼做。

But that is not possibly in Iran's interests for it to be limited because this is now about the survival of the regime.

但這對伊朗來說，絕對不符合利益，因為這關係到政權的存亡。

It's therefore an existential conflict and they have every interest in escalating it even at the expense of their immediate neighbors with the consequences that that might bring.

所以這是一場關乎存亡的衝突，他們有十足的動機將其升級，即使犧牲鄰國也在所不惜，並承擔隨之而來的後果。

So if one side is fighting this as a limited engagement that is not existential.

所以如果一方將這場戰爭視為一場有限的交戰，那它就不是一場關乎存亡的戰爭。

以色列可能會對此有非常不同的看法。

Israel would see it I suspect is existential, but

我猜以色列會認為這是關乎存亡的，但是

the United States is not keen to then that is actually historically where the United States has got itself in trouble because it's not been prepared to commit the resources to a war that has become existential for its opponent.

美國並不熱衷於此，事實上，從歷史上看，美國經常是以陷入困境，因為它沒有準備好為一場對其對手而言關乎存亡的戰爭投入資源。

Simply to limit the means you're using in this war when you have very open ended objectives, means actually you're going to over promise and under deliver.

僅僅是限制這場戰爭的手段，當你的目標非常開放時，就意味著你實際上會過度承諾，但交付不足。

I suspect, particularly when what you're trying to do is effectively remove the regime and have no clear idea about what a post Islamic republic structure would look like.

我猜，尤其當你試圖做的是實際上推翻政權，卻對伊斯蘭共和國的後續結構沒有明確想法時。

That's why there's been so much criticism of this war in the United States from both Democrats and Republicans.

這就是為什麼這場戰爭在美國會受到來自民主黨和共和黨的如此多批評。

Those old enough remember US adventurism in Iraq a generation earlier.

年紀較長的人還記得，一代人之前美國在伊拉克的冒險主義。

A war that most Americans today consider a disaster.

這場戰爭對現今大多數美國人來說，都是一場災難。

One of Clausius lines that was regularly quoted in 2003, both at the time and in the aftermath, especially by American commentators, was the advice where he says first judge the sort of war in which you're going to get engaged.

克勞塞維茨有句常被引用的話，在 2003 年及其後，特別是美國評論員，經常引用他的建議：「首先判斷你將要參與的是哪種類型的戰爭。」

And I don't see much sign that there's been much attempt to think about that.

我看不出有什麼跡象顯示有人認真思考過這點。

There's clearly been a desire to use both maritime and air power only, not to have boots on the ground, to have a devastating effect in short order model presumably on Israel's apparent success in using force with devastating effects in short order in relation to its neighbors since the October 2023 attacks.

顯然，大家只想單純運用海空力量，不想派地面部隊，希望能在短時間內造成毀滅性效果，這大概是模仿以色列自 2023 年 10 月攻擊以來，在應對鄰國時，似乎成功地在短時間內造成毀滅性影響。

I would, you know, and that may possibly deliver.

But experience suggests that's not how it's going to be.

但經驗告訴我們，事情不會是這樣的。

And what Hugh told me is that taking on Iran will be a much bigger challenge than even attacking Iraq.

休告訴我，對付伊朗將比攻擊伊拉克更具挑戰性。

And Iran has actually presents a far greater problem than Iraq ever did.

事實上，伊朗帶來的問題遠比伊拉克過去的任何問題都來得嚴重。

And I think the real problem too here is that the, you know, I just, you know, the real problem in 2003 was not fully understanding the country being too reliant on Iraqi exiles for views about what the situation was in the country, not having a proper idea of what you were trying to create, having achieved a quick military victory.

我認為，這裡真正的問題是，你知道，我只是，你知道，2003年真正的問題是沒有完全瞭解這個國家，過度依賴伊拉克流亡者對國家情況的看法，在取得快速軍事勝利後，沒有對自己想創造的東西有正確的認識。

And all the signs so far seem to me that those conditions continue to apply in a country that is much bigger, has a much greater sense of its own past than Iraq sees itself as, you know, a power that goes back 2, 3000 years to the pasture of Zeksky's virus and so on.

而到目前為止，所有跡象都顯示，這些情況仍然適用於一個國家，這個國家比伊拉克更大，對自己的歷史有更強烈的認同感，你知道，一個可以追溯到兩三千年前的強權，像澤克斯基病毒的牧場等等。

I don't see how this ends well, Hugh and frankly, many other security analysts over the past few days have said this, that the current conflict won't end well and that all countries involved face a lose, lose situation.

休，我看不出這會如何有好結果，坦白說，過去幾天許多其他安全分析師也這麼說，目前的衝突不會有好結果，所有相關國家都面臨輸輸的局面。

Well, I can't help it as a reporter covering international security and especially especially China to make this observation.

身為一名報導國際安全，特別是中國的記者，我忍不住要提出這個觀察。

Something that Sun Tzu said, the best way to win a war is to do so without ever fighting.

孫子說過，最好的戰勝方法就是不戰而屈人之兵。

DW News is covering this breaking news story, giving you the latest and also giving you deep dives on here and across the rest of social media.

DW News 正在報導這則突發新聞，為您提供最新消息，並在社群媒體上深入探討。