Name: 川普的戰爭為何對他的政治前途如此危險？| DW 新聞 (Why Trump's war is so risky for his political future | DW News)
Uploaded: 2026-03-05T17:16:02.000Z
Duration: 12 min 48 s

情態副詞

When the US along with Israel, attacked Iran early on Saturday, they started another war in the Middle East.

美國和以色列週六凌晨攻擊伊朗時，又在中東發動了一場戰爭。

But the Trump administration don't want to use the word.

轉承詞

They don't want to officially declare it a war because that would require the backing of Congress.

他們不想正式宣戰，因為那需要國會的支持。

And that has resulted in statements like this one from one of the most powerful Republicans in Washington.

這就導致了華盛頓一位最有權勢的共和黨人說出了這樣的話。

We're four days in to a very specific, clear mission and operation, Operation Epic Fury.

我們正在進行一個非常具體、明確的任務和 operation，Operation Epic Fury。

Russian President Vladimir Putin's special military operation, otherwise known as Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine.

俄羅斯總統普丁的 special military operation，也就是俄羅斯全面 invasion 烏克蘭。

We want to discuss those verbal gymnastics and the reasons behind them with Scott R.

我們想和 Scott R. 一起討論這些 verbal gymnastics 和背後的原因。

Anderson, who has spent many years advising US Policymakers, policymakers on legal issues, especially in connection to major events in the Middle East.

Anderson 過去多年來一直為美國的政策制定者提供有關法律問題的建議，特別是與中東重大事件相關的法律問題。

We'll come back to Scott in just a moment after we take a look at the push by many prominent Democrats and some Republicans to rein back Trump's war against Iran.

在我們稍後再請 Scott 回來之前，我們先來看看許多知名民主黨人和部分共和黨人推動遏制川普對伊朗發動戰爭的行動。

They accused the president of starting a war without congressional approval and want to limit Trump's ability to escalate military actions.

他們指控總統在未經國會準許的情況下發動戰爭，並希望限制川普升級軍事行動的能力。

But one resolution to do that has already been knocked back by the Senate, and

但其中一項這樣做的決議已經被參議院駁回，

another is expected to fail in the House.

另一項預計也將在眾議院被駁回。

The president has a responsibility to make the case to the American people as to the justification for this war, but

總統有責任向美國人民說明發動這場戰爭的正當理由，但

has provided no evidence that there was an imminent threat to the American people here or abroad.

他並未提供任何證據，證明美國人民在這裡或海外面臨迫在眉睫的威脅。

The president has indicated that he's interested in regime change, but

總統曾表示他對政權更迭感興趣，但

we know that regime change, wars have never worked out for the American people.

我們知道政權更迭的戰爭從未對美國人民有利。

And if you ask the American public, it seems that the majority agree with Hakeem Jeffries there.

如果你問美國大眾，似乎大多數人都同意 Hakeem Jeffries 的看法。

A poll carried out this week by YouGov on behalf of CBS News asked Americans whether Trump needs congressional approval to continue military action against Iran.

本週由 YouGov 代表 CBS News 進行的一項民意調查詢問美國人，川普是否需要國會準許才能繼續對伊朗採取軍事行動。

A clear majority, 69%, said yes, he needs approval 31% said he does not need approval.

清晰的多數，69% 的人表示需要，31% 的人表示不需要。

Now, Scott R. Anderson is a fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution.

接下來，Scott R. Anderson 是布魯金斯學會治理研究的資深研究員。

He has advised policymakers on legal questions connected to U.S.

他曾就與美國相關的法律問題向政策制定者提供建議。

foreign and national security policy, especially in the Middle East.

外交和國家安全政策，尤其是在中東地區。

That's why he's so well qualified to be speaking to me right now.

這就是為什麼他現在和我談話如此合適。

If it's not a war against Iran, what is it?

如果這不是對伊朗的戰爭，那它又是什麼？

So it's a fair question in the US Legal system, at least the way it's been interpreted by the executive branch.

所以這是一個在美國法律體系中公平的問題，至少是行政部門的解釋方式。

And no court has ever reversed them or hedged them in on this understanding.

而且沒有任何法院曾推翻或限制他們對此的理解。

To date, the essential line is unclear, but

到目前為止，關鍵界線不明確，但

they've defined what the line for a War for constitutional purposes, meaning a war that requires congressional authorization as being a pretty high threshold, usually involving the exposure of US Soldiers, a significant number of US Soldiers to risk over an extended period of time, usually something like a major ground campaign on par with the Iraq War, the Vietnam War, something along those lines.

他們定義了用於憲法目的的戰爭界線，也就是需要國會準許的戰爭，其門檻非常高，通常涉及讓大量美國阿兵哥面臨長期風險，例如像伊拉克戰爭、越戰那樣的大規模地面戰役。

Air campaigns, many executive branch presidential administrations have said don't qualify, primarily because US Soldiers are really not put at risk in substantial numbers, particularly when you're dealing with a weaker adversary over whom the United States has air superiority.

空襲行動，許多行政部門的總統都曾表示不符合，主要是因為美國阿兵哥並沒有面臨大量風險，尤其是在對付一個美國擁有空中優勢的較弱對手時。

it has been the view of the executive branch over the last few administrations, and

這是過去幾屆行政部門的看法，

that is the sort of perspective the Trump administration is now leaning on and leveraging to its advantage to try and justify this campaign.

這也是川普政府現在倚賴並加以利用的觀點，試圖為這次行動辯護。

Scott, why are Republicans suddenly so sensitive about what it's called?

Scott，共和黨人為什麼突然對名稱這麼在意？

Well, in the current moment, there's a big part of the Republican Party that is restraint oriented, that's skeptical of overseas adventurism and particularly regime change.

嗯，在目前這個時刻，共和黨內有很大一部分人傾向於剋制，對海外冒險主義，特別是政權更迭持懷疑態度。

President Trump really rallied these people.

He's espoused those reviews J.D. vance, the Vice president, have espoused very clearly for a long time.

參議員 J.D. Vance 和副總統都非常清楚地闡述過這些評論。

And that part of the party is really skeptical of what's happening here.

而黨內的那一部分人對這裡發生的事感到非常懷疑。

So this effort to not call it a war is an effort by Republican politicians, I think, to try and make the case that this is limited in scale.

所以，我認為共和黨政治人物試圖不稱之為戰爭，是為了證明這是一場規模有限的行動。

This isn't like the Iraq war or other major overseas adventures.

這不像伊拉克戰爭或其他重大的海外冒險。

The problem is that's hard to reconcile with what the Trump administration is saying, what President Trump himself is saying, and

問題是，這很難與川普政府的說法、川普總統本人的說法，以及

what we're seeing before our eyes, which is that this is a pretty major military undertaking that the White House is saying could last for weeks and has already expanded to the entire region, not just Iran.

我們親眼所見的，也就是白宮表示可能持續數週，且已擴展到整個地區，而不僅僅是伊朗的重大軍事行動相符。

Verbal gymnastics is not an uncommon game in politics when it comes to military action.

在軍事行動方面，言詞上的技巧在政治上並不少見。

It is interesting, though, from Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who told assembled generals, the top brass, that the military would no longer walk on eggshells when it came to defining things.

不過，國防部長 Pete Hegseth 的說法很有趣，他告訴集結的將軍們，也就是高層將領，軍方在定義事物時將不再小心翼翼。

The man who personally hung out the sign for the Department of War, he is suddenly very careful not to refer to what he has unleashed as war.

這個親手掛上「戰爭部」牌子的人，現在卻非常小心，不願稱他所引發的事件為戰爭。

What would the legal implications be if war was formally declared?

如果正式宣戰，會有什麼法律上的影響？

If Congress were to formally declare war, it would essentially eliminate all the domestic legal and constitutional limitations that the president would otherwise face.

如果國會正式宣戰，基本上就能消除總統原本會面臨的所有國內法律和憲法限制。

The main ones would be that question of whether this is a war for constitutional purposes.

其中最主要的，就是這個是否為了憲法目的而發動的戰爭的問題。

Essentially, the president would be free to undertake a large scale, long term ground campaign.

基本上，總統就可以自由地展開大規模、長期的地面戰役。

The other barrier is a limitation imposed by Congress through the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which says after 60 to 90 days.

另一個障礙是國會在 1973 年《戰爭權力決議》中設下的限制，該決議規定在 60 到 90 天後。

It's usually 60 days, but can flex a little bit in certain circumstances.

通常是 60 天，但在某些情況下可以稍微延長。

There either has to be congressional authorization or the War Powers Resolution says the President has to terminate the involvement of US Military personnel in that operation.

要嘛必須獲得國會授權，要嘛《戰爭權力決議》規定總統必須終止美軍人員在該 operation 中的參與。

Once that line gets crossed, there are arguments the executive branch has deployed as to why certain types of campaigns, including air campaigns, can continue, but

一旦越過那條線，就有行政部門提出的論點，解釋為何某些類型的戰役，包括空襲，可以繼續，但

they've never been subjected to do a judicial test.

And usually at that point, the legal risk of facing a legal challenge and having to justify one's arguments or face judicial scrutiny increases past that 60 to 90 day mark.

通常在那時，面臨法律挑戰並必須為自己的論點辯護，或接受司法審查的法律風險，會超過那 60 到 90 天的期限。

That's why most presidents have tended to wrap up their campaigns relatively soon after that line is crossed, even if they don't stop it shortly before that line, as the resolution, I think, is rightly understood to have intended.

這就是為什麼大多數總統傾向於在越過那條線後不久結束他們的戰役，即使他們沒有在那條線前不久停止，正如該 resolution，我認為，被正確理解為意圖的那樣。

You talked a little about how this sits with Trump's MAGA base, his supporters, the people Trump himself said would not care if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue.

你稍微談到了這件事如何與川普的 MAGA 基本盤、他的支持者，也就是川普自己說過就算他在第五大道開槍也不會在乎的那群人，產生連結。

How do you think they feel about being at war when they were promised specifically this is not what would happen.

你覺得他們對於這場戰爭有什麼感覺，因為他們被明確承諾過不會發生這種事。

I think this is gonna be a real point of controversy and concern, not just for President Trump, but

我認為這將會是一個真正的爭議點和擔憂，不僅是針對川普總統，

also for other members of the Republican Party.

The anti interventionist, restraint oriented wing of the Republican Party is really influential, and

共和黨裡反對幹預、傾向剋制的派別非常有影響力，

it's a view of the world that we've seen informed other parts of what the Trump administration has put forward that now appears to have been moved away from really substantially.

這是一種我們在川普政府提出的其他部分中也見過的觀點，而現在這些觀點似乎已經大幅轉變。

We've really substantial debates within the Republican Party over aspects of this foreign policy, particularly relation to Israel, particularly relation to the Middle East.

我們在共和黨內部就這項外交政策的各個面向，特別是與以色列有關的部分，以及與中東有關的部分，進行了非常實質的辯論。

And those heated debates are only gonna go hotter as this campaign continues, because it is exactly the fault line where different wings of the Republican Party disagree.

隨著這場戰役的持續，這些激烈的辯論只會更加火熱，因為這正是共和黨不同派別意見分歧的關鍵所在。

You can say the same thing of the Democratic Party as well, but

你也可以說民主黨也一樣，但是

坦白說，這些分歧沒有那麼嚴重。

There's a lot more people kind of straddling the middle, and

of course, they're not the party in power, so they don't face the challenge of having to make the hard decision about to undertake this sort of action or not.

當然，他們不是執政黨，所以他們不必面對是否要採取這類行動的艱難決定。

For any other politician that I can remember, this would surely be a huge problem already a central promise being smashed.

對於我記得的任何其他政治人物來說，這肯定是一個巨大的問題，一個核心承諾被打破了。

How is it always somehow okay for Donald Trump when he does these type of things?

為什麼唐納·川普做這類事情時總是可以被接受？

You know, all I'll say is it's a very early.

This is a risky maneuver for the president, and

I think that may yet come back to bite him politically and in other ways.

我認為這可能會在政治上和其他方面反噬他。

For the moment, we have to bear in mind The President is in pretty strong control of his party, even though there's narrow control in Congress.

目前，我們必須記住，儘管國會控制權很小，但總統對他的黨派擁有相當強的控制力。

We are in election season and particularly Republican primary season.

我們正處於選舉季，特別是共和黨初選季。

He is able to rally a lot of strong support within the Republican base so that he can push to challenge people who are running for office, challenge them from the right essentially by people who support him more.

他能在共和黨基本盤中爭取到很多強力的支持，這樣他就能夠推動挑戰那些競選公職的人，基本上是從右翼挑戰那些更支持他的人。

And so it's particularly sensitive moment for Republican members of Congress who are running for reelection.

是以，這對正在競選連任的共和黨國會議員來說，是一個特別敏感的時刻。

However, as you get closer to election day, more and more of those Republican primaries will take place and you'll have more and more candidates who are looking forward to the general election where they have to run against a democr.

然而，隨著離選舉日越來越近，越來越多的共和黨初選將會舉行，你也會看到越來越多的候選人會著眼於大選，屆時他們必須與民主黨人競爭。

And in those cases, it's often useful to say, well, actually I'm gonna tack more towards the middle.

在這些情況下，說「嗯，其實我會更傾向中間路線」通常很有用。

I'm gonna reject some of the more less popular things the President may be doing, or at least try and differentiate myself so that I can make a case to swing voters who might not like the most controversial elements of the President's policies.

我會拒絕總統可能正在做的那些比較不受歡迎的事情，或者至少試著區分自己，這樣我才能說服那些可能不喜歡總統政策中最具爭議元素的搖擺選民。

So as time goes on, the political dynamics are gonna shift.

所以隨著時間的推移，政治動態將會轉變。

But at this moment, this early in this campaign, I think it's hard for even Republican senators who, Congressmen who would be skeptical of what the President is doing to buck him too.

但在這個時刻，在這個競選活動的早期階段，我認為即使是那些對總統做法持懷疑態度的共和黨參議員或國會議員，也很難去反對他。

Hard to, because it's so early in this campaign.

真的很難，因為在這個競選活動的早期階段。

The costs haven't really piled up quite yet for Americans.

美國民眾的成本還沒有真正累積起來。

But as this campaign continues, that is going to change.

但隨著這場競選活動持續下去，情況就會改變。

Does your experience tell you about how our attitudes to this war or any other war tend to change if it starts to drag on 100%?

你的經驗告訴你，如果這場戰爭或其他任何戰爭開始拖延，我們的態度會如何改變，百分之百是這樣嗎？

I think that is the universal experience, is that as these campaigns drag on further, sometimes they fall off the media headlines, sometimes they get kind of forgotten in the background.

我認為這是普遍的經驗，就是隨著這些競選活動越拖越久，有時候牠們會從媒體頭條上消失，有時候牠們會被遺忘在背景中。

You can think of Syria intervention or to some extent the campaign against the Houthis over the last few years has fallen in that way.

你可以想想敘利亞的介入，或者在某種程度上，過去幾年對抗胡塞武裝的行動也是這樣。

But those were much lower tempo, much lower risk, substantial, but not anything like this scale.

但那些節奏慢得多、風險低得多，雖然也很重要，但規模完全無法與這次相比。

Here you are seeing hundreds, thousands of Americans have their lives disrupted.

在這裡，你看到數百、數千名美國人的生活受到影響。

We have US Embassies being evacuated of non essential personnel across a region.

我們看到美國大使館在一個地區撤離非必要人員。