下边有中文翻译请继续看到底。 谢谢。）
The accelerating U.S. military buildup in the Middle East has created one of the most volatile strategic environments the region—and the world—has witnessed in decades. With aircraft carriers, missile defense systems, and thousands of troops positioned across the Gulf and surrounding areas, the region stands at the edge of a conflict whose consequences would extend far beyond Iran or the Middle East. President Donald Trump’s repeated threats of military action against Iran have not only heightened regional tensions but have also raised profound concerns about global stability, energy security, and the future of international order.
At a time when the world economy is already fragile, any miscalculation in the Middle East could trigger a chain reaction with irreversible consequences. The danger lies not merely in deliberate confrontation, but also in the growing risk of accidental escalation amid crowded seas, overlapping military exercises, and heightened alert levels among rival forces.
A Region Saturated with Military Power
The United States maintains one of its largest overseas military footprints in the Middle East. Major bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, and Syria host tens of thousands of U.S. troops, advanced fighter aircraft, missile defense systems, and naval assets. The U.S. Fifth Fleet, headquartered in Bahrain, patrols some of the world’s most strategically sensitive waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz—through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies pass.
This concentration of military power is now being reinforced by additional deployments, justified by Washington as “deterrence.” Yet history shows that deterrence can quickly turn into provocation when political rhetoric hardens and diplomatic channels narrow. Iran, perceiving these moves as preparations for attack rather than defense, has responded with its own signals of readiness.
Tehran has made it clear that any assault on its territory would be met with retaliation, potentially targeting U.S. military installations across the region as well as Israel. While Iran’s conventional military capabilities do not match those of the United States—particularly in air power and advanced missile defense—it possesses asymmetric tools that could inflict significant damage, disrupt regional security, and destabilize global markets.
Military Imbalance, Political Resolve
There is little dispute that Iran’s air force is outdated and its air defense capabilities limited compared to American or Israeli systems. However, wars are not decided by hardware alone. Iran’s strategic depth lies in its political resolve, its regional influence, and its ability to wage asymmetric warfare.
Iran’s leadership views resistance as a matter of national survival, shaped by decades of sanctions, external pressure, and regional confrontation. This has fostered a political culture where resilience is framed as legitimacy. In such an environment, military inferiority does not necessarily translate into strategic defeat. On the contrary, it can encourage risk-taking, particularly when leaders believe they have little left to lose.
Moreover, political dynamics in the region are not operating in Washington’s favor. Many Middle Eastern states—while maintaining ties with the United States—have expressed clear opposition to a war with Iran, fearing regional chaos, refugee flows, and economic devastation. Unlike past conflicts, the U.S. does not appear to enjoy broad international backing for military action.
The Question of Justification
President Trump has repeatedly cited Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons as a central justification for potential military action. Yet this argument has become increasingly contested. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure suffered significant damage during U.S. strikes in June 2025, while Israeli operations over the years—including the assassination of prominent Iranian nuclear scientists—have further disrupted Tehran’s nuclear program.
Independent assessments suggest that these actions have set Iran’s nuclear capabilities back substantially. While concerns about nuclear proliferation should never be dismissed lightly, the claim that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat lacks the clarity and consensus required to justify a major war under international norms.
A second justification offered by Washington relates to Iran’s internal political situation, particularly allegations of using force to suppress protests. While Iran’s human rights record remains a legitimate subject of international concern, protests within the country have largely subsided, and selective humanitarian arguments risk appearing instrumental rather than principled when paired with threats of military force.
Taken together, these justifications appear increasingly fragile, raising questions about the true drivers of escalation.
Israel, U.S. Politics, and Strategic Pressure
It is widely acknowledged in policy circles that Israel views Iran as its primary strategic adversary and has consistently advocated a hard-line approach toward Tehran. Israel’s security concerns are real, but the degree to which they shape U.S. decision-making has become a subject of intense debate.
Various political analysts and commentators have argued that domestic political pressures, lobbying dynamics, and strategic alignment with Israel are pushing Washington toward confrontation. Allegations circulating in media and political discourse—though unproven—have further complicated perceptions of U.S. decision-making, contributing to the sense that policy toward Iran may be driven by factors beyond clear national interest calculations.
What matters most, however, is not speculation about motives, but the tangible risk that such pressures could propel the world into a conflict with catastrophic consequences.
Global Economic Shockwaves
A military confrontation with Iran would almost certainly send shockwaves through the global economy. Even the threat of conflict has already pushed oil and gold prices upward. A full-scale war could cause energy prices to surge beyond historical precedents, disrupting supply chains, fueling inflation, and pushing vulnerable economies toward recession.
The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical chokepoint. Any disruption—whether through direct confrontation or indirect instability—would affect energy-importing countries worldwide, from Asia to Europe. In an interconnected global economy, no nation would remain insulated from the fallout.
Beyond economics, the humanitarian cost would be immense. War in the Middle East has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity to displace millions, destabilize entire regions, and leave long-lasting scars that outlive the conflict itself.
A Trilateral Convergence of Military Exercises
Adding to the risk is the convergence of major military activities in the same maritime space. China, Russia, and Iran are conducting joint naval exercises in the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean—drills planned well in advance and officially described as routine. Yet their coincidence with heightened U.S. deployments introduces an element of danger.
In crowded waters where multiple naval forces operate in close proximity, the margin for error is thin. A single miscalculation, misinterpretation, or technical incident could spiral rapidly into a larger confrontation. History offers sobering reminders of how unintended clashes can escalate beyond political control.
An Isolated United States?
One of the most striking aspects of the current situation is the apparent absence of a broad coalition supporting U.S. military action. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, Washington acted with the backing—explicit or implicit—of NATO allies, regional partners, or United Nations frameworks. Today, that support appears conspicuously lacking.
The European Union has urged restraint. The United Nations has not authorized force. NATO allies are hesitant. Regional states have voiced opposition. This isolation raises serious questions about the sustainability and legitimacy of any unilateral military move.
Turkey’s Quiet Diplomacy
Amid this tense landscape, Turkey’s efforts to mediate deserve recognition. Ankara has sought to open channels of dialogue, reduce tensions, and explore diplomatic off-ramps that could prevent war. While such initiatives may not resolve deep-seated disputes overnight, they reflect an understanding that diplomacy—however imperfect—is infinitely preferable to war.
By engaging both Washington and Tehran, Turkey is attempting to preserve regional stability while offering a face-saving exit for all parties involved. Such efforts highlight the continued relevance of middle-power diplomacy in an increasingly polarized world.
A Moment for Strategic Restraint
The world stands at a dangerous crossroads. A war with Iran would not be a contained conflict; it would reverberate across regions, markets, and generations. The costs—human, economic, and strategic—would far outweigh any perceived gains.
History will not judge leaders by their willingness to threaten force, but by their capacity to prevent catastrophe. Strategic restraint, renewed diplomacy, and respect for international norms are not signs of weakness; they are the hallmarks of responsible leadership.
At this critical juncture, the choice is stark: escalation toward chaos or a return to dialogue and reason. For the sake of regional stability and global peace, the latter must prevail.
为何与伊朗的局势升级可能引发全球灾难。
美国在中东地区的军事力量不断加强，这造就了该地区乃至全球几十年来最为动荡的战略环境。拥有航空母舰、导弹防御系统以及数千名士兵部署在海湾地区及周边区域，该地区处于一场冲突的边缘，其后果将远远超出伊朗或中东地区。唐纳德·特朗普总统多次威胁要对伊朗采取军事行动，这不仅加剧了地区紧张局势，还引发了对全球稳定、能源安全以及国际秩序未来等一系列深刻担忧。
在当前全球经济已然脆弱的情况下，中东地区的任何误判都可能引发连锁反应，造成不可逆转的后果。危险不仅在于蓄意对抗，还在于在拥挤的海域、重叠的军事演习以及敌对势力之间不断升级的戒备状态中，意外冲突升级的风险日益增大。
一个军事力量高度集中的地区
美国在中东地区保持着其最大的海外军事部署。在卡塔尔、巴林、科威特、阿拉伯联合酋长国、伊拉克和叙利亚等地设有多个重要军事基地，这些基地驻扎着数以万计的美军、先进的战斗机、导弹防御系统以及海军力量。美国第五舰队的总部设在巴林，该舰队负责巡逻世界上一些战略最为敏感的水域，其中包括霍尔木兹海峡，该海峡是全球约五分之一石油供应的必经之路。
这种军事力量的集中态势如今正因更多的部署而得到加强，华盛顿方面将其称为“威慑”。然而历史表明，当政治言辞变得强硬、外交渠道变得狭窄时，“威慑”很快就会演变成挑衅。伊朗认为这些举动是备战而非防御的准备，因此也做出了自己的备战信号回应。
德黑兰已明确表示，任何对其领土的攻击都将遭到报复，可能还会将目标对准该地区的美国军事设施以及以色列。尽管伊朗的常规军事实力无法与美国相匹敌——尤其是在空中力量和先进导弹防御系统方面——但它拥有能够造成重大破坏、扰乱地区安全局势并扰乱全球市场的非对称手段。
军事力量的不平衡，政治决心的坚定性
毫无疑问，伊朗的空军装备陈旧，其防空能力也远逊于美国或以色列的系统。然而，战争的胜负并非仅仅取决于硬件条件。伊朗的战略纵深在于其政治决心、其在地区的影响力以及其开展非对称作战的能力。
伊朗的领导层将抵抗视为关乎国家存亡的重大问题，这一观点是由数十年的制裁、外部压力以及地区冲突所塑造的。这形成了这样一种政治文化：韧性被视为合法性的重要体现。在这种环境下，军事上的劣势未必会导致战略上的失败。相反，它反而可能激发冒险精神，尤其是当领导层认为他们已无太多可失去的时候。
此外，该地区的政治局势对华盛顿并不有利。许多中东国家尽管与美国保持着联系，但已明确表示反对与伊朗开战，他们担心这会导致地区混乱、难民潮以及经济崩溃。与以往的冲突不同，美国此次似乎并未获得广泛的国际支持来采取军事行动。
“正当性问题”
特朗普总统多次将伊朗被指谋求发展核武器一事作为可能采取军事行动的主要理由。然而，这一论点正受到越来越多的质疑。在 2025 年 6 月美国的空袭行动中，伊朗的核设施遭受了严重破坏，而以色列多年来开展的行动（包括对伊朗著名核科学家的暗杀行动）也进一步扰乱了德黑兰的核计划。
独立评估表明，这些行动已使伊朗的核能力大幅削弱。尽管对核扩散的担忧绝不能被轻视，但声称伊朗即将构成核威胁的说法缺乏足够的清晰性和共识，不足以依据国际准则来为一场大规模战争提供正当理由。
华盛顿方面提出的第二个理由与伊朗的国内政治局势有关，特别是有关其使用武力镇压抗议活动的指控。尽管伊朗的人权状况仍是一个值得国际关注的合理议题，但该国国内的抗议活动已基本平息，而将选择性的人道主义论点与军事威胁相结合时，就有可能显得具有手段性而非原则性。
综合来看，这些理由似乎愈发站不住脚，这引发了对冲突升级真正驱动因素的质疑。
以色列、美国政治与战略压力
在政策界，人们普遍认为以色列将伊朗视为其首要的战略对手，并一直主张对德黑兰采取强硬态度。以色列的安全担忧是切实存在的，但这些担忧在多大程度上影响了美国的决策，这已成为一个备受争议的问题。
众多政治分析人士和评论家认为，国内的政治压力、游说活动的态势以及与以色列的战略联盟，正促使华盛顿走向对抗。媒体和政治论述中流传的种种指控（尽管尚未得到证实）进一步混淆了人们对美国决策的认知，让人觉得对伊朗的政策可能受到超出明确的国家利益考量之外的因素的驱动。
然而，最为重要的是，我们不应去揣测背后的动机，而应关注这种压力所带来的切实风险，即它有可能将世界推向一场后果极其严重的冲突。
全球经济震荡波
与伊朗发生军事冲突几乎肯定会给全球经济带来巨大冲击。即便只是冲突的威胁，也已经导致了石油和黄金价格的上涨。一旦爆发全面战争，能源价格可能会超出以往的任何水平，从而扰乱供应链、加剧通货膨胀，并使脆弱的经济体陷入衰退。
霍尔木兹海峡仍然是一个至关重要的咽喉要道。任何干扰因素——无论是通过冲突还是间接的不稳定局势——都会影响到世界各地的能源进口国，从亚洲到欧洲。在相互关联的全球经济中，没有哪个国家能够完全不受其影响。
除了经济方面的影响外，人道主义方面的代价也将极其巨大。中东地区的战争已多次表明其能够导致数百万人流离失所、使整个地区陷入动荡，并留下持久的创伤，这些创伤甚至会比战争本身持续得更久。
三方联合军事演习活动
此外，还存在这样一种风险，即多个大型军事行动在同一海域展开。中国、俄罗斯和伊朗正在阿拉伯海和印度洋举行联合海军演习——这些演习事先已做好安排，并被官方描述为常规性活动。然而，它们与美国军事部署的加强同时发生，这就增添了一定的危险因素。
在众多海军力量近距离协同作战的拥挤水域中，容错空间十分有限。哪怕是一个计算失误、理解偏差或是技术故障，都可能迅速演变成一场更严重的冲突。历史为我们提供了深刻的警示：意外的冲突可能会超出政治控制范围而不断升级。
一个孤立的美国？
当前局势中最为显著的一点是，似乎没有一个广泛的联盟支持美国的军事行动。在阿富汗、伊拉克和利比亚，华盛顿都是在北约盟友、地区伙伴或联合国框架的明确或隐性支持下采取行动的。而如今，这种支持明显缺失了。
欧盟已呼吁保持克制。联合国未授权使用武力。北约盟国态度犹豫。周边国家也表示反对。这种孤立局面引发了有关任何单方面军事行动的可持续性和合法性的严重质疑。
土耳其的低调外交
在这种紧张的局势下，土耳其为调解所做的努力值得肯定。安卡拉方面努力寻求对话渠道、缓解紧张局势，并探索能够避免战争的外交途径。虽然这些举措可能无法在一夜之间解决深层次的争端，但它们体现了这样一种认识：尽管外交手段并非十全十美，但总好过战争。
通过与华盛顿和德黑兰双方进行接触，土耳其旨在维护地区稳定，同时为所有相关方提供一种保全面子的解决方案。这些努力凸显了在日益两极化的世界中，中等强国的外交手段仍具有重要意义。
一段战略性的克制时刻
世界正处于一个危险的十字路口。与伊朗开战将不会是一场局部冲突；它将会波及各个地区、各个市场以及不同的世代。其代价——包括人员伤亡、经济损失和战略损失——将远远超过任何可能的收益。
历史不会根据领导者是否敢于使用武力来评判他们，而是会根据他们是否能够避免灾难来评判。战略克制、重新开展外交活动以及尊重国际准则，并非意味着软弱，而恰恰是负责任领导者的标志。
在这一关键时刻，面临的选择十分严峻：要么走向混乱，要么回归对话与理性。
( 注意： 本文是用AI翻译的，或有误差。请以原版英文为准。谢谢。)
Reference Link:- https://www2.apdnews.cn/en/item/26/0202/axjfkzzf29116238512d18.html