QA:伊朗是否误判了，以为其他国家会加入他们的战斗？他们的最终目的是什么？

@Chris Everett
Iran was attacked… so… there’s that. I think that Iran thought that Trump’s red lines were the same as Obama’s red lines. They weren’t.
 
伊朗是被攻击的一方，这点先搞清楚。我觉得伊朗误以为特朗普的底线和奥巴马是一样的，其实完全不一样。
 
@Chris Everett
The reality is that “axis of assholes” (Russia/Iran/Syria/Venezuela) has all been badly degraded, and as such their. Syria has largely cut off Russia, and both Hezbollah and Hamas are badly degraded. Venezuela just got their president snatched. Russia has been degraded to a third rate power by Ukraine.
 
事实就是，所谓的流氓轴心（俄、伊、叙、委）全都严重衰弱。叙利亚基本跟俄罗斯断了联系，真主党和哈马斯也被重创，委内瑞拉总统刚被抓走，俄罗斯被乌克兰拖成了三流国家。
 
@Chris Everett
In addition to the invasion of Ukraine, the October 7th attack has to go down as one of the biggest fuckups in world history. The reality is that most of the middle east is far more sick of Iran’s shit than they are about Israel these days. Iran has spent the last twenty years spending most of its time destabilizing it’s neighbors and burning anybody who might be an ally. Most of the region is done with their nonsense.
 
除了俄乌冲突，10 月 7 日的袭击绝对是史上最蠢的操作之一。现在中东国家烦伊朗远胜过烦以色列。伊朗这二十年净在搞乱邻国、得罪盟友，大家早就受够了。
 
@Chris Everett
It’s pretty clear that Iran has been fucking around diplomatically for about a year, always promising negotiation but it clearly never being in good faith. This, combined with the massacre of their own citizens, was clearly more than Trump was willing to put up with.
 
很明显伊朗这一年在外交上一直在糊弄，嘴上说谈判，根本没诚意。再加上他们镇压本国民众，特朗普忍无可忍了。
 
@Chris Everett
As such, I have no tolerance for the claims that Iran would have made a deal if we had just waited a few more days. That’s just a bullshit claim.
 
所以我根本不信那种 “再等几天伊朗就会谈判” 的鬼话，纯属扯淡。
 
@Chris Everett
Trump has always had a bit of a bugbear for Iran. His only real independent use of military force in his first term was against them, and this clearly continues.
 
特朗普一直就看伊朗不顺眼，他第一任期里唯一自主动武就是针对伊朗，现在显然还在继续。
 
@Chris Everett
I think that Iran thought that Trump wasn’t actually going to do anything… And indeed, Trump is usually surprisingly hesitant to use much military force. Iran did not recognize that they were… special… in Trump’s calculation. They were wrong.
 
我觉得伊朗以为特朗普不会真动手，要知道特朗普通常很不愿动武。但伊朗没意识到，在特朗普眼里他们是特殊目标，他们彻底误判了。
 
@Austin Burgess
For better or worse, in pretty much every aspect, Trump isn't playing the same game as his peers or predecessors. We'll see how that ultimately plays out over the next 11 years, depending on who succeeds him.
 
不管好坏，特朗普各方面的路数都跟其他前任不一样。接下来十几年会怎么样，就看下一任是谁了。
 
@Ankur Aggarwal
Come on, sure he is. Gen. Wesley Clark called this 20 years ago. John Bolton, who’s served in multiple administrations, is creaming himself right now. John McCain sang mockingly about “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran”.
 
少来，他根本没跳出套路。韦斯利克拉克将军 20 年前就预言过这一切。在好几届政府任职的博尔顿现在得意坏了，麦凯恩当年还唱过 “炸伊朗” 的歌。
 
@Ankur Aggarwal
The Maduro raid, THAT you could arguably chalk up to some kind of genuine departure from precedent, at least in living memory. But this weekend, unfortunately, was a LONG time coming.
 
针对马杜罗的行动还算有点突破常规，但这周末打击伊朗这事，其实早就注定了。
 
@Chris Bast
All we saw from them is talk. We have no reason to think they would have followed through if they had ever been in a position to do so.
 
他们也就只会嘴上说说，真有机会动手时，根本没理由相信他们会干。
 
@Ankur Aggarwal
6 of the 7 countries identified by Clark in the memo had been attacked by the US before Trump’s second term. Iran was the only one left. So no, it was not all talk. The little wars just weren’t as flashy or headline-making.
 
克拉克备忘录里列的 7 个国家，6 个在特朗普第二任期前就被美国打过了，就剩伊朗一个。所以这不是光说不练，只是那些小战争没那么轰动而已。
 
@Chris Bast
…But not by Clark. He was never in a position to actually order those attacks and deal with the consequences. It's easy to cheerlead. Not so easy to coach the team.
 
但又不是克拉克下令打的，他根本没权下令也不用担后果。站着说话不腰疼，真操盘就没那么容易了。
 
@Ankur Aggarwal
Well, he wasn’t exactly a cheerleader for those attacks. He whistleblew a memo. That’s kind of the point. The policy intent was already dispersed throughout the bureaucratic and political apparatus.
 
他可不是鼓吹战争，他是曝光了内部备忘录。重点是，这种政策意图早就渗透到整个官僚和政治体系里了。
 
@Chris Bast
So it was a “policy intent” for the last 20 years…but only one President actually put that policy into action. Seems like you have proven my point. People have been “predicting” the bombing of Iran for a very long time. But only one President actually did it.
 
所以这是 20 年的 “政策意图”，但真正落实的只有特朗普一任。你这正好印证了我的话。大家预言炸伊朗这么多年，只有他真干了。
 
@Chris Bast
Every President before him could have done it but chose not to. If Biden or Kamala had won in 2024, I guarantee they would not have done it. Basically what you're saying is Clark was coincidentally correct.
 
之前每任总统都有能力做，但都没选这条路。如果 24 年是拜登或哈里斯赢，绝对不会炸伊朗。你说白了就是克拉克碰巧说中了。
 
@Ankur Aggarwal
It’s not a coincidence if 6 of the 7 countries WERE attacked in the interim. Even for a pit of warmongering snakes like our government, getting the ball rolling takes a while and takes some doing, especially when one has one’s hands in multiple fires.
 
7 个里 6 个都被打了，这就不是巧合。就算是政府这帮好战分子，推进这事也需要时间和动作，尤其他们还同时插手好几件事。
 
@Ankur Aggarwal
Btw, I’m not so sure the Biden/Kamala alternate history claim is correct. Obama campaigned on ending the wars, but it took Biden to pull out of Afghanistan, and also he got us into Libya, Yemen, and other places besides.
 
顺便说，我不认同 “拜登 / 哈里斯不会动手” 的说法。奥巴马竞选说要结束战争，结果是拜登从阿富汗撤军，还把美国拖进了利比亚、也门等乱局。
 
@Ankur Aggarwal
The pull of AIPAC, the various defense lobbies, and the national security establishment, and sees very little meaningful difference among party or candidate.
 
在美以公共事务委员会、军工游说集团、国安体系的影响下，哪个党、谁当选差别都不大。
 
@Chris Bast
But we're not talking about those other six countries. We are talking about Iran. The country that President after President kept saying they were going to deal with, but never did.
 
但我们说的不是那六个国家，是伊朗。一任任总统都说要解决伊朗问题，结果谁都没动手。
 
@Chris Bast
I am. Once again, we aren't talking about other countries. We are talking about Iran. The pull of AIPAC. Let's leave the antisemitism outside, if you please.
 
我敢肯定。我们只说伊朗，别提别的。还有美以公共事务委员会这事，咱别把反犹言论扯进来。
 
@Chris Bast
the various defense lobbies, and the national security establishment, and sees very little meaningful difference among party or candidate. Then once again I ask you, why didn't any previous President bomb Iran?
 
你说军工和国安体系让谁上台都一样，那我再问你，之前总统怎么都没炸伊朗？
 
@Chris Bast
If all these entities were chomping at the bit for this to happen, why did they all refuse to bomb Iran when each of them gladly attacked other countries?
 
如果这些势力早就急着动手，为什么他们乐意打别的国家，却都不肯打伊朗？
 
@Ankur Aggarwal
You can’t treat a country in a vacuum if they’re part of the same program. So the other countries do matter. Just like you can’t talk about Korea or Vietnam without considering China and the USSR.
 
不能孤立看一个国家，他们都在同一套布局里。所以其他国家很重要，就像聊朝战越战不能不提中苏一样。
 
@Ankur Aggarwal
And no, re: AIPAC, I’m going to call a spade a spade. I’d say it’s antisemitic to assume that most Jewish people go along with their nonsense.
 
至于美以公共事务委员会，我就实话实说。觉得大多数犹太人都支持他们那套，这才是反犹。
 
@Joe Hansen
No! Trump said if you vote for Kamala, she will go to war! Did you forget that one?
 
才不是！特朗普说过选哈里斯就会引发战争，你忘了？
 
@Chris Bast
Trump absolutely did not say Kamala Harris would bomb Iran. He explicitly said HE would bomb Iran.
 
特朗普绝对没说哈里斯会炸伊朗，他明确说的是他自己会炸。
 
@Joe Hansen
Sorry, it's on Video, Trump said It!
 
我没说错，视频里他就是这么说的！
 
@Nate Waddoups
Hawks have always been around, but executives generally didn't fulfill the hawks’ wishes. Increasingly that was because things didn't end well when they did. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan…
 
鹰派一直都在，但总统通常不会满足他们。主要是因为之前动武下场都不好，越南、伊拉克、阿富汗就是例子。
 
@Nate Waddoups
The big question now is whether history will look back on this like another one of those, or like a worthwhile use of military force. It's too soon to know, but I'm not optimistic at this point.
 
现在关键是，历史会把这次打击看成又一场失败战争，还是一次合理动武。现在还说不准，但我不太乐观。
 
@Ankur Aggarwal
Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq made the headlines. You’re missing Panama, Somalia, Mali, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Niger, Sudan, Lebanon, and a bunch of others I’m failing to recall off the top of my head.
 
越南、阿富汗、伊拉克只是上了头条，你忘了巴拿马、索马里、马里、叙利亚、也门、巴基斯坦、尼日尔、苏丹、黎巴嫩等等一堆地方。
 
@Ankur Aggarwal
Hawks have definitely been the order of the day. It’s just the footprint and media coverage that has been varying in size.
 
鹰派一直主导局面，只是战争规模和媒体曝光度不一样而已。
 
@Doug
Grenada
 
还有格林纳达。
 
@Ben Jessen
Vietnam and Iraq, yes. Afghanistan was started under a different premise that became more and more vague particularly through Bush’s second term.
 
越南和伊拉克确实是烂摊子。阿富汗战争出发点本来不一样，到布什第二任期就越来越模糊。
 
@Ben Jessen
Now you have to hit Obama on keeping it going for his eight years, and Trump for keeping it going, even though he did say that he couldn’t see a reason for the continuing action.
 
奥巴马干了八年延续战争，特朗普也接着打，尽管他自己都说看不出继续打的理由。
 
@Ben Jessen
Then Biden came in a fucked it all up. But I still think that had Trump won a second concurrent term that it would have still been fucked.
 
然后拜登接手彻底搞砸。就算特朗普连任，结果也好不到哪去。
 
@Ben Jessen
Above all, I am happy that Trump’s team is not looking at the world through 40 year old eyes of how it was. I’m glad the neo-conservatives are mostly out of there, and that they look at this as what else did President Trump not accomplish during his first term.
 
最重要的是，特朗普团队没有用 40 年前的老眼光看世界，新保守派基本都出局了，他们在补特朗普第一任期没做完的事。
 
@Terry Lambert
Afghanistan involvement by the U.S. was technically started as a result of Democratic Texas Second District representative Charlie Wilson.
 
美国介入阿富汗，最早其实是德州民主党众议员查理・威尔逊推动的。
 
@Terry Lambert
Osama bin Laden and ISIS have arguably all been motivated as a result of the US, no longer putting its thumb on the scale in favor of Islamic fundamentalism, after Russia was no longer deemed a threat by most US leaders, following the fall of the Soviet unx.
 
苏联解体后，美国不再把俄罗斯当威胁，也不再支持伊斯兰原教旨主义，可以说本拉登和 ISIS 的崛起都跟这个转变有关。
 
@Terry Lambert
The Democrats have always had it out for Russia, ever since then; perhaps since the Kennedy assassination. They really do not see a big difference between the Soviet unx then, and Russia today.
 
从那以后（甚至可能从肯尼迪遇刺开始），民主党就一直跟俄罗斯过不去，他们觉得当年苏联和现在俄罗斯没区别。
 
@Terry Lambert
The Republicans have had it out for China since around 1996, as a result of the events at the Hsi Lai Temple in Hacienda Heights, California putting an illegal thumb on the scale In favor of the DNC, and the Clinton/Gore campaign of 1996.
 
1996 年加州西来寺事件被指非法资助民主党和克林顿竞选，从那以后共和党就开始跟中国作对。
 
@Terry Lambert
These motivations are hardly unacknowledged, nor are they even at all controversial.
 
这些政治动机都是公开的，也没什么争议。
 
@Nate Waddoups
It’s worth pointing out that Obama tried to improve relations with Russia - he thought that normalizing the relationship would normalize Russia. Instead, Putin seized Crimea and began a low-level invasion /destabilization of eastern Ukraine.
 
值得一提的是，奥巴马曾试图改善对俄关系，以为关系正常化能让俄罗斯规矩点。结果普京拿下克里米亚，开始渗透破坏乌东部。
 
@Nate Waddoups
And now Trump is legitimizing Russia’s repeated demands for Ukraine to capitulate by calling that “negotiation.” And meanwhile he blames Ukraine for still fighting to expel the invaders.
 
现在特朗普把俄罗斯逼乌克兰投降的要求美化为 “谈判”，还指责乌克兰不该继续抵抗驱逐入侵者。
 
@Nate Waddoups
The world would be a better place if both parties were to treat Russia much more like the rogue state that it is.
 
如果两党都能把俄罗斯当成流氓国家对待，世界会好很多。
 
@Terry Lambert
Russia took Crimea because of Obama, firing Stanley McCrystal, and drawing down troops in Afghanistan, thereby destabilizing the trans Afghan pipeline.
 
俄罗斯拿下克里米亚，根源在奥巴马。他解雇了麦克里斯特尔将军，从阿富汗撤军，导致跨阿富汗石油管道不稳。
 
@Terry Lambert
Russia had to take a warm water port in order to continue oil sales through winter.
 
俄罗斯必须拿下不冻港，才能保证冬季石油运输。
 
@Terry Lambert
In addition, Obama supported fracking, which is about the most un-democratic thing a democratic president has ever done. The only rational explanation is economic warfare to value the Russian ruble by duing the value of a barrel of oil.
 
另外奥巴马支持水力压裂法，这是民主党总统干过最不民主的事之一。合理解释就是经济战，压低油价来打击俄罗斯卢布。
 
@Terry Lambert
The continuation of Obama‘s policies under Biden, two years into Biden‘s presidency caused Russia to reach for the rare earth minds in Ukraine, as a potential replacement for oil revenue.
 
拜登延续奥巴马政策，上任两年后，俄罗斯只能盯上乌克兰的稀土矿，当作石油收入的替代。
 
@Terry Lambert
Well, one could perhaps make an argument of extreme environmentalism for making it an economical for Russia to extract or sell oil, as a practical matter, both the loss of Crimea to Russia, and the war between Russia and Ukraine, we brought about through specific implementation of democratic policy towards Russia.
 
就算有人拿极端环保当借口，说要提高俄罗斯石油开采成本，但事实是，克里米亚被占、俄乌战争，都是民主党对俄政策造成的。
 
@Terry Lambert
I think it’s particularly telling that Russia did not initiate international aggression while Republicans were in office, only when Democrats were in office.
 
很能说明问题的是，共和党执政时俄罗斯从不对外动武，偏偏都是民主党执政时动手。
 
@Evan Gadowski
Not true. Georgia was an ally in the War on Terror and Putin sat next to W Bush and said nothing to him during the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics in 2008 that he had ordered an invasion.
 
你说得不对。格鲁吉亚是反恐战争盟友，2008 年北京奥运会开幕式上，普京就坐在小布什旁边，却没告诉他自己已经下令入侵格鲁吉亚。
 
@Evan Gadowski
People forget that. When the news broke of tanks rolling through he actually got up and walked away from where he was sitting. This is how he operates. He has a habit as well of making western leaders wait for him and coming in late to meetings by the way.
 
大家都忘了这事。坦克推进的消息传来时，他直接起身走开。他就这套路，还经常故意迟到让西方领导人等。
 
@Terry Lambert
I think you are greatly confused. Russia invaded Crimea in 2014. Barack Obama was president.
 
你完全搞混了。俄罗斯 2014 年入侵克里米亚，当时是奥巴马执政。
 
@Terry Lambert
Georgia was largely of no interest to the west, not being a signatory of the 1994 Budapest memorandum — the countries involved there were Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan in exchange for surrendering their Soviet-era nuclear weapons.
 
西方根本不关心格鲁吉亚，它也不是 1994 年《布达佩斯备忘录》签署国，签署的是乌、白、哈三国，以放弃苏联遗留核武器换安全保障。
 
@Terry Lambert
The likely prompt for the 2008 invasion of Georgia by Russia was probably the Georgia was politically very close to pulling the trigger on attempting to join NATO.
 
2008 年俄打格鲁吉亚，很可能是因为格鲁吉亚马上要申请加入北约。
 
@Terry Lambert
While this is the same thing that pissed about Ukraine, to a large extent, at least in the decades surrounding the millennium, the situation is not similar.
 
虽然这也是激怒俄罗斯的点，但格鲁吉亚和乌克兰的情况大不相同。
 
@Terry Lambert
Being close politically, and there being a chance in hell of accession in less than a decade, because Georgia could not get its act together within its own alliance, are very different things.
 
格鲁吉亚只是政治上靠拢北约，但内部一团糟，十年内根本没可能加入，这和乌克兰完全两码事。
 
@Terry Lambert
Georgia was a pretty much no interest to the west; still isn’t. There are a number of factors lead leading to this, but among them are: Georgia never inherited any of the post collapse Soviet nuclear arsenal.
 
西方过去不关心格鲁吉亚，现在也不关心。原因很多，比如格鲁吉亚没有继承苏联解体后的核武器。
 
@Terry Lambert
Georgia was already a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, NPT, and therefore did not require protective assurances in order to require their compliance.
 
格鲁吉亚早已签署《核不扩散条约》，不需要额外安全保障就会遵守规则。
 
@Terry Lambert
What risk Georgia posed had already been neutralized in 1998, as part of operation Auburn Endeavor, a secret U.S.-British operation to airlift fissile material from a nuclear research facility in Tbilisi, Georgia, with the full cooperation of the political authorities there at the time.
 
格鲁吉亚的核风险在 1998 年就被消除了，美英搞了 “奥本计划”，在第比利斯核设施空运走核材料，当时格鲁吉亚政府全力配合。
 
@Terry Lambert
I can understand how Georgia could be upset by this, especially since it is essentially playing the role of Jan Brady to Ukraine’s Marcia Brady.
 
我能理解格鲁吉亚的委屈，它就像个小透明，风头全被乌克兰抢走。
 
@Terry Lambert
Sadly, Georgia screwed up in its management of its strategic cards, and had no cards to play, when it was invaded.
 
可惜格鲁吉亚没打好战略牌，被入侵时毫无还手之力。
 
@Terry Lambert
But if you are entirely honest, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the leadership of Georgia at the time. If anyone should’ve known that you cannot expect Putin to not be Putin, that should’ve been Georgia's leadership.
 
但说实话，责任全在当时格鲁吉亚领导层。他们就该知道，普京本性难移。
 
@Joe Hansen
And Trump will have the war over on day One, what a bunch of bullshit!
 
特朗普还说上任第一天就结束战争，纯属放屁！
 
@Terry Lambert
You will need to make this comment on one of Trump’s posts. I didn’t think that the war in Ukraine would be over “on day one”.
 
你该去特朗普帖子底下说。我从没说过俄乌战争能 “第一天就结束”。
 
@Terry Lambert
While Trump did in fact promise “rapid resolution”, during his campaign that’s not a 24 hours, and that’s not a “day one”. I don’t think anyone saying, reasonably expected him to put that type of clock on it.
 
特朗普竞选时确实承诺 “快速解决”，但不是 24 小时，也不是字面意义的第一天。理智的人都不会这么理解。
 
@Terry Lambert
Trump inherited a bad situation with Russia, because Obama did not honor the Budapest accord and stop the invasion of Crimea.
 
特朗普接手的俄美关系本来就烂，因为奥巴马没遵守《布达佩斯备忘录》，没阻止俄罗斯吞并克里米亚。
 
@Terry Lambert
The actual war with Ukraine more or less started in 2022, under Joe Biden, who again failed to honor the Budapest accord.
 
俄乌真正开战是 2022 年拜登执政时，他再次没履行备忘录义务。
 
@Terry Lambert
Russia often makes its moves during Democratic presidencies, which are well known to placate rather than oppose villains. Even the Cuban missile crisis, in which Russia tried to base nuclear missiles off the coast of the US, took place under a Democratic presidency.
 
俄罗斯总挑民主党执政时动手，因为民主党向来妥协不强硬。就连古巴导弹危机，也是民主党执政时发生的。
 
@Terry Lambert
And Kennedy eventually did back down, withdrawing promised US military support for the Bay of Pigs.
 
肯尼迪最后还妥协了，撤销了对猪湾事件的军事支持。
 
@Evan Gadowski
No, it goes back further. After the collapse of the USSR, there was a lot of optimism with Yeltsin that we could do business with Russia and furthermore they were no longer a threat.
 
不对，更早以前就不一样。苏联解体后，大家对叶利钦很乐观，觉得能和俄罗斯合作，他们也不再是威胁。
 
@Evan Gadowski
W Bush and Putin also enjoyed a thaw in relations especially as Russia had mutual interests about Islamic terrorism in it own backyard and was initially cooperative and supportive post 9/11.
 
小布什和普京关系也曾缓和，俄罗斯在反恐上有共同利益，9/11 后一开始还很配合。
 
@Evan Gadowski
Then during the 2008 Beijing Olympics opening ceremony, Putin is sitting right next to W and doesn’t bother talking him he just ordered an invasion on Georgia - a country that aligned with us on the War on Terror.
 
结果 2008 年奥运会开幕式，普京坐在小布什旁边，却偷偷下令入侵格鲁吉亚，而格鲁吉亚还是反恐盟友。
 
@Evan Gadowski
I don’t think Obama walked into meetings with Putin thinking he was trustworthy and a good leader we could work with. It’s always been a relationship of distrust even when things thawed a bit.
 
我不觉得奥巴马会见普京时会信任他，双方一直是不信任关系，就算偶尔缓和也一样。
 
@Evan Gadowski
We backed one side in Syria under Obama and Moscow backed the other. As for Crimea, over 70% of the population in that region identified as ethnically Russian, not Ukrainian.
 
奥巴马时期美国在叙利亚支持一方，俄罗斯支持另一方。克里米亚有 70% 以上人口是俄罗斯族，不是乌克兰族。
 
@Evan Gadowski
Was Obama supposed to go to bat for Ukraine and launch a war on Russia that could end in nuclear showdown? Let’s be realistic here.
 
难道奥巴马要为乌克兰跟俄罗斯开战，甚至引发核冲突？现实一点吧。
 
@Terry Lambert
There’s a big difference between a shooting war in reaction to the Budapest memorandum, and a naval blockade in reaction to the Budapest memorandum.
 
为履行《布达佩斯备忘录》发动热战，和搞海上封锁，完全是两码事。
 
@Terry Lambert
The purpose in taking Crimea was to obtain a warm water port. If that warm water port is the useless for shipping Russian oil, due to “military exercises between the UK and the US”, Then Russia would not have been eager to obtain Crimea.
 
俄罗斯占克里米亚是为不冻港。如果美英军事演习让这个港口没法运油，俄罗斯当初就不会急着抢。
 
@Terry Lambert
But Russia would not have been initially eager to obtain me in the first place, If they did not feel that they’re trans Afghan oil pipeline was about to be blown up by the Taliban, who had no love of Russia, and who had just had their leashes taken off by Obama.
 
如果不是觉得跨阿富汗石油管道要被塔利班炸掉，俄罗斯一开始也不会急着抢克里米亚。塔利班本来就恨俄罗斯，奥巴马又放松了对他们的控制。
 
@Joe Hansen
George Bush could have stopped the war! Very easily! It will Always be Bushes War!
 
小布什本可以阻止战争，轻而易举！这永远是布什的战争！
 
@Terry Lambert
You mean it was al Qaeda‘s war. After all, they started the damn thing.
 
你是说基地组织的战争吧，本来就是他们挑起来的。
 
@Terry Lambert
The problem with al Qaeda is that it’s fundamentally based in Arabic tribalism. If you are in Arabic tribe and you have a problem with another Arabic tribe, then it’s perfectly reasonable to kill the other tribes leader, and get a different leader in who is more to your liking.
 
基地组织的问题根源是阿拉伯部落文化。部落之间有矛盾，杀掉对方首领换个听话的，在他们看来很合理。
 
@Terry Lambert
Sure, you may have to play a blood price (diya or diyah) so that the feud will end, but it’s perfectly “reasonable” to deal with an intractable foe, by instituting regime change in the foe’s tribe.
 
就算要付血金了结世仇，通过换首领对付难缠对手，在他们逻辑里也说得通。
 
@Terry Lambert
This does not, and cannot, work with a democracy. A democracy is perfectly capable of overthrowing and replacing its leadership peacefully, while retaining obxtives — the United States, for example, does this every four years.
 
但这套在民主国家行不通。民主国家可以和平换领导人，还能保持国家目标不变，比如美国每四年就换一次。
 
@Terry Lambert
If you don’t like what the United States is doing, decapitating the United States, is not gonna change what the United States is doing. The United States will continue to go in the direction that it wants to go in.
 
你看不惯美国的做法，就算干掉领导人也没用，美国还是会走自己的路。
 
@Terry Lambert
The only thing you will have succeeded in doing is pissing them off, and making them implacable.
 
你唯一能做到的，就是把美国惹毛，让他们绝不罢休。
 
@Terry Lambert
And if you start a fight with someone like that, that someone is going to end the fight. And they are either going to “pull a George Bush“, and end it by declaring it a victory (and God help you if you do not simply buy into that), or they’re going to destroy you utterly.
 
你跟这样的国家开战，最后一定是他们收场。要么像小布什那样宣布胜利，你不接受也得接受；要么就彻底把你打垮。
 
@Terry Lambert
There really is not an “in between”. In fact, the only time the US has ever “declared it a draw”, was the Korean war.
 
根本没有中间地带。美国唯一一次承认 “平局”，只有朝鲜战争。
 
@Terry Lambert
The only reason it’s not a hot war, is because after the declaration of an armistice, a DMZ was established, and the DMZ is strongly enforced, by both sides, to the degree that it does not flare up into a hot conflict again.
 
之所以没变成热战，是因为停战后建立了非军事区，双方严格管控，没再爆发冲突。
 
@Terry Lambert
In fact, new terminology, that of “frozen conflict“, had to be invented in order to describe the situation.
 
甚至还创造了 “冻结冲突” 这个词来形容这种局面。
 
@Ankur Aggarwal
‘Above all, I am happy that Trump’s team is not looking at the world through 40 year old eyes of how it was. I’m glad the neo-conservatives are mostly out of there, and that they look at this as what else did President Trump not accomplish during his first term.’
 
“我最欣慰的是，特朗普团队没用 40 年前的老眼光看世界，新保守派基本都出局了，他们在补完特朗普第一任期没做完的事。”
 
@Ankur Aggarwal
They aren’t even close to out. Rubio is a major neocon, and always has been, proudly. Hegseth and JD Vance may have leaned away from that label in the electoral campaign, and may even deny it today, but their policy advocacy during their time in office is difficult to distinguish.
 
新保守派远没出局。鲁比奥就是铁杆新保守派，一直都是。赫格塞斯、万斯竞选时不想贴这个标签，现在也不承认，但他们的政策主张跟新保守派没区别。
 
@Ankur Aggarwal
Netanyahu is the ringleader of the American neocon movement from afar, and if you suggest that he isn’t a de facto part, if not head, of this administration, then I’m going to laugh at you.
 
内塔尼亚胡是美国新保守运动的幕后头目，你要说他不是这届政府的实际核心，我只能笑你太天真。
 
@Joe Hansen
Fucked it all up? That was Trump! You Are brainwashed, getting out of Afghanistan went Much better than getting out of Vietnam when the president was a Republican!
 
搞砸一切的是特朗普！你被洗脑了吧。阿富汗撤军比当年共和党执政时的越南撤军强多了。
 
@David Seidman
Yeah, I think everyone involved in this situation basically came to the realization that the Iranian leadership was never going to make a deal, never going to step down, and would be a pain in everyone’s ass forever until someone killed them.
 
我觉得所有人都看明白了，伊朗领导层绝不会谈判、绝不会下台，会一直恶心全世界，直到有人收拾他们。
 
@David Seidman
And for better and worse, killing people is something the US is good at. What’s crazy to me is that US bombing has reduced the daily death toll in Iran because they’re no longer massacring demonstrators.
 
不管好坏，美国就是擅长动武。离谱的是，美军轰炸反而降低了伊朗日均死亡人数，因为伊朗政权没空镇压示威者了。
 
@David Seidman
How often do you see flags of the country being bombed at a demonstration in support of the bombing?
 
你见过被轰炸国家的民众举着国旗支持轰炸吗？这景象太少见了。
 
@Tom Ryugo
But there’s a problem. The US is almost certainly not sending in ground troops. The Iranians may despise the regime but the regime’s goon squads - the IRGC - hold all the guns and despite being damaged, have enough weaponry to crush any uprising.
 
但有个问题：美国几乎肯定不会派地面部队。伊朗民众也许恨现政权，但革命卫队手里有枪，就算受创也能镇压任何起义。
 
@Tom Ryugo
So despite what Trump says or thinks, the next three months plus are probably just a waste of money and a marvelous way of driving up oil prices.
 
所以不管特朗普怎么想，接下来几个月大概率只是烧钱，还顺便推高油价。
 
@Lee Jacobson
The oil prices are clearly temporarily up due to insurance issues due to the straights of Hormuz that are now being temporarily guaranteed by the US.
 
油价上涨只是暂时的，是霍尔木兹海峡保险成本上升导致的，现在美国已经在临时保障航道安全。
 
@Lee Jacobson
Trump has tremendously reduced Iran’s missiles, nukes, navy, and ability to engage in proxy war. Even if the war stopped today, it would be a huge success.
 
特朗普重创了伊朗的导弹、核能力、海军和代理人战争能力。就算现在停火，也是巨大成功。
 
@Mike B
Iran had no nukes—Trump destroyed them about 6 months ago, remember? As for huge success, more like a huge $1 billion per day waste of money.
 
伊朗本来就没有核武器，特朗普六个月前就 “摧毁” 过一次，你忘了？还说巨大成功，这明明是每天烧 10 亿美元的闹剧。
 
@Mike B
The whole middle east is in chaos, and the same old regime rules Iran, complete with their extensive terrorist network. They are sending drones to bomb several Arab countries, a capacity that can continue for months or years.
 
整个中东一片混乱，伊朗还是那个政权，恐怖网络完好无损。他们还在用无人机轰炸阿拉伯国家，这种能力能持续好几年。
 
@Mike B
We’ve also given Trump’s buddy Putin a boost as the price of oil rises, while Russia tells Iran where to target American troops.
 
油价上涨还帮了特朗普好友普京，俄罗斯还在给伊朗指点打击美军的目标。
 
@Mike B
And don’t forget the slowing of the US economy and loss of jobs plus higher inflation. All in all, a bloody fucking mess, and that’s just the start.
 
还有美国经济放缓、失业、通胀高企。总而言之，这就是一团糟，而且还只是开始。
 
@Joe Hansen
All Manufactured by Trump! What an idiot!
 
全是特朗普搞出来的！真是个白痴！
 
@Colin Riegels
This question is weird on a couple of levels. Iran was attacked, not the attacker. I can’t imagine that it was any part of their thinking that if the US and Israel launched attacks on them, that other countries would join the fight - or that it would be appropriate to call it “their” fight.
 
这个问题在好几个层面都很奇怪。伊朗是被攻击的一方，不是攻击者。我无法想象他们会觉得，美以打击他们时，别的国家会参战，这也根本算不上 “伊朗的战争”。
 
@Colin Riegels
It isn’t clear exactly which countries would ally with Iran in this regard. Pretty much every country in the Gulf either loathes Iran already, or is agnostic.
 
真看不出有哪些国家会帮伊朗。海湾国家几乎全都讨厌伊朗，就算不讨厌也保持中立。
 
@Colin Riegels
Iran has been a constant agitator in the region, stirring up trouble in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza and Saudi. The idea that any of these nations would be anything other than delighted to see Iran get smacked in the mouth is wholly.
 
伊朗一直在地区捣乱，搅乱伊拉克、也门、黎巴嫩、加沙、沙特。这些国家不偷着乐就不错了，根本不可能帮伊朗。
 
@Colin Riegels
Presumably they’d also be forgetting that most Muslims hate Iran…
 
他们怕是忘了，大多数穆斯林国家也讨厌伊朗。
 
@Nathan
I’m in my twenties living in London, most of my Muslim friends are praying for the Iranian regime.
 
我二十多岁住在伦敦，我的穆斯林朋友大多都在盼着伊朗政权倒台。
 
@Daqing (Michael) Yu
Some Iran people support the current regime and hope it will last forever, and some oppose the regime and are willing to fight to overthrow it. I guess few Iran people want to see their country bombed, leaders killed, by some foreign countries.
 
有些伊朗人支持现政权，希望它长久；有些反对，想推翻它。但我想很少有人愿意看到自己国家被外国轰炸、领导人被杀。
 
@Nathan
It seems obvious that most Iranians are happy that military targets have been bombed.
 
很明显，大多数伊朗人对军事目标被轰炸感到高兴。
 
@Joe Perriman
And if they ever get into power they won’t be your “friends” for much longer.
 
就算反对派上台，也当不了多久你们的 “朋友”。
 
@Noreen O'Donovan Hage
Most Arabs …
 
大多数阿拉伯人……
 
@Matt Williams
That's probably because most of the people in Iran aren't Arabs, which is something that we in the West often tend to forget.
 
可能因为伊朗人大多不是阿拉伯人，这一点西方人经常忘记。
 
@Abdullah
Thats not actual any longer. Israels GENOCIDE in Palestine made many Muslims question why Iran is the only muslim country fighting against islams enemy and why the gulf states seems to be getting closer to Israel.
 
现在不一样了。以色列在巴勒斯坦的所作所为，让很多穆斯林疑惑，为什么只有伊朗在对抗伊斯兰的敌人，而海湾国家却在靠近以色列。
 
@Abdullah
Their view of shia Muslims has changed drastically and many of them now support Iran even though they are shia Muslims.
 
他们对什叶派的看法彻底改变，很多人现在支持伊朗，哪怕伊朗是什叶派。
 
@Abdullah
Thats why the gulf states are locked. If they attack iran their population will question their faith and see them as traitors if they dont do anything they will see them as incompetent as protectors.
 
所以海湾国家现在进退两难。打击伊朗，民众会觉得他们背叛信仰；不行动，又会被认为无能护教。
 
@Abdullah
The only thing they can do is basically just use their air defences. This war have actually brought the iranian people closer to their government.
 
他们现在只能启动防空系统。这场战争反而让伊朗民众更团结在政府周围。
 
@Chaitanya Pinneboina
Even if Iran wasn't the trouble maker in the region, its neighbours wouldn't have supported it anyway as a matter of religious principle.
 
就算伊朗不是地区麻烦制造者，邻国出于宗教立场也不会支持它。
 
@Rick B
Almost all the other Mideast countries are predominantly Sunni Islam, while Iran is Shia and those sects haven’t gotten along since Muhammad died in 632.
 
中东其他国家几乎都是逊尼派，伊朗是什叶派，这两派从 632 年穆罕默德去世后就一直不和。
 
@Karl
I don’t think Iran was expecting any major outside assistance and there is no real evidence to suggest otherwise
 
我认为伊朗没指望外界大规模援助，也没有证据表明他们有这种想法。
 
@Adam Daymude
I disagree on one point. Iran has been the attacker for decades. They know they can’t wage full on conflict against the US and Israel so they’ve conducted “guerilla” warfare throughout the region.
 
我有一点不同意。伊朗几十年来一直是攻击者。他们知道没法和美以正面开战，所以在整个地区搞代理人游击战。
 
@Adam Daymude
They’ve propped up terrorist organizations that have attacked us too many times to count, all while living within their own borders assuming they’d never receive their due comeuppance.
 
他们扶持恐怖组织，无数次袭击西方，自己躲在国内，以为永远不会遭报应。
 
@Adam Daymude
Their stated mission is death to Israel and the great Satan and they’ve done all they could to make that happen. Iran was attacked because they’ve been attacking us for decades.
 
他们公开口号就是 “摧毁以色列、打倒大撒旦”，而且一直在付诸行动。伊朗被打击，是因为他们先攻击了我们几十年。
 
@Adam Daymude
I loathe the orange clown in office, but this time, he made the right call.
 
我讨厌那个在任的橙色小丑，但这次他做了正确的决定。
 
@Justin
Americans truly deserve Trump. Both of them are made for each other.
 
美国人真就配得上特朗普，他俩绝配。
 
@Chris
Time will tell. I'm sure we don't have all the information.
 
时间会证明一切，我们肯定还没掌握全部信息。
 
@Steeve Chaboussie
There's still Russia and China, though. But Russia is up to its neck in a war itself, and China, while they have started to rattle their sabers a bit in the general sense, don't look ready to jump into anything military yet.
 
不过还有俄罗斯和中国。但俄罗斯自己深陷战争，中国虽然偶尔放放狠话，暂时还没准备好军事介入。
 
@Kim Branker
I'm very glad these other countries have not wanted to get involved. Iran had a chance to take the off-ramp. They chose to stay on. Maybe they never thought we would take action. A very bad assumption is that it is the case.
 
我很庆幸其他国家不想介入。伊朗本来有机会收手，却选择硬扛。他们可能以为我们不会动手，这真是大错特错。
 
@Pardon my French
It isn’t clear exactly which countries would ally with Iran in this regard. It’s actually quite clear. There’s only one other country in the Middle East surrounded by their enemies, who on several different occasions have tried to destroy them.
 
你说看不出谁会帮伊朗？其实很明显。中东只有一个国家被敌人包围，还多次遭遇灭国威胁。
 
@Pardon my French
I can guarantee you that middle Eastern countries hate this country far more than Iran.
 
我敢保证，中东国家恨这个国家，远胜过恨伊朗。
 
@Steeve Chaboussie
Their constituents may, but the actual current governments seem to have transformed their hate into simple dislike at this point
 
民众也许还恨，但现在的各国政府已经把仇恨变成了普通不满。
 
@Pardon my French
They didn’t transform squat. Their cold geopolitical calculus may have led them to formalize business relationships and warmer political ones, but you’re deluding yourself if you think the past 100 years just stopped mattering.
 
他们根本没变。只是地缘政治算计让他们建立了经贸和政治关系，你要以为过去一百年的恩怨一笔勾销，那是自欺欺人。
 
@Ajax
Nope. Because Iran themselves attacked multiple Arab countries. They bombed Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait etc.
 
不可能。因为伊朗自己就轰炸过多个阿拉伯国家，沙特、阿联酋、卡塔尔、约旦、科威特等都挨过打。
 
@Ajax
No country actually is willing to help Iran and China and Russia will supply them with weapons but they aren't willing to join and fight for them.
 
没有国家真心愿意帮伊朗。中俄可能会卖武器，但绝不会参战帮他们。
 
@Ajax
What kind of person bombs their only allies and expect them to join their battles?
 
轰炸自己仅有的盟友，还指望人家帮你打仗，世界上哪有这种道理？