
美副总统与国务卿就伊朗及以色列问题现分歧,白宫否认裂痕
万斯与鲁比奥在黎巴嫩战事、对伊谈判基调上显露差异,折射共和党内外交路线之争,但官方坚称政府团结一致。
上周,美国副总统万斯与国务卿鲁比奥就伊朗战争及以色列军事行动发表不同调门的言论,尽管白宫和国务院极力否认存在政策分歧。万斯在白宫批评以色列对贝鲁特民用基础设施的轰炸,称其破坏美国主导的和平努力;鲁比奥则在访问海湾国家期间,为以色列在黎巴嫩的军事行动辩护,称其为对真主党袭击的正当回应。这一公开的语调差异,发生在美伊于6月17日签署初步和平协议之后,正值华盛顿试图向盟友和对手展示统一阵线之际。
据白宫和国务院发言人表示,整个政府“百分之百”站在特朗普总统身后,不存在任何分歧。但华盛顿政策圈层的一些分析人士指出,万斯与鲁比奥代表了共和党内部两种竞争性的外交传统。万斯在参议院时期及就任前多次批评对外战争浪费生命与金钱,此次在瑞士与伊朗官员会谈后,他乐观地提出海湾国家可资助伊朗重建,并透露美方已邀请伊朗情报官员担任与五角大楼的沟通联络人。鲁比奥则长期被视为外交鹰派,主张对伊朗、俄罗斯等采取更强硬立场。他在海湾地区明确表示,不会要求盟友为伊朗重建出资,并强调任何协议都必须“铁定”保护美国及其盟友的利益。
这种差异在以色列和海湾地区引发不同解读。据《耶路撒冷邮报》等报道,万斯的批评令部分以色列人士不安,而鲁比奥的辩护则受到欢迎。海湾阿拉伯国家则对美伊协议可能过于慷慨感到担忧,鲁比奥的安抚之行意在缓解这些疑虑。此外,据巴西媒体分析,特朗普政府还面临霍尔木兹海峡通航安全、黎巴嫩真主党与以色列的平行冲突等挑战,这些都可能影响协议的落实。对于亚洲和全球能源市场而言,霍尔木兹海峡的稳定至关重要,任何局势升级都可能冲击石油供应。
万斯与鲁比奥均被视为2028年总统选举的潜在候选人,此次分歧被外界视为共和党未来路线之争的预演:一方是倾向军事干预的“新保守主义”,另一方是主张收缩的“美国优先”民粹力量。据路透社/益普索民调,仅52%的共和党人认为当前冲突使美国处于更强地位,显示党内分裂。目前,美伊谈判仍在继续,后续步骤包括伊朗是否接受对其核计划的有效核查、霍尔木兹海峡能否保持开放,以及黎巴嫩局势是否降温。白宫表示,特朗普政府的目标是确保伊朗永远无法拥有核武器,并恢复黎巴嫩政府对其全部领土的主权。
| 以色列媒体 | +0.30 | aligned |
|---|---|---|
| 阿拉伯黎凡特—马格里布媒体 | −0.60 | critical |
| 阿拉伯海湾媒体 | +0.40 | aligned |
| 大西洋/英语圈媒体 | −0.20 | neutral |
Israel cautiously welcomes the CENTCOM-IRGC dialogue channel but reiterates its determination not to yield ground in Lebanon and to maintain freedom of military action.
The Israeli narrative contrasts the American diplomatic opening with Israeli military firmness, creating a hierarchy where security trumps diplomacy.
It omits Hezbollah's criticisms and the Lebanese perspective, as well as the differences between Vance and Rubio that could weaken US-Israel unity.
Hezbollah and the resistance forces declare a new phase of confrontation, while Netanyahu confirms the occupation: Lebanese sovereignty is trampled and the international community remains silent.
The narrative personifies the Lebanese state as a victim and resistance as the only bulwark, contrasting the legitimacy of sovereignty with Israeli brute force.
It omits Vance's diplomatic initiatives and the willingness to dialogue with Iran, as well as Rubio's criticisms that could show US divisions.
The Gulf states align with the United States to repel Iranian threats and support the agreement that marginalizes Hezbollah, reaffirming the need for a regional order without interference.
The narrative builds an implicit alliance between the Gulf and the US against Iran, using the Iranian threat as glue to legitimize the agreement with Israel.
It omits Hezbollah's criticisms and the Iranian perspective, as well as the differences between Vance and Rubio that could weaken the American position.
The United States strikes Iranian positions to defend freedom of navigation, while diplomats work to salvage the ceasefire and restore stability.
The Atlantic narrative justifies military action as a proportionate response to aggression, using the language of international law and deterrence to legitimize the use of force.
It omits Hezbollah's statements and the Lebanese perspective, as well as Vance's criticisms that could show internal US divisions.