「不战不和」的危险游戏,美伊对赌谁先撑不住?

marsbitPublicado a 2026-04-27Actualizado a 2026-04-27

编者按:当停火不再通向和平,冲突只是换了一种方式延续。

这篇报道呈现的是一种典型的「中间状态」:没有全面战争,也没有明确协议,美伊关系被卡在「不战不和」的僵局中。表面上的克制,并不意味着风险降低,反而让局势更难判断——既没有稳定的预期,也缺乏推动缓和的动力。

在这一结构下,双方的策略逐渐收敛为同一个逻辑:等待对方先撑不住。谈判被反复搁置,让步被视为风险,时间成为唯一可以动用的筹码。但这种以消耗为核心的博弈,并不会自动导向结果,只会不断积累压力。

这种压力一方面体现在伊朗国内——通胀、产业受损与社会承压正在加剧;另一方面,也通过霍尔木兹海峡这样的关键节点,向全球能源与市场传导不确定性。局部的僵持,正在产生外溢效应。

真正的问题在于,这种「维持现状」看似安全,却缺乏出口。当没有人愿意先动时,僵局本身就成为风险来源——而这种没有结果的对峙,往往比短暂的冲突更难收场。

以下为原文:

随着美伊和平谈判计划——至少就目前而言——宣告破裂,德黑兰与华盛顿正陷入一种不战不和的尴尬僵局,双方都希望在这场事关全球经济的重大对峙中比对方撑得更久。

分析人士表示,伊朗官员似乎相信,他们能比特朗普总统更长久地承受战争带来的经济痛苦。但他们同样担忧,若谈判失去势头,伊朗将持续处于遭受美国或以色列打击的威胁之下。

"现在发生的事,有点类似于我们在那场十二天战争结束时的处境——战争结束了,但没有任何永久性安排,"伊朗前届政府副总统、德黑兰大学政治学家萨桑·卡里米如此评价去年六月的以伊战争。

上周末,伊朗著名保守派报纸《呼罗珊报》刊发了一篇文章,并被多家伊朗媒体转载,将当前局面描述为"具有相当风险的战略僵局"。

"双方都从全面战争的代价中退了一步,但都没有超越武力与压力的逻辑,"文章写道。这种状态"可能比短期战争本身更为危险"。

由巴基斯坦斡旋的停火谈判重启努力举步维艰,折射出本月早些时候美以对伊轰炸以停火告终以来的整体态势。双方都声称自己占据了上风。特朗普似乎也相信,美国能比伊朗更长久地承受战争带来的经济痛苦——双方互相封锁霍尔木兹海峡,局面胶着。

结果是,双方都不愿作出让步,以推动谈判向前推进。

特朗普上周六叫停了派遣其特使史蒂夫·威特科夫及女婿贾里德·库什纳前往巴基斯坦首都伊斯兰堡进行第二轮停火谈判的计划。他表示,伊朗人只会浪费谈判代表的时间。

伊朗高层官员则坚称,在特朗普解除他于停火协议达成后对伊朗港口实施的美国海军封锁之前,他们不会参加直接谈判。

尽管如此,伊朗最高外交官、外交部长阿巴斯·阿拉格希上周六在访问巴基斯坦后,转赴阿曼出席会议,随后于周日返回巴基斯坦。据伊朗官方媒体报道,他定于本周晚些时候飞往俄罗斯,届时将与巴基斯坦方面举行第二次会谈。

除伊斯兰堡——未来一轮谈判的预定举办地——之外,伊朗人认为与波斯湾国家阿曼协调至关重要。阿曼是另一个国土沿战略要地霍尔木兹海峡分布的国家,对于达成协议不可或缺。

前伊朗官员卡里米敦促伊朗现任领导层把握当下时机,与美国就整体协议框架作出系统性阐述——从伊朗的让步,到其最终诉求,再到地区和平协议的愿景。

但在伊朗国内,"维持现状是眼下政治上最保守的行为方式,"他警告说,"因为任何改变都会引发一种可能:若计划失败,将来遭到追责。"

伊朗同样仍然相信,在经济层面,"它可以等待特朗普,至少在未来数周的时间跨度内——事实上,海峡的封锁对特朗普造成的破坏,比对伊朗人的更大,"总部位于伦敦的研究机构布尔斯与巴扎尔基金会首席执行官埃斯凡迪亚尔·巴特曼格利吉如此表示。

然而,伊朗经济已深陷严重危机。裁员的消息正在全国蔓延,国内石化产品和药品生产因战争冲击而告急。

伊朗最具影响力的经济类报纸《世界经济报》预测,年通货膨胀率在"最乐观"的达成协议情形下也可能升至 49%。报纸警告,"不战不和"的状态可能在未来数月内将通胀率推向 70%,而若战事重燃,通胀率甚至可能突破 120%,陷入恶性通胀。

尽管如此,部分经济学家估计,伊朗的威权统治者能够在当前的经济危机中撑过三至六个月。相比之下,巴特曼格利吉表示,石油生产和化肥等出口的中断,可能在数周内开始对全球经济造成更深层的冲击,进而促使特朗普推动谈判向前推进。

然而,即便伊朗能够在经济上熬过当前的僵局,他说,其战略困境依然存在。"从伊朗的立场来看,不达协议、不开战的模式,使他们处于脆弱的境地,"他说。

Lecturas Relacionadas

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbitHace 37 min(s)

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbitHace 37 min(s)

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

For years, the semiconductor equipment industry followed an unwritten "iron rule": suppliers offered steep discounts for new tool introductions (Design-in) and faced consistent price pressure during repeat orders, especially during market downturns. This long-standing buyer's market dynamic is now being upended. Recently, SK Hynix's primary equipment suppliers have reportedly requested a 3-4% price *increase*, a nearly unprecedented move. This shift is driven by a severe supply-demand imbalance fueled by the AI compute boom. Securing equipment has become an urgent arms race as chipmakers' expansion speed dictates their ability to fulfill massive AI chip orders. Key areas feeling the strain include: **TCB (Thermal Compression Bonding) Equipment:** Demand is exploding, driven by the simultaneous needs of HBM4 memory stacking, AI chip Chip-on-Substrate (C2S), and logic Chiplet Chip-on-Wafer (C2W) packaging. Players like Hanmi Semiconductor, Hanwha Semitech, and ASMPT are receiving major orders. While hybrid bonding is seen as the future, TCB remains the pragmatic choice for HBM4 mass production, with its lifecycle extended by relaxed specifications and ongoing technological upgrades. **Test Equipment Bottlenecks:** Ironically, AI-driven shortages are now crippling test equipment manufacturing. Critical components like FPGAs, Driver ICs, and CPUs face severe shortages and extended lead times (up to 52 weeks for FPGAs), as AI data center and server vendors prioritize supply. This creates a paradoxical cycle: AI chip shortages drive fab expansion, which requires more test equipment, whose production is delayed because its key parts are diverted to make AI chips. The industry is entering a broad, AI-powered upcycle. SEMI forecasts global semiconductor equipment sales to hit a record $156 billion by 2027, fueled by investment in advanced logic/foundry, HBM-driven DRAM, and advanced packaging (like CoWoS). Major players like TSMC, SK Hynix, and Micron are aggressively ramping capital expenditure. In conclusion, leading equipment vendors are no longer just selling tools; they are selling the critical capability to deliver AI-era capacity. Pricing power is shifting decisively to those with indispensable technology in key process nodes like advanced logic, HBM, and advanced packaging, rewriting the industry's traditional power structure.

marsbitHace 49 min(s)

The "Iron Rule" of Chip Equipment Is Being Broken

marsbitHace 49 min(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片