不，这很可能不是第三次世界大战的开始
【中美创新时报2025 年 6 月 23 日编译讯】（记者温友平编译）周六晚，美国突然袭击伊朗三处核设施，震惊全世界。但底线是：这种情况不太可能升级为世界大战。《波士顿环球报》记者詹姆斯·平德尔对此作了下述报道。
周六晚，美国突然袭击伊朗三处核设施，令全世界，尤其是美国人民，紧张不安。这也引发了一系列紧迫的问题：此举将走向何方？对伊朗意味着什么？对我又意味着什么？
诚实的答案：没有人确切知道。战争是混乱的，常常充满意想不到的后果。但基于全球的即时反应和主要参与者的战略利益，我们可以开始勾勒出未来可能如何发展的路线图。
底线是：这种情况不太可能升级为世界大战。但短期和中期风险可能会对美国人产生切实的影响。
让我们清晰地了解一下现在的情况、需要注意的事项以及这一刻对您的日常生活有何影响。
那么，第三次世界大战不是刚刚开始的吗？
所有迹象都表明，事实并非如此。周六晚间的袭击可能是美国在这场冲突中采取的最激进的——也可能是最后的——一步。
世界大战通常以双方多个大国的参与为特征，跨越大洲，涉及全球利益。但这次的情况并非如此。这是一场双边冲突（以色列与伊朗），几乎没有迹象表明它会卷入世界主要军队的行动。
在以色列方面，没有哪个大国愿意加入这场战争。欧洲主要大国、加拿大、澳大利亚、日本等都呼吁缓和局势。就连美国现在似乎也注重克制：周日新闻节目中，当被问及美国是否与伊朗开战时，副总统J.D.万斯和国务卿马可·卢比奥都回答“不”，并强调达成和平协议的必要性。
与此同时，伊朗正在意识到其真正的盟友是多么的少。尽管德黑兰与俄罗斯、中国和朝鲜保持着松散的联盟，但它们之间并没有共同防御协议或正式的军事承诺。这可不是北约。
俄罗斯和中国都呼吁保持冷静，且无意军事介入。俄罗斯正忙于乌克兰战争，与以色列的关系也由来已久，既复杂又有时合作。想想看：虽然伊朗从2022年开始向俄罗斯提供无人机用于乌克兰，但俄罗斯对哈马斯2023年10月7日袭击以色列的最初反应是同情以色列。即便如此，俄罗斯仍然与哈马斯保持着外交关系，并将自己定位为加沙地带的调解人，而非伊朗的游击队。
中国则避免直接军事冲突。其支持往往以经济投资或口头支持的形式出现。中国视伊朗为关键能源合作伙伴，但值得注意的是，中国并未谴责以色列的先发制人打击，并在美国袭击后迅速呼吁缓和局势。
所有迹象表明，即使这场冲突持续很长时间，也可能仅限于以色列和伊朗之间。
下一步是什么？
虽然长期战争可能仅限于以色列和伊朗之间，但短期内仍然存在真正的风险，尤其是伊朗可能进一步卷入美国的报复行动。
伊朗几乎肯定会以某种形式作出回应。周日，伊朗驻联合国大使在安理会表示，伊朗军方将决定“伊朗相应回应的时机、性质和规模”。但伊朗的选择有限。如果伊朗政权想要生存下去，就必须避免与美国爆发全面战争，无论以何种标准衡量，这都是一场军事上的不平衡。这一战略现实决定了伊朗可能采取的回应措施。
以下是四个：
1. 瞄准该地区的美军
约有4万名美军驻扎在伊朗导弹射程范围内，横跨伊拉克、叙利亚、约旦、沙特阿拉伯、科威特、阿联酋和阿曼。2020年，特朗普总统下令暗杀伊朗将军卡西姆·苏莱曼尼，伊朗随即对驻伊拉克美军基地发动导弹袭击，造成100多人脑外伤，但无人死亡。
据报道，此次美国警告伊朗，任何针对美国人员的袭击都将引发额外后果。值得注意的是：目前尚无确凿证据表明，在当地时间周六凌晨2:30左右发生的美国袭击中，有伊朗人丧生。
2.扰乱霍尔木兹海峡
这条狭窄的水道——最窄处也只有90英里宽——是全球石油运输的重要动脉。全球约四分之一的石油出口都要经过这里。
伊朗海军有能力在海峡布雷，扰乱全球市场，并可能将美国驱逐舰困在海湾上游。但这样做会损害伊朗自身经济，并威胁到中国的石油供应——中国高达40%的石油供应来自伊朗，途经海峡。
3. 发动网络攻击，可能借助朝鲜的帮助
朝鲜是全球网络战实力最强的国家之一，也是伊朗的默默盟友。协同网络攻击可能瞄准美国基础设施，扰乱金融市场，甚至导致美国部分地区电网或互联网中断。对伊朗而言，这或许比常规军事回应更具吸引力。
4. 利用恐怖分子代理人在美国境内发动袭击
对伊朗来说，最危险——或许也是最诱人的——选项是启动其资助的恐怖网络，对美国本土发动袭击。伊朗可以否认参与，保留合理的推诿。如果伊朗公开宣称对此事负责，北约支持的军事回应可能会随之而来，并可能导致伊朗政权更迭。
这对你有何影响
民调显示，美国各政治派别都对再次爆发中东战争深感担忧。尽管最近采取了这些行动，但现任政府似乎也持有这种观点。与拜登总统在乌克兰问题上的立场一样，美国领导人已明确表示不会在中东部署地面部队。
如果情况确实如此，大规模部署或征兵的风险就很小。
诚然，恐怖主义或网络攻击的威胁确实存在，但这种情况已经持续了几十年。大规模的网络攻击可能会破坏您访问银行账户或使用信用卡购物的能力，但此类风险早已存在，并受到美国情报部门的密切监控。
最直接的影响将是经济：如果伊朗干扰霍尔木兹海峡，哪怕只是短暂的干扰，天然气价格都可能飙升。这将波及整个经济，导致整体成本上升。
目前的指导原则是：保持冷静并加满油箱。
题图：6月21日星期六，华盛顿白宫外，人们通过手机观看特朗普总统的讲话。图片来源：ERIC LEE/NYT
附原英文报道：
No, this likely isn’t the start of WWIII. But here’s what to watch next and how it all can impact you.
By James Pindell Globe Staff,Updated June 23, 2025, 4:20 a.m.
People watched President Trump deliver his remarks on their phones as they stand outside the White House in Washington, on Saturday, June 21.ERIC LEE/NYT
The surprise US strike on three Iranian nuclear facilities Saturday night put the world on edge, especially Americans. It also raised urgent questions: Where is this heading? And what could it mean for the country? What could it mean for me?
The honest answer: no one knows for sure. War is chaotic and often full of unintended consequences. But based on the immediate global response and the strategic interests of key players, we can begin to sketch a roadmap for how this could play out.
The bottom line: This situation is unlikely to escalate into a world war. But there are short- and medium-term risks that could affect Americans in tangible ways.
Here’s a clear-eyed look at where things stand now, what to watch for, and how this moment could matter to your daily life.
So, World War III didn’t just begin?
All signs say it has not. Saturday night’s attacks may be the most aggressive — and possibly final — step the United States takes in this conflict.
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
World wars are typically defined by the involvement of multiple great powers on both sides, spanning continents, and with global stakes. That is not the case here. This is a bilateral conflict (Israel vs. Iran) with few signs it will draw in the world’s major militaries.
On Israel’s side, no major powers are lining up to join the fight. The major European powers, Canada, Australia, Japan, and others are all calling for de-escalation. Even the United States now appears focused on restraint: Asked on Sunday news shows whether the U.S. is at war with Iran, both Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said “no,” and spoke instead about the need for a peace agreement.
Iran, meanwhile, is learning just how few real allies it has. While Tehran maintains a loose alignment with Russia, China, and North Korea, there is no mutual defense pact or formal military commitment among them. This is not NATO.
Russia and China have both called for calm and show no appetite for military involvement. Russia, preoccupied with its war in Ukraine, also has a long, complicated — sometimes cooperative — relationship with Israel. Consider: While Iran began supplying drones to Russia for use in Ukraine starting in 2022, Russia’s initial response to Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel was sympathetic to Israel. That said, Russia still maintains diplomatic ties with Hamas and casts itself as a mediator in Gaza and not an Iranian partisan.
China, for its part, avoids direct military conflicts. Its support tends to come in the form of economic investment or rhetorical backing. China views Iran as a key energy partner, but it notably did not condemn Israel’s preemptive strikes and quickly called for de-escalation following the US attack.
All signs suggest that, even if this becomes a prolonged conflict, it is likely to remain limited to Israel and Iran.
What’s next?
While a long-term war may stay confined to Israel and Iran, the short-term still holds real risk, especially for further Iranian retaliation involving the United States.
Iran will almost certainly respond in some form. On Sunday, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations told the body’s Security Council his country’s military will decide the “timing, nature and scale of Iran’s proportionate response.” But its options are constrained. If the regime wants to survive, it must avoid full-scale war with the U.S., a military mismatch by any measure. That strategic reality shapes the menu of likely responses.
Here are four:
1. Target US troops in the region
Roughly 40,000 American troops are stationed within missile range of Iran across Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, and Oman. When President Trump ordered the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020, Iran responded with missile strikes on US bases in Iraq, resulting in over 100 traumatic brain injuries but no deaths.
This time, the U.S. has reportedly warned Iran that any attack on American personnel will trigger additional consequences. And it’s worth noting: there’s no confirmed evidence that any Iranians were killed in the US strikes on Saturday, which occurred around 2:30 a.m. local time.
2. Disrupt the Strait of Hormuz
This narrow waterway — just 90 miles wide at its tightest — is a vital artery for global oil transport. About a quarter of the world’s exported oil passes through it.
Iran’s navy has the ability to mine the strait, disrupting global markets and potentially trapping American destroyers in the upper Gulf. But doing so would hurt Iran’s own economy and threaten China’s oil supply, up to 40 percent of which comes from Iran via the strait.
3. Launch a cyberattack, possibly with North Korean help
North Korea is one of the world’s most capable cyber warfare actors and a quiet ally of Iran. A coordinated cyberattack could target US infrastructure, disrupt financial markets, or even knock out power grids or internet access in parts of the country. That may be a more attractive option for Iran than a conventional military response.
4. Use terrorist proxies to strike inside the United States
The most dangerous — and perhaps most tempting — option for Iran would be to activate terrorist networks it funds to launch an attack on US soil. Iran could deny involvement, preserving plausible deniability. If it openly claimed responsibility, a NATO-backed military response could follow, potentially leading to regime change in Iran.
How this affects you
Polling shows Americans across the political spectrum are deeply wary of another Middle East war. The current administration seems to share that sentiment, in spite of these recent actions. Like President Biden’s stance on Ukraine, leaders have clearly stated there will be no deployment of US troops on the ground.
If that holds, there’s little risk of mass deployments or a draft.
Yes, the threat of terrorism or cyberattacks is real, but it has been for decades. A large-scale cyberattack could disrupt your ability to access bank accounts or make credit card purchases, but such risks already exist and are monitored closely by US intelligence.
The most direct impact would be economic: If Iran disrupts the Strait of Hormuz, even briefly, gas prices could surge. That would ripple through the economy, increasing costs across the board.
The guiding principle at the moment: keep calm and fill up the gas tank.
