特朗普施压伊朗：无条件投降还是全面战争？

Regarding the latest developments in the Middle East situation, U.S. President Trump recently made a series of strongly worded statements on social media, drawing widespread attention from the international community.

Trump wrote on Truth Social that he would only consider reaching any agreement with Iran after Iran achieves 'unconditional surrender.'

The U.S. President made clear that he would not accept Iran's existing radical regime as a negotiating partner, demanding Tehran select a new leader 'acceptable to the White House.'

White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt further elaborated on the government's position at Friday's press conference.

She pointed out that the current military operations are expected to last four to six weeks, with the goal of 'completely destroying Iran's naval forces.'

This statement shows that the Trump administration is not eager to resolve the conflict through diplomatic channels, but rather tends to force Iran to capitulate through sustained military pressure.

It is worth noting that Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei was assassinated one week ago, leaving the country in an unprecedented leadership vacuum.

There is widespread speculation that his son Mojtaba might succeed him—this conservative figure has close ties with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

However, Trump clearly stated that such an arrangement is 'unacceptable.'

He even compared his approach to Iran to the年初突袭行动 that successfully overthrew the Maduro regime in Venezuela and publicly supported Vice President Delcy Rodríguez to take over.

Interestingly, since the conflict began, Trump has deliberately avoided using the term 'regime change.'

Some analysts believe this is because he does not want the outside world to compare this military action against Iran with the wars the U.S. previously launched in the Middle East, especially since he repeatedly criticized those wars before entering politics.

However, other senior government officials have been defending Trump.

They say the President will not let America get trapped in another prolonged conflict, like it did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When asked about the duration of the military operations at the press conference, Levitt emphasized that the authorities expect to achieve the goal within four to six weeks and that it is 'progressing smoothly.'

At the same time, Iran's situation is also far from optimistic.

After losing the Supreme Leader, Tehran faces the dual challenge of a power vacuum and military pressure.

Trump claimed that as long as Iran chooses a 'great and acceptable' new leader, the U.S. and its allies will 'tirelessly' help Iran 'return to prosperity, making its economy bigger, better, and stronger than ever.'

He also rolled out the slogan 'Make Iran Great Again,' abbreviated as MIGA.

However, whether this seemingly 'carrot and stick' strategy will work remains unknown.

Will Iran accept these clearly humiliating conditions?

How will the question of the new leader's identity be resolved?

These issues remain unresolved.

In this game, another important player is Russia.

According to sources, the Russian government provided Iran with intelligence about U.S. military deployments in the Middle East, including the specific locations of American warships and aircraft.

This news has drawn high attention in Washington.

However, the Trump administration seems unconcerned about it.

When asked about this on CBS's '60 Minutes' program, Defense Secretary Hegseth simply responded that the President 'knows very well who is contacting whom.'

In fact, the close relationship between Russia and Iran has a long history.

Over the past four years, Iran has provided Russia with thousands of Shahed drones for use by Russian forces on the Ukrainian battlefield.

In return, the U.S. has provided Ukraine with weapons and critical intelligence to help Ukrainian forces attack Russian forces.

This complex triangular relationship makes the current Middle East crisis constitute a larger geopolitical chess game.

Russian President Putin spoke with Iranian President Pezeshkian on Friday.

The Kremlin's statement said Putin expressed condolences for the deaths of Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei and other government officials and civilians in the U.S.-Israeli military strikes.

Putin reiterated Russia's position that hostilities must cease immediately and that solutions must be sought through diplomatic channels.

Pezeshkian thanked Russia for its support and provided the Russian side with a detailed update on Iran's latest situation.

The two countries agreed to maintain communication.

However, when asked whether Russia continues to maintain military cooperation with Iran, Kremlin spokesperson Peskov refused to give a direct answer.

This reserved attitude leaves much room for imagination.

As the conflict enters its second week, the situation has already shown spillover effects.

Hezbollah, supported by Iran, recently attacked Israel, triggering Israeli retaliatory strikes against Lebanon.

On Friday, powerful explosions occurred in the Beirut city area, with the Israeli military having previously ordered hundreds of thousands of residents to evacuate from southern Lebanon.

Hezbollah also issued a warning, demanding that Israelis living within five kilometers of the Lebanon border leave immediately.

Iran's counterattack actions have also affected a wider region.

Countries with U.S. military bases such as Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, the UAE, and Kuwait were all hit by drone and missile attacks.

In addition, the British military base in Cyprus was also attacked by drones on Sunday, which the British Ministry of Defense has confirmed.

Facing the escalating tensions, international mediation efforts seem to have achieved little.

The Trump administration's position is very clear: negotiations can only begin if Iran completely capitulates.

How Iran will respond to this nearly final ultimatum remains unknown.

From a broader perspective, the trajectory of this conflict will profoundly affect the entire Middle East regional landscape.

If Trump's 'maximum pressure' strategy ultimately works, Iran might be forced to accept a pro-American regime, thereby changing the regional power balance.

But if Iran chooses to resist to the end, or if strong nationalist sentiment rebounds domestically, the conflict will likely further escalate, potentially evolving into a full-scale war involving multiple countries.

At the same time, the partnership between Russia and Iran is also worth attention.

Although Putin publicly calls for a ceasefire, he actually continues to support Iran through intelligence sharing and other means.

Will this 'two-faced' approach anger the U.S. and lead to further deterioration in U.S.-Russia relations?

All these issues will gradually become clear over the coming weeks or months.