What would Sun Tzu and Clausewitz say about the Iran war? | DW News

德国之声新闻：孙子与克劳塞维茨会如何看待伊朗局势？

Are the US., Israel and Iran repeating the very mistakes history warned us about? Historian Hew Strachan breaks down what Clausewitz and Sun Tzu would say about today’s crisis — and the risk of uncontrolled escalation.

美国、以色列与伊朗是否正在重蹈历史警示过的覆辙？历史学家休・斯特劳钦拆解分析，克劳塞维茨与孙子会如何看待当下的危机，以及局势失控升级的风险。

Have you ever heard of the phrase “war is the continuation of politics by other means”? How about “appear weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak”? They were said by two of history's most well-known military strategists: the Prussian Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote the massive book titled On War in the 19th century, and China's Sun Tzu, who lived more than 2,000 years earlier in the fifth century BC and is known for his The Art of War text.

But what does any of that have to do with the war in Iran? Quite simply, generals around the world can never seem to stop quoting these two figures. Today's top military leaders make decisions and often attribute their thinking to Clausewitz or Sun Tzu. The two are taught in military academies around the world, including at West Point. They actually contribute a lot to 21st-century thinking about how to conduct war, why you'd want to start a war, or why and when you should stop.

We're going to look at the past few days of the Iran conflict with these two strategists in mind, with the help of Professor Hugh Strachan of the University of St. Andrews. He's a military historian who has served as an adviser at defense institutions. I started out by asking him what these two thinkers say about the nature of war.

>> The first thing is that Clausewitz would say—does say—is that insofar as war has its own dynamic, it tends to escalate. It will logically go to extremes because killing people actually creates a division in terms of how we behave toward each other. So you cannot assume that a war will remain limited in the way in which it's conducted. He moderates that because obviously he allows for the possibility that policy will set limited objectives and that will constrain the war. But he does not see war as limited of itself. So, it might be easy to start a war, but where it goes from there is anyone's guess.

你是否听过“战争无非是政治通过另一种手段的延续”这句话？还有“实则虚之，虚则实之”？这两句话出自历史上两位最著名的军事战略家：19世纪著有鸿篇巨制《战争论》的普鲁士军事家卡尔·冯·克劳塞维茨，以及生活在两千多年前公元前5世纪、以《孙子兵法》闻名于世的中国军事家孙子。

可这些与伊朗局势又有什么关系呢？很简单，世界各地的将领似乎始终都在引用这两个人的思想。如今的高级军事指挥官在做决策时，常常将自己的思路归因于克劳塞维茨或孙子。包括美国西点军校在内，全球各大军校都在讲授他们的理论。他们对21世纪如何开展战争、为何发动战争，以及为何、何时结束战争的思考，都产生了深远影响。

我们借助这两位战略家的视角，解读近几日的伊朗冲突。本期嘉宾是圣安德鲁斯大学的休·斯特劳钦教授，他是军事历史学家，也曾担任多个国防机构的顾问。我首先问他，这两位思想家如何看待战争的本质。

 首先，克劳塞维茨的观点——他一贯的观点是：战争一旦形成自身的逻辑，就极易升级。它在逻辑上会走向极端，因为杀戮行为会彻底撕裂人与人之间的相处方式。因此，你不能想当然地认为一场战争在实施过程中会始终保持有限规模。他对此也有所修正，因为他承认政治可以设定有限目标，从而约束战争。但他并不认为战争本身具有天然的局限性。所以，发动战争或许容易，但战争接下来会走向何方，无人能够预料。

US President Donald Trump has said he imagines the fighting could last four or five weeks. And sure, Sun Tzu wrote about how speed is critical to warfighting, but the Chinese philosopher also warned that “The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought.” Has Trump made all his calculations?

>> The buildup has not been long. Whether it was the intervention in Venezuela, which really nobody saw coming, this buildup of course had to be more transparent because it took time to get the US fleet and the aircraft carriers to the Gulf and so on. But those were more flagged up, but the presumption was—particularly a man who talked about peace—that he'd be ready to go on talking about peace rather than engage in a conflict.

I think the real issue here is the United States does not have the capacity to sustain this over the long term. And if the Iranians are still in the fight in two weeks' time, then exactly where is the United States going to find a way out of this? And in that case, it would have been better to go on talking. And even if there is a collapse of the regime and a provisional government of some sort is installed in Iran within a two-week window, precisely how is that provisional government to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian people when it will be seen to have been imposed upon them from outside? So I don't see that as likely to produce a good answer or a good outcome.

It's very striking that the rhetoric coming out of the United States has been, “Well, this will be brief. It'll be limited.” That's obviously what they're trying to do, understandably, having made the decision to go to war. But that is not possibly in Iran's interests for it to be limited because this is now about the survival of the regime. It's therefore an exstential conflict, and they have every interest in escalating it—even at the expense of their immediate neighbors—with the consequences that might bring. So if one side is fighting this as a limited engagement that is not exstential, Israel might see it very differently. For Israel, I suspect it would see it as exstential. But the United States is not keen to do that, and that is actually historically where the United States has got itself in trouble: because it's not being prepared to commit the resources to a war that has become exstential for its opponent.

Simply to limit the means you're using in this war when you have very open-ended objectives means you're going to overpromise and underdeliver, I suspect—particularly when what you're trying to do is effectively remove the regime and have no clear idea about what a post-Islamic Republic structure would look like.

美国总统唐纳德·特朗普曾表示，他预计这场冲突可能会持续四到五周。诚然，孙子在兵法中强调兵贵神速，但这位中国先哲也警示道：“夫未战而庙算胜者，得算多也”——能打胜仗的将领，必在战前于庙堂周密筹划、反复推演。特朗普是否已完成所有战略推演？

美军的战前部署时间并不长。此前干预委内瑞拉时，行动高度保密、出人意料；而此次向波斯湾调集舰队与航母，因耗时较长，部署过程相对公开。但外界普遍认为，一贯倡导和平的特朗普，更可能延续外交谈判，而非轻易动武。

我认为核心问题在于：美国缺乏长期维持战事的能力。若两周后伊朗仍在抵抗，美国打算如何收场？届时，继续谈判或许是更优选择。即便伊朗政权两周内倒台、外部扶持的临时政府上台，该政府又如何在伊朗民众心中获得合法性？它只会被视为外部强加的产物。因此，我不认为这会带来理想结局。

美国官方反复强调“战事将短暂、有限”，这是其宣战后的合理表态。但对伊朗而言，战争关乎政权存亡，是一场生存之战，他们绝无理由接受有限冲突，反而有充分动机推动局势升级——即便波及周边邻国、引发连锁反应。若一方将冲突视为有限对抗，另一方却视作生死存亡之战，以色列与美国的立场便会出现根本分歧：以色列大概率视其为生存之战，而美国不愿投入相应资源。历史反复证明，当美国不愿为对手眼中的“生存之战”投入足够资源时，往往会陷入困境。

若战争目标模糊、意图开放，却刻意限制作战手段，结果必然是承诺过多、兑现不足——尤其当目标是推番政权，却对后伊 斯兰共和国的治理架构毫无清晰规划时。

>> That's why there's been so much criticism of this war in the United States from both Democrats and Republicans. Those old enough remember US adventurism in Iraq a generation earlier, a war that most Americans today consider a disaster. One of Clausewitz's lines that was regularly quoted in 2003—both at the time and in the aftermath, especially by American commentators—was his advice: “First judge the sort of war in which you're going to get engaged.”

And I don't see much sign that there's been much attempt to think about that. There's clearly been a desire to use both maritime and air power only, not to have boots on the ground, to have a devastating effect in short order—modeled presumably on Israel's apparent success in using force with devastating effect in short order in relation to its neighbors since the October 2023 attacks. And that may possibly deliver. That's the hope, presumably, but experience suggests that's not how it's going to be.

>> And what Hugh told me is that taking on Iran will be a much bigger challenge than even attacking Iraq.

>> And Iran actually presents a far greater problem than Iraq ever did. And I think the real problem too here is that the real problem in 2003 was not fully understanding the country, being too reliant on Iraqi exles for views about what the situation was in the country, not having a proper idea of what you were trying to create after achieving a quick military victory. And all the signs so far, it seems to me, that those conditions continue to apply in a country that is much bigger, has a much greater sense of its own past, and sees itself as a power that goes back 2,000 to 3,000 years.

I don't see how this ends well. Hugh and frankly many other security analysts over the past few days have said this: that the current conflict won't end well and that all countries involved face a lose-lose situation.

Well, I can't help it as a reporter covering international security—and especially China—to make this observation: something that Sun Tzu said, “The best way to win a war is to do so without ever fighting.”

这就是为何这场战争在美国国内遭到了民 主党与共和党两党的广泛批评。上了年纪的人还记得，一代人之前美国在伊拉克的军事冒险，如今大多数美国人都认为那是一场灾难。2003 年伊拉克战争期间及战后，美国评论人士经常引用克劳塞维茨的一句名言：“首先要判断你即将卷入的是一场什么样的战争。”

而我并没有看到多少迹象表明，美方对此进行过认真思考。他们显然只想动用海空力量，不派地面部队，希望在短时间内造成毁灭性效果——这大概是在效仿以色列自 2023 年 10 月袭击以来，对周边国家短期内以武力达成重创效果的模式。这或许能奏效，或许是他们的期望，但历史经验表明，事情往往不会这样发展。

休教授告诉我，对付伊朗，难度将远超当年攻打伊拉克

伊朗实际上是一个比伊拉克棘手得多的对手。我认为真正的问题在于：2003 年美国的失误，是对伊拉克缺乏充分了解，过度依赖伊拉克流亡者提供的信息，在迅速取得军事胜利后，对要建立什么样的政权毫无清晰规划。

而在我看来，如今所有迹象都表明，同样的问题正在重演，而且对象是一个国土更辽阔、历史认同感更强、自视为拥有两三千年文明传承的大国。

我看不到这场冲突会有好的结局。休和过去几天里许多其他安全分析人士都指出：当前这场冲突不会有好结果，所有卷入其中的国家都将面临双输局面。

作为一名长期报道国际安全、尤其关注中国议题的德国记者，我不禁想到孙子的一句话：“不战而屈人之兵，善之善者也。”

以下是各国网友的评论：

VonGoldfinger
“If you can fool the Americans to fight for you, you can fight a thousand wars- Stein Tzu”

“要是能骗美国人替你打仗，你就能打无数场仗——斯坦子”

HansHenrikMarheim
"Put a stick in a hornets nest and stir it around. You will get a tremendous win". Donald Tzu.

“拿根棍子捅进马蜂窝搅一搅，你就能大获全胜。”——川普·子

holgerfriedrichsohn6894
"When a king feels that his people are about to rebel. he declares war on another country." ⁃ Napoleon Bonaparte

“当君主觉得自己的百姓要造反，就会对别的国家发动战争。”——拿破仑·波拿巴

jackblack7827
"The superior strategist wins without fighting" Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“真正高明的将领，不战而屈人之兵。”——《孙子兵法》

MarioTorre
“Strategic mistake” is when you have a strategy and it turns out to be a bad one. There’s no strategy here.

“战略失误”是你有战略，但结果很烂。而现在这种情况，是根本就没有战略。

Dimension_Rift
China actually following SunTzu, Do nothing, win.

中国是真的在按孙子兵法做事：什么都不做，就能赢。

wayward-saint
Sun Tzu would be impressed that a country of 10 million could trick a country of 350 million into attacking a country of 90 million. He would see the country of 350 million as damn fools.

孙子要是知道，一个1000万人口的国家，能骗3.5亿人口的国家去打9000万人口的国家，肯定会很震惊。他会觉得这3.5亿人的国家蠢到家了。

ArandomIndian30
"Sun Tzu is a great guy. Runs an amazing restaurant downtown. Great guy, great place. Melania loved the Wanton soup last time we were at the Tzu's. We will not let Tzu import Chinese vinegar anymore. We are taking America back. Our farmers are glad. I am glad. We will make American vinegar, good vinegar. Mr.Tzu was told there is a 50 percent tariff on Chinese vinegar. Next question..."

“孙子这人不错，在市中心开了家超棒的餐厅。人好，地方也好。上次我们去孙子家，梅拉尼娅超爱他家的云吞汤。我们以后不让孙子进口中国醋了。我们要让美国再次伟大。农民们开心，我也开心。我们要自己做美国醋，好醋。已经跟孙子先生说了，中国醋要加50%关税。下一个问题……”

katzicael
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what your country can do for Israel."

“别问你的国家能为你做什么，要问你的国家能为以色列做什么。”

KeithGChannel
I think you’re way off here. Trump doesn’t care about Israel. He cares about his ego. This is the third country he has attempted to make a change in leadership.

我觉得你完全说错了。特朗普根本不在乎以色列，他只在乎自己的面子。这已经是他第三个想强行改朝换代的国家了。

keatkhamjornmeekanon7616
Trump listens to neither of them.

特朗普谁的话都不听。

ignorasmus
What you failed to recognise, is that the REAL war is against the files.

你们没看明白，真正的战争，是针对那些文件的。

davisoneill
"Make sure 30% of global oil supply is under your enemy's rocket cover before starting a war. All your allies will love you." Donald Tzu.

“开战前，先确保全球30%的石油供应都在敌人的火箭射程里。这样你的盟友都会爱死你。”——川普·子

Charango123quena
War is just old men sending young men to die

战争，不过是老头子派年轻人去送死。

WusterAZ
Remember Afghanistan? The war to rid of the Taliban? How many years later and who is in charge of Afghanistan now?

还记得阿富汗吗？那场要消灭塔利班的战争？这么多年过去了，现在是谁在掌权？

mecongberlin
Sun Tzu, Clausewitz? Never heard of them, don’t know them, I have nothing to do with them, never met them. But everybody says, they are great guys

孙子？克劳塞维茨？没听过，不认识，跟我没关系，也没见过。但大家都说，这两人很厉害。

JTan74
Orange Taco is heeding Sun Tzu in this regard. But he only follows the "...appear strong when you are weak." part.

那个“橙色塔可”倒是在学孙子兵法，可他只学会了一句：“弱的时候要装强。”

fahmad7194
Trump listens to equally deranged Musk Tzu

特朗普只听跟他一样疯的“马斯克·子”的话。

StimParavane
Yes, I am sure you are much more intelligent than Elon Musk. I assume you are a legend...in your own mind.

是啊，我相信你肯定比埃隆·马斯克聪明得多。我猜你是个传奇……只在你自己心里。

baldndesi
China is quietly wng all across the globe without fighting

中国不动刀兵，正在全世界悄悄赢。

user-hr4ey5jr4x
Unfortunately the dear trump doesn’t read or books or learn from history

可惜啊，亲爱的特朗普不看书，也不吸取历史教训。

fiddle-q3l
I wouldn’t be surprised if he replaces these two books with The Art of the Deal at West Point.

就算他在西点军校把这两本书换成《交易的艺术》，我都不奇怪。

duelenigma7732
This is the stupidest war ever, don’t let your friends get you into fights.

这是史上最蠢的战争。别让所谓的朋友把你拖进战争。

pizizhangsg1319
They should teach the politicians rather than the soldiers at west point.

这些兵法不该教给西点的士兵，该教给政客。

joeb5327
I also like Mike Tyson's explanation of how plans in war change -- "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

我也喜欢迈克·泰森对战争计划的解释：“人人都有计划，直到脸上挨了一拳。”

nephets4
I like that comment, the best way to win a war is by not fighting, so, what we really needed was some one who is an expert deal maker to make deal instead of war?

我喜欢这句：赢战争最好的办法就是不打仗。那我们真正需要的，不就是一个会谈判的人，用协议代替战争吗？

sutanugupta2836
Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran...do we need to add that when you are ignorant of History, you are bound to repeat your failures again and again and again?

朝鲜、古巴、越南、利比亚、阿富汗、伊拉克，现在又轮到伊朗，非要说吗？不懂历史，就只会一次又一次重蹈覆辙。

继续阅读：孙子兵法   伊朗

此文由 三泰虎 编辑，未经允许不得转载！：首页 > 资讯 » 德媒读《孙子兵法》，孙子会如何看待伊朗局势