►「援助正在路上」伊朗政權最怕哪一招？拆解川普對伊朗的所有選項 ...◄中英對照|即時新聞|學習道地口語表達

And I've canceled all meetings with the Iranian officials until the senseless killing of protesters stops. And all I say to them is help is on its way. All right. There you have it. Help is on the way. Couldn't be clearer. Walter Russell Mead, distinguished historian, Wall Street Journal columnist. Trump captivates the globe. That's his column that's running today. Walter, what do you think he means? Help is on the way. How do you read it? That is very hard to say. Trump likes, President Trump likes to make news, likes to make threats, doesn't like boots on the ground. It's going to be very interesting to see how the strength of these comments translates into action. Will Israel play a role? Very hard to say right now. What role does, this is maybe an offshoot, but what role does Starlink and Elon Musk, you know, because the communications, the Internet is down in Iran, they may be firing at will. It's very hard to know how many people are being killed and prisoned, beheaded and Lord knows what else. Just seems to me that's part of it. It's like old fashioned human intelligence. We just have to, we're operating a little bit in the, you know, in the dark, aren't we? We are, and let's hope that Elon Musk is able to get Starlink active there so that the protesters can coordinate their actions and so that the rest of the world can find out what's happening in real time. To me, one of the extraordinary things is with maybe tens of thousands of people shot down in cold blood. Where are the humanitarian demonstrations? Where are the, where are the human rights organizations? We're not actually hearing very much about this. What I mean, optimally, optimally, this should come from within. But, you know, in your respected ways, how, what, how do you handicap the odds that America may have to, you know, have a second military pass at Iran? I think it's unlikely, although, you know, in these revolutionary situations, you never really know, nobody knows what's going to happen. But I think on balance, it's unlikely that the sheer protests will be enough to overthrow this regime. These people are tough. They've been murdering people since 1979. When they took power, they are committed. There are, they're, they're tightly knit. So it's going to be very hard for protesters on the street to overthrow this government unless some outside force in some way evens the odds. Yes, presumably the United States, presumably that's what help is on the way means. But I agree with you, it's hard to know precisely. Donald Trump has told protesters in Iran, help is on the way, warning Tehran will face consequences for its continuing violent crackdown. As we speak, the U.S. president is receiving an intelligence briefing on the latest death toll before deciding what, or if any, action will be taken. Michael Clarke can run you through Donald Trump's options. But first, this is what the U.S. leader had to say less than an hour ago. But we'll straighten that out. But Iran is on my mind when I see the kind of death that is happening over there, we think. So we're going to get some accurate numbers. I'll have about 20 minutes, we'll get some accurate numbers as to what's happening with regard to the killing. The killing looks like it's significant, but we don't know yet for certain. I'll know within 20 minutes. As the Iranian crisis goes on, the White House is itching to take some sort of action. But we don't really know what sort of action they may be considering. There are a number of options, of course, the non-kinetic options, the peaceful options include more sanctions, using tariffs to try to isolate the government in Tehran, which is already look as if it's taking place. And the idea of cyber attacks, perhaps on the guard, the Revolutionary Guard, who are actually conducting the oppression of the protesters out in the streets of many, many cities. Beyond that, of course, there are the military options. And if we think about military strikes, there are three types of target that would make a certain amount of sense to the United States. One type of target might be the nuclear facilities of Iran. There are plenty of them. There are many of them that the United States would still like to attack. And so would the Israelis. The problem with that is that it wouldn't actually help the protesters very much. And it will be an attack on some background elements of Iran, which might be quite counterproductive. A second set of targets might be the Revolutionary Guard headquarters and the way in which they operate in the major cities. But the problem is they do operate in the major cities like Shiraz and Isfahan and Mashhad and Tehran. And so attacking their facilities almost certainly would cause civilian casualties. And that, too, might be counterproductive. A third sort of target might be the oil and gas infrastructure of Iran. And this would have an immediate effect, particularly in areas like Harg Island and Bandar Abbas. The South Paz gas field is the biggest single gas field in the world. It's shared with Qatar. Hitting the gas field would be a very foolish thing to do. But hitting the transmission of Iranian gas from the field to the inland areas, to places like Bashir, that might have a very immediate economic effect on the government in Tehran. Ultimately, of course, it would affect the people of Tehran. It would affect the economy pretty directly. But it would affect the government in Tehran even more directly. And that might be a tempting set of targets for the United States. Ultimately, of course, all of this is about whether the outbreak of disorder, and that's our current map of how big the disorder is across Iran, whether that outbreak of disorder is better helped by military action or by non-military action. We're going to find out the answer that the White House comes up with quite soon. Let's get more with political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, Benjamin Radd. He joins us live from Los Angeles now. Benjamin, thanks for your time on Sky News today. Donald Trump telling reporters on his touchdown in Florida earlier that he was about to receive a new intelligence briefing on exactly how many Iranians are being killed in demonstrations there. How much whatever he hears in that briefing will inform his decision making? I'm pretty convinced the president has already made up his mind, or at least the National Security Cabinet has decided whether or not to pursue any action to weaken the Iranian government's ability to harm protesters. I think that decision was probably made a day or so ago. And now the question is what the next steps will be, whether it'll be a kinetic strike of some sort, a cyber attack, some sort of economic pressure applied additionally, let's say sanctions, or finding out a way to curtail Iran's export of oil, which is still happening at a pretty rapid pace despite all the international sanctions that are in place already. What do you think his preferred option might be, and what does he have to weigh up when deciding what action to take? Well, whatever action has to minimise Iran's ability not just to retaliate, but the fact that they will retaliate. So the United States needs to move its carrier strike force into the Gulf as a deterrent to stop any Iranian defences or counteractions against US personnel, US equipment, US bases, US allies in the region. So there's that factor to consider. I don't think that the Iranians will measure necessarily their response either way. They're going to see any US involvement, whether it's military or otherwise, to be an act of aggression and will respond however way they're going to. What the president has to weigh is how effective will whatever option he chooses be. Will it succeed in providing immediate support and relief to the protesters? Will it help reduce the killing? Will it weaken Iran's security apparatus that is causing most of the brutality that we see? So those are the things we'll be looking for. And ultimately, how easy is it to tell if this current uprising in Iran is any different to previous ones we've seen that have been very severely dealt with? One of the things we want to look for, and this echoes what we saw back in 1979 with the initial Islamic revolution, is defections within the security forces. Anybody breaking away, we start to see members of those security forces, whether it's the Basij, the IRGC, other elements. Do they have second thoughts about what they're doing and about what they're seeing? Are they going to be concerned about their own security and what happens afterwards, whether the regime stays or doesn't? Do they start to sympathize with the protesters? Do they get disillusioned with what they're being asked to do? Does the killing and the brutality start to impact them psychologically? If we start to see people breaking away from their roles and also the leadership structure within the security forces as well, then we can say, okay, the government not only has lost the legitimacy and credibility, but now is losing the support from within its own ranks to carry out these acts. Okay. Really interesting stuff. Benjamin Radd, appreciate your time here on Sky News this morning. That's Benjamin Radd, political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA. Thanks, Benjamin. Walter, really, in your long and distinguished period of writings and observations, have you ever seen anything like this? All of a sudden, bang, bang. I never have. I know. It's really quite remarkable. If Trump, you know, if President Trump in the next few months ends up with regime change in Venezuela, the fall of the mullahs in Iran, the fall of Cuba, of the Cuban Communist Party, you know, presidents going back to John F. Kennedy would have envied some of those victories. These are historic moments. Now, the risks are high. Things can go wrong. He thinks out of the box because he doesn't believe in any boxes. It's a phenomenal thing. He does not believe in a box. Walter Russell Mead, thank you ever so much. As always, sir, we appreciate your commentary.