梅里·馬達沙希｜伊朗考驗：戰略自主與大國聯盟的瓦解

IPP評論是國家高端智庫華南理工大學公共政策研究院（IPP）官方微信平臺。

導語：自2月28日美以聯軍對伊朗發動代號“史詩之怒”的軍事行動以來，伊朗戰事影響不斷外溢，大國在應對危機時的戰略考量備受關注。與此同時，英國、法國、德國等傳統歐洲主要國家，以及印度、土耳其等全球中等強國的反應，可能正反映出更深層次的國際秩序調整。

IPP榮譽教授梅里·馬達沙希（Mehri Madarshahi）指出，伊朗戰事暴露出“大國聯盟”模式的固有局限，同時彰顯出戰略自主性在當今國際體系中日益重要的地位。以“全球南方”國家為代表，包括印度、巴西、印尼、沙特和土耳其等具備獨立外交能動性的行為體，或將逐步脫離對特定大國集團的依附，轉而通過戰略對沖與多邊協作謀求自身利益最大化。這一趨勢表明，國際體系并未朝向穩定的“三極結構”演進。相反，它更可能走向碎片化、多極化。

梅里·馬達沙希（Mehri Madarshahi）

華南理工大學公共政策研究院（IPP）榮譽教授、聯合國教科文組織下屬國際創意和可持續發展中心（ICCSD）顧問委員會成員

Honorary Professorof The Institute of Public Policy (IPP) ,South China University of Technology (SCUT) ; Member of the Advisory Committee of the International Center for Creativity and Sustainable Development under the auspicious of UNESO (ICCSD).

正文

The Iran Test:

Strategic Autonomy and the Fracturing of Great-Power Coalitions

伊朗考驗：戰略自主與大國聯盟的瓦解

新興“三極秩序”的幻象

The Illusion of Emerging Tripolarity

近年來，國際輿論越來越關注一個以美國、中國和俄羅斯為核心的“三極國際秩序”的出現。在這一框架下，發展中國家——通常統稱為“全球南方”——被普遍預期會向這些主要地緣政治極點之一靠攏。

For several years, international debate has increasingly focused on the emergence of a tripolar international order structured around the United States, China, and Russia. Within this framework, much of the developing world, often collectively described as the “Global South”, has been expected to gravitate toward one or another of these major geopolitical poles.

然而，近期圍繞伊朗危機的發展表明，這種解讀可能過于簡化。與其說這一事件印證了對立地緣政治集團的鞏固，不如說它凸顯了大國聯盟的局限性，同時揭示了地區行為體追求戰略自主的重要性日益增強。

Recent developments surrounding the Iran crisis, however, suggest that this interpretation may be overly simplistic. Rather than confirming the consolidation of rival geopolitical blocs, the episode highlights the limits of great-power alignment and reveals the growing importance of strategic autonomy among regional actors.

伊朗的困境

Iran’s dilama

在過去十年中，伊朗不斷深化與俄羅斯和中國在政治、經濟及軍事領域的聯系。這些關系通常被解讀為更廣泛地緣政治格局的一部分，旨在制衡西方影響力。在能源、防務和外交等領域的合作不斷擴展，似乎顯示出國際體系中一個替代性聯盟正在逐步成型。

Over the past decade, Iran has cultivated closer political, economic, and military ties with both Russia and China. These relationships were often interpreted as part of a broader geopolitical alignment aimed at counterbalancing Western influence. Expanding cooperation in energy, defence, and diplomacy appeared to signal the gradual consolidation of an alternative coalition within the international system.

2025年3月14日，中俄伊北京會晤成功舉行。中華人民共和國外交部副部長馬朝旭、俄羅斯聯邦外交部副部長里亞布科夫、伊朗伊斯蘭共和國外交部副部長加里布阿巴迪分別與會。（圖源：央視新聞）

然而，近期危機暴露出這些安排的固有限制。盡管莫斯科和中國在外交上的言辭對伊朗有所“支持”，并對西方行動提出批評，但兩國都不愿將對抗升級，也未提供直接的戰略支持。即便在言辭上保持一致、合作關系日益深化，伊朗在這場危機中最終仍幾乎獨自應對。

Yet the recent crisis demonstrated the inherent limits of these arrangements. While Moscow and Beijing expressed diplomatic support for Iran and criticized Western actions, neither power appeared willing to escalate the confrontation or provide direct strategic backing. Despite rhetorical alignment and growing partnerships, Iran ultimately faced the crisis largely on its own.

這一結果凸顯了當代地緣政治的一個重要結構特征：大國與地區行為體之間的戰略伙伴關系，往往缺乏歷史上塑造穩定地緣政治集團所具有的制度縱深與約束性承諾。俄羅斯的經濟制約、中國的全球經濟相互依賴性，以及美國不斷變化的聯盟模式，都限制了明確界定的地緣政治極點的形成。

This outcome underscores an important structural feature of contemporary geopolitics. Strategic partnerships among major powers and regional actors frequently lack the institutional depth and binding commitments that historically defined stable geopolitical blocs. Russia’s economic constraints, China’s global economic interdependence, and the shifting alliance patterns of the United States have all limited the emergence of clearly defined geopolitical poles.

危機并未強化集團政治，反而揭示了當代許多國際伙伴關系的交易性特征。大國可能在“全球南方”各地發展合作關系，但一旦面臨大規模升級的風險，其核心戰略利益往往會凌駕于對地區伙伴的承諾之上。

Rather than reinforcing bloc politics, the crisis exposed the transactional nature of many contemporary international partnerships. Major powers may cultivate relationships across the Global South, but when confronted with the risk of large-scale escalation, their core strategic priorities tend to prevail over commitments to regional partners.

全球南方的轉型

The Transformation of the Global South

這一事件的影響遠不止伊朗本身。對于亞洲、非洲和拉丁美洲的許多國家來說，這場危機提供了一個令人警醒的戰略教訓：與大國建立伙伴關系，并不必然意味著能夠獲得可靠的安全保障。

The implications of this episode extend far beyond Iran itself. For many countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the crisis offers a sobering strategic lesson: partnerships with major powers do not necessarily translate into reliable security guarantees.

歷史上，“全球南方”常被描述為一種政治身份，其形成源于共同的發展挑戰以及后殖民時期的團結精神。然而，隨著時間推移，這一概念不斷演變。如今，這一廣義群體中的許多國家——如印度、巴西、印度尼西亞、沙特阿拉伯和土耳其——已具備顯著的地緣政治能動性，并日益推動以戰略自主為基礎的外交政策。

Historically, the Global South was often described as a political identity shaped by shared developmental challenges and post-colonial solidarity. Over time, however, this concept has evolved. Today, many countries within this broad grouping, such as India, Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye, possess significant geopolitical agency and increasingly pursue foreign policies based on strategic autonomy.

這些國家并未嚴格依附于競爭性大國集團，而是力圖同時在多方伙伴之間保持平衡。因此，“全球南方”正從一個松散界定的政治聯盟，演變為由多元戰略行為體組成的星座體系，每個國家都根據自身國家利益在國際體系中自主運籌。

Rather than aligning rigidly with competing great-power blocs, many of these states seek to balance relations with multiple partners simultaneously. The Global South is, therefore, evolving from a loosely defined political coalition into a constellation of diverse strategic actors, each navigating the international system according to its own national interests.

伊朗的經驗進一步印證了這一趨勢。即便是與大國保持密切戰略關系的國家，在危機時刻也無法依賴其直接保護，其他國家可能因此得出結論：依賴遠方的庇護國并不能提供可靠的安全保障。

The Iranian experience reinforces this trend. If even a state that maintains close strategic relations with major powers cannot rely on their direct protection in moments of crisis, other countries may conclude that dependence on distant patrons offers limited security.

這一認識可能促使“全球南方”的各國政府更加重視多元化伙伴關系、區域外交，以及圍繞戰略自主的能力建設。

This realization could encourage governments across the Global South to place greater emphasis on diversified partnerships, regional diplomacy, and autonomous strategic capabilities.

中等強國與戰略對沖

Middle Powers and Strategic Hedging

中等強國——指那些在地區具有重要影響力但在全球層面影響有限的國家——對此類發展尤為敏感。對于這些國家而言，伊朗危機凸顯了過度依賴遠方地緣政治庇護國所帶來的風險。

Middle powers states with significant regional influence but limited global reach, are particularly sensitive to these developments. For such countries, the Iran crisis highlights the risks associated with excessive reliance on distant geopolitical patrons.

在日益兩極化的國際環境中，許多中等強國可能不會選邊站隊，而是加大戰略對沖的力度。所謂戰略對沖，指的是在與多方大國保持合作關系的同時，避免與任何單一大國形成深度戰略捆綁。

Rather than choosing sides in an increasingly polarized international environment, many middle powers may intensify strategies of strategic hedging. This approach involves maintaining cooperative relations with multiple major powers while avoiding deep strategic entanglements with any single one of them.

加拿大總理卡尼在達沃斯論壇上呼吁其他“中等強國”在面對大國經濟“脅迫”時團結一致。2026年初以來的外交活動中，卡尼在加強與印度、澳大利亞等非超級大國的聯系，并且在國際講話與訪問中提出類似“中等強國合作”的理念。圖源：AP

在這種背景下，國際體系的發展可能不會朝向僵化的對抗性集團，而更可能呈現出流動性更強、去中心化的格局。地區行為體和中等強國將在塑造外交格局和戰略結果中發揮更加突出的作用。

In this context, the international system may evolve not toward rigid rival blocs but toward a more fluid and decentralized configuration. Regional actors and middle powers could play a more prominent role in shaping diplomatic alignments and strategic outcomes.

這種策略并不意味著中立或消極。恰恰相反，它體現了對碎片化國際環境的務實適應——在這種環境中，僵化的聯盟所能提供的戰略確定性正日益減弱。

Such a strategy does not imply neutrality or passivity. On the contrary, it reflects a pragmatic adaptation to a fragmented international environment in which rigid alliances provide diminishing strategic certainty.

伊朗危機：啟示性案例

The Iran Crisis as a Revealing Case

對伊朗的攻擊發生在美國對委內瑞拉發動突襲僅兩個月之后。這兩個國家均與北京和莫斯科保持著密切關系，同時也是中國的重要能源供應國。

The attack on Iran occurred only two months after a U.S. raid against Venezuela, two governments that have maintained close relations with both Beijing and Moscow and that serve as significant energy suppliers to China.

一些分析人士將這些事件置于更廣泛的大國競爭框架下進行解讀。根據哈德遜研究所的觀點，這類打擊不應僅被視為孤立的軍事行動，而應被看作塑造所謂“印太世紀”新格局的更廣泛戰略博弈的一部分。

Some analysts have interpreted these events within the broader framework of great-power competition. According to the Hudson Institute, such strikes should be viewed not simply as isolated military operations but as part of a broader strategic contest shaping what it describes as the emerging “Indo-Pacific century.”

中國和俄羅斯的克制回應，揭示了所謂新興“三極敘事”的局限性。

The restrained responses of China and Russia illustrate the limits of the emerging tripolar narrative.

中國

China

秉持既有外交立場，中國對美以聯合打擊行動予以譴責，同時避免表現出任何直接軍事承諾的跡象。中國將美以的行動定性為對伊朗主權及《聯合國憲章》原則的侵犯。

Consistent with its established diplomatic posture, China responded to the U.S.-Israeli strikes with strong rhetorical condemnation while avoiding any indication of direct military commitment. Beijing characterized the actions as a violation of Iran’s sovereignty and of the principles of the United Nations Charter. Yet its response remained confined to diplomatic language.

對于中國而言，伊朗主要作為能源供應國、外交伙伴及受制裁折扣（sanctions-discounted）影響的經濟市場，而非傳統意義上的正式條約盟友。在這種情況下，為伊朗直接與華盛頓對抗帶來的戰略利益十分有限，同時伴隨著相當大的風險。

For China, Iran is primarily valuable as an energy supplier, diplomatic partner, and sanctions-discounted economic market rather than as a formal treaty ally. In such circumstances, direct confrontation with Washington on Iran’s behalf would offer limited strategic benefits while carrying considerable risks.

在短期內，中國傾向于避免陷入戰略困境，同時保持對優先戰略區域的關注，尤其是臺灣地區和南海。這一立場使北京能夠譴責武力使用、捍衛主權原則，同時將在遠距離沖突中可能產生的軍事成本降至最低。與此同時，保持旁觀立場使中國能夠在不直接介入的情況下，觀察美軍的作戰行動及后勤能力。

In the short term, China appears determined to avoid strategic entrapment while preserving its focus on priority theatres, particularly Taiwan and the South China Sea. This posture allows Beijing to condemn the use of force and defend principles of sovereignty while minimizing the costs of military involvement in a distant conflict. At the same time, remaining on the sidelines allows China to observe U.S. military operations and logistical capabilities without direct exposure.

中國高度依賴中東能源供應，其中約45%的石油進口需經霍爾木茲海峽。由此可見，海灣地區若出現長期供應中斷，對中國確實也會造成一定的不利影響。

However, China’s position is not without vulnerability. The country remains highly dependent on Middle Eastern energy supplies, and approximately 45 percent of its oil imports transit the Strait of Hormuz. Any prolonged disruption in the Gulf would therefore carry significant economic consequences for Beijing.

霍爾木茲海峽及其附近區域在2026年2月28日至3月11日發生的商船襲擊事件分布（藍色圓點：油輪；空心圓：其他船舶）。圖源：AFP

更廣泛地看，這一事件也凸顯了中國對外戰略的一個結構性特征：中國的國際合作關系往往以深度經濟嵌入和融合為核心，但在安全承諾上則相對有限。雖然從中國自身角度來看，這一模式可能是理性的；但對于面臨迫切安全威脅的合作伙伴而言，可能會希望得到來自中國的更多安全保障。

More broadly, the episode highlights a structural feature of China’s external engagement strategy. Beijing’s international partnerships are often characterized by deep economic integration combined with relatively limited security commitments. While this model may appear rational from China’s perspective, it may prove less reassuring to partners confronted with acute security threats.

俄羅斯

Russia

自2022年以來，伊朗也成為俄羅斯重要的軍事與外交伙伴。然而，俄羅斯與伊朗于2025年1月簽署的全面戰略伙伴關系條約并未包含共同防御條款。與俄羅斯與白俄羅斯或朝鮮等國的安排不同，雙方簽訂的條約并未要求進行軍事干預。

Iran has also become an important military and diplomatic partner for Russia since 2022. Nevertheless, the Russia–Iran strategic partnership agreement signed in January 2025 does not include a mutual defence clause. Unlike Russia’s arrangements with states such as Belarus or North Korea, the agreement stops short of obligating military intervention.

在美以對伊朗發起打擊時，克里姆林宮譴責了這些行動，但同時卻強調了伊朗并未請求俄羅斯提供軍事援助。這種表述使莫斯科能夠傳達政治支持，而無需越過直接介入的門檻。從短期來看，俄羅斯可能會從能源價格上漲以及西方戰略注意力從烏克蘭戰爭上轉移中獲得一定的經濟收益。然而，從政治角度來看，這場危機可能損害莫斯科作為可靠戰略伙伴的形象。

When the strikes occurred, the Kremlin condemned the attacks but emphasized that Iran had not requested Russian military assistance. This formulation allowed Moscow to signal political support without crossing the threshold into direct involvement. In the short term, Russia may benefit economically from higher energy prices and from any diversion of Western strategic attention away from the war in Ukraine. Politically, however, the crisis risks damaging Moscow’s image as a reliable strategic partner.

即便俄羅斯從未正式承諾提供軍事防護，但若外界認為其無法或不愿保護合作伙伴，仍可能造成聲譽受損。一個無法保障伙伴安全的國家，或許仍能夠讓他國敬畏，但難以真正贏得信任。

Even if Russia never formally promised military defence, the perception that it was unable or unwilling to protect a close partner may carry reputational costs. A power that cannot shield its partners may still inspire fear, but it inspires less confidence.

伊朗總統馬蘇德·佩澤什基揚和俄羅斯總統弗拉基米爾·普京去年在上海會晤。圖源：塔斯社

美國

The United States

美國在委內瑞拉和伊朗的行動同樣反映了更廣泛的戰略考量。在委內瑞拉的突襲行動，凸顯了華盛頓仍愿意在其自視為傳統勢力范圍內投射壓倒性的軍事力量。

The U.S. operations in Venezuela and Iran also appear to reflect broader strategic calculations. The raid in Venezuela demonstrated Washington’s willingness to project overwhelming military power within what it still considers its traditional sphere of influence.

與此同時，該行動似乎旨在實現政治目標，例如針對領導層實施“斬首”行動或對政權施加壓力，同時避免對能源基礎設施造成大規模破壞。這表明，其戰略意圖是“精確干預”，而非無差別的戰爭行為。

At the same time, the operation appeared designed to achieve political objectives, such as leadership decapitation or regime pressure, without causing large-scale disruption to energy infrastructure. This suggests a strategy of calibrated intervention rather than indiscriminate warfare.

當地時間3月5日，美國國務院宣布，美國和委內瑞拉已同意恢復外交和領事關系。圖為委內瑞拉臨時總統德爾西·羅德里格斯（右）在委內瑞拉首都加拉加斯米拉弗洛雷斯總統府，在美國內政部長道格·伯古姆（左）的陪同下簽署文件。圖源：PBS

涉及伊朗的沖突可能同樣體現了一種更廣泛的戰略冒險。在針對這一重要地區對手的同時，由于其他大國直接干預的可能性較低，華盛頓似乎判斷國際地緣政治環境是允許其采取行動的。

The conflict involving Iran may similarly represent a broader strategic gamble. By targeting a major regional adversary while the likelihood of direct intervention by other major powers remained low, Washington appears to have calculated that the geopolitical environment was permissive.

從短期來看，美國展示了其軍事投射能力與戰略主動性。然而，政權更迭行動和定點干預的常態化，可能對規范武力使用的國際規則穩定性產生深遠的影響。

In the short term, the United States has demonstrated military reach and strategic initiative. However, the normalization of regime-change operations and targeted interventions could have long-term consequences for the stability of international norms governing the use of force.

大國的“信譽鴻溝”

The Credibility Gap of Great Powers

對于許多來自“全球南方”的觀察人士而言，伊朗事件提出了一個根本性問題：無論是西方大國還是非西方大國，是否有任何一方能夠真正成為可靠的戰略保護者？

For many observers across the Global South, the Iran episode raises a fundamental question: can any major power, Western or non-Western, serve as a reliable strategic protector?

這一危機表明，當核心利益未直接受到威脅時，當代大國越來越傾向于將自身戰略考量置于伙伴防御之上。因此，可以從中得出若干啟示：

The crisis suggests that contemporary great powers increasingly prioritize their own strategic calculations over the defence of partners when core interests are not directly at stake. Several lessons may therefore emerge:

首先，戰略自主的重要性日益凸顯。各國不能想當然地認為，在危機時刻，遠方大國會提供可靠的安全保障。

First, strategic autonomy has become increasingly important. Countries cannot assume that distant powers will provide security guarantees in moments of crisis.

其次，戰略對沖很可能成為主導的外交策略。各國可能會日益在多個大國之間分散伙伴關系，而非依賴單一的地緣政治庇護國。

Second, strategic hedging is likely to become the dominant diplomatic strategy. States may increasingly diversify their partnerships across multiple powers rather than relying on a single geopolitical patron.

第三，中等強國可能通過協調區域性舉措和靈活聯盟，在國際體系中獲得更大影響力。

Third, middle powers may gain influence within the international system by coordinating regional initiatives and flexible coalitions.

走向碎片化的多極化

Toward Fragmented Multipolarity

綜合來看，這些發展表明，國際體系并未朝向穩定的“三極結構”演進。相反，它更可能走向碎片化多極化——這一國際環境的特征是存在多個影響力中心、聯盟關系靈活多變，以及外交行為高度務實。

Taken together, these developments suggest that the international system is not converging toward a stable tripolar structure. Instead, it appears to be moving toward fragmented multipolarity, an environment characterized by multiple centers of influence, fluid coalitions, and pragmatic diplomacy.

在這樣的體系中，地緣政治格局不太可能固化為僵化的集團。相反，各國將越來越傾向于根據具體利益和區域環境，追求靈活多變的伙伴關系。

In such a system, geopolitical alignments are less likely to crystallize into rigid blocs. Instead, states will increasingly pursue flexible partnerships tailored to specific interests and regional contexts.

戰略極簡主義與地緣政治庇護模式的衰落

Strategic Minimalism and the Decline of Geopolitical Patronage

因此，國際體系可能正進入一個新階段，在這一階段，大國力圖維持影響力，同時盡量減少直接的安全承諾。這一新興格局可被稱為“戰略極簡主義”（strategic minimalism）。

The international system may therefore be entering a new phase in which major powers seek to preserve influence while minimizing direct security commitments. This emerging pattern can be described as strategic minimalism.

在冷戰時期，全球政治格局建立在相對清晰的地緣政治庇護體系之上。美國和蘇聯維持著由盟友和附屬國組成的網絡，這些國家通過正式的安全保障、軍事援助和經濟支持獲得維護。

During the Cold War, global politics was structured around relatively clear systems of geopolitical patronage. The United States and the Soviet Union maintained networks of allies and client states supported through formal security guarantees, military assistance, and economic aid.

然而，如今的大國似乎越來越不愿承擔此類承諾所帶來的成本與風險。相反，它們往往通過經濟合作、外交參與以及選擇性干預來謀求影響力。

Today, however, major powers appear increasingly reluctant to assume the costs and risks associated with such commitments. Instead, they often seek influence through economic partnerships, diplomatic engagement, and selective intervention.

這種轉變并不意味著大國的脫離。大國仍深度參與全球事務，但其參與方式日益表現為經過精確權衡的影響力施展，而非無條件的保護。

This transformation does not imply disengagement. Great powers remain deeply involved in global affairs, but their engagement increasingly takes the form of calibrated influence rather than unconditional protection.

對于許多國家——尤其是那些不屬于正式聯盟體系的國家——這種轉變可能意味著需要更加重視自力更生、區域合作以及多元化伙伴關系。

For many states-particularly those outside formal alliance structures-this shift may require greater emphasis on self-reliance, regional cooperation, and diversified partnerships.

結論

Conclusion

伊朗危機的重要性，或許并不在于其即時的軍事或外交后果，而在于它向更廣泛的國際社會傳遞的戰略啟示。

The Iran crisis may ultimately prove less important for its immediate military or diplomatic consequences than for the strategic lessons it conveys to the broader international community.

對于全球南方的許多國家以及新興中等強國而言，這一事件凸顯了在日益碎片化的國際體系中，大國庇護的局限性。與大國建立伙伴關系雖然可能帶來經濟機會和外交支持，但并不必然轉化為可靠的安全保障。

For many countries across the Global South and among emerging middle powers, the episode highlights the limits of great-power patronage in an increasingly fragmented international system. Partnerships with major powers may offer economic opportunities and diplomatic support, but they do not necessarily translate into reliable security guarantees.

如果這種認知在更大范圍內擴散開來，伊朗危機的持久影響可能不在于沖突本身，而在于全球主要大國試圖培育的地緣政治聯盟逐漸瓦解。

If this perception spreads, the lasting legacy of the Iran crisis may not be the conflict itself but the gradual erosion of the geopolitical coalitions that the world’s major powers have sought to cultivate.

IPP公共關系與傳播中心

審校 | 劉 深

排版 | 周浩鍇

終審 | 劉金程

IPP評論熱門文章

關于IPP

華南理工大學公共政策研究院（IPP）是一個獨立、非營利性的知識創新與公共政策研究平臺。IPP圍繞中國的體制改革、社會政策、中國話語權與國際關系等開展一系列的研究工作，并在此基礎上形成知識創新和政策咨詢協調發展的良好格局。IPP的愿景是打造開放式的知識創新和政策研究平臺，成為領先世界的中國智庫。