那么，特朗普这招到底想干什么？ 我们得先看看他这命令有多"模糊"。 他的声明里，既没说清楚什么叫"跟伊朗有商业往来"，也没说这25%的税是 只针对货物贸易，还是连金融服务也算上。 这种"说了等于没说"的风格，其实是特朗普的惯用伎俩。 他故意把规则弄得模模糊糊，让相关国家和 企业自己去猜、去怕。 2026年1月12日，美国总统特朗普在他的社交平台"真实社交"上丢下一句话：所有跟伊朗做生意的国家，以后跟美国做生意，统统加征25%的关 税。 他还特意强调，这事儿"最终且不可更改"。 消息一出，国际油价应声跳涨，金融市场一阵鸡飞狗跳。 但明眼人都看出来了，这一枪虽然瞄着伊朗，子弹很可能要打中中国。 因为中国是伊朗 最大的贸易伙伴，同时也是美国最重要的贸易伙伴之一。 更要命的是，就在两个多月前，也就是2025年11月，中美刚刚达成阶段性的"贸易休战"协 议，部分关税被暂停或降低了。 特朗普这一下，直接把脆弱的休战局面推到了悬崖边上。 伊朗政府宣布已经控制住全国城镇的局势，并且反过来，首都德黑兰等多个城市爆发了支持政府的大型集会。 伊朗总统和其他高官走上街头，表 示愿意倾听人民声音。 也就在同一天，白宫发言人的调门忽然软 ...

Group 1: Trade Agreement Overview - The US and EU have announced a trade agreement framework, with the EU committing to purchase $750 billion worth of US energy products by 2028 and invest $600 billion in US strategic industries during the same period [1][6] - The agreement also includes increased military and defense equipment purchases from the US to enhance NATO defense cooperation [1][6] Group 2: Challenges in Energy Procurement - The ambitious target of $750 billion in energy purchases is deemed difficult to achieve, particularly due to the significant reliance on liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from the US [3][4] - The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that US energy exports to the EU will remain at $78.5 billion in 2024, necessitating a more than twofold increase in annual imports from the EU to meet the target [3][4] - Current LNG import capacity and infrastructure limitations pose significant challenges, as the US LNG export terminals are operating at full capacity and cannot double their output until 2030 [4] Group 3: Investment and Defense Spending Challenges - The framework indicates that EU companies are expected to invest an additional $600 billion in the US by 2028, but convincing private companies to invest in the US remains a challenge [6][7] - The EU's defense spending has been primarily directed towards external procurement, with 63% of defense spending flowing to the US [6][7] - The EU's long-term budget proposal aims to increase defense and aerospace spending significantly, raising questions about the compatibility of this with the new trade agreement [7][8]