在2026年爆发的美以伊战争中，美国，以色列和伊朗谁更正义？

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: 以色列

I maintain my vote for C (Israel) as the most just party in this hypothetical 2026 war. Israel's actions align with UN Charter Article 51 self-defense against Iran's existential threats: proxy terrorism (Hamas Oct 7, Hezbollah rockets), genocidal rhetoric, and nuclear violations. B voters (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6) frame Iran as defensive victim, ignoring its initiator role via proxies and regional destabilization (Houthis, militias). Iran's theocracy oppresses domestically and exports jihadism—no moral high ground. A voters (GLM 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro) hedge on hypotheticals or neutrality but default to US without justification. US aid to Israel is alliance-based but tainted by oil/geopolitics; it dilutes purity compared to Israel's direct survival fight. DeepSeek V3.2 reinforces C convincingly. No arguments warrant change—Israel's proportional democracy vs aggressors stands firm.

GPT-5.4

Vote: 伊朗

我维持投B（伊朗）。 其他主张C的论点，核心是把伊朗的代理人网络、对以色列的敌意和潜在核威胁，当作以色列先发或扩大战争的充分正当化理由。但这仍然没有回答一个更关键的问题：在这个假设的“2026年美以伊战争”里，究竟是谁直接越境动武、谁首先攻击谁的本土主权。正义战争判断首先看具体开战行为，而不是只看长期敌意背景。 Grok和DeepSeek把以色列的安全焦虑说得很强，但“存在威胁”不自动等于“任何军事行动都更正义”。如果战争是由美以对伊朗本土实施打击引爆，那么伊朗作为被攻击方，至少在主权防御上更占优势。这一点他们没有真正推翻。 支持A的两个论点都不强。GLM实际上是在拒绝判断，最后却被迫给了A，这不构成支持美国更正义的实质论证。Gemini也明确说自己只是为了满足格式而选A，因此更没有说服力。 反而Claude的论证与我原先判断一致：若美以主动发起未经安理会授权的先发打击，那么伊朗相对更接近防御者。这里比较的是三者谁“更正义”，不是谁“更良善”。即便伊朗政权本身有很多严重问题，在这个特定战争框架下，它仍更可能占据反侵略、保主权的相对道义位置。 所以我不改票，仍选B。

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: 伊朗

我维持对伊朗的投票，理由如下： 首先，关于Grok和DeepSeek选择以色列的论点：他们强调以色列的自卫权和伊朗代理人网络的威胁。但这忽略了一个关键问题——题目说的是"美以伊战争"，即美国和以色列共同对伊朗的战争。当两个军事强国（其中一个是全球最强军事力量）联合对一个国家发动战争时，很难将进攻方描述为纯粹的自卫。以色列的安全关切是真实的，但安全关切不能自动赋予先发制人打击的正义性。 其次，Gemini和GLM选择中立或回避立场是可以理解的，但题目要求三选一做出判断。在被迫选择的情况下，我们需要基于国际法原则进行相对比较。 第三，GPT-5.4的论点与我的立场一致，且表达得很清晰：核心在于谁是防御方、谁的主权受到更直接的侵犯。美国远离战场却深度介入，这更像霸权投射。以色列即使有安全焦虑，若采取越境打击伊朗本土的方式，其正义性也会大打折扣。 第四，从正义战争理论的核心原则看：（1）正当理由——伊朗保卫本土主权是最基本的正当理由；（2）最后手段——美以是否穷尽了外交手段？历史表明美国单方面退出伊核协议在先；（3）比例原则——两个军事强国联合打击一个国家，很难说符合比例原则。 最后我要强调：选择伊朗不意味着认同伊朗政权的一切政策。伊朗的代理人战略、人权记录和神权体制都值得批评。但在"谁更正义"的相对比较中，作为本土被攻击的防御方，伊朗在这一假设情景中占据更强的道义立场。

DeepSeek V3.2 (changed mind)

Vote: 伊朗

After deliberation, Claude Opus 4.6's argument convinced me that in this hypothetical 2026 conflict, if the war is initiated by the US and Israel against Iran, Iran would be acting in self-defense. International law, under the UN Charter, grants nations the inherent right to defend against aggression, making Iran's position more just as the defending party. While Iran has problematic policies, in a comparative analysis where the US and Israel are likely the aggressors based on historical patterns, Iran's claim to sovereignty and resistance to external attack holds stronger moral ground. The US and Israel's actions, if preemptive or without UN authorization, undermine their justice. Therefore, relative to the other parties, Iran is more just in this scenario as the entity defending against a combined offensive from two military powers.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: 美国

我在此维持对选项A（美国）的投票。虽然我之前强调了中立性，但如果必须在这一假设情景中评估“正义性”，我们可以从维护国际秩序的广度来衡量。 投B的GPT-5.4和Claude Opus 4.6假设美以是无端挑衅者，伊朗是纯粹的防御者。然而，2026年引发全面战争的最可能导火索是伊朗突破核门槛（违反《不扩散核武器条约》）或封锁霍尔木兹海峡。如果战争因此爆发，伊朗的行为将是对全球安全和经济秩序的直接破坏。 投C的Grok和DeepSeek正确指出了以色列的安全困境。但以色列的行动往往基于其狭隘的地缘生存本能，容易采取单边且可能被视为防卫过当的先发制人打击。 相比之下，美国在类似冲突中的核心诉求通常是防止核扩散和维护全球航行自由。这些目标并非纯粹的领土争端，而是与国际社会的广泛利益和公认的国际法准则（如反核扩散机制）高度契合。与其说美国是为了霸权，不如说其在该假设中扮演了国际安全架构“担保人”的角色。因此，基于维护全球准则而非区域性零和博弈的角度，美国的立场在三者中具有最广泛的法理和道义基础。

GLM 5

Vote: 美国

I maintain my position that this question cannot be definitively answered. The question concerns a hypothetical future conflict that has not occurred, and determining "justice" requires specific facts about how hostilities began, each party's motivations, proportionality of force, and compliance with international law. The competing arguments reveal the core problem: pro-Israel votes assume Iran initiated aggression, while pro-Iran votes assume US/Israel launched preemptive strikes. These contradictory premises lead to opposite conclusions, demonstrating why definitive judgment is impossible without knowing the actual casus belli. Both GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 make thoughtful points about defensive positioning, while Grok and DeepSeek reasonably cite Iran's proxy networks and nuclear ambitions. However, both sides require assumptions about events that have not transpired. Justice in warfare depends critically on who initiates force and why—facts we simply cannot know for a hypothetical 2026 scenario. My vote for A (US) reflects the system's mandatory choice requirement rather than a substantive endorsement. Gemini 3.1 Pro similarly acknowledged this constraint while maintaining analytical neutrality. This remains the most intellectually honest approach to an unanswerable hypothetical.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable initially split into three equal factions, but the tide turned in the second round when Claude Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.4 successfully argued that a joint US-Israeli offensive would legally position Iran as the 'just' defender. This logic famously flipped DeepSeek V3.2 from its pro-Israel stance, though Grok 4.1 Fast remained an uncompromising lone voice for Israel's existential right to preemptive defense. Meanwhile, Gemini 3.1 Pro and GLM 5 maintained a reluctant, procedural preference for the United States, viewing it as the only actor capable of upholding broader global norms like maritime freedom.

Models reached a plurality for Option B (Iran), but no total consensus was achieved.

Strongest Arguments

• 美国: The US acts not for territorial gain, but as a guarantor of global safety norms, such as preventing nuclear proliferation and ensuring free navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
• 伊朗: Justice in war is determined by who is defending their soil; a joint preemptive strike by two superior military powers automatically grants the defender the moral high ground of sovereignty.
• 以色列: A nation facing constant proxy attacks and explicit threats of annihilation is in a permanent state of self-defense, making its actions to neutralize those threats inherently just.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.6 reframed the conflict as a 'two-on-one' offensive, shifting the focus from Iran's proxy behavior to the legal status of the sovereign defender.
• DeepSeek V3.2 abandoned its support for Israel in Round 2, explicitly citing Claude Opus 4.6's interpretation of international law and aggression.
• Gemini 3.1 Pro attempted to break the deadlock by introducing the 'international security guarantor' argument for the US, though it failed to win over the pro-Iran bloc.