핵심요약

• 호르무즈 해협 폐쇄는 이스라엘-헤즈볼라 분쟁으로 인해 발생
• MOU의 첫 번째 조항에는 레바논 분쟁의 즉시 영구적 종료가 포함되어 있음
• 이스라엘과 헤즈볼라는 MOU의 당사자가 아니며, 협상 과정에 참여하지 않음
• 트럼프 행정부의 외교 접근 방식은 핵심 문제를 미루고 분쟁 당사자를 제외하는 경향이 있음

도입

이번 기사는 이란과 미국의 최신 합의서가 예상치 못한 문제를 야기하면서, 트럼프 행정부의 외교 전략의 한계점을 보여줍니다. 투자자들에게는 국제 분쟁이 경제적 안정에 미치는 영향을 재고하는 계기가 될 수 있습니다. 특히 에너지 시장에 미치는 영향이 주요 관심사입니다.

본문 1: 호르무즈 해협 폐쇄의 경제적 영향

호르무즈 해협은 세계 석유 수출의 약 30%가 통과하는 전략적 통로입니다. 이 해협이 폐쇄될 경우, 원유 가격에 immediate한 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 이란의 이번 조치는 이스라엘-헤즈볼라 분쟁과 직접적으로 연결되어 있지만, 국제 에너지 시장에 미치는 파장은 더 넓을 수 있습니다. 투자자들은 이란과 미국의 합의서가 실제로 어떻게 시행될지, 그리고 호르무즈 해협의 안정이 유지될지 여부에 주목해야 합니다. 만약 분쟁이 지속된다면, 에너지 가격의 변동성이 증가할 가능성이 높습니다.

본문 2: 트럼프 행정부의 외교 전략의 한계점

트럼프 대통령의 외교 접근 방식은 핵심 문제를 미루고, 분쟁 당사자를 제외하는 경향이 있습니다. 이번 MOU도 예외는 아니며, 이스라엘과 헤즈볼라를 포함하지 않은 것이 주요 문제점입니다. 전문 외교관들은 이러한 접근 방식이 장기적인 평화에 기여하지 못할 것이라고 지적합니다. 투자자들에게는 트럼프 행정부의 외교 정책이 국제 분쟁의 해결에 미치는 영향을 면밀히 관찰해야 합니다. 특히 중동 지역의 안정성이 글로벌 경제에 미치는 영향을 고려할 때, 이 문제는 더욱 중요합니다.

결론

이번 기사는 트럼프 행정부의 외교 전략이 국제 분쟁의 해결에 한계점을 가지고 있음을 보여줍니다. 투자자들은 국제 분쟁이 에너지 시장과 같은 핵심 분야에 미치는 영향을 지속적으로 모니터링해야 합니다. 또한, 트럼프 행정부의 외교 정책이 글로벌 경제에 미치는 장기적인 영향을 고려해야 합니다. 호르무즈 해협의 안정성이 유지될지 여부와, 이란과 미국의 합의서가 실제로 어떻게 시행될지 여부가 주요 관측 포인트입니다.

---

원문 링크: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMib0FVX3lxTE9xTzQ2Q2YwT3FSYUcyUnd0UlJ3M3l5V2MxUTkxZVJCZGxRM0h0MUtUSWtsRFhqTmxPeG5qWm9NREhCX3Y3Ukx1WVo0cXhFVHdxRTVVb25NdnBESHZWc0p1STJSM1BHZXg0SnVDNGpCOA?oc=5

Opinion | Trump wants a shortcut to peace with Iran. It won’t work. - MS NOW

Only a few days after the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding, Iran announced that the Strait of Hormuz was closed again. But it wasn’t American forces that drew the sharp response from Tehran. Instead, the Iranians said Israeli operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon meant America violated the deal. Neither Israel nor Hezbollah are party to the MOU, but the “immediate and permanent termination” of their conflict in Lebanon is listed as a condition in the document’s first article. Professional diplomats would have insisted on more specificity about what that language meant. It’s unlikely seasoned American negotiators would have agreed without getting Israeli buy-in first, but the Trump regime disdains that sort of expertise. This disregard for detail fits President Donald Trump’s consistent approach to conflict diplomacy: seek the minimum that can be called a “peace deal,” punting on core issues and excluding conflict participants as needed. Produce something that’s more vision than plan and proclaim peace. Public praise and positive press will follow. Actual follow-through will not. A closer examination of the MOU shows how predictable it was that Lebanon would become a sticking point. A closer examination of the MOU shows how predictable it was that Lebanon would become a sticking point. A ceasefire usually means combatants freeze in place and negotiate more permanent arrangements, but the somewhat ambiguous language in the MOU “ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon” arguably demands Israeli withdrawal to prewar lines. But neither Israel nor Hezbollah are a party to the MOU or participated in the talks leading up to deal nor its hasty signing, so neither feels bound by it. Israel says it retaliated to a deadly Hezbollah strike in southern Lebanon, where the Israeli military set up a “buffer zone” it intends to keep. Hezbollah says Israeli forces were on the move and their ongoing presence in Lebanon is unacceptable. And Iran now has a new point of leverage to pressure the U.S. to either keep its ally on a tighter leash or see the whole deal collapse. The MOU followed a monthslong U.S. strategy of trying to make peace in Lebanon by going around Hezbollah to speak directly with the Lebanese government. But the fighting is between Israel and Hezbollah, and the Lebanese state cannot control the militant group. Cutting out the combatants cannot achieve the peace Trump has promised is coming. Look no further than the agreement to end the war in Gaza that Trump helped broker. The initial deal didn’t address the underlying issues that prompted the war or establish a workable framework for the future of Gaza. Further efforts took place between the U.S., Egypt, Turkey and Qatar, which held a formal signing ceremony without any representative from Hamas or the Israeli government. I cannot think of another “peace signing” in history that did not include either of the main combatants.  The aftermath has been shambles. Nine months after the “peace deal” fanfare, Israel still occupies over half of the Gaza Strip, Hamas is still the local authority there, deadly fighting has continued — albeit at a smaller scale than before — and talks have stalled out. The so-called “Board of Peace” Trump set up to oversee Gaza reconstruction has floundered. Very little of the pledged money has transferred and none has been spent — not least because Trump punted on broader Israel-Palestine issues and did nothing to provide the security that could allow reconstruction to take place. Trump tried a similar approach to the Ukraine war, which he repeatedly swore he could end in 24 hours. His plan was to go around the Ukrainians, cutting a deal directly with Russia then pressuring Kyiv to accept it. The White House denigrated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, parroted the absurd Russian propaganda that the war Russia started somehow wasn’t Russia’s fault and rolled out the red carpet (literally) for Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Finding a lasting end to an armed conflict isn’t possible without agreement from the primary forces involved in the fighting. In doing so, Trump adopted Putin’s preferred frame of the war as the U.S. and Russia settling spheres of influence like 19th century empires. Trump envoy Steve Witkoff put out a 28-point plan that amounted to Ukrainian surrender, which Ukraine unsurprisingly rejected. After almost a year and a half of the Trump administration denying Ukraine’s agency failed to end the war, rather than switch strategies, the U.S. quit the peace process entirely. Trump followed a similar approach in his first term too, negotiating with the Taliban without including the Afghan government. In early 2020, Trump let thousands of Taliban fighters out of prison and ceased anti-Taliban military operations in exchange for the Taliban refraining from attacks on American forces as the U.S. withdrew. Trump set the withdrawal date after the end of his term, leaving the hard part to the next president. When the U.S. withdrew in 2021, the elected Afghan government America spent two decades propping up collapsed almost immediately after. In Gaza, Ukraine and Afghanistan, Trump tried to find shortcuts to peace, touting arrangements that didn’t include some of the combatants. Every time he’s done so by excluding a conflict participant from the negotiating table has had bad results.  Finding a lasting end to an armed conflict isn’t possible without agreement from the primary forces involved in the fighting. As Trump has inadvertently shown, there’s no shortcut to peace. Trying to do an end run around conflict participants doesn’t work —and sometimes makes things worse. By linking Israel and Hezbollah’s fighting to the ceasefire without their buy-in, Trump has made the already difficult job of ending a war much harder.

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMib0FVX3lxTE9xTzQ2Q2YwT3FSYUcyUnd0UlJ3M3l5V2MxUTkxZVJCZGxRM0h0MUtUSWtsRFhqTmxPeG5qWm9NREhCX3Y3Ukx1WVo0cXhFVHdxRTVVb25NdnBESHZWc0p1STJSM1BHZXg0SnVDNGpCOA?oc=5