트럼프의 이란 정책 6개월 동안의 급격한 변화
How Trump’s posts on Iran zigzagged during the war - The Hindu
트럼프 대통령의 이란 정책이 방향성을 잃은 혼란스러운 모습으로 인해 시장 반응을 예측하기 어렵습니다. 긍정적이거나 부정적인 방향을 명확히 가리키지 못하므로 중립적인 입장이 적합합니다.
핵심 요약
트럼프는 이란을 위협하다가 결국 협정을 체결했으며, 이란 당국은 시위 중 3,000명 사망했다고 보고했습니다.
핵심요약
- 트럼프는 6개월 동안 이란에 대한 정책을 급격히 변경하며, 시위자 지원, 군사 공격, 협정 제안 등을 번갈아 가며 발표했습니다.
- 이란 당국에 따르면 시위 동안 최소 3,000명이 사망했으며, 트럼프는 'Operation Epic Fury'를 발표하며 군사 캠페인을 시작했습니다.
- 트럼프는 이란에 대한 군사 행동을 위협하며, 동시에 협상을 통해 위기를 해결하려는 모습을 보였습니다.
- 이란과 미국의 관계는 트럼프의 정책 변화에 따라 급변하며, 투자자에게는 큰 불확실성을 안겨주었습니다.
도입
이 기사는 트럼프 행정부의 이란 정책이 어떻게 급격히 변화했는지 보여주며, 이는 중동 지역과 글로벌 에너지 시장에 큰 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 특히 트럼프의 정책 변화가 이란의 경제와 정치적 안정성에 미치는 영향은 투자자에게 중요한 정보를 제공합니다.
본문 1: 트럼프의 정책 변화와 이란의 대응
트럼프는 initially 이란에 대한 군사적 위협을 가하며, 시위자들을 지원하겠다는 메시지를 전달했습니다. 그러나 이란 당국은 시위를 '폭동'과 '테러리즘'으로 규정하며 강경 대응에 나섰습니다. 이란 당국에 따르면 시위 동안 최소 3,000명이 사망했으며, 이는 트럼프의 정책 변화가 이란의 정치적 안정성에 미치는 영향을 보여줍니다. 트럼프의 정책 변화는 이란의 경제와 정치적 상황을 더욱 복잡하게 만들었으며, 이는 투자자에게 큰 불확실성을 안겨주었습니다.
본문 2: 군사적 위협과 협상의 균형
트럼프는 'Operation Epic Fury'를 발표하며 군사 캠페인을 시작했습니다. 그러나 동시에 그는 이란과 협상을 통해 위기를 해결하려는 모습을 보였습니다. 이는 트럼프의 정책이 군사적 위협과 협상의 균형을 맞추며 변화하고 있음을 보여줍니다. 이러한 정책 변화는 이란과 미국의 관계에 큰 영향을 미칠 수 있으며, 이는 투자자에게 중요한 정보를 제공합니다.
결론
트럼프의 이란 정책은 급격한 변화를 보이며, 이는 중동 지역과 글로벌 에너지 시장에 큰 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 투자자는 트럼프의 정책 변화가 이란의 경제와 정치적 안정성에 미치는 영향을 주의 깊게 관찰해야 합니다. 또한, 트럼프의 정책 변화가 글로벌 에너지 시장에 미치는 영향을 예측하는 것은 어려울 수 있지만, 지속적인 모니터링이 필요합니다.
Original Article
How Trump’s posts on Iran zigzagged during the war - The Hindu
U.S. President Donald Trump spent six months threatening to destroy Iran, encouraging regime change, overseeing military strikes and warning that “all Hell” could break loose. Yet, he ended the crisis, for now, by signing a memorandum of understanding with Tehran. The period saw Mr. Trump taking several flip-flops, including an offer of support for Iranian protesters, a threat to erase Iran’s civilisation, a claim that Tehran had already seen regime change and a preliminary deal with Iran, pending more talks.
The story began on the streets of Iran. The country saw street protests in January, triggered by a deepening economic crisis. Some protesters called for an end to the Islamic Republic itself and in parts of the country, the protests turned violent. On January 2, as the crisis was spreading across Iran’s main cities, Mr. Trump posted on Truth Social: “If Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go.”
Within days, Iran cracked down on the protests, which it said were triggered by “rioters” and “terrorists”. According to authorities, at least 3,000 people were killed.
A few weeks later, Mr. Trump told Iranians “help is on the war”. “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING - TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!... HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!!” he wrote in a post.
Here, Mr. Trump was not merely expressing concern about the events unfolding inside Iran. He was directly encouraging Iranians to topple their government.
The message was clear: the U.S. was openly sympathetic to forces seeking change within Iran. Mr. Trump sent U.S. warships, fighter jets and aircraft carriers to the region.
On February 28, when Iran was holding talks with the U.S., Mr. Trump, in an eight-minute video, announced the launch of ‘Operation Epic Fury’, a major military campaign, along with Israel’s Operation Roaring Lion. American and Israeli forces jointly struck Iran’s nuclear facilities, missile sites, military centres and infrastructure in one of the largest military operations in West Asia in decades. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, was assassinated, along with several other top leaders.
Even as the bombs fell, Mr. Trump framed the campaign as something larger than a military operation. Addressing Iranians directly, he declared: “When we are finished, take over your government”. The message was clear: America and Israel wanted regime change.
Iran, however, was swift to retaliate. Ballistic missiles and drones targeted U.S. military bases across the Persian Gulf, while Tehran also announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints.
For weeks, Mr. Trump warned Iran against escalation while Tehran vowed resistance. On March 6, he demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender”. But Iran kept hitting back. Lebanon was drawn into the conflict as Hezbollah entered the war. Almost every Gulf nation felt its impact. Concerns over global supply chains intensified as Hormuz remained closed. In March, behind the scenes, diplomacy also took stage. Pakistan emerged as a crucial intermediary, facilitating communication between Washington and Tehran. But threats continued.
On March 22, Mr. Trump issued one of his starkest warnings. “If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!”
But Iran did not budge. Before the deadline expired, Mr. Trump changed the tone. “I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST…,” he wrote.
This is now a Trump classic. First he issues wild threats, and then he backs off.
The pattern continued. On March 27, Mr. Trump again expressed optimism about the talks, saying negotiations with Iran were progressing at a good pace. He also announced that, at Tehran’s request, he was pausing the threatened destruction of Iranian power plants for 10 days. Such messages suggested that Washington now saw diplomacy as a viable path forward. Yet even as he spoke of negotiations, Mr. Trump kept military pressure firmly on the table.
On April 1, he claimed that Iran’s new leadership had requested a ceasefire. Three days later, he issued another ultimatum, warning that time was running out. He didn’t stop there. On April 5, Easter Sunday, he posted: “Open the F*****’ Strait, you crazy bast****, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH!”
For observers attempting to understand Washington’s strategy, the signals were increasingly difficult to decode. That uncertainty reached its peak on April 7.
In what would become one of the most extraordinary moments of the entire crisis, Mr. Trump posted: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again... We have Complete and Total Regime Change…” The statement sent shockwaves, but only for Mr. Trump to announce what he called a “double-sided CEASEFIRE” within hours.
The ceasefire, however, did not mean the pressure campaign had ended.
On April 11, Mr. Trump got back to issuing threats again. He warned Tehran against testing American patience and added that military options remained available if negotiations stalled. On April 12, he said “most points were agreed to, but the only point that really mattered, NUCLEAR, was not.” After talks in Islamabad failed to reach any breakthrough, Mr. Trump imposed a naval blockade on Iran, while holding on to the ceasefire.
By April 17, after he announced a ceasefire in Lebanon, Mr. Trump said in all capital letters: “The Strait of Hormuz is completely open and ready for business and full passage, but the naval blockade will remain in full force... until such time as our transaction with Iran is 100% complete.” But the ceasefire in Lebanon never held, with Israel continuing its strikes. And Iran held its tight control over the Strait. High tensions led to occasional military skirmishes over the strait.
Nevertheless, throughout April and May, negotiations accelerated. By late May, Mr. Trump suggested a deal was close. “It will only be a Great Deal for all or, no Deal at all.”
In early June, he “called off” another planned bombing of Iran to allow talks another chance. Negotiations had by then expanded beyond the immediate crisis and were focused on shipping access, the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions relief, energy security and long-term guarantees regarding the Strait of Hormuz. By mid-June, Mr. Trump declared that a memorandum of understanding had been reached.
The agreement sought to end months of hostilities by ensuring freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, laying down a framework for addressing Iran’s nuclear programme through negotiations and creating a pathway for easing of sanctions in return for Iranian commitments.
“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorise the toll-free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorise the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade,” Mr. Trump posted on June 16. “Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!”
While Mr. Trump hailed that the deal will bring “peace and security to the whole region”, one issue had quietly disappeared from Washington’s public messaging: regime change.
Mr. Trump began this crisis by encouraging Iranians to challenge their government, oversaw a military campaign that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, repeatedly spoke of regime change and warned that “all Hell” could break loose.
Yet, he ended it by celebrating an agreement with the very Islamic Republic he once appeared determined to overthrow.