미국 민주당, 유권자 93%의 의견 무시하고 이란 평화 협상 방해
The Democrats Defy Their Voters to Stoke the Iran War - The American Conservative
정치적인 뉴스는 특정 기업 또는 섹터와 직접적으로 관련이 없는 한 주식 시장에 큰 영향을 미치지 않습니다.
핵심 요약
미국 민주당 유권자의 93%가 이란과의 갈등 종결을 원하지만, 민주당 지도층은 트럼프 대통령의 3000억 달러 평화 협상 반대하며 유권자 의견을 무시하고 있습니다.
핵심요약
- 민주당 유권자의 93%가 이란 갈등 종결을 원함
- 트럼프 대통령의 평화 협상 노력에 민주당 지도층이 반대
- 슈머 상원 원내부대표는 이란의 3000억 달러 요구를 명백히 거부
- 셰인 상원 외교위원장은 협정이 JCPOA보다 나쁘다고 비판
도입
이 기사는 미국 민주당 내부의 갈등과 이란 평화 협상에 대한 정치적 압력을 분석한 내용으로, 투자자들에게 정치 리스크가 시장 동향에 미칠 수 있는 영향을 이해하는 데 도움이 됩니다. 특히 중동 지역과의 경제적 관계나 에너지 시장에 투자한 기업들에게는 중요한 정보가 될 수 있습니다.
본문 1: 민주당 내부의 갈등과 평화 협상 방해
기사에서는 민주당 유권자의 93%가 이란 갈등 종결을 원하지만, 민주당 지도층이 트럼프 대통령의 평화 협상 노력에 반대하고 있음을 강조하고 있습니다. 슈머 상원 원내부대표는 이란의 3000억 달러 요구를 명백히 거부하며, 민주당이 이 금액을 승인하는 데는共和黨의 지원이 필요하다고 선언했습니다. 이는 민주당 내부의 갈등이 평화 협상에 미치는 영향을 보여주며, 정치적 압력이 외교 정책에 어떤 영향을 미칠 수 있는지를 시사합니다.
본문 2: 이란 평화 협상의 시장 영향
이란 평화 협상의 성공 또는 실패는 에너지 시장, 특히 석유 가격에 큰 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 만약 협상이 성공하면 이란의 석유 수출이 증가하여 석유 가격이 하락할 가능성도 있습니다. 반면, 협상이 실패하면 중동 지역의 불안정이 지속되어 석유 가격이 상승할 수 있습니다. 이는 에너지 회사나 중동 지역에 투자한 기업들의 주가 변동성에 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다.
본문 3: 정치적 리스크와 투자 전략
정치적 리스크는 시장 예측을 어렵게 만드는 주요 요인 중 하나입니다. 이란 평화 협상과 같은 국제적 이슈는 미국과 이란 간의 관계뿐만 아니라, 중동 지역 전체의 안보 상황에도 영향을 미칩니다. 투자자들은 이러한 정치적 리스크를 고려하여 포트폴리오를 다각화하거나, 리스크 헤지 전략을 수립하는 것이 중요합니다.
결론
이 기사는 민주당 내부의 갈등과 이란 평화 협상에 대한 정치적 압력이 어떻게 외교 정책과 시장 동향에 영향을 미칠 수 있는지를 보여줍니다. 투자자들은 정치적 리스크를 고려하여 투자 전략을 수립하는 것이 중요하며, 중동 지역과의 경제적 관계를 가진 기업들의 주가 변동성에 주목해야 합니다. 향후 이란 평화 협상의 진행 상황과 민주당 내부의 갈등이 어떻게 해결될지 주목해야 합니다.
Original Article
The Democrats Defy Their Voters to Stoke the Iran War - The American Conservative
The Democratic establishment’s hostility to making peace shows a striking disconnect within the party of the left.
As President Donald Trump moves this week to extricate himself from a conflict that a CBS News poll finds most Americans want ended now, the powerful donor-class networks that want endless war have rapidly moved to sabotage his efforts.
It is no surprise which portions of the right have mounted an emergency campaign against Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance’s recent peace efforts. Israel Hayom —owned by the Trump mega-donor Miriam Adelson—published a blistering open letter accusing Trump of signing a “surrender agreement with a murderous and cruel terror regime.” The Wall Street Journal editorial board has been carping about the negotiations almost daily since the June 17 signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the U.S. and Iran. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is already fantasizing about another round of fighting following diplomatic failure.
But the Israel lobby is a bipartisan affair, and its influence on the other side of the aisle is even more startling under the current circumstances. The Democratic Party, funded by much of the same donor base, is working with them overtime to sabotage the agreement. This is shamelessly spitting in the face of the roughly 93 percent of Democratic Party voters who favor an exit from this conflict, most of whom opposed it from the outset.
In response to the signing of the MOU, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “If Trump wants to send hundreds of billions of dollars to Iran, he’ll need to do it with Republican votes.”
Explicitly rejecting one of Iran’s redline conditions, Schumer defiantly declared that “Democrats certainly won’t be helping Trump send $300 billion to Iran.”
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, attacked the deal as “worse than the JCPOA in virtually every respect,” while criticizing the administration for “abandoning the very ‘maximum pressure’ strategy President Trump spent years championing.”
On Meet the Press , Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) called Trump “the biggest loser” with “egg on his face” and said the deal was “an abject surrender” that he would not support.
The talking points now wielded by congressional Democrats opposing the MOU mirror those deployed by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a prominent Israel lobby group . FDD is demanding that Congress embrace a poison pill to the deal and ensure any agreement “impose[s] restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program” and “end Iran’s support” for Hezbollah. Simultaneously, the ranking Democrats, Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Jim Himes (D-CT), and Adam Smith (D-WA), pose similar questions in a June 17 letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio: “Will Iran be allowed to rebuild its missile program and continue to support proxies that destabilize the region?” Having abdicated their constitutional authority to declare war, lawmakers have now suddenly rediscovered Congress's role—not to declare war, but to derail any effort to end it.
To their credit, a handful of Democrats such as Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) have broken with their party's hawkish establishment, urging Democrats to back the agreement.
That Democrats now play the same spoiler role for Trump’s Iran deal as Republicans did for Obama’s JCPOA is unsurprising, given the copious Israel-loyalist cash that flows into both parties’ campaign coffers each election cycle.
Based on the Democrats’ posture, it might be argued that a Kamala Harris administration would have pursued exactly the same policy against Iran and embarked on the same unpopular war of choice. Trita Parsi, vice president of the Quincy Institute, is among those who believe that’s what would have happened.
“I find that extremely likely,” Parsi told The American Conservative , describing the Biden administration’s Iran policy as “following Trump's strategy while trying to put a happier face on it: to take Trump's Abraham Accords and add Saudi Arabia to it.”
Noting “continuity between Biden and Trump’s first administration,” Parsi explained that though they “didn’t like that it was called a Trump deal, at the end of the day they did everything that they could” to maintain it. Parsi likewise believes that, had the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton won in 2016, “she would have gone back to the traditional method of ‘containing Iran,’ which [would have] put too much pressure on the JCPOA” and made it collapse.
Some of this support for an aggressive Iran policy in the Democratic establishment is overt. Amos Hochstein, a senior advisor in the Biden administration and a former IDF soldier, told Face the Nation in April that he supported last summer’s Operation Midnight Hammer, in which the Trump administration struck Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“We had thought internally in the Biden administration we may have to take [strikes] if there was a second term,” he said, adding that Biden “did war games. We did some practice runs on what it would look like to look into it, because that may have had to happen under our watch as well.”
Israel, now facing the first American administration in recent memory to at least rhetorically separate its interests from Israel’s, may find its most reliable savior not in the Republican hawks it has long cultivated, but in a Democratic Party establishment whose own voters oppose the war more than almost anyone.