트럼프, 이란 전쟁 재개로 중간선거 위험 감수
Why is Trump risking midterm disaster by resuming the unpopular Iran war? - The Guardian
이란 전쟁 재개라는 지정학적 불확실성이 시장 변동성을 높이지만, 단기적인 명확한 재무적 촉매는 부재하여 방향성을 결정하기 어렵습니다.
핵심 요약
트럼프 대통령의 이란 공습 재개는 중간선거 전에 정치적 불확실성과 경제적 부담을 야기할 수 있습니다.
핵심요약
- 트럼프 대통령은 휴전 합의 후 한 달도 되지 않아 이란에 대한 공습을 재개했습니다.
- 이 결정은 공화당의 네오콘서버티브 측으로부터 비판을 받으며 정치적 부담을 가중시킵니다.
- 전쟁은 유가 및 생활비에 대한 인플레이션 영향으로 인해 이미 유권자들에게 인기가 낮습니다.
- 전문가들은 이 조치가 중간선거 성과에 아무런 이점을 주지 못할 것이라고 분석합니다.
도입
본 기사는 트럼프 대통령의 이란 전쟁 재개 결정이 중간선거에 미칠 정치적, 경제적 위험을 분석합니다. 투자자들은 이러한 지정학적 행동이 미국 국내 정치 지형과 거시 경제에 미치는 파급 효과를 면밀히 살펴볼 필요가 있습니다.
본문 1: 지정학적 위험과 정치적 역학 관계
트럼프 대통령이 17 June에 베르사유 궁에서 서명한 양해각서(MoU)가 무효화되었다고 판단하고 공습을 재개한 것은 지정학적 위험을 증폭시키는 행위입니다. 이는 단순히 군사적 행동을 넘어, 국제적 합의의 신뢰도를 훼손하고 동맹국들에 대한 보복을 유발하는 결과를 초래했습니다. 특히 공화당의 네오콘서버티브 측은 이 합의를 이란에 대한 굴복으로 비판하며 강하게 반발했습니다. 이는 미국 외교 정책의 일관성과 동맹 관계의 안정성에 대한 근본적인 의문을 제기하며, 향후 외교 정책에 대한 국내 정치적 논쟁을 심화시키는 요인으로 작용합니다. 이는 미국의 대외 정책이 단기적 목표 달성을 위해 장기적인 국제적 합의를 희생시킬 수 있다는 점을 시사합니다.
본문 2: 경제적 부담과 선거 영향
이란 전쟁의 재개는 지정학적 문제에 국한되지 않고 직접적인 경제적 부담으로 이어집니다. 전쟁은 유가 및 생활비에 대한 인플레이션에 영향을 미치며, 이는 이미 유권자들의 불만을 키우는 요인입니다. 이러한 경제적 부담은 중간선거에서 공화당의 지지율에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 전문가들은 이러한 경제적 요인이 트럼프 행정부의 선거 목표 달성에 실질적인 이점을 제공하지 못한다고 지적합니다. 즉, 군사적 결정이 국내 경제 상황과 선거 결과에 미치는 연쇄적인 부정적 효과를 간과해서는 안 됩니다. 경제적 불안정성은 유권자들의 정책 선호도에 직접적인 영향을 미치므로, 외교적 선택이 재정 및 경제적 결과로 어떻게 연결되는지를 분석하는 것이 중요합니다.
본문 3: 장기적 전망과 리스크 관리
전문가들은 트럼프 대통령의 이러한 행동이 중간선거 성과를 보장하는 데 있어 시간적 제약이 없다고 분석합니다. 이는 단기적인 정치적 이익을 위해 장기적인 국제적 안정성을 희생했을 때 발생하는 잠재적 위험을 강조합니다. 이처럼 예측 불가능한 외교적 선택은 장기적인 국제 관계의 변동성을 높이며, 향후 미국의 외교적 입지에 불확실성을 더합니다. 따라서 향후 미국 정부는 단기적 군사적 목표와 장기적인 외교적 안정성 사이에서 균형을 찾는 데 중점을 두어야 할 것입니다. 이러한 리스크는 외교적 결정이 국내 정치 및 경제적 결과에 미치는 복합적인 영향을 이해하는 데 필수적입니다.
결론
트럼프 대통령의 이란 전쟁 재개 시도는 단기적인 정치적 목표 달성을 위해 장기적인 국제적 합의와 국내 경제적 안정성을 희생할 위험을 내포하고 있습니다. 향후 미국 정부는 외교적 결정이 국내 정치 및 경제적 결과에 미치는 복합적인 연쇄 효과를 신중하게 고려해야 할 것입니다. 투자자들은 이러한 지정학적 리스크와 경제적 변동성을 종합적으로 평가하여 정책의 지속 가능성을 예측해야 합니다.
Original Article
Why is Trump risking midterm disaster by resuming the unpopular Iran war? - The Guardian
Less than a month after hailing a ceasefire, Trump resumed strikes on Iran, a move experts warn could prolong the war and hurt Republicans before the midterms
For half a century, Donald Trump has performed a public high-wire act based on high-stakes risks and shattering time-honored norms to get what he wants.
The approach has paid off handsomely, helping him survive multiple bankruptcies to reach billionaire status and numerous legal and political scandals to be elected US president twice.
Now, a leader who once owned some of the world’s best-known casinos may be about to take the biggest gamble of his presidency by restarting a war with Iran less than a month after agreeing to a ceasefire that he hailed as necessary to stop an economic crisis on a par with the Great Depression .
In the past week, Trump has ordered a resumption of strikes against Iranian military and infrastructure targets after concluding that the memorandum of understanding (MoU) he signed in the Palace of Versailles on 17 June was dead in the water. Iran has retaliated with drone and missile strikes against US allies in the Gulf. The MoU was the subject of biting criticism from the Republicans’ neoconservative wing, who denounced it as a capitulation to Iran.
Less than four months before November’s midterm elections in which Democrats are seeking to recapture both houses of Congress, Trump appears to be flirting with electoral disaster in re-stoking a war that is already unpopular with voters – not least for its inflationary impact on fuel and living costs.
“There’s basically no timeline in which this makes any sense for preserving [Republicans’] midterm performance,” said Curt Mills , executive editor of the American Conservative, a magazine promoting isolationist foreign policy goals favored by Trump’s “American first” supporters.
“I think it’s a total loser. It’s evidence that Trump doesn’t really care about the midterms. He’s like Icarus with the sun with this stuff – it seems to be a personal vendetta with the Iranians.”
Beyond the electoral impact, experts warn that escalation could lead inexorably to a land invasion of Iranian territory – a decision that could in turn bring on the sort of long-term “forever wars” he previously foreswore and condemned past presidents for.
“My initial assessment was that this would just be another blip, some cyclical violence, and then we go back [to the ceasefire and negotiations],” said Nate Swanson , a former state department and White House adviser on Iran. “But the escalation has already exceeded what I thought was possible.
“I see this as an effort to re-establish leverage and try to renegotiate the MoU, but it is highly risky with potentially devastating consequences – and, in my view, likely to be a failure.”
At the heart of the renewed violence is control over the strait of Hormuz , a strategically vital waterway that was a conduit for 20% of the world’s energy exports before the war started on 28 February and that has now emerged as Tehran’s biggest bargaining chip as it seeks to resist pressure to make concessions on issues such as its nuclear program and support for proxies such as Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia group.
The MoU was intended to pave the way for a 60-day ceasefire during which negotiations would take place on Iran’s nuclear program.
At the same time, Iran would reopen the strait – having closed it in response to the US and Israeli attacks, causing global oil prices to soar – in exchange for significant sanctions relief, including the right to sell its oil in international markets and the unfreezing of billions of dollars of assets.
Iran fired on commercial vessels belonging to neighboring Gulf kingdoms after they used, with US naval protection, a shipping lane close to the shores of neutral Oman rather than previously used routes off the Iranian coast, where Tehran’s officials could control passage and charge “service” fees that Washington DC and its allies say are tantamount to illegal tolls.
Some analysts have blamed the flare-up on poor US negotiating, supposedly leading to misunderstandings and ambiguities in the MoU, which makes no mention of shipping lanes.
But Vali Nasr , a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies argued that the MoU’s collapse was a consequence of US and Iranian miscalculation.
“I don’t think there was a misunderstanding. I think this is exactly what Trump intended,” he said.
He cited recent comments by JD Vance, the US vice-president, suggesting that the MoU was signed to give an opportunity to replenish strategic oil reserves, thereby weakening Iran’s negotiating hand while temporarily easing the pressure on fuel costs.
“The MoU was mainly a breather for Trump to try to get what he wants, which is to get control of the strait or take it away from Iran,” Nasr said. “Trump is trying to take it away from them before he negotiates, so they are not in a position to resist his demands on the nuclear issue or anything else.
“Iran also made a gamble that it could basically use the 60 days in order to get some economic relief by bringing imports into the country, while making its position stronger. The bottom line is that there may have been a miscalculation. But there is no misunderstanding.
“Trump may have overestimated what he can do militarily, and again falls short [and decides]: ‘I have to set up something else.’ The Iranians are also overestimating how much they can resist. This is something neither side knows.”
The potential for miscalculation is heightened by the absence of Iran specialists in Trump’s administration.
Swanson – who has said he was forced out of his state department post after a critical tweet from the rightwing influencer, Laura Loomer – blamed the deficiency on Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, whom he said had “physically removed” key personnel.
“I’m struck by some of the leaks that have come out about decision-making in this war, where Rubio is reportedly skeptical about the regime change aims that the Israelis propose to Trump, but then says nothing,” said Swanson, now with the Atlantic Council. “He’s basically neutralized the [state] department, then stays quiet [but] privately tries to clear his name in the aftermath.”