핵심요약

• 미국 국방부가 이란 전쟁 자금으로 800억 달러를 추가 요청
• 트럼프 대통령이 제안한 국방 예산은 1.5조 달러로 현재 회계연도 대비 50% 증가
• 의회 의원들은 정치적 긴장과 생활비 상승 우려로 자금 요청에 회의적
• 상원 다수당 원내대표 존 튠은 추가 예산 요청을 예상하며, 자금 사용에 대한 투표를 검토할 예정

도입

이번 기사는 미국 국방부의 이란 전쟁 자금 추가 요청과 트럼프 대통령의 국방 예산 증액 계획이 투자자에게 어떤 영향을 미칠지 분석하는 데 중요합니다. 특히, 정치적 긴장과 경제적 요인이 결합된 상황에서 국방 예산의 변화는 시장 동향을 예측하는 데 필수적입니다.

본문 1: 국방 예산 증가의 경제적 영향

미국 국방부의 800억 달러 추가 요청은 이미 트럼프 대통령이 제안한 1.5조 달러의 국방 예산에 더해집니다. 이는 현재 회계연도 대비 50% 증가한 금액으로, 이는 미국 경제에 큰 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 특히, 국방 산업 관련 주식이 상승할 가능성이 높아지며, 이는 투자자에게 새로운 기회가 될 수 있습니다. 그러나, 이러한 예산 증가는 국가 부채 증가로 이어질 수 있어 장기적으로 경제에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다.

본문 2: 정치적 긴장의 시장 영향

의회 의원들의 회의적인 입장은 정치적 긴장이 시장 동향에 미치는 영향을 보여줍니다. 특히, 이란과의 전쟁 자금 요청이 정치적 논란을 일으킬 경우, 시장 변동성이 증가할 수 있습니다. 이는 투자자에게는 리스크를 의미하며, 특히 국방 산업에 투자한 주식이 급락할 가능성을 고려해야 합니다. 또한, 정치적 긴장이 지속될 경우, 미국 경제의 전반적인 성장에도 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다.

본문 3: 장기적 전망

장기적으로는 국방 예산의 증가가 미국 경제에 미치는 영향을 고려해야 합니다. 특히, 국방 산업의 성장과 함께 기술 혁신도 예상되므로, 관련 주식이 장기적으로 상승할 가능성이 있습니다. 그러나, 국가 부채의 증가와 정치적 긴장이 지속될 경우, 미국 경제의 성장률이 저하될 수 있습니다. 따라서, 투자자는 이러한 요인들을 종합적으로 고려하여 투자를 결정해야 합니다.

결론

미국 국방부의 이란 전쟁 자금 추가 요청과 트럼프 대통령의 국방 예산 증액 계획은 투자자에게 새로운 기회와 리스크를 동시에 제공합니다. 정치적 긴장과 경제적 요인을 종합적으로 고려하여 투자를 결정하는 것이 중요합니다. 또한, 장기적인 전망을 고려하여 투자 전략을 수립하는 것이 필수적입니다.

---

원문 링크: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiZEFVX3lxTFBKYlc5YV9kUDV2c0tuZU53aTF3TlFWN3Q5U0lCTjUtZVAtbHkzaUdyZTZja09xMVhMU0kyV3F4UmpSZVgtZm02bmFqZXNlQ1JIdDdIbmx1SWtYXzdKNmJVTVJhSzk?oc=5

Pentagon seeks $80 billion from Congress for Iran war - Sun Sentinel

By KEVIN FREKING and LISA MASCARO

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon has told senators it needs roughly $80 billion, mostly to cover the cost of the U.S. war against Iran , adding to what is already a sizable military spending boost being sought by President Donald Trump .

The White House Office of Management and Budget has yet to make a formal request to Congress. But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill, including Monday evening. A top deputy defense secretary told senators about the Iran funding request last week, according to two people familiar with the situation but not authorized to discuss it publicly.

The Wall Street Journal first reported on the developments.

The push for billions of dollars in Iran war funding comes at a fraught political moment . Lawmakers are skeptical of the deal Trump struck with Iran to bring an end to the war, and wary of next steps. The White House has requested a remarkable $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon — a nearly 50% increase over the current fiscal year’s funding levels.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he’s expecting a supplemental spending request from the administration for the war, and when it arrives, “we’ll work through it and see where the votes are.”

“We need to make sure we’re doing everything we can to replenish, resupply a lot our munitions that have been depleted — not only just with what’s happening with Iran, but prior to that,” said Thune, R-S.D.

Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg spoke to several senators about the proposal in calls last week and he notified congressional committees that the $80 billion request had been sent to the Office of Management and Budget. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

However, the funding package will almost certainly run into trouble from lawmakers who refuse to support Trump’s decision to go to war and are reluctant to give the Pentagon more money at a time of high costs of living for Americans at home.

“You’re spending families’ hard-earned tax dollars on a war that many strongly oppose,” Democratic Sen. Patty Murray told Hegseth in a hearing last month.

In addition to the Iran funding, Republicans hope to secure about $1.1 trillion through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval. Then, they hope to secure an additional $350 billion through a mostly party-line vote later this summer.

The amount being sought by the Pentagon is far higher than the $29 billion estimate of war costs that Hegseth gave Congress during his testimony last month. The bulk of that amount was related to replacing munitions and repairing equipment but also included operational costs to keep forces deployed. That estimate did not include the cost to repair or rebuild U.S. military sites damaged in the region.

It’s also far lower than the initial $200 billion the Pentagon floated as the costs at the start of the war. An early estimate put the cost of the first week of the war at $11.3 billion.

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a member of Democratic party leadership, said he expects the actual price tag could be much higher than the $80 billion being proposed.

Schatz said he hasn’t done any counting of Democrats about whether there is support for an Iran-focused bill, “but I haven’t found anyone who wants to do this.”

But Republican Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana said, “To me it’s less about the war, it’s more about the stockpiles.”

Banks said, “I would sell it to my state as an investment in our defense industrial base, reshoring defense production to Indiana.”

Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said funding for an Iran supplemental can’t be done in isolation. It has to be done after lawmakers from both parties have agreed to a total spending amount for both defense and non-defense programs, “then the rest of this would follow pretty quickly,” Reed said.

And Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota, a member of the Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, said he has been working with the administration to broaden the package to include funds for disaster aid for California, Hawaii and other states hard hit by fires and weather problems, as well as agricultural aid for farmers.

“I think that’s the kind of combination that could pass,” Hoeven said.

Hegseth declined to answer questions from reporters late Monday as he strode around the Capitol.

But on the issue of the cost of the war, Hegseth responded rhetorically during a Senate hearing last month, asking, “What is the cost of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon?”

He acknowledged the president’s decision to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran “comes with cost — and we recognize that.”

Associated Press writers Konstantin Toropin and Ben Finley contributed to this report.

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiZEFVX3lxTFBKYlc5YV9kUDV2c0tuZU53aTF3TlFWN3Q5U0lCTjUtZVAtbHkzaUdyZTZja09xMVhMU0kyV3F4UmpSZVgtZm02bmFqZXNlQ1JIdDdIbmx1SWtYXzdKNmJVTVJhSzk?oc=5