핵심요약

• 미국은 이란에 대한 군사적 대립에서 수십억 달러를 지출했지만, 결국 실패를 인정하는 모멘텀에 도달했습니다.
• JCPOA 하에서 이란은 대부분의 핵 물질을 해외로 이송했으며, 이는 합의의 효과성을 입증합니다.
• JCPOA는 이란의 핵 해체와 정권 교체를 무력으로 달성할 수 없음을 인정했습니다.
• JCPOA 옹호자들은 합의가 완벽하지는 않지만, 가능한 최선의 해결책이었다고 주장했습니다.

도입

이 기사는 이란에 대한 군사적 접근 방식의 실패를 보여주며, JCPOA의 중요성을 다시 한 번 강조합니다. 투자자들에게는 지정학적 리스크와 정책 변화가 시장 동향에 미치는 영향을 이해하는 데 중요한 교훈을 제공합니다.

본문 1: JCPOA의 효과성

기사는 JCPOA가 이란의 핵 물질을 해외로 이송시키는 데 성공했으며, 이는 합의의 효과성을 입증합니다. 이란은 JCPOA 하에서 핵 개발을 중단했고, 이는 지역 안정화에 기여했습니다. 그러나 JCPOA의 비판자들은 합의가 이란의 다른 악성 활동을 해결하지 못한다는 점을 지적했습니다. JCPOA는 완벽하지는 않지만, 가능한 최선의 해결책이었습니다.

본문 2: 군사적 접근 방식의 실패

미국은 이란에 대한 군사적 대립에서 수십억 달러를 지출했지만, 결국 실패를 인정하는 모멘텀에 도달했습니다. 이는 군사적 접근 방식이 핵 해체와 정권 교체를 달성하는 데 효과적이지 않음을 보여줍니다. 이란의 군사력과 지역 영향력은 여전히 강하며, 이는 향후 지정학적 리스크를 높일 수 있습니다. 투자자들에게는 군사적 긴장이 시장 변동성에 미치는 영향을 고려해야 합니다.

본문 3: 향후 전망

JCPOA의 재검토와 이란과의 새로운 협상이 필요할 수 있습니다. 이는 지역 안정화와 핵 비확산에 대한 국제적 노력이 지속되어야 함을 의미합니다. 투자자들에게는 지정학적 리스크를 관리하고, 정책 변화에 대비하는 것이 중요합니다. JCPOA의 성공과 실패에서 배운 교훈을 바탕으로, 향후 협상의 방향성을 예측하는 것이 필요합니다.

결론

이 기사는 JCPOA의 중요성과 군사적 접근 방식의 실패를 강조하며, 지정학적 리스크 관리의 중요성을 다시 한 번 상기시킵니다. 향후 이란과의 협상과 지역 안정화 노력이 지속되어야 함을 의미합니다. 투자자들에게는 정책 변화와 군사적 긴장이 시장 동향에 미치는 영향을 지속적으로 모니터링하는 것이 중요합니다.

---

원문 링크: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiV0FVX3lxTE1oU0paZk92dktMdlhLRS14cFRNalJab2RtVkl0UmpuRndvWnNLV19EbG5iaml6SEtSd2cwMzVJXy14ZEFuS293ZHJ2eHJUSlQybVZGc09uYw?oc=5

How Trump's Iran War vindicated Obama's JCPOA - The Jerusalem Post

Neoconservatives have some 'splainin' to do, as Lucy's television husband, Ricky Ricardo used to say.The war on Iran has turned out to be a debacle of historic proportions.After months of military escalation, tens of billions of dollars expended, critical weapons stockpiles depleted, and a region once again thrown into crisis, the United States now finds itself humiliated. The memorandum of understanding reportedly concluded last week does not represent the culmination of victory. It represents the codification of failure.Many understood that nuclear disarmament and regime change in Iran could not be achieved through force. As I wrote in these pages a few months ago, more than a decade ago, we reached a solution designed to avert precisely the calamity that has unfolded. It was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or, in layman's parlance, the Iran nuclear deal.As a certified denizen of the Swamp — I served in the Clinton White House's communications shop and later founded a Washington, DC strategic communications firm — I was at the forefront of selling the Obama administration's agreement to the American public.I remember those days well — and I do not miss them.The ever-retreating theory of victoryJCPOA defenders, particularly those of us in the Jewish community, were attacked in the ugliest terms imaginable. We were called appeasers, sellouts, self-hating Jews and worse. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Washington and outrageously warned Congress that the deal might pave the way to a second Holocaust.JCPOA advocates never argued that the agreement signed in Vienna was perfect.Its critics pointed to the sunset provisions. They objected that the deal did not address every malign activity undertaken by the Islamic Republic throughout the Middle East. These were legitimate concerns. Politics, however, is the art of the possible; geopolitics doubly so.That agreement nevertheless achieved something extraordinary. Iran shipped out the overwhelming majority of its enriched uranium. International inspectors gained unprecedented access. A mechanism existed to monitor and constrain Tehran's nuclear ambitions. The prospect of military confrontation receded.The regime's hardliners hated the agreement. The Revolutionary Guard fought it tooth and nail. Integration into the global economy threatened entrenched interests within the Islamic Republic. A growing middle class and increasing international engagement carried risks for those whose power depended on its isolation and perpetual confrontation.Unfortunately, hardliners were not confined to Tehran.The maximal-pressure advocates in Washington ultimately prevailed. During the first Trump administration, the United States withdrew from the agreement. Tore it up, as the president bragged. Despite the best efforts of our European partners, who had also signed the accord, the framework collapsed beneath the weight of renewed sanctions and diplomatic abandonment.What followed, we were promised, was supposed to vindicate the critics.Instead, it vindicated the critics' critics.The maximal-pressure advocates have spent years moving the goalposts. First, we were told, sanctions would bring the regime to its knees. They did not. Then economic isolation would force Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. It did not. Then military pressure would succeed where sanctions had failed. It did not. Then leadership decapitation, covert action, and military escalation would produce regime change. They did not.Each promised but failed breakthrough gave way to another promised breakthrough.And now comes the final indignity: the so-called memorandum of understanding.'History has now rendered its verdict'After years of threats, sanctions, covert action, military escalation and open warfare, the United States has agreed to resume negotiations with the very regime it set out to break. The Islamic Republic remains in power. Its leadership and political system remain intact.Nor is that all.The agreement reportedly provides waivers for Iranian oil exports and opens the door to sanctions relief and renewed access to many billions in frozen assets. It establishes yet another negotiating process on the nuclear question rather than resolving it.It leaves unresolved many of the issues that maximal-pressure advocates once described as non-negotiable, including Iran's missile capabilities, its regional proxy network, or the many canisters of near-bomb-grade enriched uranium — what the president calls nuclear dust.Even the future status of the Strait of Hormuz, the critical passage for oil open before the war, and now established as a lever for Iran to exert pressure, appears destined for further negotiation rather than decisive resolution.The advocates of maximal pressure promised a better deal than the JCPOA. They promised that Iran would be forced to make concessions unavailable through diplomacy.Instead, after years of confrontation, Washington finds itself lifting pressure, restoring economic benefits, negotiating with a surviving regime and postponing the most difficult questions to future talks.Hell, in Paris last week, Trump actually made the case for Iran to retain, build or buy missiles and maintain at least some nuclear power.So, what, precisely, was achieved?The tragedy is not merely that the war failed to accomplish its objectives. It is that we already possessed a framework that constrained Iran's nuclear program without requiring military confrontation. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was imperfect, to be sure. Its supporters never claimed otherwise. But it reduced risk, established verification mechanisms and avoided precisely the cycle of escalation that has consumed the past decade.Its opponents insisted there was a better way.History has now rendered its verdict.The United States ultimately abandoned a functioning diplomatic framework in pursuit of fantasies that proved unattainable. Having exhausted sanctions, threats and military force, it has arrived back at the negotiating table poorer, weaker and in possession of less leverage than before.I'm afraid I told you so.The defenders of the JCPOA were mocked as appeasers. Yet the memorandum of understanding now before us amounts to an admission of the very proposition we advanced all along: However distasteful it may be, the Islamic Republic is not a problem that can be bombed or sanctioned out of existence.Diplomacy could have spared us the war.

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiV0FVX3lxTE1oU0paZk92dktMdlhLRS14cFRNalJab2RtVkl0UmpuRndvWnNLV19EbG5iaml6SEtSd2cwMzVJXy14ZEFuS293ZHJ2eHJUSlQybVZGc09uYw?oc=5