핵심요약

• 작전 개시 후 6개월 경과, 초기 목표 달성 예측(4~5주)은 실패
• 지역에 50,000명 이상의 군대 배치
• 작전 시작 이후 18명 사망 및 500명 부상
• 이란이 전략적 승자로 부상하며 미국이 손실을 감수하는 상황

도입

본 기사는 트럼프 행정부의 이란 전쟁이 6개월째 진행됨에 따라 직면한 지정학적 딜레마를 분석합니다. 이는 단순한 군사적 충돌을 넘어, 중동 지역의 불안정성이 글로벌 무역로와 에너지 시장에 미치는 영향을 이해하는 데 중요합니다. 투자자들은 이러한 지정학적 위험이 장기적인 경제 안정성에 어떤 영향을 미칠지 면밀히 살펴볼 필요가 있습니다.

본문 1: 군사적 목표의 좌절과 전략적 패배

미국이 이란에 대한 공습을 시작했을 때, 행정부는 목표 달성에 4주에서 5주가 걸릴 것으로 추정했습니다. 그러나 6개월이 지난 현재, 이 약속은 거짓으로 판명되었습니다. 이는 군사적 목표 달성이라는 단기적 목표를 넘어, 이란이 지역에서 전략적 승자로 부상했음을 의미합니다. 현재 중동 지역에는 50,000명 이상의 군대가 배치되어 있으며, 작전 시작 이후 18명의 군인이 사망하고 거의 500명이 부상당했습니다. 이러한 군사적 손실과 목표 미달성은 미국이 이란의 통제권을 확보하거나 핵 프로그램 제한이라는 장기적 목표를 달성하는 데 실패했음을 보여줍니다. 이는 군사적 개입이 단기적인 성과로 이어지지 않을 경우, 미국이 지역에서 전략적 우위를 잃고 손실을 감수하게 될 수 있다는 점을 시사합니다.

본문 2: 지역 불안정성이 글로벌 경제에 미치는 파급 효과

전쟁의 확장은 단순히 이란과 미국의 문제에 머무르지 않고, 글로벌 경제에 직접적인 영향을 미치고 있습니다. 이란 측은 요르단, 쿠웨이트, 바레인 등 미국의 군사 기지가 위치한 국가들을 공격하고 오만 연안의 선박들을 표적으로 삼아 호르무즈 해협의 통제권을 확보하려 했습니다. 또한 예멘의 후티 세력은 홍해와 바브 알만데브 해협을 통해 해상 운송을 방해하는 새로운 해상 전선을 열었습니다. 이러한 해상 경로의 교란은 글로벌 공급망과 무역로에 압력을 가하며, 이는 국제 유가 변동성과 물류 비용 상승으로 이어져 전 세계 경제에 부정적인 영향을 미칩니다. 따라서 이 지역의 분쟁은 에너지 안보와 무역 시스템의 안정성에 대한 근본적인 위험을 증가시킵니다.

본문 3: 장기적 위험과 외교적 딜레마

이란의 전략적 승리는 향후 미국의 외교적 노력이 직면한 복잡한 딜레마를 강조합니다. 미국이 60일 휴전 협정(MOU)을 통해 외교적 노력을 병행했음에도 불구하고, 이란이 지역 내에서 군사적 우위를 점하고 있다는 사실은 평화적인 해결책을 모색하는 데 큰 장애물이 됩니다. 이란이 지역 내에서 확보한 영향력은 미국의 개입 의지에도 불구하고 중동 지역의 지정학적 균형을 변화시키고 있습니다. 따라서 미국은 군사적 개입의 한계를 인식하고, 장기적인 외교적 해법을 모색하는 데 집중해야 하는 시점입니다.

결론

현재의 상황은 단기적인 군사적 목표 달성 실패를 넘어, 이란이 지역에서 전략적 우위를 점하며 미국의 개입이 장기적인 해결책을 제공하지 못하고 있음을 보여줍니다. 향후 미국이 이 지역에서 손실을 최소화하기 위해서는 군사적 접근에서 벗어나 외교적 노력을 강화하고, 글로벌 공급망과 에너지 시장의 안정성을 확보하는 데 중점을 두어야 할 것입니다. 앞으로의 상황은 외교적 협상과 지역 내 세력 균형 변화에 따라 예측하기 어려우며, 지속적인 모니터링이 필요합니다.

---

원문 링크: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMivAFBVV95cUxOSnFMcEVJc0VUUWJGeUM5akhIMk82aE84TVpTYXN5Nm5oRlZXcThJaUdKMTBPX29tY2JCZEpIZXYtcVg5cEd2QlBVOGZPdmNNS1NSWFYwdnQ2YWZiN0xUUkF5WFBJMnN1SWRrY3FoUkJxRWxmUVU1LTdVcElmWUN4eThYYmxqX2pzS2phcnlSMnlzbmFwWHVpbmZ0Tl9NRHAwa3ItM3JXOVkyM1ZreDFyZ1M4bE9WYjJyLV9qSg?oc=5

The Trump Administration’s Middle East Quagmire: Six Months Into the War in Iran - Center for American Progress

Senior Director, Media Relations

When the Trump administration launched strikes on Iran nearly six months ago, it promised swift success. In the first week of the war, President Donald Trump estimated that it would take “ four to five weeks ” to achieve the war’s objectives. However, as the six-month mark for Operation Epic Fury approaches, those promises have proven false. Without a path to long-term resolution of the war, leverage to wrest Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz , or a means to curtail Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the administration remains embroiled in what increasingly appears to be a quagmire in the Middle East. More than 50,000 troops remain deployed in the region. Eighteen service members have been killed since the start of operations, and nearly 500 have been injured, many seriously —though the Pentagon has failed to provide regular, detailed updates on casualties. Six months in, Iran has emerged as the strategic victor , and the longer the Trump administration fails to reach a durable conclusion to the conflict, the more the United States stands to lose.

The administration had agreed to a preliminary memorandum of understanding (MOU) on June 17 that committed to a 60-day ceasefire while the United States and Iran pursued diplomatic negotiations. But in the past weeks, the war has only expanded. Iran escalated attacks against Jordan , Kuwait, and Bahrain, which host U.S. bases, and targeted ships off the coast of Oman seeking to exit the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Iran-aligned Houthi forces in Yemen, relatively quiet until July , opened a new maritime front, disrupting shipping through the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and adding further pressures on trade routes and the global economy. The Houthis have exploited this moment to conduct attacks against the officially recognized Yemeni government, risking a resumption of a civil war that had been contained under a 2022 U.N. agreement. Iranian-backed militias in Iraq also appear to have joined the fight in July and are believed to be behind drone attacks on U.S. bases and the embassy in Baghdad as well as Saudi oil facilities—prompting a joint U.S.-Saudi airstrike on July 29 , the first time the Saudis have publicly acknowledged joining in hostilities. With the preliminary MOU expired and no progress made toward extending it, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed and the United States and Iran continue to exchange intermittent strikes .

When asked on August 17 whether he was close to ending the war, President Trump said : “I’m not in a hurry.”

It is difficult to overstate the costs the United States has incurred from the war to date. In only six months, the Trump administration has not only entangled the United States in another costly Middle East war of choice ; it has broadcast to the world the inability of U.S. military power to achieve core political objectives against a foe that possesses only a fraction of America’s military might. For decades, America has been able to secure its national interests—peace and prosperity chief among them—through its ability to forge alliances and partnerships with those that see these interests as mutually beneficial. Even in misguided pursuits—such as President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 —past administrations have, however reluctantly, recognized that the consent of Congress and the support of international partners is critical to the strategic success of any military operations. In contrast, the Trump administration chose to pursue this war with Israel alone and has since only tried to hide the costs of this decision, from obfuscating casualty counts to playing down the harms of lengthy deployments to denying rapidly diminishing strategic munitions stockpiles .

By launching Operation Epic Fury in this manner, the Trump administration rejected the crucial role of partners at home and abroad in waging war. It is thus no surprise that even normally supportive members of Congress have distanced themselves from the Trump administration over the military campaign in Iran, while the United States has abjectly failed to generate global support for the war. Gulf partners, who were not even consulted on the decision to launch Operation Epic Fury, have been placed directly in harm’s way, and the war has caused a global economic crisis that has wrought immense economic strife in Europe , Africa , and Asia . The long-term global impacts of the conflict promise negative environmental , health , and food security outcomes—with many countries also facing slower gross domestic product (GDP) growth due to the war.

In short, the war has shown that the United States under the Trump administration is not only an unreliable actor but a malign one. This new reality is reshaping the Middle East: On August 7, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey announced a new mutual defense agreement . While this agreement may be more symbolic than substantive, the symbol is clear: Nations are hedging. Beyond the Middle East, the loss of trust and credibility due to the war has eroded America’s long-held leadership globally, creating space for China to emerge as a more rational, steadfast actor in the eyes of the international community.

The war has also carried other significant reputational costs due to the Trump administration’s conflation of reckless force with strength. To this very point, August 28 will also mark six months since an airstrike in the city of Minab killed at least 156 people , including 120 Iranian schoolchildren . Despite extensive evidence that the United States was responsible, the Pentagon has yet to provide details of its investigation into the strike, stonewalling Congress and leaving families of victims without any accountability. As the war has progressed, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and President Trump have made continued calls for actions that could amount to war crimes. Hegseth has advocated “ no quarter ,” and Trump has threatened widespread strikes on civilian infrastructure at the same time that the U.S. military has targeted dual-use facilities and participated in strikes that have killed more than 1,700 Iranian civilians .

However imperfectly, past bipartisan administrations have sought accountability for wartime abuses and invested in efforts to mitigate civilian harm . They have recognized that the United States military is the most powerful in the world not only because of its size but because of its stature; the Trump administration’s rhetoric and actions risk undermining the reputation and legitimacy of America’s fighting forces. While the administration can, over time, replenish depleted munitions stockpiles, reputational losses cannot be so easily regained.

The costs at home have been no less significant. Gas and diesel price spikes triggered by the war have cost American households an additional $660 on average. Higher energy prices have also resulted in higher inflation. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that consumer prices have increased 3.4 percent year over year. According to Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, as of late July, the costs of the war—including military spending , higher interest rates, and higher costs for gas, groceries, and transportation—amounted to more than $1,200 per household , a number that will only increase as the war goes on. These increased costs come at a time when the Trump administration and Congress have made massive cuts to programs that Americans depend on, including more than $900 billion in cuts to Medicaid and $180 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

On top of these costs, the Trump administration has sought additional defense funding to pursue its failed war. And recently, the House supported the White House’s request, passing legislation that included an additional $73 billion in funding to support the Iran war—$73 billion that could instead fund free school meals for every child, saving families $945 annually, and provide Medicaid coverage to more than 5 million people for one year. Now, the Senate will need to consider the legislation before it becomes law; any senator who supports it should be held accountable for backing a failed, unauthorized war.

For all of these costs, what has the administration achieved? The Iranian regime, which faced massive public protests prior to the war, has remained firmly entrenched—and is even more radicalized . Early strikes killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but his son Mojtaba has taken his place and assumed an even harder line. Although assessing public sentiment in Iran is next to impossible given the regime’s tight control, thousands gathered across the country to mourn Ali Khamenei last month. The Islamic Republic remains in a similar position with regard to its nuclear program as it was six months ago, with stockpiles of enriched uranium still in the country. Worse yet, the war is likely to only increase Iran’s incentive to pursue a weapon, as Iran may reasonably conclude from the past six months that acquiring nuclear weapons is a more effective strategic deterrent than forgoing them.

For now, the Trump administration has backed itself into a corner. There is little that the administration can do, at least not at an acceptable cost, to change the reality that Iran will retain control over the Strait of Hormuz for the foreseeable future. Continued airstrikes have failed to pressure Tehran to unconditionally open the strait, and Trump’s continued threats of expanded military action have had no effect on Iran’s willingness to negotiate. In fact, recent reporting from The Wall Street Journal reveals that Iran had factored U.S. capabilities into its strategic calculus and determined it could withstand the pressure, using the weeks after signing the June ceasefire agreement to rebuild its bases, consolidate its security apparatus, and lay the groundwork for escalation. Now, any attempt to seize control of the strait by force would require the Pentagon to deploy, at minimum, tens of thousands into a theater that favors Iran. The costs in blood and treasure alone would be staggering, and Trump has, rightfully, shown little interest in pursuing a ground war.

Though Tehran has suffered heavy military losses, it has used its ability to target ships in the strait as leverage for extracting concessions. As the Trump administration now faces the prospect of the war’s continued expansion, it is being forced to choose between the very worst options after squandering the leverage that successive administrations had built carefully over decades. All told, Iran has emerged as a more powerful and feared regional power, while the Trump administration remains mired in a conflict it has little prospect of winning.

The implications of the Trump administration’s war in Iran are certain to endure throughout the remainder of his presidency. Even if the administration reaches an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, projections suggest high energy prices through the end of the year , and Iran’s continued control creates a new risk environment that promises higher shipping insurance rates and encourages alternative, more expensive routes that will likely keep prices elevated indefinitely. As the saying goes in economics, prices rise like a rocket and fall like a feather, and the broader inflationary effects are likely to outlast even the energy price increases.

The geopolitical costs to the United States, however, will be even stickier than the economic ones. The United States has been able to restore its reputation after past debacles, though the effort, time, and strategic conditions that enabled those recoveries should not be understated. As the Trump administration lays waste to the reputation of the United States, it is placing the consequences of its actions at the feet of future American leaders. In past defeats, the United States—and the U.S. military in particular—clearly retained both the capacity and will to protect American allies and partners. The post-Vietnam United States was still an effective bulwark in the defense of Japan and South Korea, while the post-Iraq U.S. armed services deterred Iran from directly attacking Middle East partners and weaponizing its nuclear program. With this administration seemingly incapable of reopening the Strait of Hormuz by force and defending critical infrastructure in the region, the value proposition of partnership with the United States is less obvious than it was previously.

Under these circumstances, the diplomatic, political, and moral costs borne by Middle East countries assume larger dimensions. Worse yet, the Trump administration has demonstrated to the world that, in the wrong hands, U.S. power can be applied to generate massive regional and global instability, shredding the laws and norms that have ordered the world and undermining shared interests in the process. Any future administration—or Congress—interested in rebuilding America’s standing and pursuing Americans’ best interests must factor in these new realities.

Contrary to the president’s claims, Iran’s nuclear program has not been neutralized . Preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon requires steady, dedicated diplomacy by seasoned professionals—not only in national security but in science and engineering—in addition to sanctions. Success begins with pursuing a negotiated agreement, which should be backed by both carrots and sticks, like the application or easing of sanctions. This approach is the only one that has been shown to work, in contrast to the Trump administration’s failed attempts to use military force. Furthermore, the administration does not seem to understand that the United States cannot reach a negotiated agreement with Iran alone. Any agreement will require coordination with regional partners and interlocutors that can mediate with the Iranian government. The United States must lead an international coalition that can coordinate to negotiate, implement, and monitor any agreement.

The war has shown America’s vulnerability to a critical chokepoint for energy in the Middle East. To stabilize and reduce energy prices in the long term, the United States must pursue policies that will relieve both its and the global economy’s dependence on the Strait of Hormuz. Trump’s myopic focus on fossil fuels has perpetuated this dependence, but a U.S.-led strategy to expedite the availability and competitiveness of alternative energy through investment in infrastructure, incentives, regulations, and international partnerships could finally make America truly energy independent.

Finally, no president—current or future—should be able to abuse authority and trap America in a war that neither Congress nor the American people want, and future administrations must commit to avoiding wars of choice as a first principle. The Trump administration may have dragged the United States into yet another Middle East quagmire, but this can and must be the last.

The authors would like to thank Mark Toner, Colin Seeberger, Ryan Mulholland, Courtney Federico, and Bobby Kogan for their contributions to this article. They would also like to thank Sadhana Mandala for her fact-checking assistance.

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Senior Vice President, National Security and International Policy

Managing Director, National Security and International Policy

Senior Fellow, National Security and International Policy

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMivAFBVV95cUxOSnFMcEVJc0VUUWJGeUM5akhIMk82aE84TVpTYXN5Nm5oRlZXcThJaUdKMTBPX29tY2JCZEpIZXYtcVg5cEd2QlBVOGZPdmNNS1NSWFYwdnQ2YWZiN0xUUkF5WFBJMnN1SWRrY3FoUkJxRWxmUVU1LTdVcElmWUN4eThYYmxqX2pzS2phcnlSMnlzbmFwWHVpbmZ0Tl9NRHAwa3ItM3JXOVkyM1ZreDFyZ1M4bE9WYjJyLV9qSg?oc=5