이란 지도부, 전쟁 전략은 일치하나 목표에 대해서는 분열
Iran’s leaders show a united front over the war but are divided over what the goal is - The Seattle Times
전쟁 목표에 대한 내부 분열은 상당한 불확실성을 야기하므로, 즉각적인 방향성 편향은 중립으로 유지됩니다.
핵심 요약
이란 지도부는 전쟁의 최종 목표에 대해 분열되어 있으며, 이는 향후 외교 및 경제 정책에 불확실성을 더합니다.
핵심요약
- 이란 지도부는 전쟁 전략에 대해서는 단합을 보였으나, 목표 설정에 대해서는 분열되어 있습니다.
- 'Paydari' 운동과 같은 강경파는 협상 거부 및 완전한 승리를 주장합니다.
- 페제슈키안 및 칼리바프는 군사 압박을 통한 협상 타결을 지지하며 경제적 부담을 우려합니다.
- 4월 미국과의 휴전 협정은 최고 국가안보회의의 12개 회원국이 승인했으나, 단 한 표가 반대했습니다.
도입
본 기사는 이란 지도부 내부의 전략적 분열이 이란의 장기적인 지정학적 목표와 경제적 운명에 미치는 영향을 분석합니다. 투자자들은 이러한 내부 갈등이 향후 이란의 대외 정책의 일관성과 실행 가능성에 어떤 변동성을 가져올지 주목해야 합니다.
본문 1: 전략적 이견의 발생
이란 지도부 내에서 나타난 전략적 이견은 전쟁의 목표 설정에 대한 근본적인 차이에서 비롯됩니다. 한쪽에서는 미국과의 협상 없이 완전한 승리를 추구하는 강경한 이데올로그들('Paydari' 운동)이 지배적입니다. 이들은 이슬람 공화국의 사회 통제를 강화하는 것을 목표로 하며, 이는 군사적 강경 노선을 선호합니다. 반면, 다른 한편에서는 대통령 마수드 페제슈키안과 핵심 협상가인 모하마드 바게르 칼리바프를 지지하는 세력이 존재합니다. 이들은 군사적 압박을 통해 미국과의 협상을 이끌어내고, 전쟁으로 인한 이란의 경제적 피해와 사회 변화에 대한 적응 필요성을 고려하며 협상안을 선호합니다. 이는 단순히 군사적 승패를 넘어, 전쟁 이후 이란의 정치 체제와 경제 구조를 어떻게 재편할지에 대한 근본적인 시각차를 보여줍니다.
본문 2: 정책 실행과 리스크
이러한 내부적 분열은 향후 이란이 국제사회에서 취할 외교적 행동의 일관성을 시험할 수 있는 주요 리스크 요인입니다. 군사적 강경 노선을 고수하는 세력과 협상을 통한 실리 추구를 선호하는 세력 간의 충돌은 외교적 채널의 활용에 있어 불확실성을 야기합니다. 특히, 최고 지도자 아야톨라 모즈타바 카메네이의 역할과 지지 여부가 불분명하다는 점은 정책 결정의 중심축이 흔들릴 수 있음을 의미합니다. 만약 지도부 내에서 목표에 대한 합의가 이루어지지 않는다면, 국제사회는 이란의 다음 단계 행동에 대해 예측하기 어려워질 것입니다. 이는 협상 과정에서 이란이 얻을 수 있는 실질적인 이익과 장기적인 안보 목표 사이의 균형을 잡는 데 어려움을 초래할 수 있습니다.
본문 3: 장기적 전망과 경제적 영향
궁극적으로 이 내부 갈등은 이란의 장기적인 경제적 전망에 직접적인 영향을 미칩니다. 협상에 초점을 맞춘 전략은 단기적인 경제적 압박을 완화하고 국제 금융 시스템과의 관계를 재정립할 기회를 제공할 수 있습니다. 반면, 완전한 승리를 추구하는 강경 노선은 장기적인 내부 통제와 자원 통제에 중점을 두어 경제적 자율성을 확보하려 할 것입니다. 따라서 향후 이란의 경제 정책은 군사적 목표 달성 여부와 협상 성과에 따라 크게 좌우될 것입니다. 외부의 개입이나 국제 제재의 강도 변화는 이러한 내부적 균열을 더욱 심화시키거나 혹은 새로운 협상 기회를 제공하는 촉매제가 될 수 있습니다. 따라서 투자 관점에서는 이란의 정책 결정 과정에서 나타나는 미묘한 변화들을 모니터링하는 것이 중요합니다.
결론
이란 지도부의 전략적 분열은 전쟁의 결과뿐만 아니라 장기적인 정책 방향에 대한 불확실성을 내포하고 있습니다. 향후 이란이 어떤 목표를 우선시하며 외교적 선택을 할지에 따라 지역 지정학적 환경과 경제적 변동성이 크게 달라질 가능성이 있습니다. 따라서 우리는 지도부 내부의 미묘한 변화와 외부 환경 변화를 종합적으로 분석하여 이란의 미래 경로를 예측하는 데 집중해야 할 것입니다.
Original Article
Iran’s leaders show a united front over the war but are divided over what the goal is - The Seattle Times
CAIRO (AP) — With escalating attacks against U.S. bases and its allies over the past week, Iran’s leaders are showing considerable unity over their war strategy: hanging tough, determined to show Iran can endure more than America and its allies can.
But within the leadership, there are sharp differences over what the endgame should be.
On one side, the ultra-hardliners who oppose any negotiations with the United States are pressing for total victory in the war. Known as the “Paydari” movement – Persian for “stability” – they are hard-core ideologues who want to enforce the Islamic Republic’s control over society.
On the other, those who support President Masoud Pezeshkian and powerful parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf — who doubles as Iran’s chief negotiator — see military pressure as a way to win a negotiated deal with the United States. This camp is also spurred by concern over the economic toll Iran is suffering from the war and the need to adapt to social change in the country.
“Negotiation is a political tool and a complement to military action to force the enemy to a point of compulsion and extract real concessions,” an adviser to Qalibaf, Mahdi Mohammadi, wrote on his Telegram channel Thursday.
The unusually open rivalry within the theocracy’s leadership points to a struggle for control over Iran’s postwar future. A huge question mark is where the new supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, stands. Reportedly injured in the strike that killed his father in the opening minutes of the war on Feb. 28, Khamenei remains in hiding, and both sides have claimed his support.
Iran is determined to show strength
In a boost for Qalibaf and Pezeshkian, the ceasefire deal reached with the U.S. in April received strong backing in Iran’s top leadership body, the Supreme National Security Council. Twelve of its 13 members approved it, including senior figures in the Revolutionary Guard and the military.
The lone vote against the deal is widely believed to have come from Saeed Jalili, the most prominent figure in the Paydari movement.
But the ceasefire crumbled as the two sides trade strikes and as Iran presses for control over passage through the Strait of Hormuz which before the war carried a fifth of the world’s traded oil and gas. Iran was also frustrated that financial promises under the deal – including the release of billions of frozen assets – didn’t materialize, and now the American blockade is back in place.
With no benefits from the deal, “there’s no serious division” in the leadership over how to respond, said Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group.
They believe U.S. President Donald Trump “only understands the language of force, and therefore, they would have to gain the upper hand in order to compel him to deliver,” Vaez said.
The hard-liners are pressuring Iranians
The funeral for slain Iranian supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, earlier this month appeared to show the strength of the ultra-hardline Paydari. Crowds called for revenge on the U.S. and Israel for the war. Videos showed mourners in Tehran welcoming Jalili, while Pezeshkian was greeted at one point with insults and cries of “Death to the compromiser!”.
The ultra-hardliners have used nightly rallies and their control of state television, known by the acronym IRIB, to drum up opposition to negotiations. At rallies and on TV, speakers have portrayed Iran as headed for total victory and denounced those who compromise with the Islamic Republic’s archenemy, the United States.
State television cut off a June 30 live broadcast with Qalibaf as he discussed negotiations with Washington. Earlier this month, it cut off broadcasting a speech by Pezeshkian to businessmen seconds after he said that the elder Khamenei had given permission for renewed U.S. talks before his death.
Pezeshkian and his camp have pushed back, portraying IRIB as dividing the country at the time of war. The president accused the broadcaster of making it like “the military are on one side, and the government is on another side.”
Last month, the president’s media office condemned state television for what it described as “censoring” the president and other government heads, signaling an open rift.
The hard-liners have sought to press their influence in other ways. In past weeks, authorities shut down cafes in central Tehran that were popular with residents during the ceasefire. Videos on Iranian social media showed many women at the cafes flouting mandatory veiling laws, and crowds mixing freely.
The closures were brief but signaled that “religious extremist parties” were showing their influence, said Mohamad Ali Abtahi, a reformist cleric and an aide to former President Mohammad Khatami, who is still widely considered to be the leader of Iran’s reformist groups.
While Jalili’s supporters are a minority they are influential, said Vali Nasr, professor of International Affairs and Middle East Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
“They have a lot of money. They have a lot of power. They have put a lot of people in the bureaucracy” and developed connections in the Revolutionary Guard, Nasr said.
The pragmatists say the public must be heard
The more pragmatic camp argues that maintaining unity during the war requires addressing the public’s unhappiness over the economy as well as political and social repression. This, as Iran’s currency continues to slide, inflation spirals, and unemployment rises. A final agreement with the U.S. could bring Iran a huge windfall with the lifting of sanctions and the return of billions in assets.
Most Read Nation & World Stories
Small flashes of impatience with the war have emerged. In July, over 250 former lawmakers, clerics, professors and other public figures signed an anti-war petition warning of the costs of the conflict. “We believe that the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people want peace and the right to a decent life,” the statement read. Others have spoken out against stepped-up executions of protesters following wide-scale anti-government protests in January.
A top reformist party that assisted Pezeshkian’s presidential campaign warned that the war’s domestic toll was “undermining internal social cohesion.” That brought a rebuke from Tasnim, a news agency close to the Revolutionary Guard, which said the statement amounted to blaming Iran for a war started by the United States.
In mid-July, the president’s son and influential adviser, Youssef Pezeshkian, posted a series of messages about the need to balance realistic military aims with a weak economy. Referring to the decades of sanctions and confrontation with the West, he said Iran has “been prevented from growing and has suffered greatly. It has become sick.”
Both sides are looking to what happens after the war
Ultimately, both sides are jockeying for power after the war, given the unusual uncertainty brought on by the change in the supreme leadership. Abtahi, the reformist cleric, said Mojtaba Khamenei’s real views are still not known, so while some believe he could be more radical than his father, others see the potential for him to bring moderate change.