핵심요약

• 트럼프 대통령은 호르무즈 해협 통행 선박에 20%의 수수료 부과를 제안했으나 이를 철회했습니다.
• 이란 전쟁은 현재 4개월 이상 지속되었으며 소모전 양상으로 변모하고 있습니다.
• 미국-이란 간의 휴전 협정(MOU)은 존재하지만 전쟁 종결로 이어지지 않고 있습니다.
• 트럼프 대통령은 전쟁을 종결하는 대신 합의를 이끌어내지 못할 경우 더 나은 결과를 추구할 수 있습니다.

도입

본 기사는 트럼프 대통령이 이란 전쟁과 관련하여 보인 정책적 변화가 국제 분쟁의 장기화 추세와 어떤 연관성을 가지는지 분석합니다. 투자자들은 이러한 지정학적 불안정성이 에너지 시장과 글로벌 무역 환경에 미치는 영향을 면밀히 살펴볼 필요가 있습니다.

본문 1: 지정학적 협상 전략의 변화

트럼프 대통령이 호르무즈 해협 통행료 부과 제안을 철회하고 무역 협상을 제시한 것은, 현재 진행 중인 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 비전통적인 방식을 모색하고 있음을 보여줍니다. 이는 군사적 압박 대신 경제적 인센티브를 활용하여 이란과의 관계를 관리하려는 전략적 시도로 해석됩니다. 이 변화는 전쟁을 끝내기 위한 합의 도출이 얼마나 어려운지를 반영하며, 군사적 해결보다는 경제적 상호의존성을 통한 관리의 필요성을 강조합니다. 이는 분쟁 당사자들이 군사적 대립을 지속하면서도 경제적 채널을 통해 상호 이해를 시도하는 현실을 보여줍니다.

본문 2: 소모전의 현실과 장기적 전망

전문가들은 현재의 상황이 군사적 해결보다는 소모전(war of attrition)으로 진행되고 있다고 분석합니다. 이는 양측 모두에게 장기간의 경제적, 군사적 비용을 발생시키며, 단기적인 평화 협정보다는 장기적인 관계 관리가 중요해지는 상황을 의미합니다. 이러한 소모전의 결과는 에너지 가격 상승과 같은 거시경제적 위험을 증폭시키며, 이는 미국 및 동맹국들의 안보 및 경제적 안정성에 직접적인 위협이 됩니다. 따라서 단기적인 정치적 움직임보다는 장기적인 외교적 틀을 구축하는 것이 장기적인 안정에 더 기여할 것으로 전망됩니다.

본문 3: 분쟁의 장기적 위험과 파급 효과

미국과 이란 간의 분쟁이 4개월 이상 지속되고 있으며, 이는 에너지 공급망의 불안정성과 국제 유가의 변동성을 지속적으로 높이는 주요 요인입니다. 또한, 이란의 지속적인 공격은 미국과 동맹국들에게 안보 위협을 가중시키며, 이는 국제 에너지 시장의 변동성을 키웁니다. 이러한 상황은 잠재적인 군사적 충돌 위험을 내포하고 있으며, 이는 국제 무역 흐름과 글로벌 경제 성장에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 따라서 외교적 노력과 함께 경제적 안정성을 확보하기 위한 다각적인 접근이 필수적입니다.

결론

트럼프 대통령의 정책 변화는 이란 전쟁이 단순한 군사적 충돌을 넘어 복잡한 지정학적, 경제적 소모전으로 진행되고 있음을 명확히 보여줍니다. 향후 상황은 군사적 해결보다는 경제적 채널을 통한 관리와 장기적인 외교적 틀을 구축하는 데 초점이 맞춰질 가능성이 높습니다. 투자자들은 이러한 지정학적 리스크가 에너지 시장과 글로벌 무역에 미치는 영향을 지속적으로 모니터링해야 할 것입니다.

---

원문 링크: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiWkFVX3lxTE56aGZ3bUpKWG1VUy1rMi10WDhOOHV3Mks3aGNHcjI3dnRoc1JFOXl4bnZBdEpKQUU1M3ZfQVduMW10UVhPOTdzbFIyY0JIR296Q2wzX19WWU81Zw?oc=5

Trump retreat over Hormuz tolls suggests he is struggling to end Iran war - BBC

Donald Trump's latest Iran War demand lasted all of 24 hours – and suggests a president searching for unorthodox ways out of a difficult position.

On Monday morning, in a social media post announcing the resumption of an American naval blockade on Iranian shipping, he said that all vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz – including those of US allies - must pay a 20% fee to reimburse the US "for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the world".

The following day, he abandoned that proposal completely , offering instead that he would strike "trade and investment deals" with America's Gulf allies, implying the US would offer them safe passage through the Strait in return.

The abrupt about-face was the latest twist in a conflict that has now lasted more than four months and, despite a month old "memorandum of understanding" that secured a temporary ceasefire and set up a framework for negotiations, shows no sign of ending.

Trump may be reluctant to escalate the war given its continued unpopularity, the likelihood of rising energy prices and the risks associated with America forces and allies once again coming under Iranian attack. He might find the prospect of ending the conflict without reaching an agreement he can claim is better than the one Barack Obama's administration negotiated in 2015 also distasteful, however.

"I think the most likely ending is a non-ending," Rosemary Kelanid, Director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities "This has turned into a war of attrition, and wars of attrition tend to go on for a long, long period of time."

The US-Iran memorandum of understanding (MOU) - and the hopes that came with it for an end to the war - died at 10:16 ET (16:16 BST) on Tuesday on Truth Social, when Trump announced a resumption of the US blockade of Iranian shipping, amidst a flurry of new US military strikes on targets across Iran.

The Iranians countered by stepping up attacks on US allies and commercial shipping in the region, grinding traffic through the Strait of Hormuz to a near standstill once more.

After nearly a month of on-again, off-again negotiations between the two nations, punctuated by occasional hostilities that tested the definition of a "ceasefire", Trump and the Americans appear to be facing the same challenges that had been present through much of the Iran War.

While militarily, the Americans were achieving their objectives, as measured in Iranian ships, planes and targets destroyed and defence capabilities degraded, politically the conflict was far from resolved.

Iran, militarily weakened though it may be, could still deny access to the Strait of Hormuz. And unless the Americans are willing to dramatically escalate their military operations in the region, there was little they could do to stop them.

Trump's new twist of a 20% fee – possibly a means of making that military commitment more palatable to the American public - wasn't entirely new. He had suggested such an arrangement on several occasions over the course of the war.

But just last month, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had condemned an Iranian plan to charge "fees" on shipping through Hormuz.

"No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway," he said. "That's existing international law. That's the way it is in international waterways all over the world, and that's the way we expect it here."

Trump's Hormuz U-turn is just the latest evidence of a president who does not appear to have a clear path forward. The memorandum of understanding , which both Americans and Iranians claimed as a victory for their side, was intentionally vague, leaving much up to later negotiation.

The document envisioned some role for Iran in overseeing shipping in Hormuz. It read: "The Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge".

This is a role that Iran has been intent on asserting. The MOU also included billions of dollars in promised "investment" in Iran and an end to international sanctions.

Americans may have believed those sweeteners, accompanied by warnings of the consequences of noncompliance, would be enough to dissuade Iran from attempting to use its geographic advantages to more forcefully assert control over Hormuz. That calculation, at least for the moment, appears incorrect.

"The MOU is completely dead," said Kelanid. "All of the things that it stipulated have now been undone."

Now Trump, and the Iranians, find themselves in a familiar predicament. The latter are once again facing American military attacks across their territory, underlining their inability to defend their territorial sovereignty. With the reimposed blockade, their oil revenue – a lifeline for the Iranian regime – is again cut off.

Meanwhile, Trump is again facing a choice between escalation, which comes with domestic economic and political costs, and settling for some kind of resolution that leaves a hostile Iranian regime in power.

"We're back to where we were initially, where the question was: who's got more patience?" said Elliot Abrams, senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. "The Iranians, who will not be able to export oil, or the US and other countries that use Persian gulf oil?"

After months of concern that the Iran war was triggering a new round of popularity-crushing inflation, Trump received some good news on Tuesday that consumer prices were dropping .

A resumption of full hostilities, or even an escalation in the conflict, would inevitably push oil prices back toward previous highs, endangering that positive trend and again putting Republicans in a tenuous position heading into November's midterm congressional elections.

On Monday, after Trump's Truth Social post, the price of a barrel of oil jumped nearly 10% - the biggest one-day increase in six years.

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiWkFVX3lxTE56aGZ3bUpKWG1VUy1rMi10WDhOOHV3Mks3aGNHcjI3dnRoc1JFOXl4bnZBdEpKQUU1M3ZfQVduMW10UVhPOTdzbFIyY0JIR296Q2wzX19WWU81Zw?oc=5