핵심요약

• 이란 지도부는 전쟁 수행 전략에 대해서는 단합을 보였으나, 목표 설정에 대해서는 분열되어 있습니다.
• 강경파(Paydari 운동)는 완전한 승리와 이슬람 공화국의 사회 통제를 주장합니다.
• 협상 지향 세력은 군사적 압박을 통한 타협을 선호하며 경제적 부담과 사회 변화에 대한 적응을 고려합니다.
• 평화 협정은 최고 국가안보회의(Supreme National Security Council)의 13명 중 12명이 승인했습니다.

도입

본 기사는 이란 지도부 내부에서 전쟁의 목표 설정에 대한 심각한 분열이 존재함을 보여줍니다. 이는 단순한 군사적 대립을 넘어, 이란의 전후 지정학적 지위와 국내 정치 시스템의 미래를 결정할 중대한 변수입니다. 투자자들은 이러한 내부 갈등이 이란의 정책 일관성과 외부 세력에 대한 대응 방식에 어떤 영향을 미칠지 주목해야 합니다.

본문 1: 내부 갈등의 본질

이란 지도부 내의 갈등은 전쟁의 목표가 '완전한 승리'인지 아니면 '협상을 통한 타협'인지에 대한 근본적인 이념적 차이에서 비롯됩니다. 강경파인 'Paydari' 운동은 이슬람 공화국의 통제력을 사회 전반에 확립하려는 이념적 목표를 추구하며, 이는 국가의 정치적 통제권을 극대화하려는 의도를 반영합니다. 반면, 페제슈키안 대통령과 모하마드 바게르 칼리바프와 같은 협상 지향 인사들은 군사적 압박을 외교적 성과를 얻기 위한 수단으로 활용해야 한다는 현실주의적 접근을 취합니다. 특히, 모하미(Mahdi Mohammadi)와 같은 고위 관계자의 발언처럼, 협상은 적을 강제 상태로 몰아 실질적인 양보를 얻어내는 정치적 도구라는 시각은 군사적 목표와 외교적 목표 간의 긴장 관계를 명확히 보여줍니다. 이는 이란 정부가 외부 압력에 대응하는 방식에 있어 일관성이 부족할 수 있음을 의미합니다.

본문 2: 전략적 선택과 경제적 부담

이러한 내부 분열은 이란이 외부 세력과의 관계를 재정립하는 데 있어 전략적 선택의 어려움을 야기합니다. 한편에서는 완전한 승리를 통해 이란의 주권을 확보하고 내부의 강경한 이념을 관철하려는 노선이 존재하며, 다른 한편에서는 전쟁으로 인한 경제적 손실과 국내 사회 변화에 효과적으로 대응하기 위해 외교적 채널을 활용해야 한다는 현실적 요구가 공존합니다. 특히, 전쟁으로 인해 이란이 겪는 경제적 부담과 사회적 변화에 대한 적응 문제는 협상 지향 세력에게 중요한 동기가 됩니다. 이는 군사적 목표 달성뿐만 아니라, 장기적인 경제 안정과 사회적 정당성을 확보하려는 다면적인 접근이 필요함을 시사합니다. 군사적 승리만을 목표로 할 경우, 국내 경제 불안정성이 심화되어 장기적인 안정성이 훼손될 위험이 있습니다.

본문 3: 최고 지도자의 역할과 리스크

이러한 내부의 대립 속에서 새로운 최고 지도자인 아야톨라 모즈타바 카메네이의 위치는 매우 중요합니다. 그는 전쟁 초기 사건으로 인해 부상당한 상태로 은둔하고 있으며, 양측 모두 그의 지지를 주장하고 있습니다. 최고 지도자의 입장이 이념적 강경파와 실용적 협상파 사이에서 어디에 위치하느냐에 따라 이란의 외교 및 군사 정책의 방향이 결정될 수 있습니다. 지도자의 중립적 또는 특정 노선 선택은 국제 사회의 개입 수준과 이란의 외교적 자율성을 확보하는 데 결정적인 역할을 할 것입니다. 지도자의 행동은 이란이 국제적 제재와 지역적 역학 관계 속에서 취할 수 있는 전략적 기회의 폭을 결정하는 핵심 요소로 작용합니다.

결론

이란 지도부의 내부 분열은 전쟁의 결과뿐만 아니라, 이란의 미래 정치적, 경제적 안정성에 복합적인 영향을 미칠 것으로 전망됩니다. 강경파와 협상파 사이의 균형점을 찾는 것이 향후 이란의 외교적 생존 전략에 핵심이 될 것입니다. 투자자들은 이러한 내부 역학 관계가 향후 국제 제재의 강도 변화와 이란의 경제 정책 방향에 미치는 영향을 면밀히 관찰할 필요가 있습니다. 특히 최고 지도자의 역할 변화와 협상 전략의 진전 여부가 향후 이란 관련 자산의 변동성을 결정하는 주요 요인이 될 것입니다.

---

원문 링크: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiqAFBVV95cUxQd05sQ2FRcXlvQ0xfSlVQa08yM2R5THQtaUR5VWJXREpEXzdsT3g4NHRvdE9iS0V3YXdSVXdFdEplYTM2MjNQeTMzaHhtb3dCV1lBdUVXUmNiOW16OUpPNGRXODk0eUlYMWRacjE5eVVhTzZ4UkZWX1lBNGZXck5HZTlVTjhwY2hXeHVLcVg0QkdoZXNXZnA2dkw5U0lCWGVaMkJadnhZYWU?oc=5

Iran's leaders show a united front over the war but are divided over what the goal is - Austin American-Statesman

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. 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. The supreme leader, because of the power invested in him, could act as a “brake” to restrain the more extremist factions, Abtahi said. But over time, the confrontation with more radical factions could grow more dangerous “if that brake isn’t used.” ___ AP correspondents Nasser Karimi in Tehran and Sarah El Deeb in Beirut contributed to this report.

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiqAFBVV95cUxQd05sQ2FRcXlvQ0xfSlVQa08yM2R5THQtaUR5VWJXREpEXzdsT3g4NHRvdE9iS0V3YXdSVXdFdEplYTM2MjNQeTMzaHhtb3dCV1lBdUVXUmNiOW16OUpPNGRXODk0eUlYMWRacjE5eVVhTzZ4UkZWX1lBNGZXck5HZTlVTjhwY2hXeHVLcVg0QkdoZXNXZnA2dkw5U0lCWGVaMkJadnhZYWU?oc=5