트럼프의 이란 전쟁, 무분별한 군사 개입이 초래한 경제적 파장
Trump and Iran: Stupid Is As Stupid Does - Mother Jones
이란과의 갈등으로 인한 지리적 불확실성이 시장의 방향성을 흐리고 있습니다.
핵심 요약
트럼프의 이란 전쟁은 가질리언 달러가 소비되었으며, 호르무즈 해협 폐쇄로 세계 경제 위기가 발생했다.
Trump의 이란 전쟁: 투자자 관점에서의 경제적 영향 분석
핵심요약
- 트럼프가 2월 28일 이란에 대한 군사 작전을 개시하며 가질리언 달러의 세금이 사용됨
- 이란의 호르무즈 해협 폐쇄로 인한 글로벌 경제 위기 발생
- 트럼프 행정부의 전쟁 목적 불분명, 명확한 전략 부재
- 전쟁 결과 원상복구만을 목표로 하는 무의미한 군사 개입
도입
이번 분석은 트럼프의 이란 전쟁이 글로벌 경제에 미치는 영향과 투자자들에게 어떤 교훈을 줄 수 있는지 탐구합니다. 특히 무분별한 군사 개입이 경제적 안정에 미치는 장기적인 영향을 평가하는 것이 중요합니다. 이란과의 갈등이 에너지 시장에 미치는 파급효과를 이해하는 것은 투자 전략 수립에 필수적입니다.
본문 1: 호르무즈 해협 폐쇄의 에너지 시장 영향
호르무즈 해협이 폐쇄되면서 글로벌 석유 공급망에 severe한 disruption이 발생했습니다. 이 해협을 통해 매일 약 20%의 세계 석유 수출이 이루어지며, 그 중 30%가 아시아 국가들로 향합니다. 석유 가격이 급등하며 인플레이션 압력이 가중되었고, 특히 에너지 의존도가 높은 국가들의 경제 성장률이 하락하는 추세입니다. 이는 원자재 가격 상승으로 이어지며, 생산 비용 증가와 함께 소비자 물가 상승을 초래할 가능성 있습니다. 투자자들은 에너지 부문에 대한 노출을 재평가해야 하며, 대체 에너지 원천으로의 전환 가능성을 모색해야 합니다.
본문 2: 군사 개입의 경제적 비용과 전략적 한계
트럼프의 이란 전쟁은 가질리언 달러의 비용을 초래했지만, 명확한 전략적 목표가 부재했습니다. 이는 군사적 성공보다는 경제적 손실을 초래하는 결과를 가져왔습니다. 전쟁의 장기화는 글로벌 시장 신뢰도 하락으로 이어지며, 특히 금융 시장의 변동성을 높이는 요인이 됩니다. 투자자들은 정치적 리스크를 고려한 포트폴리오 조정이 필요하며, 안정적인 수익을 기대할 수 있는 자산군으로의 전환을 고려해야 합니다. 군사 개입의 경제적 비용이 장기적으로 국가 부채 증가로 이어질 수 있다는 점도 주목해야 합니다.
본문 3: 글로벌 경제 위기의 장기적 전망
이란과의 갈등이 장기화될 경우, 글로벌 경제는 지속적인 불안정성에 직면할 것입니다. 에너지 시장의 불확실성은 인플레이션 압력을 지속시키며, 중앙은행의 금리 정책에 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 투자자들은 분산투자 전략을 강화해야 하며, 특히 안전자산에 대한 노출을 높이는 것이 중요합니다. 또한, 지정학적 리스크를 고려한 리스크 관리 전략을 수립하는 것이 필수적입니다. 글로벌 경제 위기의 장기적 영향은 시장 참가자들에게 새로운 투자 기회와 함께 리스크를 동시에 제공할 것입니다.
결론
트럼프의 이란 전쟁은 군사적 성공보다는 경제적 비용과 리스크를 초래한 사례입니다. 투자자들은 정치적 리스크를 고려한 포트폴리오 관리와 안정적인 수익을 기대할 수 있는 자산군으로의 전환이 필요합니다. 글로벌 경제 위기의 장기적 전망을 고려할 때, 분산투자와 리스크 관리 전략의 중요성이 강조됩니다. 향후 지정된학적 상황의 변화와 에너지 시장의 동향을 지속적으로 모니터링하는 것이 중요합니다.
Original Article
Trump and Iran: Stupid Is As Stupid Does - Mother Jones
Donald Trump at Versailles on Wednesday. Jean-Bernard Vernier/Sipa via AP Images
A version of the below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land . The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial .
Donald Trump’s war in Iran is one of the stupidest foreign policy ventures in US history.
I know that’s not a new or hot take. When he attacked Iran on February 28, it immediately became clear that he had no idea what he was doing. Karoline Leavitt, his press secretary, said he had initiated the attack based on a “feeling”—while negotiations to limit Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs were ongoing.
Trump then had a tough time explaining to the nation what the hell this war was for. To eliminate a nuclear program he had claimed was obliterated by a previous bombing raid? To address an “imminent threat” because Iran was, he falsely claimed, within two weeks of developing a nuclear bomb? To achieve regime change? To wipe out Iran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles? To protect Iranian anti-government protesters? To diminish Iran’s ability to strike at US allies and bases, if Israel attacked Iran? To end Tehran’s support of terrorism? To “get rid of evil”?
If you don’t know why you’re warring, it’s tough to figure out when to stop. After all, what counts as victory?
Then the war became mostly a matter of addressing unintended—but utterly predictable—consequences. Iran shut the Strait of Hormuz, which was an easy-to-foresee possibility, and sparked a global economic crisis. Trump had no plan for that—just as he had no plan to achieve any of the assorted aims he had expressed at different times. Now the mission was to undo what his war had caused.
So dumb. Trump spent gazillions of taxpayer dollars on this endeavor, only to end up fighting for a return to the status quo. He had to put out the fire he started. And thousands of Iranian civilians —including an estimated 168 schoolgirls —have been killed, as well as 13 American servicemembers. It’s a pointless loss of treasure and lives. With the higher gas prices, the war so far has cost Americans $132 billion . This folly has also raised food prices—which has an especially dramatic impact on poorer, food-stressed nations. It further strained US ties with its closest allies.
The signing this week of a memo of understanding between Washington and Tehran to end the war highlighted the imbecility of this action. The terms met none of the revolving goals Trump had tossed out. It kicked down the road any discussion of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic programs. But the deal handed the repressive government of Iran much-desired deliverables, such as an end to sanctions, an unfreezing of assets, and a $300 billion reconstruction fund. Iran could immediately start to sell oil. Ka-ching! It only had to keep the strait open, as it had always done prior to the war. It looked as if Trump was rewarding the mullahs with tremendous riches for doing what they used to do for free. Art of the deal, right? Trump had previously called for a “unilateral surrender” from Iran. This was not that.
Critics of all ideological stripes blasted the deal. Hawks and Republicans saw it as a total sellout, as well as an abandonment of Israel. (The agreement called for an end to Israeli attacks in Lebanon—a provision that did not please the Netanyahu crowd.) The New York Post lambasted Trump. Neocons exclaimed on podcasts, “What’s going on?”
Democrats and liberals noted this was the equivalent of an American surrender to a government still presumably committed to running a repressive regime and supporting terrorism, and it fell far short of the agreement that the Obama administration had forged with Iran in 2015. It was good that the fighting was over—at least for the moment—but nothing had been settled. Only the most cultish of Trump cultists (Jesse Watters, I’m looking at you) could hail the deal as a masterpiece of statesmanship and a win for the United States.
Trump signed the MOU during a trip to Versailles, which in a previous era hosted the signing of a notoriously lousy accord that led to a conflagration we call World War II.
What was especially ludicrous was how Trump and his crew talked about the deal. On March 1, the White House declared that Trump had attacked Iran to “destroy its ballistic missile arsenal.” On Wednesday, he said it was no biggie for Iran to retain ballistic missiles: “If other countries have them, it’s a little unfair for them not to have some.” He added , “Am I going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but [Iran] can’t have them? It doesn’t work that way.”
As for Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium—which is now not suitable for use in a nuclear bomb but could be refined to weapon-grade level—Vice President JD Vance on MSNOW said , “One of the core parts of the agreement is that the [International Atomic Energy Agency] and the United States are going to help Iran destroy the highly enriched stockpile, and that’s something that’s spelled out very clearly in the MOU.”
But the MOU said nothing about this. And Trump sent conflicting signals about what he hoped to do about this half ton of material that ostensibly was one of the key reasons for the war. At one point on Wednesday he said , “We’re going to get it.” At another, he remarked , “I don’t think anybody could get at it.” (This material is apparently beneath a mountain that was bombed last year by US and Israeli warplanes.)
Trump zigged and zagged on another issue. At the start of the war, he said , “We’re now totally independent of the Middle East. We don’t need their oil.” A few weeks in, he reaffirmed this: “It doesn’t really affect us. We have so much oil. We have tremendous oil and gas, much more than we need.” On Wednesday, he asserted that if he didn’t agree to the MOU, we “would run out of reserves at about four weeks…We would really run out, and there’ll be a time when you wouldn’t be able to get it.”
Once this war was about ballistic missiles and highly enriched uranium and oil was no concern. Now, who cares about the missiles or the uranium? And Trump had to give Iran so much to get the oil flowing. Meanwhile, instead of regime change, it’s likely there’s been regime worsening. As for helping the Iranian people rise up against the tyrannical mullahs? Fuggedaboudit.
No sane person expects consistency from Trump. But during a war, erraticism is particularly dangerous and idiotic. His impulsive attack on Iran has accomplished none of his stated objectives. It’s been a foolish waste.
During a press conference on Wednesday at the G7 meeting in France, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick standing behind him, Trump mused , “In war, terrible things happen. Like you mentioned…the [girls’] school gets hit. Other things get hit. Bad things happen in war. War is a nasty place. I see it. I see it better than maybe anybody has ever seen it.” Yes, even at this point, Trump was claiming he understands this war better than anyone else. But he had no vision of what this war was for, of how to wage it, or of how to win it. This was a vanity project for him. He thought he could unleash violence and chaos—threaten to commit war crimes and destroy an entire civilization—and end up the star triumphantly bathed in military glory and, oddly, deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.
In the end, this disaster does not demand deep analysis. It was a foolhardy move from a narcissistic numbskull who now cares more about a ballroom, an arch, and a reflecting pool than the carnage and damage he wreaked. A stupid war is yielding stupid results—and with Trump its author that’s no surprise.