핵심요약

• 조지 워싱턴은 바르바리 해적을 '도적'이라고 비판하며, 돈을 지불하는 것을 부끄러워했습니다.
• 존 애덤스와 토머스 제퍼슨은 해적에게 돈을 주거나 싸우는 것을 논의했습니다.
• 바르바리 해적의 세계관과 현대 이란의 태도가 거의 동일합니다.
• 이란이 세계의 에너지 수송로를 통제하지 못하게 해야 한다는 점이 핵심입니다.

도입

이 기사는 역사적 교훈을 현대 국제 관계에 적용하여, 투자자에게 중요한 지정학적 리스크를 강조합니다. 특히 에너지 수송로의 안보가 경제 안정성에 미치는 영향을 분석함으로써, 투자 결정에 중요한 인사이트를 제공합니다.

본문 1: 역사적 교훈의 현대적 적용

기사는 바르바리 해적과 현대 이란의 유사점을 비교하며, 조지 워싱턴의 비판과 존 애덤스, 토머스 제퍼슨의 논의를 소개합니다. 이 역사적 사례는 오늘날 호르무즈 해협의 안보 문제와 직접적으로 연결될 수 있으며, 투자자에게는 에너지 시장 안정성의 중요성을 상기시킵니다. 특히, 이란이 호르무즈 해협을 통제하게 되면 에너지 가격 변동성이 증가할 가능성 있습니다. 이는 에너지 관련 주식과 채권에 영향을 미칠 수 있으며, 장기적으로 글로벌 경제에 부정적인 영향을 줄 수 있습니다.

본문 2: 에너지 시장 안정성의 중요성

호르무즈 해협은 세계의 에너지 수송로 중 가장 중요한 지역 중 하나입니다. 이 지역이 불안정해지면 에너지 가격이 급등할 가능성이 있으며, 이는 인플레이션 압력을 증가시킬 수 있습니다. 투자자에게는 에너지 시장 안정성이 중요한데, 이는 에너지 관련 주식과 채권의 가격 변동성을 줄이고, 장기적인 수익성을 보장할 수 있기 때문입니다. 따라서, 호르무즈 해협의 안보 문제가 해결되지 않으면 에너지 시장 안정성이 위협받을 수 있으며, 이는 투자자에게 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다.

결론

이 기사는 역사적 교훈을 현대 국제 관계에 적용하여, 투자자에게 중요한 지정학적 리스크를 강조합니다. 특히 에너지 수송로의 안보가 경제 안정성에 미치는 영향을 분석함으로써, 투자 결정에 중요한 인사이트를 제공합니다. 향후 호르무즈 해협의 안보 문제가 해결되지 않으면 에너지 시장 안정성이 위협받을 수 있으며, 이는 투자자에게 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 따라서, 투자자는 에너지 시장 안정성과 지정학적 리스크를 고려하여 투자 결정을 내리는 것이 중요합니다.

---

원문 링크: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMimAFBVV95cUxPd0pYb0VQMFpHaDkxSFZrSURFUFk1VFJsbXF0VWx1dmcwaU5RdG1oT011R2dxc1pwWEZjRFVaYnc0UVJtblB3dU01UzByTmgzTEFCRzZJYldwajZqUmZOZVF6U05LOW9kcUp2c0U4TWduUEVjSHM1YUpOcnJKdVp5NThBNXRYQ3A3SW40aHY4ZjFtMjJ2UWdUMNIBngFBVV95cUxPaGxVbEtjMDZ3NVBSamhVYmczcFhjeXhxSFY4d2J2czROZU1lWTYySEh2czNueFVQU3AwRURFZ2psekROcklDa04yV3BLd2Rodzk2cTZRejBCaHhsOWN5ZjV2UlJZakE5dkZWYlRQVjBQb2J3NWo4SllVT3BZbzV5ZlRDME5XVjVKMVJNZ3VHRms5X0tjQXNqQVhSNUZ0dw?oc=5

Our Founders fought a Middle East war centuries ago. We could learn a lot from them - Fox News

Writing to his trusted ally, the Marquis de Lafayette, after the War of Independence, George Washington believed it "the highest disgrace" that Americans were "tributary to such banditti who might for half the sum that is paid them be exterminated from the Earth." Those "banditti" were the Barbary pirates of North Africa who preyed on American merchant ships in the Mediterranean, enslaving their crews and endangering the nascent republic’s economy. But lacking the naval power to protect its foreign trade, the United States paid monetary "tribute" to Barbary, inducing it not to attack. The practice sparked a visceral debate between John Adams, who favored giving in to extortion over using force, and Thomas Jefferson, who preferred to "raise ships and men to fight the pirates into reason [rather] than money to bribe them."  Today, two-and-a-half centuries after declaring independence, the United States is grappling with many of the same questions that challenged its Founders. To what degree should Americans defend the freedom of navigation through a vital international waterway? Should they stand up to or pay off a Middle East power threatening it? Instead of the Mediterranean, at stake today is the Strait of Hormuz, and in place of Barbary is the Islamic Republic of Iran.  The ayatollahs’ worldview is almost identical to the pirates'. In a 1786 meeting with Jefferson and Adams in London, Tripoli’s ambassador Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja insisted that Barbary was sovereign in the Mediterranean and that no nation could traverse it without paying a massive toll. NO RETREAT AT HORMUZ — IRAN MUST NOT CONTROL THE WORLD’S ENERGY LIFELINE He further explained "that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their [the Muslims'] right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners." Any Muslim killed in battle, Abd al-Rahman assured the two stunned Americans, "was sure to go to Paradise." The encounter convinced Adams that Americans must avoid what they now call endless war with the Barbary states. "We ought not to fight them at all, unless We determine to fight them forever," he wrote. Such a conflict, moreover, would be "too rugged for our People to bear," and, given the loss to U.S. shipping, rising insurance rates, and the vast national debt, entirely too costly. America had no choice, Adams counseled, but to continue to pay tribute. Better to send the pirates "one Gift of two hundred Thousand Pounds" than to risk "a Million [in trade] annually." Jefferson, though, reached a radically different conclusion. "An angel sent on this business... could have done nothing" to pacify the pirates, he reported, and opposed further efforts to assuage them monetarily. Americans, moreover, with their "erect and independent attitude," would never succumb to blackmail. Peace with Barbary, Jefferson held, was only attainable "through the medium of war," a course which would also deter other hostile powers. "It will procure us respect…and respect is a safeguard to interest." TRUMP MAY HAVE WON A STRATEGIC PAUSE IN IRAN. NOW COMES THE HARD PART Jefferson nevertheless realized that all talk of war was frivolous as long as the newly independent America lacked a navy. All negotiations with Barbary should cease, he recommended, until the country adopted "measures... which may correct the idea... of impotency in the federal government." Needed was a credible military option.  The question that divided Adams and Jefferson – whether to fight or bribe the pirates – became critical in 1789 in the arguments for and against a Constitution. Unless "these" United States became "the" United States under a single federal government, the taxes could not be raised to build a navy, and without gunships, America was incapable of battling Barbary. "Weakness will invite insults," James Madison maintained. "The best way to avoid danger is to be in [a] capacity to withstand it." CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION The federalists won and the pirates consequently lost. Under its new Constitution, the United States authorized the construction of six frigates especially designed to fight close to Barbary’s shallow shores. What ensued was America’s first foreign and longest war, lasting until 1815. Only then was Barbary decisively defeated, and American merchantmen guaranteed safe passage through the Mediterranean. The victory was a source of immense national pride. The country erected its first war monument, to the triumphant Barbary War, on the campus of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. No less than 17 American cities were named for the hero of that campaign, Commodore Stephen Decatur. And the Marines still sing of their landing "on the shores of Tripoli." CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP These testaments serve to remind Americans, now approaching their country’s 250th birthday, of the ways in which the Founders faced the threats to free navigation posed by an extremist Middle Eastern regime. Though initially divided over whether to financially incentivize or militarily vanquish that power, the country’s first leaders decided on the latter course and prevailed. The Trump administration, by contrast, has pursued both policies, first waging war against Iran and now inducing it with the possible infusion of billions. Still unknown is whether Iran – unlike Barbary – can be trusted to comply with the agreement and whether the peace once won by the United States can be replicated today. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM MICHAEL OREN

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMimAFBVV95cUxPd0pYb0VQMFpHaDkxSFZrSURFUFk1VFJsbXF0VWx1dmcwaU5RdG1oT011R2dxc1pwWEZjRFVaYnc0UVJtblB3dU01UzByTmgzTEFCRzZJYldwajZqUmZOZVF6U05LOW9kcUp2c0U4TWduUEVjSHM1YUpOcnJKdVp5NThBNXRYQ3A3SW40aHY4ZjFtMjJ2UWdUMNIBngFBVV95cUxPaGxVbEtjMDZ3NVBSamhVYmczcFhjeXhxSFY4d2J2czROZU1lWTYySEh2czNueFVQU3AwRURFZ2psekROcklDa04yV3BLd2Rodzk2cTZRejBCaHhsOWN5ZjV2UlJZakE5dkZWYlRQVjBQb2J3NWo4SllVT3BZbzV5ZlRDME5XVjVKMVJNZ3VHRms5X0tjQXNqQVhSNUZ0dw?oc=5