핵심요약

• 미국은 이란을 11일 연속 공격하며 분쟁을 지속했습니다.
• 호르무즈 해협은 세계 석유 수송량의 20%를 통과시키는 핵심 병목 지점입니다.
• 분쟁은 'Operation Epic Fury'로 시작되었으나, 해협 재개라는 목표로 변모했습니다.
• 에너지 운송 선박들은 석유, 가스, 비료 운송 중 정체 상태에 놓여 있습니다.

도입

본 기사는 트럼프 행정부의 이란 관련 도박이 어떻게 세계 질서를 재편하는 위기를 초래했는지 분석합니다. 이는 단순한 지역 분쟁을 넘어, 세계 에너지 공급의 핵심 병목 지점인 호르무즈 해협을 둘러싼 지정학적 갈등이 글로벌 경제 시스템에 미치는 파급력을 보여줍니다. 투자자들은 이러한 지정학적 리스크가 원자재 가격과 글로벌 공급망에 미치는 영향을 면밀히 살펴볼 필요가 있습니다.

본문 1: 지정학적 갈등과 에너지 병목 현상

미국과 이란 간의 충돌은 호르무즈 해협을 중심으로 발생했으며, 이는 세계 석유 수송량의 20%가 통과하는 세계에서 가장 중요한 병목 지점이라는 점에서 그 중요성이 매우 큽니다. 미국이 이란에 대한 공격을 지속하면서, 양측은 해협 통제권을 놓고 대립하고 있습니다. 이러한 지정학적 갈등은 단순한 군사적 충돌을 넘어, 필수적인 에너지 및 원자재의 흐름을 차단하는 경제적 병목 현상을 유발합니다. 이로 인해 석유, 가스, 비료를 운반하는 선박들이 정체되면서 글로벌 공급망에 심각한 마찰이 발생하고 있습니다. 이는 에너지 안보와 무역 흐름이 직접적으로 위협받고 있음을 의미합니다.

본문 2: 군사 전략의 실패와 비용 전가

'Operation Epic Fury'라는 목표로 시작된 군사 작전은 결국 미국이 이란의 고통을 견디는 능력을 과소평가했다는 점에서 전략적 실패를 보여줍니다. 미국이 스스로 만든 갈등을 해결하기 위해 폭격전을 시도하는 과정에서, 실제 목표였던 해협 재개라는 본래의 목적 달성이 지연되고 있습니다. 이러한 군사적 행동은 단순히 지역적 문제를 넘어, 국제 사회 전체의 비용을 증가시키고 에너지 가격에 대한 불안정성을 심화시키는 결과를 낳습니다. 즉, 군사적 행동이 경제적 비용으로 전가되는 구조가 형성된 것입니다.

본문 3: 글로벌 경제에 미치는 장기적 영향

호르무즈 해협의 불안정성은 단기적인 운송 지연을 넘어 장기적인 글로벌 경제 질서에 영향을 미칩니다. 에너지 운송의 불안정성은 전 세계 산업 생산 비용을 상승시키고, 이는 인플레이션 압력으로 작용하여 각국 경제에 부담을 줍니다. 또한, 에너지 안보를 확보하기 위한 새로운 지정학적 블록화 경향이 심화되면서 국제 무역로의 재편과 새로운 경제 블록 간의 경쟁이 가속화될 전망입니다. 이러한 장기적인 변동성은 글로벌 투자 환경에 불확실성을 더하며, 에너지 자원의 전략적 중요성이 더욱 부각될 것입니다.

결론

결론적으로, 미국과 이란 간의 갈등은 호르무즈 해협이라는 전략적 요소를 통해 글로벌 에너지 공급망에 직접적인 위협을 가하고 있습니다. 이러한 지정학적 리스크는 단기적인 물류 차질을 넘어, 장기적으로 글로벌 경제의 구조적 변동성을 확대시키는 요인으로 작용할 가능성이 높습니다. 향후 국제 사회는 에너지 안보를 확보하고 안정적인 무역로를 유지하기 위한 새로운 협력 방안을 모색해야 할 것입니다. 따라서 글로벌 투자자들은 이러한 지정학적 변동성에 대한 민감도를 높여 시장을 분석할 필요가 있습니다.

---

원문 링크: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMi0gFBVV95cUxPNGd0U180cjRRdGdjMzlOU2dmb05oU1gxdHZremF3WHF5SDlEUG56SWRjMElXdVl3bi1xVWE0Sm9uMExVdjdkZFN3anZQeVkwR21YdDZqTE9ZeEJsYnVCZlVicTRKdFdueGxFSTdKZEZEZUE5T0dURGZ6NEtrUDlRMnZfaGYtWGwzVXFGZlFCNDNzOHRZSlF2MU4wZ0ctRUpkYnpBWmhLT1FBaW5RaFF6RDVNam9BOG5GVUpibUVvS3hLNWJPQnZXMmtCTWxpeUxVb3c?oc=5

Wednesday briefing: How Trump’s Iran gamble has produced a crisis reshaping the global order - The Guardian

In today’s newsletter: ​A White House operating without expertise, strategy or restraint ​is stuck in a conflict with no easy way out, which is sending economic shockwaves far beyond its own borders

Good morning. Within two hours of entering No 10 on Monday afternoon, Andy Burnham had his first call with Donald Trump . After chit-chatting about the football (both agreed England had an “excellent tournament”) and Manchester (our new prime minister invited the president to visit the city Trump once described as a “town”), they got on to far trickier territory: the strait of Hormuz.

The US has attacked Iran for the eleventh consecutive night, hitting aircraft hangars and drone storage sites across the country. It came after Iran launched retaliatory strikes on US air bases and neighbouring Gulf states, which have accused it of deliberately targeting desalination plants that are essential to life in the region. Each side now claims it is preventing the other from gaining control over the strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil was shipped before the war began. Vessels carrying crucial shipments of oil, gas and fertiliser remain at a standstill.

“Operation Epic Fury” started with the aim of regime change . Since then, its objective has morphed into reopening the strait and undoing the damage caused by the US and Israel’s decision to start the war. The president drastically underestimated Iran’s capacity for enduring pain, and is now trying to bomb his way out of a conflict that he created. For today’s First Edition, I spoke to Vali Nasr , professor of International Affairs and Middle East Studies and author of Iran’s Grand Strategy, about the war over the world’s most critical bottleneck. That’s after the headlines.

UK politics | Andy Burnham is under mounting pressure to explain how he will pay for his policy pledges as he implored his new cabinet to examine “all possible ways” to tackle the cost of living crisis.

UK news | A man has appeared in court charged with the murder of the former MP and Reform UK spokesperson Ann Widdecombe. Joshua Kerry, 28, is accused of killing the former Conservative minister at her home in Haytor, Devon, by hitting her on the head with a hammer 21 times.

Middle East | The US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, told the Senate the US-Israel war on Iran had cost $37.5bn so far , as he faced lawmakers furious over the conflict’s soaring price tag and the deaths last week of three American service members.

Climate crisis | About 23 million people will be banned from using hosepipes by this weekend, as England and Wales moves closer to drought status .

Ukraine | Volodymyr Zelenskyy has fired Ukraine’s commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskyi and offered a “prominent position” to the defence minister he sacked last week in a move that sparked nationwide protests.

“I’m not going to start wars,” Donald Trump told voters on election night in 2024. His decision to bomb Iran on 28 February in partnership with Benjamin Netanyahu was astonishing both in its aggression and its audacious break with this promise. Trump did nothing to prepare the US for war, gave seemingly no thought to the fact that Iran would inevitably hold the strait hostage if it came under attack, and resorted to contradictory explanations for his decision. In the war’s early days, he described “what we did in Venezuela” as a model for what he hoped to achieve. “He thought he would go down in history as the American president who had resolved the Iran problem,” Nasr told me. “In his mind, this was a legacy-building transformation that would be quick and cost-free.”

That has proven a fatal miscalculation. Pete Hegseth, the US self-styled “secretary of war”, said the early US strikes that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, had “cut off the head of the snake.” But regime change is now a distant prospect. Trump underestimated the resilience of the Iranian regime and overestimated the power of protests against it. After just five months, his misadventure is as unpopular with American voters as the Vietnam war was six years in. It could yet escalate into a wider regional conflict, with the Houthis threatening a maritime embargo on Saudi Arabia. Even Trump – whose private firm, The Trump Organization, is at work on a skyscraper in Dubai – won’t be insulated from the consequences of this violence.

What happened to the ceasefire ?

The memorandum of understanding, a vague, short document that the US and Iran signed on 17 June, gave a brief respite from the strikes and (supposedly) initiated a 60-day negotiation period in which time both sides could reach permanent agreement on – among other things – the future of the strait. But it broke down when Iran fired on three commercial tankers that had used a shipping lane close to the shores of Oman, rather than a route off the Iranian coast approved by Tehran. “When ceasefires are violated, you have two options; either react to preserve the ceasefire, or use the violation as an excuse to end it,” Nasr says.

Trump went with the latter option, calling Iran’s leaders “scum” and declaring the ceasefire “over” earlier this month. This week, the US energy secretary Chris Wright said the US mission had shifted towards ensuring oil shipments could move through the strait. It’s worth remembering that the strait had never been closed for an extended period. Before 28 February, ships had been sailing through it without obstruction. The US is now framing the potential of a return to this old status quo as a victory.

Iran and the US are still negotiating, and Tehran has signalled its desire to permanently control the strait, including by charging tolls on passing vessels. “The US is now in a situation where it either has a long, protracted war, which would keep the strait closed, or keeps escalating to the next level with the hope of knocking Iran out,” Nasr says.

There are signs that Trump and Netanyahu seriously misjudged the likelihood that Iran would seize control of the strait. In an interview earlier this year, Netanyahu admitted “the problem of the Hormuz strait became understood as the war went on.” As our diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour wrote at the time, in a piece suggesting the consequences of Trump’s excursion could prove greater than the Vietnam war, this was an “astonishing admission.” The closure of the strait is the type of doomsday scenario that previous administrations, and most Iran experts, would have considered.

But the US government now has very few Iran experts, because Trump has instead chosen to surround himself with a royal court of loyalists. Nate Swanson, a former state department representative on Trump’s Iran negotiating team, was forced out earlier this year after far-right activist Laura Loomer accused him of disloyalty.

“Folks who’ve watched this Iranian system … would have told [Trump]: ‘They’re not businessmen from New York. They’re made of a different type of DNA’,” Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington DC, recently told Guardian US political correspondent, Robert Tait.

Inflation caused by rising oil prices is making everyday life more expensive and hiking the costs of borrowing for governments (including Burnham’s here in the UK). If there is no agreement until 2027, some are predicting global growth could fall by 1.3%, if not more. Europe may be uniquely exposed: since the Russia-Ukraine war, the continent has turned towards the Middle East for its gas, particularly to Qatar, which has had to slow production during the conflict. We could be facing a winter of shortages, bringing to mind the 1970s oil crisis, when the British government enforced power cuts to conserve energy supplies.

Many of Trump’s proposed solutions to the conflict seem to have been thought up on the spot. He briefly suggested that the US could charge tolls on ships entering the strait in exchange for safe passage, despite European leaders and even Marco Rubio , his own secretary of state, having previously said these would be incompatible with international law. The fact the US and Iran have even proposed such tolls is a sign of the wilful disregard for international law that has become a defining feature of this conflict (notably, Iran, the US and Israel are among a small handful of nations that don’t ratify the UN convention on the laws of the sea). Freedom of navigation is a cornerstone of international law: without it, shipping starts to resemble a protection racket, where nations extract fees from passing vessels.

Some experts now worry that other shipping routes could become more militarised, as coastal nations watching Iran use the strait as the ultimate bargaining chip try to take advantage of other important waterways. “A lot of other countries that feel they’re like Iran, and could use passageways as a deterrent” Nasr says. “If nations like the US and Israel can attack your country at any time, you’re going to resort to whatever you can in order to protect yourself.”

This thoughtful piece by Alice Lassman on how Gen Z has outsourced intimacy to AI reflects conversations I’ve been having with younger pals lately. Libby

Ed Miliband was trying to start a green energy revolution in Britain. Now he’s at the Foreign Office, what happens to that agenda? I enjoyed reading this piece by Fiona Harvey, which has some answers . Hettie

“It’s a crime that alters your whole reality.” Anna Moore on the impact of crime , here on the survivor-led campaign to end drug-facilitated sexual rape. Libby

If (like me) you feel creeped out by reading about Meta’s new “smartglasses” , which allow wearers to film people without their consent, it’s worth reading this piece by Gaby Hinsliff . Hettie

Source: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMi0gFBVV95cUxPNGd0U180cjRRdGdjMzlOU2dmb05oU1gxdHZremF3WHF5SDlEUG56SWRjMElXdVl3bi1xVWE0Sm9uMExVdjdkZFN3anZQeVkwR21YdDZqTE9ZeEJsYnVCZlVicTRKdFdueGxFSTdKZEZEZUE5T0dURGZ6NEtrUDlRMnZfaGYtWGwzVXFGZlFCNDNzOHRZSlF2MU4wZ0ctRUpkYnpBWmhLT1FBaW5RaFF6RDVNam9BOG5GVUpibUVvS3hLNWJPQnZXMmtCTWxpeUxVb3c?oc=5