미국-이란 MOU 체결로 평화 로드맵 수립
Opinion | If Starting the Iran War Was Wrong, Then Ending It Is Right - Common Dreams
이란과의 평화 MOU는 지정학적 리스크를 줄이지만, 즉각적인 시장에 영향을 미치는 구체적인 내용이 부족하여 중립적인 입장을 유지합니다.
핵심 요약
2024년 6월 17일 미국과 이란은 MOU를 체결해 이란 석유 수출 제재를 중단하는 등 평화 협상을 시작했습니다.
핵심요약
- 2024년 6월 17일 미국과 이란이 MOU 체결
- 호르무즈 해협 개방, 미국 군사 축소 등 6개 항목 포함
- 이란 재건 투자 기금은 미국 자금 사용 금지
- 매사추세츠 민주당 의원들은 MOU를 비판
- MOU는 이란과의 평화 협상을 위한 실질적인 첫걸음
도입
미국과 이란의 MOU 체결은 중동 지역 정세에 큰 변화가 예상됩니다. 특히, 이란 석유 수출 제재가 중단되면서 에너지 시장에 미칠 영향이 주목받고 있습니다. 투자자들은 MOU의 실질적인 효과와 중동 지역의 안보 리스크를 고려해야 합니다.
본문 1: 에너지 시장의 변화
MOU 체결로 이란 석유 수출이 재개되면서 글로벌 에너지 시장에 큰 영향을 미칠 가능성이 있습니다. 이란은 석유 생산량이 증가하면서 OPEC의 시장 점유율이 높아질 것으로 예상됩니다. 이는 석유 가격 변동성에 영향을 줄 수 있으며, 관련 기업들의 수익성에 긍정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 투자자들은 이란 석유 수출이 재개되면서 발생할 수 있는 시장 변동성을 고려해야 합니다.
본문 2: 중동 지역의 안보 리스크
MOU 체결은 중동 지역의 안보 리스크를 줄일 수 있지만, 동시에 새로운 리스크를 발생시킬 수 있습니다. 특히, 이스라엘의 레바논 철수와 함께 지역 내 정치적 불안정이 증가할 수 있습니다. 이는 중동 지역의 안보 환경에 영향을 미칠 수 있으며, 관련 기업들의 운영에 부정적인 영향을 줄 수 있습니다. 투자자들은 MOU의 실질적인 효과와 중동 지역의 안보 리스크를 고려해야 합니다.
본문 3: 투자 전략
MOU 체결은 중동 지역 투자의 새로운 기회를 제공할 수 있습니다. 특히, 이란 석유 수출이 재개되면서 관련 기업들의 수익성이 개선될 수 있습니다. 그러나, MOU의 실질적인 효과와 중동 지역의 안보 리스크를 고려해야 합니다. 투자자들은 MOU 체결을 계기로 중동 지역의 투자 기회를 모색할 수 있습니다.
결론
MOU 체결은 중동 지역의 평화 협상을 위한 실질적인 첫걸음으로 평가됩니다. 그러나, MOU의 실질적인 효과와 중동 지역의 안보 리스크를 고려해야 합니다. 투자자들은 MOU 체결을 계기로 중동 지역의 투자 기회를 모색할 수 있습니다. 향후, MOU의 실질적인 효과와 중동 지역의 안보 리스크를 지속적으로 모니터링해야 합니다.
Original Article
Opinion | If Starting the Iran War Was Wrong, Then Ending It Is Right - Common Dreams
The Memorandum of Understanding signed on June 17 by President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian provides a road map toward peace between the two countries. Peace advocates should support it. The journey to this point has been tortuous, the interim agreement contains numerous ambiguities, and the Trump administration as the agent of change from the US side is so deeply compromised that implementation of the steps will be extremely difficult. Nevertheless, the MOU deserves our support. Unfortunately, Massachusetts Democratic members of Congress have not welcomed the MOU. They rightly point out that Trump started the war, that it was foolish, it was illegal, unconstitutional, it was costly, it damaged the world economy, and it accomplished nothing. That is all true—but they generally have not spoken to its substance unless to criticize it. If starting the war was wrong, ending it is right. The MOU is a reasonable framework for ending the current conflict and taking steps toward peace with Iran. It calls for opening the Hormuz strait; winding down US sanctions (and the US has already suspended sanctions on Iranian oil sales); reduction of the US military footprint in Iran’s neighborhood; curbs on Iran’s nuclear program with details to be negotiated; Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon; and a reconstruction investment fund for Iran, which would not involve any US funds. US policy towards Iran has been predicated on hostility to the Islamic Republic since 1979. The US political elite and media have long based their policy on the thesis that Iran is a threat to the region and the United States. US leaders claim that Iran’s nuclear program may lead to its arming itself with nuclear weapons; that Iran’s ballistic missile program threatens its neighbors, especially Israel; that it funds terrorist proxies, naming Hezbollah, Hamas, and Ansar Allah (Houthis) as dangerous sources of instability; that it seeks to destroy Israel and attack the United States; that its repressive internal regime is of a piece with its regional troublemaking.We can in no way count on Trump and Vice President JD Vance to get this negotiation over the finish line—but we can and should push them to do so.These premises are profoundly flawed. Iran’s supreme leader has rightly ruled that nuclear weapons violate religious morality, much as Popes Francis and Leo have done. After 47 years it should be clear that Iran has never really sought to build a nuclear weapon, as it surely would have done so by now had that been its intention. Rather, its nuclear program is evidently designed to force the US to the table and get it to end US sanctions and negotiate with Iran on a respectful basis. It is the US and Israel, not Iran, that are armed with nuclear weapons—and Trump who explicitly threatened to use them on Iran. Does Iran arm terrorists? Maybe sometimes, but it is Israel, armed by the US, that has laid waste to the Middle East, attacking Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Yemen, killing tens or hundreds of thousands, over just the past three years—although Iran has certainly done what it could to hit back in response to those constant provocations. Within the anti-Iran consensus among US elites, one wing calls for diplomacy to obtain concessions from Iran, and for economic sanctions to force Iran to follow US wishes. President Barack Obama’s 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was based on this strategy. Obama first imposed sanctions, then promised sanctions relief in exchange for strict limits on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program—although little sanctions relief was actually delivered by the US before President Trump ended the JCPOA in 2018.The other wing of the US elite, joined by Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, calls for war to destroy Iran’s military capacity, its nuclear program, cripple its economy, ensure it could not threaten its neighbors or Israel, and if possible, overthrow its government. President Trump took up this approach when he joined Israel in bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities in June last year and then resumed full-scale war with Iran on February 28.But after Iran struck back at Israel and at US bases and economic infrastructure in the Gulf states, and closed the Strait of Hormuz, everyone understood that the US military campaign to subdue Iran had failed. The MOU that Trump and Iran’s president Pezeshkian signed on June 17 reflects this reality and sets forward a direction that, if implemented, would not only end the US-Iran war, but would begin to reverse the long anti-Iran campaign waged by the US It could be a historic step toward reconciliation between the US and Iran.It is ironic that the reactionary, racist, ultra-imperialist administration of Donald Trump could be the one to reverse decades of bipartisan US hostile policy. But just as President Richard Nixon went to China, such shifts can happen, and can be led from the right side of US politics. Another example is Trump’s two-year rapprochement with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un in his first term, in which he met Kim three times and signed peace framework agreements—though he ultimately dropped the project and reverted to a posture of hostility. Because Trump has no firm ideology, he sometimes can read the situation more clearly than politicians whose policies are anchored in an ossified world view. We can in no way count on Trump and Vice President JD Vance to get this negotiation over the finish line—but we can and should push them to do so.Indeed, the situation today calls for peace with Iran and a completely new Middle East policy. Israel has become a liability for the United States more clearly than ever before, and US support for Israel’s constant wars on its neighbors and genocide directed at its occupied Palestinian population, its invasion of Lebanon, and its attack on Iran, are now very unpopular in the US. Iran has successfully asserted its ability to defend itself. And as Trump said on June 18, the world economy is teetering as it runs short of oil. Vice President Vance held out the possibility that Iran can receive a $300 billion reconstruction fund based on the Gulf states, provided a final agreement is reached. In Switzerland on June 21, he asked: “How much more can we accomplish together? Can we turn over a new leaf? Can we change relations in the Middle East permanently, or do we go back to doing things the old way?”The point, though, is that the wealthy elite of the Gulf are evidently ready to invest in Iran’s reconstruction from the destruction the US has caused. Why? To make money on the investments, to get their foot in the door for future business deals in the potentially lucrative Iranian market, and in the hope that economic ties will reduce the likelihood of a future war.A diplomatic resolution of the US-Iran hostility would be positive for the US, Iran, and the region. Massachusetts’ Democratic members of Congress should speak in favor of diplomacy and seek to implement them.